a2

eer
5%"

3
rs

nt
(sr:
ees

er)

ay

<oi ys)

ape
eres

renters
Settee tren
tte,

tye tat
’

iz

ob “ats . a] ma)
oh? tea’ 3

WSR SE, Pb Ye Ck ts ee a ae or

z 4 as ‘ ¥ ]
4 J a toy - , > bd
mn or (te ee Nie ae ae a a, en SO oe ne
% . — - \

THE BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL
NOMENCLATURE

The Official Organ of
THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

VOLUME 8

Edited by

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

Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature

=
| + <x i
\ CG Bie
~ 2p s\ >
~o
LONDON :

Printed by Order of the International Trust for
Zoological Nomenclature
and
Sold on behalf of the International Commission for Zoological Nomenclature
by the International Trust
at its Publications Office,
41 Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7
1953-1954

(All rights reserved)

bi ah: 11~0d08S. 40 WIP ALL
: IP RHMOM.

a
sy >
Ws
a eer ’ j _ " s e
. fe |

eae

4 oe ie ciated) “AE. ba
Bs 0} . pEANOD. cAHOTEAMARTAL
i ER: sere aT IGADY

enn
S
©

a
ya

tw?

a aad JSOF 6, ia

aa wide ) eer

: ae ‘ ag A fl

a} BS a Me OVEMEH IDVOME, ¢

gpaystinse Vv Barges wy anieitorae Lyle awepiarl SAG ieuah ee 3 pipe:
wet is,

i pate

Ty! at seu¥ 4a ann: intr
og Urea sia Sis

s :
“ -

‘

> Date PL Le we iaivts oye is Pema,
1, Poet ihe ae Piao ei
. Pi weg

a4

iii

THANKS TO I.U.B.S. AND U.N.E.S.C.O.

THE INTERNATIONAL TRUST FOR ZOOLOGICAL
NOMENCLATURE

has great pleasure
in
expressing its grateful thanks

to the

INTERNATIONAL UNION FOR BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES (I.U.B.S.)

and to the

UNITED NATIONS EDUCATIONAL SCIENTIFIC AND CULTURAL
ORGANISATION (U.N.E.S.C.O.)

for the financial assistance
afforded
towards the cost of organising the

Colloquium on Zoological Nomenclature, Copenhagen, July-August 1953

. ah
AER oe ee a a aaa ox en « pores

+

—

A oe Set he

SHAK
& 7 .
ghey ; saiiaah. 5 /

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL
NOMENCLATURE

(Composition at the time of the preparation of the Agenda for the Colloquium on
Zoological Nomenclature, Copenhagen, 1953)

A. The Officers of the Commission

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

President : Professor J. Chester Bradley (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y.,
U.S.A.)

Vice-President : Senhor Afranio do Amaral (Instituto Butantan, Sao Paulo,
Brazil)

Secretary : Mr. Francis Hemming (London, England)

B. The Members of the Commission

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

Senhor Afranio do Amaral (Instituto Butantan, Sao Paulo, Brazil) (1st January
1944) (Vice-President) :

Professor J. R. Dymond (University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada) (1st January
1944)

Professor J. Chester Bradley (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.)
(28th March 1944)

Professor Harold E. Vokes (Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland,
U.S.A.) (23rd April 1944)

Professor Béla Hanké (Békéscsaba, Hungary) (1st January 1947)

Dr. Norman R. Stoll (Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, New York,
N.Y., U.S.A.) (1st January 1947)

Professor H. Boschma (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlike Historie, Leiden, The
Netherlands) (1st January 1947)

Senor Dr. Angel Cabrera (Eva Peron, F.C.N.G.R., Argentina) (27th July 1948)

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

Dr. Joseph Pearson (Tasmanian Museum, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia)
(27th July 1948)

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

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

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

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

Professor Tadeusz Jaczewski (Warsaw University, Warsaw, Poland) (15th June
1950)

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

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

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL
NOMENCLATURE

The Staff of the Secretariat of the Commission (June, 1954)
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.
Administrative Officer : Mrs. 8. C. Watkins, M.A.
Mrs. J. H. Newman
Secretariat : ~ Mrs. Prudence Goldman
Mrs. E. M. Lewis
Indexer ; Miss Joan Kelley, B.Sc.
Translator : Mrs. R. H. R. Hopkin

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

ADDRESSES OF THE COMMISSION AND THE TRUST

Secretariat of the Commission : 28 Park Village Hast, Regent’s Park, London,
NeW.

Offices of the Trust : 41 Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7

vil

FOREWORD

The present is the first of the two volumes of the Bulletin of Zoological
Nomenclature which were allotted to the publication of the Documents which
had been gathered together to form the Agenda of the Colloquium on
Zoological Nomenclature which it had been arranged should open at
Copenhagen on 29th July 1953.

2. The Agenda for the Colloquium comprised seventy items, of which the
first seven were concerned with problems which the Thirteenth International
Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948, had deferred for further consultations with
a view to definitive decisions being taken by the next (Fourteenth) International
Congress of Zoology when it should meet at Copenhagen in 1953. These
problems were the subject of special review in a series of papers published in
February and March 1952 in a volume—volume 7—of the Bulletin of
Zoological Nomenclature, in which an appeal was made to interested specialists
to furnish statements of their views. The response to this appeal was very
gratifying, the total number of communications received in regard to these
seven cases (including a small number of documents received before the
publication of the foregoing appeal) amounting to one hundred and thirty-five.

3. The total number of documents which it was decided to lay before the
Colloquium amounted to three hundred and seventy-one and the task of
sorting, and arranging for the printing, of so large a mass of documentation
was considerable. It was evident by the beginning of 1953 that a major effort
would be needed if the whole of this documentation was to be published in
time for it to be considered by the Colloquium when it met at Copenhagen
some six months later. In order to expedite the publication of these
documents, it was accordingly decided to publish the documentation for the
Agenda in two volumes of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, instead of
in one volume, as previously contemplated, and to arrange for these two
volumes to be printed concurrently by different printers. Hence, it was that
the Agenda for the Colloquium was published in volumes 8 and 10 of the
Bulletin. (It was not possible to arrange for these volumes to be given
consecutive numbers, for, after volume 8 had been allocated to the publication
of the Agenda but before the decision to print the Agenda in two volumes, a
start had already been made with the publication of volume 9, a volume
devoted to the publication of applications on individual nomenclatorial
problems submitted to the Commission for decision.)

4. For the reasons explained in the immediately preceding paragraph the
present volume and its companion volume, volume 10, were produced under
conditions of great pressure, owing to the rigid time-table necessary in order
to secure publication before the opening of the Colloquium at Copenhagen
in July 1953, a time-table which made it necessary to pilot through the press

some eight hundred pages of print within a period of about five months. It was
unfortunately impossible in these circumstances to devote the normal amount
of time to the reading of proofs and, in consequence, the present volume
contains a considerable number of misprints, especially in papers either published
in some language other than English or containing words in Greek or other
languages using alphabets other than the Latin alphabet. The Trust offers
its apologies to the authors of the papers concerned. A few other misprints
are corrected on page 312.

5. The present volume contains the extensive documentation relating to
the first three items on the Agenda for the Colloquium. Each of these items
was concerned with one of the major problems deferred by the Paris (1948)
Congress for consideration at Copenhagen in 1953. These problems were :
(1) the problem of securing greater stability in zoological nomenclature
(Case No. 1); (2) the question whether ‘“‘ neotypes”’ should be recognised in
the Régles as a category of type specimen (Case No. 2); (3) measures required
for the clarification and completion of the provisions in the Regles relating to
the naming of Families (including Superfamilies) and lower taxonomic
categories above the genus-level (Case No. 3).

6. It will be appreciated that the documents published in this volume
represent only the working papers which were before the Colloquium when it
considered the various nomenclatorial issues concerned and that in numerous
cases the opportunities for imterchanges of views presented by the long
discussions which took place at the meetings of the Colloquium led individual
specialists who had presented documents published in the present volume to
modify their views in the light of considerations advanced by other members
of the Colloquium. For these reasons and because in the case of each of the
problems concerned a definite decision was reached by the Copenhagen
Congress, the interest of the present volume is mainly historical. The
documents published in the present volume should therefore be looked upon
only as being in the nature of a background to the decisions taken by the
Copenhagen Congress and should be read only in conjunction with those
decisions.

7. The decisions on the questions dealt with in the present volume taken
by the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology, Copenhagen, 1953, on
the advice of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature,
assisted by the Colloquium on Zoological Nomenclature, together with decisions
taken by it on other questions of zoological nomenclature, have been
published, at the request of the Copenhagen Congress, by the International
Trust for Zoological Nomenclature in a book entitled Copenhagen Decisions
on Zoological Nomenclature. This book, which was published on 31st December
1953, is obtainable from : The International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature,
Publications Office, 41 Queen’s Gate, London, 8.W.7 (price five shillings (5/-),
plus postage).

8. The following are the references to the pages in the book Copenhagen
Decisions on Zoological Nomenclature, where will be found the decisions taken

ix

by the Copenhagen Congress in regard to the three major nomenclatorial
problems, the documentation relating to which has been published in the
present volume :—

Decisions taken by the Fourteenth International Congress of
Zoology, Copenhagen, 1953, on the nomenclatorial problems
dealt with in the present volume

Page in
“* Copenhagen
Decisions on
Zoological
Case No. Subject. Nomenclature”
containing
decision taken
on problem
specified in

(2)

The problem of securing greater stability in
zoological nomenclature

The question whether ‘“ neotypes ” should be
recognised in the Régles as a category of type
specimen ae ie

Measures required for the clarification and
completion of the provisions in the Régles
relating to the naming of Families (in-
cluding Superfamilies) and lower taxonomic
categories above the genus-level

9. In completing the present volume the International Trust for Zoological
Nomenclature desires to express its grateful thanks to Professor R. Sparck,
President of the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology for the admirable
arrangements made by him for the accommodation of the Colloquium on
Zoological Nomenclature during its meeting at Copenhagen, arrangements
which contributed to an important degree to the successful outcome of its
deliberations.

FRANCIS HEMMING

Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature

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

9th June, 1954.

’
.
pis
a

.
i
iy ~
ee © pee
se
| fe
f
{
'
.
hg _
LA |
s ¢ Ly
* 7 eae
' read r Ady ‘ }
7 ; 4
4 ye Cer tita , ts
ate ta} :
+ Oy

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Arrangements made by the International Trust for Zoological Nomencla-
ture for the submission of material for consideration by the
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature at its session
to be held at Copenhagen in 1953

Action taken to secure the advice and assistance of interested institutions
and individual specialists on the aspects of Zoological Nomenclature
on which the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, Paris,
1948, invited the Secretary to the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature to prepare reports for consideration by
the Fourteenth International a to be held at ieee
in 1953 Wh my f ‘ :

CASE NO. 1

Documents relevant to the consideration of the problem of
securing greater stability in zoological nomenclature

DOCUMENT 1/1.—Origin of the ie preerenne: Note by the
Secretary to the Commission ae ae

DOCUMENT 1/2.—General consultation with specialists and issue of
an appeal for advice in 1952. Note by the Secretary :

DOCUMENT 1/3.—Proposal for the incorporation into the Régles of a
provision recognising a “Law of Prescription.” By PIERRE
BONNET (Toulouse) a “se ie uf ia) us

DOCUMENT 1/4.—Proposal for the restriction of the Law of Homonymy
as applied to generic names. By PIERRE BONNET (Toulouse) ..

DOCUMENT 1/5.—Law of Prescription. Comments on Professor P.
Bonnet’s Proposition No. 2. By the late LODOVICO DI
CAPORIACCO (University of Parma, Italy) .

DOCUMENT 1/6.—Comment on Professor P. Bonnet’s proposition No. 3
relating to relaxation of the Law of Homonymy in relation to
generic names. By the late LODOVICO DI CAPORIACCO
(Unwersity of Parma, Italy) .

DOCUMENT 1/7. Law of Prescription. Proposal on behalf of a large
group of Scandinavian Zoologists, submitted by HENNING LEM CHE
(Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen)

Page

xil

DOCUMENT 1/81.—On the use of Plenary Powers to establish Nomina
Conservanda. Statement furnished by Smithsonian Institution
Committee on Nomenclature under cover of a letter from CURTIS
W. SABROSKY (United States Department of Agriculture, Bureau
of Entomology and Plant Quarantine, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.).
A proposed petition to the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature

Annexe to letter submitted on behalf of the Smithsonian Institution
Committee on Nomenclature. Reprinted from Science

DOCUMENT 1/9.—Views submitted on behalf of the Zoologishes Institut
der Universitat Wien, the Naturhistorisches Museums Wien,
Zoologische Abteilung, and the eee -Botanische Gesellschaft.
Note by the Secretary é 6) ai Se

DOCUMENT 1/10.—Type localities. By L. T. 8. NORRIS-ELYE
(The Manitoba Museum, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada)

DOCUMENT 1/11.—Proposals for the settlement of certain questions
of nomenclature. By THORD RAGNAR NORDENSKJOLD
(Stockholm, Sweden) “A Ph a. ie of se:

DOCUMENT 1/12.—Comments on the Code of Zoological Nomenclature
approved by the International Congress. By W. D. LANG, D.Sc.
(formerly of British Museum (Natural Hee meee Cae,
Dorset, England) . ae : a

DOCUMENT 1/13.—Le fardeau des vieilles espéces inconnues. By
CH. get, ((renéve, Switzerland) bs : ns

DOCUMENT 1/ eee concerning the nomenclature of Family
Names and of names of economically important insects. By the late
K. W. DAMMERMAN soak a van ene Leiden, The
Netherlands) é

DOCUMENT 1/15.—Proposal that all names placed upon the Ojicial
Last should be validated under the Plenary Powers. By RUDOLF
RICHTER Caen N ee tae ere F co
a-Main, Germany)

DOCUMENT 1/16.—Should a “ Law of Recency” be added to the
International Code of Zoological Nomenclature ? By D. SHENE-
FELT and J. T. MEDLER (Department of rine U; esi
of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin, U.S.A.) .. :

‘See also Document D. 1/42.

Page

9

13

14

16

19

20

21

DOCUMENT 1/17.—Need for power to fix Type Localities. By
RICHARD MEINERTZHAGEN, D.S.0. (London) bes

DOCUMENT 1/18.—Categories of Availability and Validity of Zoological
Names. By HOBART M. SMITH ( University of Illinois, Depart-
ment of Zoology, Urbana, Illinois, U.S.A.) .. .% 5 sy

DOCUMENT 1/19.—On Type Localities and Allied Problems. By PER
BRINCK (Lunds Universitets Zoologiska Institution, Lund. Sweden)

DOCUMENT 1/20.—The Rule of Priority in Zoological Nomenclature.
By E. BERIO (Museo Civico di Storia Naturali “ Giacomo Doria,”
Genoa, Italy) 44 a ip Be Ps iP ¥.

DOCUMENT 1/21.—On the question of Type Localities. By HOBART

M. SMITH (University of Illinois, Department of Zoology, Urbana.
Illinois, U.S.A.) .. det 4; i - an ay v3

Annexe |: Commentary by EDWARD H. TAYLOR (University of

Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas, U S.A.)

Annexe 2: Commentary by CHARLES D. MICHENER (University
of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas, U.S.A.) oi a a; ts

Annexe 3: Statement by R. W. WILSON (University of Kansas,
Lawrence, Kansas, U.S.A.) .. M _ - = fs

DOCUMENT 1/22.—Extract from a letter dated 18th March 1952 from
H. ENGEL (Zoologisch Museum, Amsterdam, The N etherlands)

DOCUMENT 1/23.—Letter dated 15th April 1952 by L. B. HOLTHUIS
(Riyksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands)

DOCUMENT 1/24.—Letter dated 30th April 1952 by G. H. BE.
HOPKINS, O.B.E., M.A. (British Museum (Natural History),
Zoological Museum, Tring, Herts, England) He ¥ ee

DOCUMENT 1/25.—Letter dated 30th April 1952 by FRANZ DANIEL
(Zoologische Sammlung des Bayerischen Staates, Entomologische
Abteilung, Miinchen, Germany) iy : of

DOCUMENT 1/26.—Statement dated 2nd May 1952 by FRIEDRICH
KUHLHORN (Museum, Miinchen, Germany) rs oA ao

DOCUMENT 1/27.—Statement dated 14th May 1952 by TH. HALTE-
NORTH (Museum, Miinchen, Germany) =; ya =. se

30

4]

43

44

44

46

48

53

DOCUMENT 1/28.—Statements dated 16th May 1952 and 27th March
1953 by LEO SHELJUZHKO Cee des ‘enh ischen

Staates, Miinchen. Germany)

DOCUMENT 1/29.—Letter dated 23rd May 1952 by W. J. ARKELL,
M.A., D.Se.. F.LR.S. (Sedgwick Museum, Cambridge University,
Cambridge) Ee mi Mi “sf iy ce °

DOCUMENT 1/30.—Statement by J. R. DYMOND (Department of
Zoology, University of Toronto, Canada) Me ‘2 — si

DOCUMENT 1/31.—Proposal of a Nomenclatorial Statute of Limitation.
By CHARLES H. BLAKE (Massachusetts Institute of ee
Department of Biology, Cambridge, Massachusetts, U.S.A.) . :

DOCUMENT 1/32.—Means to be found for promoting the greatest
possible stability in Zoological Nomenclature. By 8S. G.
KIRIAKOFF, L.Se. (Zoological Museum, Ghent University, Ghent,
Belgium) .. i whe i. a so ais aN

DOCUMENT 1/33.—Statement by ERICH M. HERING (Abteilungs-
leiter am Zoologischen Museum der Humboldt-Unwwersitat, Berlin) ..

DOCUMENT 1/34.—Statement of the views of the Nomenclature Com-
mittee established jointly by the Deutsche Zoologische Gesellschaft,
the Palaontologische Gesellschaft and the Senckenbergische
Naturforschende Gesellschaft a F

DOCUMENT 1/35.—Views of Members of the Society of yctemane
Zoology on the question of the Law of Priority

DOCUMENT 1/36.—Statement on the Law of Prescription. By ANGEL
CABRERA (Eva Peron, F.C.N.G.R., Argentina) sh “i

DOCUMENT 1/37.—Statement on Nomina Dulia by ANGEL
CABRERA (va Peron, F.C.N.G.R., Argentina) 6s

DOCUMENT 1/38.—Statement by JOSHUA L. BAILY, Jr. (San
Diego, California, U.S.A.) 6 i

DOCUMENT 1/39.—Statement furnished on behalf of the Scientific
Staff of the set Ontario Museum of oe and a) Lee
Toronto, Canada . i

Page

54

55

55

56

58

59.

60

65

66

67

68

68

DOCUMENT 1/40.—Comments on the question of means for promoting
the greatest possible stability in Zoological Nomenclature. By
A. MYRA KEEN and SIEMON W. MULLER Boao Pi sehicd
Stanford, Califorma, U.S.A.)

DOCUMENT 1/41.—-Statement furnished on behalf of the Nomenclature
Committee at the American Museum of Natural History, New
York, U.S.A. Lf

DOCUMENT 1/42?.—Resubmission of a Petition regarding the Plenary
Powers. Statement furnished on behalf of the Nomenclature
Discussion Group of Washington, D.C., U.S.A.

DOCUMENT 1/43.—Answers to questions raised in paragraph 39 of the
Paper by the Secretary to the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature (1952, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 7 : 187-188).
Enclosure to a letter dated 18th ie 1952 ey C. W. WRIGHT
(London) .

DOCUMENT 1/44.—Additional petition to the Commission concerning
a Preamble to the Regles. By the Nomenclature Committee at the
American Museum of Natural History, New York, U.S.A. ..

DOCUMENT 1/45.—Enclosure to a letter dated 18th July 1952, by
ERNST MAYR ag American Museum te Natural ag New
York)

DOCUMENT 1/46.—Letter dated 20th July 1952 from HENNING
LEMCHE (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark)

DOCUMENT 1/47.—Comments on the means to be found for promoting
the greatest possible stability in Zoological Nomenclature. By
JOHN H. LOCHHEAD (Department of Zoology, University of
Vermont, Burlington, Vermont, U.S.A., and Marine eae
Laboratory, Woods Hole, Massachusetts, U.S. A.) e

DOCUMENT 1/48.—Enclosure to a letter dated 22nd July 1952 by
EK. RAYMOND HALL (Department of sess Univer. seis af
Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas, U.S.A.) .. ;

DOCUMENT 1/49.—Statement furnished covering the views of three
members of the Nomenclature Committee of the Society of
Systematic Zoology, U.S.A. “é ;

Annexe 1: Statement by HENRY TOWNES (North Carolina State
College of Agriculture and Engineering of the ree &, North
Carolina, Raleigh, North Carolina, U. S. A.).

*See also Document D. 1/8,

—

70

71

73

75

76

76

78

80

81

81

Annexe 2: Statement by JOHN T. ZIMMER (American Museum of
Natural History, New York) .. ¥; oe a a

Extract from a letter dated 2Ist July 1952, from FRANCIS
HEMMING, Secretary to the I nternational Commission, to
JOHN T. ZIMMER pS cS ft e - 1s

Extract from a letter, dated 6th August 1952, from JOHN T.
ZIMMER ss ms Py . a Se

Annexe 3: Statement by W. I. FOLLETT (California Academy of
Sciences, San Francisco, Califorma, U.S.A.) 3 e. HS

DOCUMENT. 1/50.—Promoting stability in Nomenclature. By J.
CHESTER BRADLEY (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y.. U.S.A.)

DOCUMENT 1/51.—Statement of the views of the Entomologische
Gesellschaft, Basel.
Extract of a letter dated 30th July from HENRY BEURET
Extract from a letter, dated 13th August 1952, from FRANCIS
HEMMING, Secretary to the I nternational Commassion, to
HENRY BEURET si a Ks re ae <6

DOCUMENT 1/52.—Stability in Zoological Nomenclature. Answers to
questions in paragraph 39 in the paper by the Secretary to the
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Extracts
from letters dated 20th August and 19th September 1952 by W. H.
CHINA. D.Sc. (British Museum (Natural History), London)

DOCUMENT 1/53.—Statement by the Nomenclature Committee of the
American Museum of Natural History, New York. Enclosure to a
letter, dated 28th August 1952 from ERNST MAYR (American
Museum of Natural History, New York, U.S.A.) v6

DOCUMENT 1/54.—Extract from a letter dated 4th September 1952 by
K. H. L. KEY (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research
Organisation, Canberra, Australia) 2% bes E. a

DOCUMENT 1/55.—Statement furnished by the American Society of
Parasitologists - - a af mB oe: i mi ef

DOCUMENT 1/56.—Stability and the Plenary Powers. Extract from a
letter dated 8th January 1953 by J OSHUA L. BAILY, Jr. (San
Diego, Califorma, U.S.A.) ie ss ¥ sie *:

DOCUMENT 1/57.—Statement furnished by the Wiener Entomologische
Gesellschaft oA a = ae re - PA

82

83

84

86

94

97

99

100

100

101

101

Vii

Page
DOCUMENT 1/58.—Statement enclosed with a letter dated 2nd April
1953 by CYRIL F. DOS PASSOS, LL.B. (Research Associate, The
American Museum of Natural History, New York) .. i. ; 102:

CASE NO. 2

Documents relating to the question whether neotypes should
be recognised in the “Régles” as a category of type specimens

DOCUMENT 2/1.—Ongin of the present investigation. Note by the
Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomen-
clature .. bs xu Hi Re eS = Bs 1 SOS

DOCUMENT 2/2.—General consultation with specialists and issue of an
appeal for advice in 1952. Note ps the airsecs to the Inter-
national Commission... 809 110

DOCUMENT 2/3.—Extracts from a paper entitled “On the question
of recognising Neotypes”’ submitted by DON L. FRIZZELL and
HARRY E. WHEELER a of repel, pees on nia,
a ee 1

DOCUMENT 2/4.—Reference to a paper on the Neotype problem
published by FRANCIS HEMMING pias to the eee)
an 1945)... i 111

DOCUMENT 2/5.—Letter dated 23rd June 1947 from H. 8S. BARBER
(United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research
Organisation Bureau of eee and Plant Ree REE
ton, D.C., U.S.A.) ms 112

DOCUMENT 2/6.—Extract from an enclosure to a letter dated
31st December 1947. By the late LODOVICO DI CAPORIACCO
(Unwersity of Parma, Italy) .. + 113

DOCUMENT 2/7.—Extract from a letter dated 22nd July 1950. By
HORACE H. BAKER (University of Pennsylvania, Zoological
Laboratory, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, U.S.A.) .. a ee AS

DOCUMENT 2/8.—Letter dated 8th April 1952 from G. H. E.
HOPKINS, O.B.E., M.A. (British Museum seg: vara
Zoological Museum, Tring, Heats)”. 114

Xvill

DOCUMENT 2/9.—Letter dated 15th April 1952 from L. B. HOLTHUIS
(Rijksmuseum van Natuurlike Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands)

DOCUMENT 2/10.—Views of seven workers in Systematic Entomology
in the Museum of Comparative Zoology and the Biological Labora-
tories, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts, U.S.A.
(Enclosure to a letter dated 28th April 1952 from JOS. BEQUAERT)

DOCUMENT 2/11.—Two statements furnished by D. K. McK. KEVAN
(School of Agriculture, Zoology Section, University of Nottingham,
Sutton Bonington, Loughborough, England)

Enclosure to a letter dated 29th April 1952 ..

Extract from letter dated 12th June 1952

DOCUMENT 2/12.—Suggestions furnished by FRANZ DANIEL
(Zoologische Sammlung des Bayerischen Staates, Miinchen, Germany)

DOCUMENT 2/13.—On the question whether and subject to what
conditions the concept of a “‘ Neotype” should be officially
recognised by an appropriate amendment to the Reégles. By
CYRIL F. DOS PASSOS, LL.B. (Research Associate, American
Museum of Natural History, New York)

DOCUMENT 2/14.—Statement by TH. HALTENORTH re
Miinchen, Germany)

DOCUMENT 2/15.—Enclosure to letter dated 23rd May 1952. By
W. J. ARKELL, M.A., D.Sc., F.R.S. sar saici Museum, bitte
University, Cambridge) ..

DOCUMENT 2/16.—Statement by J. R. DYMOND (University of
Toronto, Department of Zoology, Toronto, Canada) .. a ¥

DOCUMENT 2/17.—Statement by ERICH M. HERING (Abteilungs-
leiter am Zoologischen Museum der Humboldt-Universitét zu Berlin)

DOCUMENT 2/18.—Extract from a letter dated 16th June 1952 p
RICHARD MEINERTZHAGEN, D.S.0. (London)

DOCUMENT 2/19.—Statement Pye ANGEL CABRERA ick, Peron,
F.C.N.G.R., Argentina)

DOCUMENT 2/20.—Statement by JOSHUA L. BAILY, Jr. eh oe
California, U.S.A.) :

116

116

118

120

120

121

127

127

128

128

129

129

130

|

DOCUMENT 2/21.—Statement of the views of the Scientific Staff of
the Royal Ontario Museum of Zoology and Palaeontology. Toronto,
Canada

DOCUMENT 2/22.—Enclosure to a letter dated Ist July 1952 by
A. MYRA KEEN and SIEMON W. MULLER See Univer. ae
Stanford, California, U.S.A.)

DOCUMENT 2/23.—Statement on the views of the Committee on
Nomenclature of the American Museum of Natural History, New
York

DOCUMENT 2/24.—Statement submitted on behalf of the Nomenclature
Discussion Group, Washington, D.C. ;

DOCUMENT 2/25.—Extract from letter dated 20th July 1952 by
HENNING LEMCHE (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copen-
hagen) S3 at os 2: ont ty ie Be

DOCUMENT 2/26.—Statement submitted on behalf of the Nomenclature
Committee of the Society of Systematic Zoology. Letter dated
21st July 1952, with enclosures, from W. I. FOLLETT, Chairman

APPENDIX 1: Memorandum submitted by ROBERT L.
USINGER (University of California, U.S.A.)

APPENDIX 2: Notice of a Meeting of the Nomenclature Dis-
cussion Group, Washington, D.C., U.S.A., called for 18th June
1952, for the purpose of considering the question of the
recognition of neotypes as a category of type specimen

APPENDIX 3: Comments furnished by the members of the
Nomenclature Committee of the Society of Systematic Zoology
on the Documents constituting Appendices 1 and 2 to W. I.
Follett’s letter of 21st July 1952

ENCLOSURE 1: Comment furnished by W. I. FOLLETT
(California Academy of Sciences, San Francisco, California,

PE AE ENP tes. cershy gut hes aaeioss

ENCLOSURE 2: Comment furnished by CHARLES D.
MICHENER (University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas,
USA Ve si: bh a ut FE 43

132

132

133

135

136

137

140

140

140

140

ENCLOSURE 3:
Comment furnished by ROBERT R. MILLER (Smithsonian
Institution, United States National Museum, Washington 25,
DG. TSCA. ies

Comment furnished by ROBERT R. MILLER in a letter to
W. I. FOLLETT pi : i

ENCLOSURE 4: Comments furnished by CURTIS W.
SABROSKY (United States Department of Agriculture,
Bureau of ae and Plant Quarantine, Washington,
DC. USA.) 2. : aw et hy -

ENCLOSURE 5:
Comments furnished by HENRY TOWNES (United States
National Museum, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.) :

Comment by HENRY TOWNES in a letter to W. I.
FOLLETT ;

ENCLOSURE 6: Comment furnished by JOHN W. WELLS
(Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.)..

ENCLOSURE 7:
‘omments furnished by JOHN T. ZIMMER (American
Museum of Natural History, New York, U.S.A.) ..

Comments furnished by JOHN T. ZIMMER in a letter to
W. I. FOLLETT ;

APPENDIX 4: Extract from the proceedings of a Symposium on
Zoological Nomenclature relating to the question of the
recognition of Neotypes as a category of type specimen held
by the Pacific Section of the Society of Systematic Zoology
at the Oregon State College, Cornwallis, bite U.S.A., on
20th June 1952 Se ; oY ns We

DOCUMENT 2/27.—Enclosure to a letter dated 22nd July 1952 from
E. RAYMOND HALL (University oe Kansas, mes of neon
Lawrence, Kansas, U.S.A.)

DOCUMENT 2/28.—Statement of the views of the American Committee
on Entomological Nomenclature a We se

DOCUMENT 2/29.—Statement received on 25th July 1952 from
J. CHESTER BRADLEY (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.)

Page

141

142

142

143

144

144

144

145

147

148

151

XXxl

: Page
DOCUMENT 2/30.—Statement of the views of the Kntomologische
Gesellschaft, Basel nt yt Ap ih Ay ey Bk 9

DOCUMENT 2/31.—Extracts from letters dated 20th August and
19th September 1952 by W. E. CHINA, M.A., D.Sc. (British
Museum (Natural History) London) .. Me i ~ see LOO

DOCUMENT 2/32.—Enclosure to a letter dated 26th August 1952 from
H. B. WHITTINGTON (Department of Invertebrate Palaeontology,
Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard College, Cambridge,
Massachusetts, U.S.A.) .. Bs os a . - cs LG61

DOCUMENT 2/33.—Extract from a letter dated 4th September 1952
from K. H. L. KEY (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial
Research Organisation, Division of Entomology, Canberra, Australia) 161

DOCUMENT 2/34.—Enclosure to a letter dated 25th September 1952
from J. BALFOUR-BROWNE, M.A. (British Museum (Natural

History) London) . . bs — 162
DOCUMENT 2/35.—Statement received on Ist October 1952 from

THERESA CLAY (British Museum (Natural History) London) .. 163
DOCUMENT 2/36.—Statement furnished by the American Society of

Parasitologists fs sk a a cis = in) LGD

DOCUMENT 2/37.—Extract from a letter dated 27th March 1953 from
A. E. PARR (Lhe American Museum of Natural History, New York) 166

CASE NO. 3

Documents relating to the question of the reform of the
provisions in the “ Régles” relating to the naming of
families and lower suprageneric groups

DOCUMENT 3/1.—Origin of the Present Investigation. Note by the

Secretary to the Commission 167

DOCUMENT 3/2.—General Consultation with Specialists and Issue of
an Appeal for Advice in 1952. Note by the Secretary to the

Commission 168

xxl

DOCUMENT 3/3.—Question raised by HAROLD W. MANTER
(Department of Zoology and Anatomy, University of Nebraska, Lincoln,
Nebraska, U.S.A.) regarding the name properly applicable to the
Family containing the genus Dissotrema Goto & Matsudaira, 1918
(Trematoda). Note by the Secretary to the Commission eh

DOCUMENT 3/4.—Examples of Homonymous Family Names by H.
BOSCHMA ia al van Ao ie en: Historie, Leiden, The
Netherlands)

Enclosure to a letter dated 30th January 1946 ..
Letter dated 9th January 1950

DOCUMENT 3/5.—By CURTIS W. SABROSKY (of (at the time when
the following paper was written) the U.S. Public Health Service,
Manning, South Carolina, U.S.A.) £2 oe '

DOCUMENT 3/6.—Enclosure to a letter dated 5th October 1947 from
L. W. GRENSTED, D.D. (Oriel College, Oxford University)

DOCUMENT 3/7.—Notas sebre a Nomenclatura dos Grupos Superiores
a Generos. By JESUS MOURE, C.M.F. (do Museu Paranaense
e Universidade do Parana) and L. TRAVASSOS FILHO (do
Departamento de Zoologia de Sao Paolo) a

DOCUMENT 3/8.—Comment on Harold Manter’s Application relating
to the Family Name properly applicable to the genus Dissotrema
Goto & Matsudaira, 1918 (Nematoda) by the late LODOVICO DI
CAPORIACCO (University of Parma, Italy) . :

DOCUMENT 3/9.—Proposal by R. JEANNEL (Paris, France) for the
introduction of a new termination for names denoting Tribes. Note
by the Secretary to the Commission :

DOCUMENT 3/10.—Statement submitted in 1948 jointly by HE.
GORTON LINSLEY and ROBERT L. USINGER (University of
California, Berkeley, sealiaa U.S. 4). Note by the Secretary
of the Commission «3 os - ake

DOCUMENT 3/11.—Letter dated 12th June 1950 from HOBART M.
SMITH (U nae te tf bear ee a sa ah Urbana,
Illinois, U.S.A.) .

DOCUMENT 3/12.—Views of the late K. W. DAMMERMAN (Ryks-
museum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands)

Page

169

176

183

185

186

187

187

188

DOCUMENT 3/13.—Information furnished by LEONARD P. SCHULTZ
(Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.)

DOCUMENT 3/14.—Statement by P. C. SYLVESTER-BRADLEY,
B.Sc. (University of Sheffield, Department of Geology, Sheffield)

DOCUMENT 3/15.—Letter dated 15th April 1952 from L. B. HOL-
THUIS (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The
Netherlands) xe a x sh 2p ” ae

DOCUMENT 3/16.—Enclosure to a letter dated 29th April 1952 from
D. K. McK. KEVAN (School of Agriculture, Zoology Section,
University of Nottingham, Sutton Bonington, Loughborough, England)

DOCUMENT 3/17.—Suggestions furnished by FRANZ DANIEL
(Zoologische Sammlung des Bayerischen Staates, Miinchen, Germany)

DOCUMENT 3/18.—Statement ae TH. HALTENORTH (Museum,
Miinchen, Germany) : ts as

DOCUMENT 3/19.—Letter dated 23rd May 1952 from W. J. ARKELL,
M.A., D.Sc., F.R.S. (Sedgwick Museum, Cambridge University,
Cambridge) ss re a8 Be Bs oe

DOCUMENT 3/20.—Letters dated 26th May 1952 and 9th June 1952
from LESLIE BAIRSTOW, M.A. (British Museum (Natural
History), Department of Geology, London) sie e. w

DOCUMENT 3/21.—Statement by J. R. DYMOND (University of
Toronto, Department of Zoology, Toronto, Canada) .. SE 4

DOCUMENT 3/22.—Letter dated 28th May 1952 from JAMES A.
SLATER and JEAN L. LAFFOON (Department of Zoology and
Entomology, Iowa State Hage af i oie and Mechanic Arts,
Ames, Iowa, U.S.A.) ..

DOCUMENT 3/23.—Enclosure to a letter dated 5th June 1952 from
8. G. KIRIAKOFF, L.Sc. (Zoological Museum, Ghent University,
Ghent, Belgium) . = Ss ae “ip oe ae

DOCUMENT 3/24.—Statement by ERICH M. HERING (Abdtezlungs-
leiter am Zoologischen Museum der Humboldt-Universitét zu Berlin)

Annexe: Views of WALTER FORSTER a site i des
Bayerischen Staates, Miinchen, Germany) :

XXiil
Page

189

189

190

191

194

195

197

198

208

208

211

212

212

XXIV

DOCUMENT 3/25.—Letter by RAYMOND C. MOORE | aight a
Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas, U.S.A.) .. :

Annexe: Treatise on Invertebrate Palaeontology. Directed and
edited by RAYMOND C. MOORE : se “d er

DOCUMENT 3/26.—Statement by JOSHUA L. BAILY, Jr. (San
Diego, California, U.S.A.) A:

DOCUMENT 3/27.—Statement of the views of the Scientific Staff of
the Royal Ontario Museum of men and eset ee sciise Toronto,
Canada Ne :

DOCUMENT 3/28.—Enclosure to a letter dated 30th June 1952 from
HENNING LEMCHE (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copen-
hagen) : iu iy ve - ns 3 se

DOCUMENT 3/29.—Enclosure to a letter dated Ist July 1952 from
A. MYRA KEEN and SIEMON W. MULLER ( py ey U sa
Stanford, California, U.S.A.)

DOCUMENT 3/30.—Statement of the views of the Committee on
Nomenclature of the American Museum of Natural aia, New
York x e- = :

DOCUMENT 3/31.—Statement submitted on behalf of the Nomen-
clature Discussion Group, Washington, D.C., U.S.A. 4

DOCUMENT 3/32.—Enclosure to a letter dated 18th me 1952 from
C. W. WRIGHT (London)

DOCUMENT 3/33.—Enclosure to a letter dated 22nd July 1952 from
E. RAYMOND HALL (University of Kansas, Department of
Zoology, Lawrence, Kansas, U.S.A.) .. it yy %

DOCUMENT 3/34.—Statement submitted on behalf of the Nomen-
clature Committee of the Society of Systematic Zoology, in a letter
dated 23rd July 1952, with enclosures, from W. I. FOLLETT
(California Academy yas ‘Sciences, San Francisco, pies tae U.S.A.
(Chairman) :

Page

213

214

bo
i)
bo

235

240

241

242

243

245

APPENDIX 1:

ENCLOSURE 1: Summary by CURTIS W. SABROSKY of
the suggestions put forward by FRANCIS HEMMING
in Vol. 7 of the Bull. zool. Nomencl. and comments on
those suggestions by ROBERT L. USINGER

ENCLOSURE 2: CURTIS W. SABROSKY’S discussions of
the suggestions in relation to the naming of Families put
forward by FRANCIS HEMMING in Vol. 7 of the Bull.
zool. Nomencl. with C. W. Sabrosky’s recommendations in
regard to the foregoing matters and ROBERT L. USIN-
GER’S comments on C. W. SABROSKY’S recommenda-

tions

APPENDIX 2: Comments by J. CHESTER BRADLEY on
University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) me ;

APPENDIX 3: Observations on J. CHESTER BRADLEY’S
comments by CURTIS W. SABROSKY : :

APPENDIX 4: Comments received by W. I. FOLLETT from
members of the Nomenclature Committee of the Society of
Systematic Zoology

ENCLOSURE 1: Communication furnished by W. I. FOL-
LETT i: Ke Y 34 ne oe

ENCLOSURE 2: Communication furnished by CHARLES
D. MICHENER Are steae at) of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas,
U.S.A.) .

ENCLOSURE 3: Communication furnished by HENRY
TOWNES (United States National Museum, Ce
DC RTS AY

ENCLOSURE 4: Communication furnished by JOHN W.
WELLS (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.)

ENCLOSURE 5: Communication furnished by JOHN T.
ZIMMER eee Museum i Natural ore New
York, U.S.A.) .

DOCUMENT 3/35.—Statement of the views of the American Committee
on Entomological Nomenclature ee BS ts ie

DOCUMENT 3/36.—Statement of the views of the Viate ey
Gesellschaft, Basel ye. : : : :

261

263

270

DOCUMENT 3/37.—Statement by J. CHESTER BRADLEY (Cornell
University, Ithaca, N.Y... U.S.A.) a: i

DOCUMENT 3/38.—Extracts from letters dated 20th August and 20th
September 1952 from W. E. CHINA, M.A., D.Sc. (British Museum
Natural History), London) * i is

DOCUMENT 3/39.—Extract from a letter dated 4th September 1952
from K. H. L. KEY (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial
Research Organisation, Division of Entomology, Canberra, Australia)

DOCUMENT 3/40.—Extract from a paper entitled “ The Suprageneric
Nomenclature of the British Pentatomoidea ae euby. iD,
LESTON (London) ue Ri =e "3 ve

ADDENDUM

CASE NO. 1
(continued from page 108)

DOCUMENT 1/59.—Stabilisation of Zoological Nomenclature, Part 1:
The Suggested Law of Prescription by FRANCIS HEMMING
(Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomen-
clature) i a

DOCUMENT 1/60.—Stabilisation of Zoological Nomenclature, Part 2:
Possible measures other than the adoption of the Principle of
Prescription by FRANCIS HEMMING (Secretary to the International
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature)

CASE NO. 2
(continued from page 166)

DOCUMENT 2/38.—The question whether “neotypes’’ should be
recognised in the Régles as a category of type specimen by FRANCIS
HEMMING (Secretary to the International Commission on ene a
Nomenclature) sis * Le : : me

CASE NO. 3
(continued from page 282)

DOCUMENT 3/41.—The question of the reform of the provisions in the
Régles relating to the naming of families and lower suprageneric
groups by FRANCIS HEMMING (Secretary to the International
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature)

Page

279

280

287

293

295

303

XXV

Page
as “e 3 — ie oy brs rs; Sig ee

Authors’ Index > + 1a Naor oA a a aie ole

- Particulars of dates of cat ae of the several Parts in which the
_ present volume was published . so : ~ ae ole

ructions to binders wt ~ ms * “ a ih Cone

VOLUME 8. Triple-Part 1/3 25th June 1953
pp. 1-108

THE BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL
NOMENCLATURE

The Official Organ of

THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON

ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE
ROtLSED

| 2JUL 1958 Edited by
FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E.

Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature

CONTENTS :
Page
Arrangements made by the International Trust for Zoological
Nomenclature for the submission of material for consideration
at the Copenhagen meetings, 1953. By the Right Hon. Walter
Elliot, C.H., M.C., F.R.S., M.P., Chairman - 2. a 1

Action taken to secure advice on the questions of nomenclature
remitted for consideration at Copenhagen in 1953 by the Inter-
national Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948. By Francis Hemming,
C.M.G., C.B.E., Secretary to the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature ff rt: bs ft -

LONDON :
Printed by Order of the International Trust for
Zoological Nomenclature
and

Sold on behalf of the International Commission for Zoological Nomenclature
by the International Trust
at its Publications Office,
41 Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7
1953

Price One pound, thirteen shillings
(All rights reserved)

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL
NOMENCLATURE

A. The Officers of the Commission
Honorary Life President: Dr. Karl Jordan (United Kingdom)

President : Professor J. Chester Bradley (U.S.A)
Vice-President: Senhor Dr. Afranio do Amaral (Brazil)
Secretary: Mr. Francis Hemming (United Kingdom)

B. The Members of the Commission

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

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

Professor J. Chester Bradley (U.S.A.) (President) (28th March 1944)
Professor Harold E. Vokes (U.S.A.) (23rd April 1944)

Professor Bela Hanké (Hungary) (1st January 1947)

Dr. Norman R. Stoll (U.S.A.) (1st January 1947)

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

Senor Dr. Angel Cabrera (Argentina) (27th July 1948) ;
Mr. Francis Hemming (United Kingdom) (Secretary) (27th July 1948) ;
Dr. Joseph Pearson (Australia) (27th July 1948)

Dr. Henning Lemche (Denmark) (27th July 1948)
Professor Teiso Esaki (Japan) (17th April 1950) .
Professor Pierre Bonnet (France) (9th June 1950)

Mr. Norman Denbigh Riley (United Kingdom) (9th June 1950)

Professor Tadeusz Jaczewski (Poland) (15th June 1950)

Professor Robert Mertens (Germany) (6th July 1950)

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

C. The Staff of the Secretariat of the Commission

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

D. The Officers and Staff of the International Trust for
Zoological Nomenclature
Chairman : The Right Hon. Walter Elliot, C.H., M.C., F.R.S., M.P.

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

Publications Officer: Mrs. C. Rosner

E. The Addresses of the Commission and the Trust

Secretariat of the Commission: 28, Park Village East, Regent’s Park, London,
N.W.1

Offices of the Trust: 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7

BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

Volume 8, Triple-Part 1-3 (pp. 1-108) 25th June 1953

ARRANGEMENTS MADE BY THE INTERNATIONAL TRUST

FOR ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE FOR THE SUB-

MISSION OF MATERIAL FOR CONSIDERATION BY THE

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL

NOMENCLATURE AT ITS SESSION TO BE HELD AT
COPENHAGEN IN 1953

By The Right Hon. WALTER ELLIOT, C.H., M.C., F.R.S., M.P.
(Chairman, International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature)

In order to promote the orderly consideration at Copenhagen of the
problems of zoological nomenclature which will then be submitted to the
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature as a preliminary to
being laid before the International Congress of Zoology, the International
Trust for Zoological Nomenclature has arranged, on behalf of the International
Commission, to devote two volumes of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
to the publication of the documents which will then be considered by the
International Commission. These volumes are the present volume (volume 8)
and volume 10. The present volume will contain the first instalment of the
material which has been received in response to the appeal made by the
Secretary to the Commission (in volume 7) for assistance and advice in regard
to the general problems which were remitted for consideration at Copenhagen
by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology at its meeting held in
Paris in 1948. The remainder of this material will be published in volume 10,
which will comprise also the documents containing proposals in relation (a)
to other aspects of zoological nomenclature and (b) to the work of the Inter-
national Commission, which have been received from various sources.

2. Further, to facilitate the consideration at Copenhagen of the large
mass of material submitted, the International Trust has convened a Colloquium
on Zoological Nomenclature to meet in Copenhagen in the week preceding
the opening of the Congress. It is hoped that by this means it will be possible
to secure a sufficient measure of preliminary consideration of the numerous—
and, in some cases, highly complex—problems involved to enable the Inter-
national Commission to formulate generally supported proposals for submission
to the Section on Nomenclature and the Congress itself when those bodies
meet at Copenhagen. To this end invitations to the Colloquium have been
issued to all institutions which are known to be interested in zoological nomen-
clature and to all individual specialists who have assisted in the preparation
of material on nomenclature for consideration at the Copenhagen Congress.

bo

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

ACTION TAKEN TO SECURE THE ADVICE AND ASSIS-
TANCE OF INTERESTED INSTITUTIONS AND INDIVIDUAL
SPECIALISTS ON THE ASPECTS OF ZOOLOGICAL
NOMENCLATURE ON WHICH THE THIRTEENTH INTER-
NATIONAL CONGRESS OF ZOOLOGY, PARIS, 1948,
INVITED THE SECRETARY TO THE INTERNATIONAL
COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE TO
PREPARE REPORTS FOR CONSIDERATION BY THE
FOURTEENTH INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS TO BE HELD
AT COPENHAGEN IN 1953

By FRANCIS HEMMING
(Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature)

The purpose of the present note is to recall that the Thirteenth International
Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948, invited me, as Secretary to the International
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, to investigate certain aspects of
zoological nomenclature, and to explain the action which I have taken under
the foregoing mandate to obtain the views of interested institutions—and, in
particular, nomenclature committees—and individual specialists on the action
which it is desirable should be taken on each of these matters by the Four-
teenth International Congress of Zoology when it assembles at Copenhagen
in August 1953.

2. The problems which were so referred to me for investigation were the
following :—
(1) The means to be devised for promoting stability in zoological nomen-
clature (Commission’s file Z.N.(S.)359) ;

(2) Neotypes: the question whether this class of type specimen should
be officially recognised in the Réegles (Commission’s reference
Z.N.(S.)358) ;

(3) Family names and‘ names of suprageneric categories of lower rank :
measures needed for the clarification and amplification of the
existing provisions in the Régles (Commission’s reference Z.N.(8.)
357) ;

(4) Orders (and Sub-Orders) and Taxonomic Categories of Higher Rank :
questions involved in the proposed introduction into the Régles
of provisions regulating the naming of taxonomic units belonging
to the foregoing categories (Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)360) ;

(5) Emendation of zoological names: proposed substitution for Article
19 of simple clear-cut rules capable of being easily applied (Com-
mission’s reference Z.N.(S.)356) ;

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 3

(6) Trivial names which, when first published, were treated partly as
substitute names but which were also applied to particular species
or specimens : treatment to be accorded in cases where the species
so renamed is not the same as that to which the new name was
also applied when first published (Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.)
361) ;

(7) Names of nominal genera first published in generic synonymies :
question of species to be accepted as the type species (Commission’s
reference Z.N.(S.)387).

3. In the period following the Paris Congress I took every opportunity
which arose, either in correspondence or in personal discussion, of obtaining
the views of zoologists and palaeonotologists as to the action which it was
desirable should be taken on the foregoing matters by the Fourteenth Inter-
national Congress of Zoology. In particular, with the assistance of the
authorities of the Congress concerned, I read papers designed to elicit comments
on the question of the further development of zoological nomenclature before
the following bodies: (1) the Eighteenth International Congress of Geology,
London, 1948; (2) the Congress of British Entomologists, London, 1950 ;
(3) the Ninth International Congress of Entomology, Amsterdam, 1951. In
the light of the views elicited in the foregoing manner I prepared at the end
of 1951 papers on each of the questions which had been referred to me for
study and report. .In these papers I set out the issues which, as it seemed
to me, arose for decision on each of the problems concerned and appealed
to zoological and palaeonotological institutions and individual specialists to
assist in the investigations asked for by the Thirteenth International Congress
of Zoology by furnishing statements setting out their views as to the action
which was desirable should be taken by the Fourteenth International Congress
of Zoology at Copenhagen in 1953.

4. For the furtherance of the work of the Fourteenth International
Congress, the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature decided to
devote a complete volume—volume 7—of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomen-
clature to the publication of the foregoing papers (and also of short notes on
twenty-eight cases relating to individual names on which the Thirteenth
Congress at Paris had asked for additional information). Volume 7 of the
Bulletin was published in eight Parts in the period March-April 1952.

5. For the purpose of attracting the attention of interested institutions
and specialists to the general problems discussed in volume 7 of the Bulletin
(then in the press), a Notice was drawn up in February 1952 referring to these
problems and soliciting the advice and assistance from all interested in these
subjects. This Notice was published in the leading serial publications (such
as Science) concerned with general biological problems, and was, in addition,
despatched individually, under cover of letters inviting co-operation, to all
known Nomenclature Committees, to the Natural History Museums and other

+ Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Scientific Institutions, members of the staffs of which were correspondents
of the International Commission, and also to leading individual specialists
known to the Commission as being interested in general problems of zoological
nomenclature.

6. The material received in regard to the seven problems remitted at
Paris for consideration at Copenhagen has been arranged in each case in date
order. For convenience of discussion at Copenhagen, a “‘ Case Number ”’ has
been allotted to each problem and a “‘ Document Number ” has been allotted
to each document within each group. For example, the fifth document
(measured by date of receipt) in regard to the second main problem bears
the Document Number 2/5, and the tenth document of the fifth main group
the Document Number 5/10.

7. The documentation received is being published forthwith, it being
considered that this course is to be preferred to delaying publication until
the Reports which I was asked by the Paris Congress to prepare on these
subjects are available. These Reports will, however, be published as soon as
possible in volume 10. It will be found that they consist of little more than
summaries of the views expressed in the documents now published. It is
hoped, however, that they will prove useful in view of the large number of
the documents now published and the labour to the reader involved in obtaining
a general conspectus of the advice received in regard to each of the large number
of points discussed.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 5

CASE NO. 1

DOCUMENTS RELEVANT TO THE CONSIDERATION OF
THE PROBLEM OF SECURING GREATER STABILITY IN
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

-

DOCUMENT 1/1
Origin of the present investigation

The record of the decision by the Thirteenth International Congress of
Zoology, Paris, 1948, inviting the Secretary to the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature to examine, in consultation with interested
specialists, all means which might secure greater stability in zoological nomen-
clature and 1o submit a Report thereon was published in 1950, Bull. zool.
Nomencel. 4 : 234.

DOCUMENT 1/2

A survey of possible means for promoting stability in zoological nomen-
clature prepared by FRANCIS HEMMING, Secretary to the International
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, in response to the invitation of the
Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948, was published in
1952, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 7 : 148-188.

DOCUMENT 1/3

Professor PIERRE BONNET (Toulouse) presented a proposal for the
incorporation into the Régles of a provision recognising a “ Law of Prescription ”
to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature on 15th J anuary
1948 for consideration during the meeting to be held in Paris in J uly of that
year during the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology.

The provision so proposed to be inserted in the Régles was as follows :—

Loi de Prescription: Tout nom qui sera resté ignoré durant de
nombreuses années ne pourra, pour cause de priorité, remplacer un
nom de genre ou d’espéce depuis longtemps utilisé ; s’il y avait lieu
de le faire les specialistes en décideront.

For the full text of the foregoing application, see Bonnet, 1950, Bull. zool.
Nomenel, 3 : 177,

6 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

DOCUMENT 1/4

The proposal by PIERRE BONNET (Toulouse) for the restriction, in the
interest of stability in zoological nomenclature, of the Law of Homonymy as
applied to generic names ; proposal presented to the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature on 15th January 1948 for consideration during
the meeting to be held in Paris in July of that year during the Thirteenth
International Congress of Zoology.

The provision so proposed was that the following new provisions should
be inserted in the Régles ;—

Article 34.—Homonymie: Tout nom générique n’est rejeté comme
homonyme qui s'il a été utilise pour un autre genre dans un méme
grand groupe d’animaux ou dans un méme pays: les grands groupes
d’animaux sont: Protozoaires, Spongiaires, Coelentérés, Plathel-
minthes, Annélides, Némathelminthes, autres Vers, Crustacés, Myria-
podes (s.l.), Insectes, Arachnides, Echinodermes, Procordés, Vertebrés.

Article 34bis——On ne reviendra pas sur les changements faites
jusqu’en 1920; mais a partir de cette date seront maintenus contre
le nom nouveau proposé tous les noms ayant déja une grande vogue
et qui depuis de nombreuses années étaient employés sans la moindre
confusion avec un homonyme méconnu d’un autre groupe.

Article 34ter.—Cependant, 4 partir de 1940, il ne sera plus toléré
qu’on utilise pour un nouveau genre un nom déja existant et se
trouvant dans le Nomenclator Zoologicus de Neave (1939-1940).

For the full text of the foregoing proposal, see Bonnet, 1950, Bull. zool.
Nomenel. 3 : 178-179.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 7

DOCUMENT 1/5

By the late LODOVICO DI CAPORIACCO
(Unwersity of Parma, Italy)

Statement dated 19th January 1948

LAW OF PRESCRIPTION : COMMENTS ON PROFESSOR P. BONNET’S
* PROPOSITION No. 2

Proposal No. 2 of Professor Bonnet (proposal to add a new Article (Article
27 bis: Law of Prescription)): ‘‘ No name which has remained ignored for
many years can, for reasons of priority, replace a generic or trivial name which
has been utilized for a long time : if such a case arises, specialists will decide.”

I agree with the intention of the proposal, but this seems to me formulated
in too vague a manner: many years is subject to personal, i.e. variable, inter-
pretation; I think it is necessary to fix the time which gives the right to
prescription: for instance, one might fix 30 years, or, say, 50 consecutive
papers in which, instead of the oldest name, a later one has been used. It
seems to me impossible to agree with the proposal to let “ specialists ” decide
in dubious cases, because how can we decide who is a specialist ? Dubious
cases must be decided by the Commission, who, of course, listens to the opinion
of specialists.

DOCUMENT 1/6

By the late LODOVICO DI CAPORIACCO
(University of Parma, Italy)

Statement dated 19th January 1948

COMMENT ON PROFESSOR P. BONNET’S PROPOSITION No. 3
RELATING TO RELAXATION OF THE LAW OF HOMONYMY IN
RELATION TO GENERIC NAMES

Proposal No. 3 of Professor Bonnet (proposal to modify Article 34): “A
generic name must be rejected as a homonym only if it has been utilized for
another genus in the same major group of animals or in the same country,” etc.

Tam absolutely against this proposal, which would be perhaps convenient in
purely systematic works, but would cause great trouble and confusion in
faunistic or other papers. For instance, a genus may be discovered in a country
where another genus of the same name does not exist ; then the name of the
discovered genus, though identical with the name of another genus, would be
valid ; but afterwards the “‘homonym” genus may be found to extend also
_ to the country where species of the first-named genus occur; then the second

genus would have to change its name. That would only cause confusion.
Moreover in the case cited by Professor Bonnet, the name Argyrodes (Araneae)
ought to be changed in any case, even if the proposal of Professor Bonnet
were to be accepted since Argyrodes (Lepidoptera) is found in Hungary, which
is a part of Europe, where Argyrodes (Araneae) is found also.

8 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
DOCUMENT 1/7

Proposal submitted by Dr. HENNING LEMCHE on behalf of a large group of
Scandinavian Zoologists

Law of Prescription

The proposal (received on 7th June 1948) for the incorporation into the
Régles of a Law of Prescription submitted by HENNING LEMCHE on his
own behalf and on that of a large group of Scandinavian zoologists for con-
sideration by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature at
the meeting to be held in Paris in July of that year during the Thirteenth
International Congress of Zoology.

The provision so proposed to be adopted was the following :—

A name of a genus or species, given before the year 1850 and ©
not used in scientific literature since 1st January 1850, is to be rejected
in favour of such other name which has been in general use for the
genus or species in question since that date.

For the full text of the foregoing proposal, see Lemche, 1950, Bull. zool.
Nomencel. 3 : 158-161.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 9

DOCUMENT 1/8

Statement furnished by
SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION COMMITTEE ON NOMENCLATURE

Letter from Dr. CURTIS W. SABROSKY dated 25th June 1948
On the use of the Plenary Powers to Establish Nomina Conservanda

Iam transmitting herewith, on behalf of the Smithsonian Institution Com-
mittee on Nomenclature, a statement and petition “‘ On the Use of the Plenary
Powers to Establish Nomina Conservanda.’ Because of delay in publication
in Science and the consequent impossibility of thus securing many reactions
to the petition in time to transmit them to you before the Paris Congress, we
distributed mimeographed copies in order to secure representative opinions on
the matter. All original material—signatures, comments, and letters—received
in response to this solicitation are enclosed herewith, together with a copy
of the mimeographed circular and a reprint of the statement as it appeared in
Science.

In order to assist you in interpreting the signatures, I have prepared a list
of the persons, grouped by institution or organisation, with the general field
of study indicated for each person as Zoology, Paleontology or Entomology.

In summation, 156 (Group I) approve the petition as it stands (or with
minor comments or reservations that do not seriously modify their general
approval), 7 (Groups II and III) would either go much farther than this petition
in restricting and limiting Suspensions, or would eliminate Suspensions alto-
gether, and only 5 (Group IV) oppose the petition and stand strongly in favour
of Suspension. One of the latter, Dr. Forbes, perhaps does not favour Suspen-
sion, for his opposition is on a different basis. Two reactions are difficult to
classify.

Annexe to letter anbenitied on behalf of the Smithsonian Institution
Committee on Nomenclature

Reprinted from Science, 21st May 1948, Vol. 107, No. 2786, pages 543-544

A PROPOSED PETITION TO THE
INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

The numerous applications now before the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature, requesting exercise of the Plenary Powers for Sus-
pension of the International Rules and establishment of a number of nomina
conservanda, are commanding considerable interest among zoologists. .The
large number of applications, it is true, has resulted in part from the long hiatus
in nomenclatural activity followed by a postwar revival of interest in nomen-
clature. Nevertheless, the number has become overwhelming, both for the
Commission members who must study them and pass upon their merits and for
zoologists who should give them thorough consideration in order that the
Commission may have the benefit of various points of view. Some applications,
moreover, are too briefly presented and inadequately justified, though the
burden of proof should rest on the applicant.

10 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

It is generally recognised that letters from scattered workers are a less
effective means of demonstrating approval or disapproval than expression by
groups of workers. Accordingly, the undersigned subcommittee of the Smith-
sonian Institution Committee on Zoological Nomenclature, composed of
taxonomists of the U.S. National Museum, the Bureau of Entomology and
Plant Quarantine, the Geological Survey, and the Fish and Wildlife Service,
has drawn up the following statement, in the hope that it will crystallise opmion
and serve as the basis for representations to the Commission. The full Com-
mittee has approved the petition and directed the sub-committee to publish
it for consideration by other zoologists.

Zoologists are invited and urged to send their reactions to the petition to
the undersigned as soon as possible, with the understanding that the Com-
mittee will transmit this petition together with all names and comments, both
supporting and disagreeing, to the International Commission. All com-
munications at hand will be sent to the Commission in time for the Inter-
national Congress of Zoology at Paris in July 1948. In order to aid the work
of the Committee and to avoid misinterpretation, it is requested that, if possible,
a brief and unambiguous statement of approval or disapproval be given,
though as much other comment may be added as the individual wishes.

On the Use of the Plenary Powers to Establish Nomina Conservanda

It is not the immediate purpose of the undersigned to discuss the merit of
individual proposals now pending, but to present their views on the general
question of the use of the Plenary Powers by the Commission.

We believe that the International Rules of Zoological Nomenclature offer
a sound foundation for ultimate stability and uniformity. In theory, at least,
a standard to which there is no exception is a more solid basis than a standard
whose application is weakened by numerous exceptions. In most cases, taxo-
nomists could apply the Rules strictly, with little or no confusion and only a
little inconvenience. On the other hand, we recognise that due consideration
should be given to common usage of important names by the great body of
nontaxonomists, the general zoologists, physiologists, medical men, teachers,
and applied zoologists of all kinds. It is reasonable to conclude that the over-
all objectives of stability and uniformity would be distinctly furthered if
zoologists would agree upon some basic standards satisfactory to both view-
points.

In the case of a specific or generic name transferred to a different species or
genus (e.g. the transfer of the specific name malariae from the quartan malaria
parasite to the malignant tertian, if the Rules are strictly applied), both the
element of inconvenience and that of confusion are involved. Such a situation
is likely to present adequate grounds for suspension of the Rules. Misidentified
genotypes commonly result in transfers, though not all such cases are of sufficient
importance to merit suspension.

Changes resulting from straight synonymy usually cause inconvenience
rather than confusion. Experience indicates that even apparently serious
changes of this nature can soon become commonly accepted (e.g. the change

a Tey

pe

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 11

from Stegomyia fasciata to Aédes aegypti for the yellow fever mosquito). Such
changes, accordingly, are not grounds for Suspension unless better reason can
be demonstrated.

If too many suspensions are allowed, or if suspensions are allowed on weak
or unconvincing evidence, the value of the Rules as 8 basis for stable nomen-
clature would be depreciated. We are convinced that the International Com-
mission should as soon as possible reassure zoologists that such will not happen.
We therefore petition the Commission to set forth some general standards
concerning applications for suspension of the Rules and respectfully suggest
the following for consideration :—

(1) Applications for suspension of the Rules should be required to demon-
strate that strict application of the Rules would result in far-
reaching and substantial confusion in the taxonomic use of names
and/or in a lamentable change that would greatly confuse the
literature of a related field (e.g. ecology, malariology, stratigraphic
paleontology).

(2) Demonstration of confusion should include adequate bibliographic
data showing the amount of usage and the percentage of uniformity.
Mere assertion of ‘“‘ greater confusion than uniformity,” unsupported
by these data, should be considered inadequate.

(3) The Secretary of the Commission should return for additional evidence
any application that does not contain the above demonstration and
data.

(4) When an application that appears to satisfy the above requirements
has been received and notice of its pending consideration has been
published, the Commission should on its own initiative actively
solicit—not merely passively await—the advice of specialists or
other interested and qualified persons or groups from a variety of
countries, museums, societies, and educational institutions.

Concerning the method to be employed by the Commission in actively
soliciting advice on cases under consideration, it is suggested that, in addition
to the regular published invitation to all interested individuals, use be made
of existing national, society, and institutional committees on nomenclature,
or that special panels in the various branches of taxonomic zoology be estab-
lished for the purpose. These panels might be headed by, or liaison with them
maintained by, various members of the Commission, in order to relieve the
Secretary of the extra burden of these contacts.

Curtis W. Sabrosky and R. I. Sailer.
U.S. National Museum, Washington, D.C.

Editorial Note

The foregoing application reached the Office of the International Commission
on 12th July 1948, and was too late, therefore, to be considered by the Com-

. mission when it met in Paris nine days later. Among the proposals which had

previously been received and which were discussed in Paris was a proposal

12 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

submitted by Dr. Henning Lemche on behalf of a large group of Scan-
dinavian zoologists in favour of the introduction into the Régles of a Law of
Prescription, which, if then adopted, would have limited the scope of the Law
of Priority to a much greater extent than did the existing Plenary Powers of
the Commission which it was the purpose of the application by the Smithsonian
Institution Committee on Nomenclature to curb. It was because, for the
reasons explained above, that application was not then before the Commision
that during the discussions in Paris, I drew attention to that application, in
my capacity as Acting President of the Commission and President of the Section
on Nomenclature, and supported the proposal, which was then adopted, that
the whole question of the means to be taken for promoting stability in zoo-
logical nomenclature should be deferred until the next (Copenhagen) Congress in
1953 and that in the meantime the whole subject should be subject to compre-
hensive study with interested specialists (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 233).

2. The application discussed above was resubmitted to the International
Commission in 1952 under cover of a letter dated 16th July, from Dr. Richard E.
Blackwelder, who had succeeded to the position held in 1948 by Dr. Curtis W.
Sabrosky, as Secretary to the body which had in the meantime been reconsti-
tuted under the title Nomenclature Discussion Group, Washington, D.C. The
note covering this resubmission which was enclosed with Dr. Blackwelder’s
letter will be found as Document 1/42 in the present series (see pp. 73-75).

(intl’d) F. H. 25 February 1953,

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 13
DOCUMENT 1/9

Views submitted in July 1948 on behalf of the ZOOLOGISCHES INSTITUT

DER UNIVERSITAT WIEN, the NATURHISTORISCHES MUSEUMS

WIEN, ZOOLOGISCHE ABTEILUNG, and the ZOOLIGISCH-BOTAN ISCHE
GESELLSCHAFT

Editorial Note: Attention is drawn to a statement urging the need for
securing greater stability in zoological nomenclature which was placed
before the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology at Paris in
July 1948 jointly by (1) the Zoological Institute of the University of
Vienna ; (2) the Zoological Department of the Naturhistoriches Museum
of Vienna and (3) by the Zoologisch-Botanisch Gesellschaft of Vienna.
The text of this communication was published in 1950 (Bull zool. Nomencl.5 :
77-78.)

It will be seen that the request put to the Paris Congress by the Austrian
zoologists was that there should be accepted a principle under which a name
which had been consistently applied to a given animal should not be changed
in cases where the defect in that name was solely of a technical nomenclatorial
character. The following is the text of the proposition which was then submitted
by the Austrian zoologists :—

Jeder heute einheitlich gebrauchte, eingelebte wissenschaftliche Tiername
ist ein unschitzbarer nomenklatorischer Wert, ein Verstandigungsmittel,
dessen Zerstérung den Zoologiebetrieb schwer schidigt. Bis zur endgiiltigen
Regelung der Verhiltnisse ist daher jede Aenderung eines einheitlich gebrauchten

amens zu unterlassen, wenn fiir die Aenderung nur formal nomenklatorische
(Prioritats-)Griinde, aber keine systemtischen Notwendigkeiten vorliegen.

14 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

DOCUMENT 1/10
By L. T. 8. NORRIS-ELYE
(The Manitoba Museum, Winnipeg, Man., Canada)

Enclosure to a letter dated 20th October 1948

TYPE LOCALITIES

The type localities are determined by the locality from which the first
species or sub-species were named and described; among many of the old
authors, this locality is not named or the locality given is virtually useless,
e.g.,“ Hudson Bay region ”’ or “ Hastern North America.”

When most of the types were established, even many of those determined
today, the ranges were rarely known and may not be finally delimited for many
years to come, due to the lack of wide-spread collecting followed by competent
taxonomic work; this may not be so in those cases where the type specimen
is represented by a large series that formerly went under another name and has
been shown to be another sub-species. .

Until the respective ranges can be determined accurately, it is impossible
for the taxonomist to select, for comparative purposes, really typical material
from the central regions of the ranges, where intergradation is likely to be
absent or, at least, at its minimum.

Under our present system of selecting the typical form, our model is not
necessarily the purest in form, but must be the specimen that was first described, .
perhaps barely within what turns out later to be its range; it may well be an
intergrade in point of fact. It was determined by chance rather than know-
ledge ; this system exists almost throughout the whole field of zoology.

Had the type of Peromyscus maniculatus bairdit (Hoy & Kennicott) been
taken, say, at Pelican Lake, Manitoba, instead of at Bloomington, Illinois,
most of the topotypes would have been quite unrecognisable by the pelts, on
account of their intergradation with Peromyscus maniculatus osgoodi Mearns
which does not become really typical for about one hundred miles to the west.
At Pelican Lake, fifty specimens may well show over a dozen marked variations ;
Such instances could be duplicated by the hundreds.

The difficulties of the taxonomist are often much increased by this situation
and any device that will lessen them, without creating new problems, should
be given some consideration. The rules give no protection against two types
of sub-species being described within a very few miles of each other, perhaps
both of them being intergrades.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 15

With the full realization that long-standing rules in world-wide use cannot
be discarded, without making the remedy worse than the disease, the writer
ventures to offer a suggestion that might ensure that comparisons would be
based upon a much greater factual knowledge by using only material that is
the least tainted by intergradation.

It is proposed that the types be retained, largely for (1) recording data as to
discovery, description, priority, etc., and (2) for comparative purposes, as at
present, but only until enough range data shall have been secured to show
practically the whole range, without any reasonable likelihood of the discovery
of any serious extension of the ranges so far discovered.

When the ranges can be reasonably well delimited, the centres of those
ranges could be determined mathematically ; from such centres, radii could
be established to form areas to be called ‘“‘ centros ”’ or some such name and all
specimens taken within that area could be called “ centrotypes ”’ or some such
name. Here, priorities of nomenclature would not interfere with the name
stability, except when the type name had to be changed ; there would be no
first-named centrotype.

With such an accessory system, consideration might well be given to the
following possible advantages :—

(1) Centros could be established for some of the vague type localities.

(2) It would be impossible to establish centrotypes until really adequate
work had been done on the entire ranges, thus ensuring eventual
stability.

(3) The centrotypes must be more truly typical than many or most of the
present types in all characters, pelage, dental and cranial.

(4) The system should put some curb on those who rush into print to name
allegedly new sub-species, before becoming acquainted with some of
the most fundamental facts ; these tendencies are even far worse in
the case of naming new species where intergrading is not recognised.

(5) It should lessen the difficulties of the taxonomist and greatly increase
the finality of his determinations.

(6) It would make the assessment of degrees of inter-gradation of border-
line specimens much more accurate and more obvious.

Tt may be questioned what would happen if the “ lumpers ” or “ splitters ”
got to work on some adjacent ranges ; the answer seems to be that a system of
centros would meet the situation immediately by means of projecting new
radii and forming a new or several new centros.

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 8 (June 1953)

“ua

16 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
DOCUMENT 1/11

By THORD RAGNAR NORDENSKJOLD
(Stockholm, Sweden)

(1) Enclosure to a letter received on 25th May 1949

PROPOSALS FOR THE SETTLEMENT OF CERTAIN QUESTIONS OF
NOMENCLATURE

A name of an insect which has become the accepted term among scientists
should not automatically be supplanted or replaced by another name given
by an earlier author but found later in scientific literature. The term originally
used—‘‘ the most usual name ” of the insect—could in many cases be retained
as a synonym and constitute a nomen quasiconservandum, to be included and
preserved in a (newly created) entomological central register. This nomen
quasiconservandum, which is always to be regarded as a complement to the
author’s name and is given only secondary importance, should, when the insect is
named, always be given in a footnote or within brackets after the older author’s
name which had been discovered later and which, in accordance with the
principle of priority should be regarded as the original main name of the insect—
as nomen primum auctoris. Alternatively, it is proposed that the Congress
should recommend that the lists of synonyms at the end of every future scientific
work should be so constructed that nomina prima auctoris are placed first and
nomina quasiconservanda second (the latter followed by “‘ (n.qe.) ”) among the
number of synonyms for every species of insect. Whether the traditional
name can be considered to possess such strong goodwill that it is really worth
while retaining it for the future and codifying it should be decided in the first
instance by a body chosen by the Entomologists’ Congress but functioning
also between Congresses. The final decision should be made by the Inter-
national Congress of Entomology.

The creation of a central entomological register is very desirable. In
addition to the listing of nomina quasiconservanda, its task should be to compile
complete lists of synonyms, including all names for every species of insect
used in scientific literature. In these lists the nomen primum auctoris (the
oldest known author’s name for the insect concerned) should be printed in
heavy type and the nomen quasiconservandum in spaced-out heavy type.

The adoption of nomina quasiconservanda could alternatively be of a pro-
visional character and be retained in each individual case only until the re-
discovered original author’s name has gained sufficiently wide acceptance.
One might also consider a 50-year provisional arrangement, to remain in force
until a firm new principle has been established regarding the use of nomina
quasiconservanda. It should be noted that, in certain cases, it may be easier
to reach agreement about the adoption of two names (a nomen auctoris and a
nomen quasiconservandum) than of one (a nomen primum auctoris only). For
the sake of uniformity, it would be better to use two names simultaneously
for an insect than for different authors to use different names for the same
insect in scientific works.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 17

In the hope that some entomologist will adopt my proposal and that it
will be considered as the basis for further discussions and to some extent
improved upon, I herewith submit it for consideration to the International
Nomenclature Commission.

(2) Letter dated 20th December 1952

In May, 1949, I wrote to you about the stabilization of zoological nomen-
clature (in respect of the species). I was mainly concerned with the nomen-
clature of the insect groups and my intention was to make a contribution towards
solving the ‘‘ nomina conservanda ”’ question.

In this letter, which I hope will be put together with my earlier one—already,
as I understand, in the dossier for new suggestions for nomenclature—I wish to
develop further my earlier and perhaps somewhat confused line of thought
and to some extent amplify and adjust it (in order to avoid difficulties in the
practical application of my suggestions).

Assuming that an insect has been named in a certain way for a century or
so, but that a subsequent discovery has shown that an author some fifty years
earlier for instance has satisfactorily described the insect in question and given
it a different name, causing this last-mentioned primum nomen, in accordance
with the law of priority, to be raised to the insect’s nomen auctoris, then the
name that has been in general use during the hundred years or more should, in
accordance with my 1949 suggestion, be retained as a subordinate attribute
(a nomen quasiconservadum) in conjunction with the author’s name for at
least fifty years after the discovery of the “‘ new ” author’s name.

A binominal system with regard to the insect would thus be involved to
some extent. To this the following objections may be raised :—

(1) This new system would be clumsy and unwieldy.

(2) An imsect can never be designated by more than one name. A
double naming would be an absurdity in itself.

(3) Owing to the accurate indications of synonyms provided and super-
vised by present-day specialists on different animal genera and
owing to the existing practice of setting out, often in parentheses,
during a certain transitional period, the earlier-used insect name
after the ““new” author’s name, the proposed arrangement is
superfluous.

(4) In certain cases it would be difficult to decide upon one nomen quasi-
conservandum. Here, strictly speaking, two or even three nomina
quasiconservanda would have to be added as attributes to the
nomen primum auctoris. Such an arrangement would obviously
be preposterous.

Tn this connection the following may be said :—

The binominal system, which of course is not absolute but only conditional,
can be adopted in the lists of synonyms given in the scientific works. This
method would prevent unwieldiness in the text of scientific works where an

B

18 . Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

insect’s name recurs frequently, would reduce editorial difficulties, would bring
down costs and would avoid any great deviation from current usage in the
production of scientific works.

In that case one thing would be essential: the nomen primum auctoris, as
such, would have to be indicated in some way typographically and preferably
also acoustically (when spoken). Here, then, it would be appropriate to print
the Latin word of the insect name in spaced-out type and (or) to add to it the
word (prim.), an abbreviation of (priwumum nomen auctoris). This (prim.)
would have the same effect as an “ NB,” as a “ Warning.” It would be an
urgent request : ‘‘ Look at the synonym list in this book.”

In such a system the synonyms, as hitherto, would be arranged by priority,
with one possible exception; viz. the nomen interimistically authorised as
the nomen quasiconservandum by the International Nomenclature Commission
or any of its special committees would always—even irrespective of its priority,
by virtue only of its actuality—be placed immediately after (closest to) the
oldest name of the insect and would by its fat type be specially characterised
and distinguished among all the other synonyms as a suprasynonym (provision-
ally for only fifty years, let us say, if the entomologists so desired), after which
the pure, s¢mple, original nomenclature would be restored. The “new”
nomen primum auctoris of the insect could then be regarded as having gained a
sufficiently permanent footing to be able to stand alone by itself. The nomen
quasiconservandum could be entirely dispensed with as being superfluous in
the future.

The specialists of today perhaps may not find the above line of thought
particularly obvious or desirable. Nevertheless, I venture to express this my
opinion not because I am in a modest way a specialist on the Hemiptera and
Heteroptera, but in the first place because I am a practical entomologist, a
plant protection entomologist and in the second place a zoologist (general) and
biologist. I present my proposal with the followmg motto: “A stabilized
nomenclature for the species is a just and reasonable demand on the part of
the practical entomologist or zoologist and biologist generally.”” With the
present arrangement the latter cannot get a proper survey, even if the specialist
can just manage to do so.

What would be the real innovation, the real change, if my proposal were
adopted ?

Clearly, those who wished could consistently employ the binomial system in
all connections, written as well as spoken.

The use of the “‘ double name ”’ would, however, only be definitely imposed,
if one can use such a term at all in the case of scientific congresses, in the
following circumstances :—

(1) When using in speech the name of the insect belonging to the category
in question.

(2) On the insect labels in scientific collections where there is no clear
reference to the list of synonymns in a particular work (i.e. where
the entire collection is not arranged according to some definite,
clearly indicated, scientifically systematic work).

Bt

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 19
DOCUMENT 1/12

By W. D. LANG, D.Sc.

(formerly of British Museum (Natural History), London) (Bridport, Dorset,
England)
Paper dated 13th June 1951

SOME COMMENTS ON THE CODE OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMEN-
CLATURE APPROVED BY THE INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS.

(1) The object of the Code is to get uniformity in Zoological Nomenclature,
and so to frame the rules that they can be applied in only one way, thus leaving
no loophole for a subjective interpretation.

This I hold to be impossible of attainment. However much the Code is
simplified, the whole subject (to judge from a life-time’s experience) is bound
to be so complicated and to leave so much to individual interpretation, that
anything like complete agreement among zoologists (apart from those who
are unwilling to submit to any rules imposed from without) must for ever
remain, in my opinion, only an ideal and an aim practically unattainable.

(2) If this is conceded, the only alternative to the present state of affairs
is to add dictatorial powers to the International Commission, that is, to convert
their present function of standardising certain names on regulated appeal,
to the duty of ultimately standardising all names. A zoologist could then
simply apply to the Commission for the standardised name of a given species.
I think that most zoologists would gladly accept such an innovation, which,
during their lives, would save them months, if not years, of time; and would
grieve only those who regard the authorship of a name, not as a matter of
general convenience, but as involving a moral right.

(3) Should such a change be made, I admit that the practical difficulties
might be great, but should not be great enough to condemn the proposal
without over-mastering reasons.

(a) First, it would greatly increase the work of Commission, and ways
and means would have to be found of increasing the staff. Since the proposal
benefits zoologists, it would be up to them to produce the means.

(6) In giving the Commission dictatorial powers, it is understood that in
deciding what is the proper name for a genus or species, the Commission would
be guided by the general principles inherent in the present Code.

(c) To decide upon the proper name of a species pre-supposes that the
author who originally gave the name applied it to one species only ; or that
where the original name covers more than one species, that either a type-
specimen was originally designated, or, if not, that a lectotype has since been
chosen, or, if the type-material has been lost, a neotype has been instituted.
On the other hand, this might not have been done, and in that case the Com-
mission itself should designate a lectotype or neotype. There would then be
no uncertainty about the type specimen, and therefore about the species to
which the standardised name is given. It would make the identity of a species
a matter of fact ; for whatever is, or is not, a given species, the type-specimen,

20 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

by definition, is that species; and whether or not any other specimen belongs
to that species, must remain a matter of opinion varying with the different
views of individual zoologists. The standardised name must be applied to the
type-specimen, also standardised, if necessary.

(d) As with the species, so with the genus. The Commission should
standardise all generic names with reference to the type-species (itself founded
upon the type-speciomen). More often than the specific type-specimen, has
the type-species not been designated, either originally or subsequently, and
in many cases has proved impossible of determination, except on debatable
grounds. A dictatorial ruling on the generic name to be used and the type-
species to be accepted would be a boon to zoologists, probably to a very large
majority.

DOCUMENT 1/13

By CH. FERRIERE
(Genéve, Switzerland)

Paper submitted through H. BOSCHMA (Leiden) under cover of a letter dated
9th August 1951

(This paper was presented to the Ninth International Congress of Entomology,
Amsterdam, August 1951)

LE FARDEAU DES VIEILLES ESPECES INCONNUES

Dans plusieurs groupes d’insectes il existe un grand nombre d’espéces
décrites par des auteurs anciens et qui sont restées depuis leur époque com-
plétement inconnues. Leurs descriptions incomplétes ne permettent pas de
les reconnaitre et les types n’ont plus été étudiés. Des exemples nombreux
de ces espéces qui encombrent les catalogues sont indiqués parmi les Hymén-
optéres Chalcidoidea, & l’occasion d’une étude monographique entreprise pour
les espéces d’Europe. Des centaines d’espéces décrites par Fabricius, Spinola,
Dalman, Fonscolombe, Walker, Westwood, Nees, Forster, Ratzeburg, et
d’autres, sont impossible & reconnaitre et sont le plus souvent placées dans
des genres auxquels elles n’appartiennent pas. Que faire de ces espéces, pour
la recherche et l’étude desquelles une vie humaine ne suffirait pas ?

Nous voudrions voir adopter par les systématiciens les propositions
suivantes :

1. Toute espéce qui a été décrite il y a plus de cent ans, n’a jamais été
retrouvée depuis lors et ne peut pas étre reconnue d’aprés sa description, ne
doit plus étre prise en considération.

2. Si le type est perdu, cette espéce doit étre rayée des catalogues et traités
comme si elle n’existait pas.

3. Si le type existe encore, il ne pourra étre rendu valide qu’aprés avoir
été redécrit dans le genre auquel il appartient vraiment. Le nom du premier
auteur est alors mis entre parenthese et le nom de l’auteur qui a fait la nouvelle
description est indiqué a la suite.

4. Dans le cas de la redescription, par un auteur récent, d’une espéce
restée inconnue et vieille de plus de cent ans, la question de la priorité en cas
de synonymie est a discuter,

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 21
DOCUMENT 1/14

By the late K. W. DAMMERMAN
(Rijksmuseum Van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands)

Paper submitted through Professor H. BOSCHMA (Leiden) under cover of a
letter dated 9th August 1951

(This paper was presented to the Ninth International Congress of Entomology,
Amsterdam, August 1951)

PROPOSALS CONCERNING THE NOMENCLATURE OF FAMILY
NAMES AND OF NAMES OF ECONOMICALLY IMPORTANT INSECTS

I. 1. To restrict the ever continuing changes of names and to arrive at
a greater stability in nomenclature, it is advisable to obtain as soon
as possible a fixation, in the first place of family names of insects and
of the names of the most important insects of economic interest (noxious
as well as beneficial species).

po

In this fixation the names that were in general use at the time of
the beginning of the Zoological Record (1864), and that generally were
in use till the introduction of the International Rules (1905), as far as
possible are to be stabilised. Moreover, it is very advisable that attention
should be paid to the nomina conservanda proposed by Apstein (1915.
Nomina conservanda ; Sitzb. Ges. naturf. Fr. 5 : 119) and by Handlirsch
(1915. In: Schréders Hand. d. Entomologie 3:79). (See also Dammer-
man, 1950, Continuity versus priority in Nomenclature, Tijdschr. v.
Entomologie 92 : 34.)

II. 1. To arrive at results within reasonable time, the following procedure
is-recommended :

During three years, starting with 1952, or as many more as will
appear necessary, an attempt shall be made to fix at least ten names
of families belonging to each of the following groups of insects : Hymen-
optera 10, Coleoptera 10, Lepidoptera 10, Diptera 10, Rhynchota 10,
Orthoptera, Thysanoptera, Mallophaga and Pediculina together 10,
other Orders of insects 10 ;

Moreover, at least ten names of economically important insects
belonging to each of the seven above-mentioned groups, and for each
of the six following geographical regions: Europe (or, as the case~
may be, the Palaearctic Region), Africa, the Oriental Region, Australia,
North America, and South America.

2. In the case of family names a beginning shall be made with the
names that were in common use about 1864,

22
Tih:
2.
TV:
Verne
2.
3.
4,

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

The present Congress is requested to appoint an international
committee for stimulation and co-ordination of the work referred to
in paragraph I above. This committee shall solicit co-operators or
organisations to assist in this task. Individual investigators willing
to co-operate shall be free to apply to the committee.

Co-operators shall observe the following rules :

a. If an economically important insect is at the same time the
type species of a genus from which a well-known family name is derived,
the reviser of this family name shall communicate directly or through
the above-named committee with the person who is charged with the
fixation of the name of the insect concerned, in order to arrive as soon
as possible at a unanimous proposal.

b. The same procedure shall be followed in the case of an insect
which is of great economic importance in more than one of the main
geographical regions.

Any entomologist or zoologist who detects a new name which on
the basis of priority would involve a change of a well-known family
name or of the name of an insect of economic importance, shall abstain
from introducing that name, and shall immediately communicate with
the committee referred to above. This committee shall send the
proposal for further consideration to the co-operator concerned.

Every year the names dealt with by the co-operators shall be
published, if possible after having obtained concurrence of the majority
of an existing national committee on nomenclature or of an existing
national organisation of entomology.

The present Congress will be requested to obtain permission for
publication of the proposals mentioned above in the English language
in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature.

Moreover by announcement in the above named Bulletin or in
whatever journal the present proposal is first published all other journals
suitable for the purpose shall be requested at least to publish the
proposed names, with a reference to the number of the Bulletin or to
the other publication concerned.

One year after publication of the proposals, when the opportunity
for discussion may be deemed to have been sufficient, the above-
mentioned committee shall take a decision concerning the proposed
names. All names having obtained the concurrence of at least two-
thirds of the members of the committee shall be published at once,
and zoologists will be requested to use in future these names, whilst
the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature will be
requested to place these names as soon as possible on the Official List.

Names that have not obtained a majority of two-thirds of the
votes of the members of the committee, shall not immediately be
rejected, but shall remain under suspension during one year. The
committee shall then again consider these names. These names shall
be rejected only when the committee can recommend alternative names
to be used as the valid names in their place.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 23

DOCUMENT 1/15

Proposal by RUDOLF RICHTER
(Senckenbeigische Naturforschende Gesellschaft, Frankfurt-a-Main, Germany)

The proposal dated 18th October 1951 submitted by RUDOLF

RICHTER (Frankfurt a.M.) that all names placed upon the

“ Official List ” should be validated under the Plenary Powers
(1952, “ Bull. zool. Nomencl.” 6 : 184-185)

In the above paper Professor Richter advocated the adoption of measures
to promote stability in zoological (and palaeontological) nomenclature and
suggested that all names accepted in the forthcoming international Treatise
on Invertebrate Paleontology should be placed on the Official List. The specific
proposal submitted by Professor Richter was the following :—

Alle Namen, die auf die Offizielle Liste gesetzt worden sind, sollen
als endgiiltig geschiitzt gelten, unter Suspension der Regeln.

DOCUMENT 1/16

By D. SHENEFELT and J. T. MEDLER
(Department of Entomology, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin,
U.S.A.)

Paper submitted by the senior author under cover of a letter dated
9th November 1951

(This paper was published in Science on 10th August 1951)

SHOULD A “LAW OF RECENCY” BE ADDED TO THE
INTERNATIONAL CODE OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE ?

Proposal, counterproposal, and debate on zoological nomenclature have
been presented in numerous zoological periodicals during recent years. Basically
analysed, the literature appears to represent a clash of opinion between two
groups: those who feel that it is desirable to follow strictly Article 25 (the
law of priority) and limit the commission’s use of plenary powers, and those
who advocate more extensive use of the plenary powers by the commission,
with less strict application of Article 25.

Individuals in both groups admit that, at present, the procedures used are.
confusing and unwieldy. Each side concedes that there is some merit in the
other’s case. It is not the intention of the writers to enter into this debate ;
opinions of the two schools are perhaps irreconcilable in this generation.

The writers do feel, however, that constructive thought should be given
by all zoologists to ways of preventing similar confusion in the future, especially
by eliminating the words, too frequently found in the Opinions and the
proposals in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, that such and such action
“would clearly result in more confusion than uniformity.” The debates
being waged in all zoological literature about the status of names clearly
indicate that confusion is not entirely a matter of the future, but a real concern
of the present.

24 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

An examination of the sources from which this confusion has arisen reveals -
that the important ones are :

(1) Lack of knowledge of the existence of a publication ;
(2) Lack of knowledge of the exact date of publication ;

(3) The “ dragging-out”’ of questions by different schools of thought
arising from differences in interpretation of the Code and its applications ;

(4) Deliberate refusal to give up a name once it has been learned—i.e.,
deliberate failure to apply the law of priority and maintaining that its appli-
cation will create “‘ confusion.”

Perhaps errors made in the past can be corrected only by rulings such
as those being made by the commission under its plenary powers. But what
about the future? Is the commission to continue to use its plenary powers
indefinitely (or be forced to do so by allowing the same causes of confusion
to continue to exist) ? Is the commission to rule on its rulings as it apparently
must do with the Meigen 1800 paper 2?

It is evident that something is wrong when the commission has to use its
plenary powers so often. There is a need for practical working procedure
in nomenclature to avoid multiple use of names, especially at generic and
suprageneric levels. The writers believe that if stability 1 is ever to be obtained
in the use of scientific names a “‘ law of recency ’’ must be added to complement
the law of priority. Once a name is rejected it should not be used again as a
valid name unless there are definite reasons for so doing and they are given
in publication. The proposed “law of recency’ might be stated as follows :

The names used in the most recently published article dealing with the
taxonomy or nomenclature of a group or species shall be regarded as authori-
tative until further publication 1s made reorganising or otherwise disposing
of the names involved and giving the reasons why the changes are made.

The need for such a law can be amply demonstrated. For instance, in 1915
Gahan? definitely synonymized many generic names with Opius Wesmael. In
1943 Hincks® wrote :—

Bracon carbonarius Nees, 1834, is designated as the genotype of Opius
by Westwood (1840). This species is also the type of the monobasic genus
Biosteres Foerster, 1862. For the present it will be better to transfer the
whole of the species now grouped under Biosteres to the genus Opius until

_ such time as an examination of the species leads to a regrouping. There
are rather a large number of generic names available in this section, but it is
evident that Gahan (1915) regards the divisions as of little generic value.

While Mr. Hincks’ action appears to be correct, it illustrates the necessity
of the proposed “ law of recency,” which would compel the transfer of the names
in Biosteres to Opius and the acceptance of the synonymy given by Gahan until
such time as the group was revised and the reasons published for changing the
system used by Gahan.

The confusion that has existed with regard to Bracon Fabricius, Cremnops
Foerster, and Microbracon Ashmead also illustrates the case in point. In 1917
Gahan‘ transferred the name Bracon to replace Cremnops. This name change
was accepted in North America but rejected in Europe. Finally, in 1935, the

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 25

question was decided by the International Commission, but the results were
not published until 1943.

Although illustrations have been drawn from the family Braconidae,
numerous other examples could be given—e.g., Agrion versus Calopteryx.®
Undoubtedly any taxonomist can readily cite similar cases in his particular
field of interest.

At the present time, refusal to accept published synonymy is responsible for
differences in accepted nomenclature between different groups or individuals.
Such refusal and the resulting difference in accepted names mean that the
cataloguer must constantly change species from one generic name to another and
back as new articles appear—or carry the synonymy where he wishes, using
his own interpretation in order to place the species in the “ proper ”’ place in his
catalogue. The other alternative is to carry the species under several genera
at the same time. In either case the situation produces much confusion and
additional labour rather than stability.

Where does this leave the cataloguer ? In the first illustration mentioned,
is Gahan’s synonymy to be accepted? Or are we free to ignore all but the
original descriptions? Should the individual have the right to be “ con-
servative,”’ reject the published work of others (perhaps by merely ignoring it
or dismissing it by stating that it is incorrect) and continue to use names that
have been synonymized by others? For example, is Whiting’s continued use
of Habrobracon juglandis (Ashm.) valid ?

The writers believe that the adoption of such a “ law of recency ”’ would
aid in lessening the confusion created by sources (3) and (4), since points of
disagreement would be brought to the fore where they could be acted upon by
the International Commission when necessary, resulting in a much more rapid
stabilization of names than occurs under the present system.

Incidentally, the lone expression “in the opinion of the writer’ does not
convey the extent of similarity or difference existing between organisms and
perhaps should not be regarded as a valid reason for changing the established
status ofa name. The same objections may be raised against “‘ new synonymy ”
or “new combination” when used without descriptions of similarities or
differences.

To eliminate sources (1) and (2) it is suggested that names and their changes
be considered as fully validated only after appearing in the Zoological Record,
that for validation purposes the author be required to send a copy or facsimile
reproduction of his publication to this source, giving the date on which the
article in question was distributed (i.e., “ published ’’), and that this date be
included after the reference in the Zoological Record under the “‘ Titles.”

Such a procedure would eliminate the question of the date of publication
Serving as a source of future trouble. That the publication date is still a source
of confusion is illustrated by the fact that Sabrosky® found it necessary to
publish a note regarding the date of “ publication ” of an article distributed as
late as 1948.

It also appears desirable to provide for continuing international support
(perhaps through Unesco or some similar means) for the Zoological Record

26 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

and to ensure sufficient funds so that an adequate staff may be maintained to
produce a new volume within the year following that with which the volume
deals.

It would be the authors’ suggestion that the plenary powers of the Inter-
national Commission be terminated at the point where the names and dates
are first validated in the Zoological Record, i.e., that the plenary powers should
not extend to names to be published in the future and that a date be set at which
the application of the law of priority becomes rigid.

Since it is only through stabilization of the International Code and the
procedures to be followed that nomenclature can be placed on a sound basis, the
suggestions given are presented as a constructive criticism rather than from
any derogatory motives. The authors would welcome both private com-
munications and published discussions of the ideas herein submitted.

References

1 Hemming, F. Bull. zool. Nomenclature, 1 (7), 119 (1945).

2 Gahan, A. B. Proc. U.S. Natl. Museum, 49 (2095), 65 (1915).

3 Hincks, W. D. Entomologist, 76, 223 (1943).

4 Gahan, A. B. Proc. U.S. Natl. Museum, 53 (2197), 196 (1917).

5 Schmidt, E. Entomol. News, 49 (8), 197 (1948) ; Longfield, C., et al. 50 (6), 145 (1949).
§ Sabrosky, C. W. Proc. Entomol. Soc. Wash., 52 (6), 315 (1950).

DOCUMENT 1/17

By RICHARD MEINERTZHAGEN, D.S8.0.
(London)

Need for Power to fix Type Localities

Extract from an application to the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature received on 21st November 1951, relating to the type locality
to be accepted for the Ostrich (Meinertzhagen, 1952, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 9: 97).

4. It is a serious weakness in the Regles that they contain no
provision for regulating the selection of type localities thus for pre-
venting confusion of the kind described above from arising. It is
very much to be hoped that this omission will be repaired by the
Copenhagen Congress in 1953, when it resumes the discussions begun
in Paris in 1948 for securing greater stability in zoological nomen-
clature. In the meantime effective action can be taken only by the
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature and it is
for this reason that I am submitting the present application.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 27
DOCUMENT 1/18

Document communicated by HOBART M. SMITH
(University of Illinois, Department of Zoology, Urbana, Illinois, U.S.A.)

Enclosure to a letter dated 29th January 1952

Editorial Note: The paper communicated by Professor Hobart M. Smith
which appears below is a paper written by himself jointly with Dr. Richard
KE. Blackwelder and Dr. J. Brookes Knight, which was published in Science
111 (No. 2881) : 289-290 on 17th March 1950.

Categories of Availability and Validity of Zoological Names

Recent publication by one of us (Smith, H. M., Science, 1947, 106, 11) of a
note on the use of the expressions valid and available in describing the status of
scientific names prompted the other two to write him that experience in other
groups of animals might modify the conclusions that he had reached. Com-
parison of usage in our three widely separated fields (herpetology, entomology,
and paleontology) has led to substantial agreement on a set of terms and defini-
tions different from those previously held by any of us. It is thought that these
conclusions may be of interest to others, for the categories involved are not
clearly understood by all taxonomists, and the terminology is often confused
in practice. Particularly confusing are the uses of valid or validly by different
writers for several of the categories.

Zoological names appear to fall into four categories in respect to their nomen-
clatural status. (1) All names that have appeared in print (in the broadest
sense) must be considered for possible acceptance into scientific nomenclature.
(2) Printed names that meet all the publication requirements of the International
Rules of Zoological Nomenclature are automatically accepted into nomenclature.
(3) Names published in full accord with the Rules are nomenclaturally accept-
able if they are not pre-occupied by another name of the same spelling. (4)
From among the nomenclaturally acceptable names, there is only one which,
because it is the oldest or has been judicially accepted, can be properly used
to the exclusion of all others under a given set of circumstances.

The first of these categories generally has not been given a name, although
printed, published, and occupied have all been used. We believe that printed
is not sufficiently descriptive since a printed label should be excluded, and
occupied implies “‘ in nomenclature ”’ and so is more appropriate in the second
category. Published appears to be logically applicable to all names that have
appeared in print (in the broadest sense). Most published names are accepted
into nomenclature, but some fail to meet requirements of the Rules and are
disregarded in nomenclature ; examples are vernacular names, names without
referrants (nomina nuda), and names printed in mediums not qualifying as
scientific publications.

Names in the second category have generally been cited as published, but
available has also been used. In the customary sense, however, not all these
names are available for use, since some are junior homonyms ; and to be
exact in this usage, published must be modified by “ under the Rules.” The
term occupied may be applied appropriately to those published names that do

28 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

meet the requirements of the Rules as to publication. Occwpied names include
all named published according to the technical requirements of the Rules—all
names that are accepted into zoological nomenclature, such as valid names,
synonyms, homonyms, and nomina inquirendae.

The word occupied in this sense has an unfamiliar ring and may at first
glance seem inappropriate. However, if one imagines that there is theoretically
a niche for each possible combination of letters that could form a name under
the Rules, and that when a name is published it would occupy its particular
niche, the concept of occupation becomes clearer. Note also that the common
use of the familiar term preoccupied makes it easier to understand the corres-
ponding term occupied.

In the third category names have been described as valid or available. They
are available for use, but they are not valid in the more common sense of that
word, as being the one acceptable name. The numerous ways of using valid
make it unsuitable for a sharply defined concept. We may then apply the
term available to all names that were published in accordance with the require-
ments of the Rules (legally published) and which have not been so published
previously for some other genus of animal or for some other species of the same
genus. If any of them has been so published previously, the later name is said
to be preoccupied and is called a homonym, or more significantly, a junior
homonym, and is not available. Thus all names are available which are now
properly in use or which may at any future time be properly used.

Finally the one name under which the species or genus is to be known has
also been called the valid or available name. Available seems more appropriate
in the third category, and valid has the disadvantage of being commonly used
with several meanings. We suggest that the simple and self-expressive term
correct be applied in a technical sense to the oldest available name for a genus
or for a species within a genus. If the oldest available name has been set aside
by the International Commission using its plenary powers, then the next oldest
name or the one designated by the commission is the correct name.

The categories may then be defined and named as follows, according to
these conclusions: Any name that is printed and circulated is published ; any
published name that meets the publication requirements of the Rules is occupied in
zoological nomenclature (if it fails to meet the requirements it is an outlaw
name, i.e., unpublished, illegally published, or a nomen nudum) ; any occupied
name that is not preoccupied by an older name of the same spelling is available
(if it is preoccupied it is a junior homonym and is not available) ; the oldest
available name is the correct name, unless it has been specifically set aside by the
Commission under the plenary powers. (The correct name will, of course, vary
with changes in our knowledge of subjective synonymy or discovery of unknown
facts in the history of the names, such as homonymy and objective synonymy.
An available name whose genus cannot be identified is a nomen dubium.)

RICHARD E. BLACK WELDER,
U.S. National Museum, J. BROOKES KNIGHT, and
Washington, D.C. HOBART M. SMITH

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 29
DOCUMENT 1/19

By PER BRINCK
(Lunds Universitets Zoologiska Institution, Lund, Sweden)
Letter dated 18th February 1952

On Type Localities and Allied Problems

Since a citation of a locality or a host does not constitute an indication,
I cannot see that a correction of a wrong citation is a nomenclatorial matter
per se. But of course it would be desirable to have a recommendation (or
other arrangement) included in the Reégles and as to the type localities it would
be preferable to have the restriction effected by means of an Article similar
to Article 30.

If a type is preserved a restriction (or correction) must be performed in
accordance with what is known about the occurrence or life history of the
nominal species as substantiated by the type. If the species is split up into
subspecies, the typical race must be restricted according to the type. Well, this
" is quite clear. But what to do when there is no type left, that’s the problem.
Let us assume that a Spanish scientist makes a revision of a widespread Euro-
pean butterfly, named by Linnaeus. He found it worth while to distinguish a
lot of races, named as subspecies by him. No Linnaean type is left and the
locality is given as “‘ Habitat in Europa.” So far as I can see he can select
as the typical race what he wants—even an isolated population in the Central
Spanish mountains—in spite of the fact that it is quite impossible that Lin-
naeus had specimens from there when describing his species. Therefore, it
would be desirable to have the restriction made so that it agrees with what the
original author might have meant when describing his species. But this is not
always so easy to fix and I suppose some trouble would arise from such restric-
tions. In the case of parasitic species a restriction (or a correction) ought to be
performed in the same way, i.e. the revising scientist should choose a type
host (etc.) which could have been given by the original author. A Mallophagan
described by Nietzsche from Corvus corone but later found to be a typical
parasite of herons, should have the type host corrected to a common European
heron (as common and widespread as possible) and not to (for inst.) the South
African Goliath Heron. If no host species was given in the original description,
a similar recommendation to select the most common and widespread species
in the country from which the author had his material (if known or presumed
with some certainty) would be useful. For Denny, England. For Nietzsche,
Germany. For Linnaeus, Sweden, etc.

30 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

DOCUMENT 1/20

By E. BERIO
(Museo Civico di Storia Naturali “‘ Giacomo Doria,” Genoa, Italy)

Enclosure to a letter dated 3rd March 1952
THE RULE OF PRIORITY IN ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

According to Mr. Dammerman, who has criticized the so-called Law of
Priority in Tijdskr. Ent. 92:34 (1949), after 50 years the hopes of reaching
stability through the promulgation of the International Rules for Zoological
Nomenclature have been disappointed, to the great distress of non-systematists
who never know the proper name to apply to a given animal and the reason
for this failure lies primarily in the retroactivity of the Law of Priority which,
though introduced in 1905, operates retrospectively back to 1758, although
authors prior to 1905 applied it only with reference to the most well-known
works.

In the light of this view, it would be necessary to abolish such retroactivity,
by starting the validity of the aforesaid Law of Priority from 1905 and by
adopting, for the period prior to that year, the principle of continuity and
prescription proposed by other people too. ;

Accepting Dammerman’s proposal would lead to the adoption of the follow-
ing principles :

(1) the Law of Priority must apply only to names subsequent to 1905
(2) names in general use between 1864 and 1905 are not to be replaced.

These are :

(a) firstly, names used in monographs or catalogues published
between 1864 and 1905, which should be fixed by inter-
national agreement ;

(b) secondly, names in general use during the period above, this
condition to be ascertained by an international commission.

(3) in doubtful cases, the Commission’s opinion to be sought.

A list of catalogues and monographs (together with further details and
instances) is given by Dammerman, whose premises, conclusions and proposals
require careful examination.

I

Instability of nomenclature is not too serious an evil and its elfects must
not be exaggerated. Seeing an animal called by several different names may
be vexatious and involve researches: no damage arises, however, so long as
correct identification is possible.

One must recognise that even a not officially correct name fulfills its task
perfectly, so long as there is no doubt what is meant ; non-observance of the
International Rules calls for sanctions, but cannot prevent a name from
designating an entity when its content is clear.

Thus, non-systematists need never trouble themselves about changes in
designation, for they can use what names they like for designating the entities

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 31

they are dealing with, provided the name is clear, even if not orthodox or
unobjectionable in relation to the International Rules for Nomenclature.

But systematists also are often perplexed at finding a well-known entity
called by a name never seen previously, whether a re-exhumed name or a
newly created one. In practice, when an author is compelled to change the
status of a well-known denomination, he generally gives the synonymy for a
certain time. Thus systematists keep up-to-date and non-systematists, after
all, have but to do the same.

As will be seen later, there is one cause of nomenclatorial instability which
does not depend upon strictly nomenclatorial conventions, but is due to
systematic exigencies. Not even non-systematists can avoid these needs,
although they often show a tendency to consider systematics as a quite sub-
sidiary and negligible science and confound its field with that of true nomen-
clature which really is, on the contrary, a “ handmaid of taxonomy.”

Ep

But is the retroactivity of the Law of Priority really the main reason for
continuous changes in denominations and names (1) ?

Generally speaking, changes of designation (2) take place in the following
cases :—

I. Ascertainment of a change in the validity of a name

A name thought valid (3) may come to be thought invalid, and vice versa,
owing to :—
(A) Information about the bionomiality of the work in which it was
published ;
(B) Information about its synonymy ;
(C) Information about the date of its publication prior to or subsequent
to 1758. ,

II. Ascertainment of a different status of employment (4)
(A) Ascertainment of the date, within the limits of the period subsequent
to 1758, of the book in which a given name was published.
(B) Ascertainment of a content different from that commonly understood
(5).
III. Rejection of a name
(A) Ascertainment of primary homonymy (6).

(a) On ascertaining that two generic names are identical, the more
recent one must be discarded.

(6) On ascertaining that two original specific denominations are
identical in their components, the more recent specific name
must be discarded.

(B) Ascertainment of primary synonymy (7).

(a) On ascertaining that two generic denominations have the same —
type-species (8), one must be discarded. This happens when,
by using the Code’s Rules to fix the type-species, more than
one reviser is found who has chosen a given species as the
type-species for different genera, or because the species fixed

32 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

as type is found not to be the one which the quoted references
imply.

(6) On ascertaining that two specific names have been erected for
the same entity, one must be discarded (9).

(C) Formation of secondary homonymy by transfer.

When a species is transferred to a genus including another species which
possesses an identical specific name, two identical names occur, and one of
the two names must be discarded as long as the two species are regarded as
congeneric.

(D) Formation of secondary synonymy by transfer.

(a) When two species, each being the type-species of a generic
denomination, are thought to be congeneric, one of the two
generic names must be discarded, so long as the two species
are regarded as congeneric.

(b) When two forms possessing different names are thought to be
conspecific or identical, one of the names must be discarded
for use as a component of the specific denomination (10).

IV. Rehabilitation of names

(A) Rehabilitation of a reputed primary synonym.

When it is ascertained that two genera possessing different names
which had previously been regarded as primary synonyms, possess
different type-species (see causes at item III, B, a), the later-published
of these names is exhumed.

(B) Rehabilitation of a reputed secondary homonym.

When a species possessing a name which had previously been
discarded on the ground of secondary homonymy, is removed from
the genus, in which the secondary homonymy had occurred, the name
which had been discarded is exhumed.* A similar situation arises
when a species possessing a name, which led to the discarding, as a
secondary homonym, of the name of another species in the genus is
itself removed to another genus. ;

(C) Rehabilitation of a reputed secondary synonym.

(a) When a species which is the type species of a genus which has
been rejected as a synonym of the name of another genus is
removed to another genus, the name of the genus of which
that species is the type-species is exhumed.

(6) When it is ascertained that two entities previously regarded as
belonging to a single species belong to different species, the
later-published of the two names—which had previously been
discarded—is exhumed.

(D) Rehabilitation by reference to priority.
When a case of secondary homonymy arises, the oldest valid

* Note by Editor: Under a decision taken in Paris by the XIIIth International Congress of Zoology,
a trivial name once rejected on grounds of secondary homonymy and replaced can never again be
used for the same species, (See 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 121-124.)

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 33

synonym of the name rejected on account of secondary homonymy is
exhumed.

V. Creation of names

(A) Renaming. In the absence of a valid synonym, it is necessary, on the
case of secondary homonymy arising, to erect a new name in re-
placement of the name then discarded.

(B) Separation of two entities previously confused with one another.
When an entity formerly regarded as conspecific with another entity
is found to be distinct, a new name must be erected for that species,
provided that there is no valid existing specific name available for
application to it. A similar situation arises when two genera formerly
regarded as identical are found to be distinct, i.e., when the respective
type-species of those genera are found not to be congeneric with one
another.

VI. Composition of the denomination of a species
When a species is transferred to a genus in which it has never previously
been placed, a new denomination for that species comes into existence,
through the combination of the specific name of that species with the name
of the genus to which it is transferred.

On examining the causes specified above, we at once observe that Nos.
I (A, B, C), IZ (A, B), IZ (A, B) and IV represent changes of names which
are due solely to nomenclatorial reasons, while in all the remaining cases the
changes specified arise from necessities of a systematic nature.

We thus see that nomenclatorial instability may arise from two quite
different causes, the one destined in time to cease, the other unavoidable,
quite apart from the Law of Priority.

A first cause of instability is that specialists are still in the phase of research
as to the priority of names, and they will continue to be so for a long time to
come.

There are, for example, publications the date of which has not been
established as yet, diagnosis or figures which have not been identified exactly,
and works which have not been considered carefully, owing to their extreme
rarity.

But these reasons of uncertainty are destined to cease sooner or later.
When all the old names have been placed correctly both as regards date of
publication and content, there will no longer be strictly nomenclatorial or
formal causes for changes. Duplicate names will be known and such obstacles
at last be over.

The highest stability will be reached in this direction by discarding defini-
tively primary homonyms and synonyms, by ascertaining in the same way
the validity, employment and content of names (by fixing without further
uncertainties the type-species for generic names, and the type-specimen for
names of species).

Against all the arguments about the time necessary to reach such stability
must be set the knowledge that enforcing the Law of Priority in its official

Cc

34 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

manner must lead inexorably to such stability for, after all, the unique valid
oldest name exists, and it only remains to find it.

A second and more important cause of instability in denominations and
names arises from the connection of nomenclature with systematics.

Among the main principles of nomenclature there is one (see item VJ
above), arising from Linnaeus, which constitutes his particular innovation and
colours the whole modern nomenclatorial conception, that is, that the biominal
name applied to an entity must reveal the hierarchic systematic conception
of the Author at that moment.

From this standpoint, nomenclatorial instability, as exemplified in cases
III (C, D); IV (B,C, D); V and VJ, is linked unavoidably to the flexibility
of the system, being subject to continuous improvement and complication,
and to differences of Authors’ and Specialists’ points of view.

The Law of Priority only affects such cause of instability as a last and
logical consequence, for the changes of systematic position involve a change
of denominations which, in its turn, leads to changes due to adaptation.

But this instability is fatal and incurable, for it is inevitable that both
the system and systematics should evolve continuously and that no nomen-
clatorial rule can prevent instability from these causes, so long as the rule of
formal interdependence between names remains in force.

Ill

The method of continuity and prescription which some people advocated
even before the adoption of the present International Code and which Mr.
Dammerman has now put forward with definite suggestions for its application
could release nomenclature neither from the instability arising from the
connection between nomenclature and systematics nor from instability arising
from laborious research into the availability and use of names. Indeed, if
such a method were now to be adopted after fifty years of the enforcement
of the Rule of Priority, its adoption would undoubtedly add to the existing
confusion.

Furthermore, as we could not in any circumstances cease to take notice
of primary and secondary homonymy, the discovery of homonymies between
the names used in catalogues, monographs and those used in other works
would involve research of the same kind.as that required under the Rule of
Priority. But the task would be more complicated, for, in addition, there
would be the difficulty of establishing whether authors who—acting logically
—did not enforce a law of continuity when citing particular names, had intended
to refer to the same entities as those to which those names were applied in
the catalogue or monograph which had been adopted as the standard for the
purpose of determining continuity or whether that they had applied those
names to other species, considering that previously they had been misapplied
by reason of erroneous identifications of the entities concerned.

In particular, the method of prescription could do nothing to prevent
instability arising from changes in the system and in systematics of the kind
referred to at the end of the preceding section. For, like the Rule of Priority,
the principle of continuity and prescription leads exclusively to the selection
of names which are used only as single elements in the compound denominations

Cc*

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 35

used as the systematic names of species. The importance of this consideration
becomes evident when it is recalled that systematic categories are subject to
constant change and even at any one moment vary from one author to another.
On this subject, however, it might be possible (as will be seen later) to obtain
nomenclatorial stability, notwithstanding the instability of the system, if it
were to be decided to keep the two elements separate from one another.

Turning back to the group of modifications in nomenclature which are
independent of systematics, it will be noted that, among the many cases cited
in Section II of the present paper, differences in the interpretation of the
content of a name represent by far the commonest occurrence. That this
should be so brings out clearly that the application of the principle of continuity
would lead to exactly the same uncertainties as those arising under the Rule
of Priority. The identification of primary homonyms and synonyms is
relatively easy, either by research into the literature or by reference to such
registers as Sherborn’s Index Animalium, which are of great value for this
purpose. But the chief cause of discordancy in the use of names arises from
differences in their interpretation, for a novel interpretation may lead to a
change of synonymies—often extensive in character, owing to the interdepen-
dence between entities and names. That this is so is well known to systematists,
for everybody is aware that such inter-linking is the commonest reason for
the changing of names.

In cases of this kind what assistance would be provided by the adoption
of the method of continuity ? Evidently none, because either the interpretation
of the catalogues and monographs accepted as the reference standard would
involve uncertainties similar to those involved in the interpretation of the
old names, or their interpretation would depend upon the sources cited in
these works, in which case the situation would be the same as it is today.

Catalogues and monographs generally give, for purposes of identification,
both bibliographical references and synonymies. This, for example, is done
in the Staudinger-Rebel Catalogue of 1901 which Dammerman advocates
should be taken as the starting point in the case of the Lepidoptera. But
catalogues do not indicate under each specific name the fixation made for
the type specimen of the species in question, and it would still be necessary,
therefore, to go back to the diagnoses given by the original authors or to the
type specimens, just as it is at present. Thus, no change in this matter would
result from the adoption of the principle of continuity and prescription.

IV

The selection of monographs and catalogues as standards of reference for
the purpose of applying the principle of continuity would thus not only involve
injustices but would also give rise to uncertainties. In addition, difficulties
would arise in ascertaining the so-called “ general use” of a name during a
certain period of time.

Finality and stability in such a matter could be reached only by rejecting
all indeterminate concepts. The expression “ general use” leaves room for
a number of different shades of opinion and is thus open to objection. If
applied in the most rigorous sense, this expression would require that within
the specified period no author should have used another name to denominate

36 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

a given entity. The research involved in determining whether this condition
was satisfied would give rise to a conflict between various possible interpre-
tations of the content of a given denomination according to differences in the
views held by individual authors, though, in practice, difficulties of this type
might prove to be relatively infrequent.

The concept of duration in relation to the principle of prescription would
also give rise to disputes in regard to continuity or discontinuity of usage in
particular cases. This would be especially liable to happen in the case of
names of species in those groups which, being less known, arouse no interest
over long periods and possess only a scanty literature.

Finally, it would be impossible ever to lay on one side those works which
are still models of perfection and a source of wonder. It would not be prac-
ticable to fix for all time an equivalence between the “ official names ” and the
oldest names for given entities by means of a sort of synonymy between the
two, for causes of uncertainty could not be abolished in this way.

To sum up, it appears that uncertainties in nomenclature arising from
research into the question of the names which are employable under the Rule
of Priority back to 1758—a class of investigation still in process of development
—would be greatly increased by substituting some other rule in its place,
especially a rule which would abolish the so-called retroactivity to 1758 which
during the last fifty years has provided the basis for a definitive and concrete
fixation of employable names. A change of direction at the present time
would subvert recent monographs which represent the nearest approach to
stability that is attainable in our present state of knowledge.

The present criticism of Mr. Dammerman’s proposals gives me an oppor-
tunity, in my turn, to advance a proposition which has long kept me busy
on the problem of zoological nomenclature and which, if adopted, would tend
to remove one of the many elements of uncertainty in the zoological nomen-
clature of today. As will be seen later, this proposition provides some fixity
for the names of species as against the constant changes necessitated by the
requirements of systematics. It has, moreover, the merit of being, in practice,
quite a simple remedy. As I have already pointed out, a complete freeing
of nomenclature from systematics would provide the ideal means for stabilising
nomenclature, for in the main names are changed for reasons of a systematic
nature.

After ascertaining that, to take a particular example, the first name given
to a particular species was ‘‘ Noctua chrysitis,’ that name having been so
given by Linnaeus, there could be no uncertainty if everyone were to cite
that species only under the name “ Noctua chrysitis,’ and, if subsequent
changes in the systematic position assigned to that species were to be indicated
without abolishing the original binominal denomination of “‘ Noctua chrysitis.”
In other words, the binominal name “‘ Noctua chrysitis’ (which merely means
the species chrysitis described by its original author—Linnaeus—as belonging
to the genus Noctua) would be given a mere binominal of identification, if
views were to change regarding the systematic position of the species so named.
Thus, if, for example, the foregoing species were, on systematic grounds, to
be transferred to (say) the genus Plusia, all that would be needed would be a

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 37

means for indicating briefly that “ the species originally named Noctua chrysitis
by Linnaeus belongs to the genus Plusia.”” What is required is a unique formula,
as short as possible. For this purpose, the two formulae (the nomenclatorial
and the systematic) would need to be brought together. This could be done
in any of the following ways :—

. Plusia chrysitis Noctua Linn.

. Plusia chrysitis (Noctua) Linn.
. Plusia chrysitis (Noctua Linn.)
. Plusia (chrysitis Noctua) Linn.
. Plusia (chrysitis Noctua Linn.)
Plusia chrysitis Linn. Noctua

. Plusia chrysitis Linn. (Noctua)
. Plusia chrysitis (Linn.) Noctua
. Plusia chrysitis (Linn. Noctua)
10. Plusia (chrysitis Linn.) Noctua
11. Plusia (chrysitis Linn. Noctua)
12. Plusia Noctua chrysitis Linn.

13. Plusia Noctua chrysitis (Linn.)
14. Plusia (Noctua) chrysitis Linn.
15. Plusia Noctua (chrysitis Linn.)
16. Plusia (Noctua chrysitis) Linn.
17. Plusia (Noctua chrysitis Linn.)

COI D OUP 09 DO

The relative merits of the alternative positions 1-5, 6-11, and 12-17 and
those of bracketing one or more terms depend upon the extent to which these
methods bring into prominence the distinction between the systematic formula
and the nomenclatorial formula. When an author’s name applies both to the
specific name and to the generic name, it may be useful for it to be placed
after those names. Moreover, under the Code, where two generic names are
cited in a given specific name, the second such name indicates the subgenus
to which the species is referred ; accordingly, it may be appropriate for the
original generic name to follow the specific name, rather than the systematic
generic name. Since the most important element in the formula is the indication
so given of the systematic position of the species and since there can be no
doubt that the first term must be that of the systematic genus, it is evident
that the best order to be given to the various terms is one or other of those
comprised in the group 1-5.

It seems necessary to adopt bracketing to separate the two parts of the
proposed formula. Moreover, the Code states that the name of the author
of a specific name should be placed in brackets, when that species is transferred
from the genus in which it was originally described to some other genus.
Accordingly, a formula should be chosen in which the author’s name is placed
in brackets.

There remains therefore a choice between Formula 3 and Formula 5. Of
these, there can be no doubt that Formula 3 is the better, for it brings into
evidence the systematic formula at the most important point and in the most
unitary manner, while at the same time making possible the addition of other
indications recommended by the Code.

If Formula 3 were to be adopted, the position as regards (say) the species

38 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

described by Hiibner in 1805 as Noctua puta and later transferred to the genus
Agrotis Ochsenheimer, 1816, would be cited as :—

Agrotis puta (Noctua Hiibner, 1805) Ochsenheimer, 1816.

By this notation, which is quite simple, nomenclature would be redeemed
from systematics to some extent, for it would be possible to vary the generic
name to any extent and as often as might be required on systematic grounds,
but the second part of the formula would not be subject to change and would
thus provide for securing the identification of the entity cited. The following
are additional examples of the way in which the formula would operate. There
are cases where the extended form shown in the second of these examples is
really necessary.

(1) Euwoa puta (Noctua Hiibner, 1805) Warren, 1909
(2) Euxoa (Agrotis) puta (Noctua Hiibner, 1805) Dufrane, 1932.

This method of notation would be particularly useful where the same
name is given to a number of non-congeneric species in the same work, as was
often done, for example, by Bethune-Baker who published the following
names in this way: Lasvosceles pratti: Epa pratti: Zethes pratti: Targalla
pratti: Tibiocillaria pratti: Ingura pratti: Carea pratti: Sphingiforma
pratti : Risoba pratti : Zagira pratti. Under the present method of notation,
a state of complete uncertainty would arise if at any time any of these species
was to be transferred from the genus in which it was described to some other
genus, for it would be impossible to determine which was the species cited.
For example, the notation ‘“‘ Agrotis pratti (Bethune-Baker) ” could apply to
any of the entities cited above.

It is to be noted that by the formula now suggested it would be possible
to eliminate all cases of secondary homonymy, for in such a case, the nomen-
clatorial portion of the formula would differ in the two cases, although the
systematic portion would be identical, as may be seen from the following
example, in which for two species originally named Phalaena nana and Noctua
nana respectively but both later transferred to the genus Harmodia, the formula
for the first would be ‘‘ Harmodia nana (Phalaena Hiifnagel) ” and “ Harmodia
nana (Noctua Rottemburg) ” respectively.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 39

EXPLANATORY NOTES ON TERMS USED IN SECTION II

(1) I use the expression “name” to distinguish a unique term consisting
of a single word, in contrast to the expression “ denomination ’’ which I use
for a group of words applied to a systematic entity. The expression “ species’
denomination ” is used to denote the phrase consisting of the generic name
and specific name of a species; the expression “ genus’ denomination ”’ is
used to denote a generic name.

(2) I use the expression “designation”? for any indication given for a
systematic entity. It covers the expression “denominations” (see Note 1
above).

(3) I use the expression “ validity ” as signifying the presence of all those

: requisites which, under the Rules, are essential for the acceptance of a zoological

hame.

(4) By the expression ‘‘ employment ” I refer to the possibility of using a
given name as a valid zoological name.

(5) This proposition is quite distinct from that given later (Z, B) in Section
II. In the latter place I have examined the case where a name, previously
thought to be a nomen nudum or nomen dubium is stated to have an unequivocal
content or where a name previously thought to be a valid name is on the
contrary a nomen nudum or, owing to the doubt regarding its content, a nomen
dubiwm, examination showing that the original author applied this name to
an entity different from that previously believed. A particular case of this
situation arises when it is found that a previously overlooked designation of
the type species of a genus involves a change in the type species of that genus
and therefore a change in its content.

(6) The situation of “ Primary Homonymy”’ arises when the original
denomination given to each of two systematic entities consists of the same
term or terms. Examples: Delta and Delta: Noctua lignosa and Noctua
lignosa.

(7) The situation of “Primary synonymy” arises when two different
names (whether generic names or specific names) are published with the same
content. In the case of generic names, this arises when two generic names are
published, each having the same type species.

(8) There is a tendency to abandon the expression “‘ genotype ”’ to designate
the type species of a genus, owing to the fact that this expression bears also a
different, though more recent, meaning.

(9) This situation arises when a nomen novum is published in replacement
of a name which is either invalid or unemployable. Such a name denotes
exactly the same entity as that covered by the older name, as given to it by its
original author. Where the older name is truly invalid, it must be discarded,
but, if it is found to be valid and employable, it is to be retained, the substitute
name, in that case, being discarded.

40 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

(10) According to the Code, names of specific rank include all those given
to “ species’ or “ subspecies.” Many authors have excluded from this latter
category the names applied to any category below the species, other than those
given to the “ subspecies ’’ in the modern sense of a geographical entity. In
my opinion, the expression “ subspecies ” should be interpreted in as a wide
a sense as possible, in order, at least, to protect, for the purposes of priority,
names which, through further investigation, may attain “ specific” or “ sub-
specific” rank, this being necessary, in order to avoid another possible cause
for the changing of names.*

*Hditorial Note : The point here made was met by the decision taken by the Fourteenth Inter-
national Congress of Zoology at Paris in 1948, when a restricted definition was adopted for the
expression ‘‘ subspecific name” but at the same time a special, though separate, status was
accorded for the purposes of priority to names given to entities belonging to all other infra-
specific categories, means being at the same time provided for the promotion, where required,
of ‘‘ infra-subspecific names ” to the rank of ‘‘ specific name ” or “ subspecific name.” See 1950
Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4: 89-96.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 41

DOCUMENT 1/21

Statement furnished by HOBART M. SMITH
(University of Illinois, Department of Zoology, Urbana, Illinois, U.S.A.)

Letter dated 14th March 1952
On the Question of Type Localities

I was very pleased to see the discussion accompanying your letter of 27th
January. You have thoroughly set forth the difficulties and the logical solution
for them. I am in complete agreement with your conclusions and method of
approach, with only one reservation noted hereinafter. In addition a few
modifications might be made here and there for the sake of clarity, depending
upon your opinion of their necessity. These also are noted below. Dr. Edward
H. Taylor has gone over the entire commentary, and his commentary is attached.
He discussed the problems with a number of other systematists at the University
of Kansas, and the commentaries of two are also attached. Dr. Wilson wrote
his own, but I have transmitted in my own words the gist of the opinions of
Drs. Taylor and Michener. They have not authorised the wording which is
therefore only my impression of the news which they have expressed. My own
comments follow.

I would suggest adding another paragraph between your Nos. 26 and 27, as
follows :

26a. A similar situation which should be anticipated and governed by
any new Rules is that of discovery, subsequent to designation of type
locality under 23(7) above, through attainment of further knowledge of
geographic variation, that the type does not represent the population average
at the locality formerly designated. A reasonable solution is an automatic
one which permits correction of such former restrictions providing they can
be shown to be sufficiently improbable that the type would not fall within
the interquartile range of variation at the locality formerly designated.
In such case the newly designated type locality should be so selected that
the type would fall at least within the interquartile range of variation of the
population at that locality. Uncertain cases, or those in which adoption
of this procedure would lead to greater confusion than would some other
course, should be submitted to the Commission for arbitration.

Secondly, I would recommend deletion of the last 11 lines of paragraph 28,
which would place what I believe would be an unnecessary and large burden
upon the Commission, in favour of a substitute solution of more automatic
nature, as follows :

“* . . the type locality shall be determined by a system of precedence, the
selection under each of the Rules of paragraph 23 having the preferential
rank precisely of the order in which the rules are there listed. Thus a type
locality determinable at any time by Rule 23d shall have immediate and
permanent precedence over any selection under any of the subsequent Rules.
Uncertain cases, or those in which adoption of this procedure would lead to
greater confusion than would some other course, should be submitted to the
Commission for arbitration.”

42 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Thirdly, would it not be well to add a paragraph making it clear that the
Rules, as ultimately adopted, would be retroactive ?

In paragraph 23(5) it might be well to make it clear that the conclusions
there stated apply not only to localities doubtfully cited, but also to specimens
doubtfully, or with any reservation, referred to the species. Locality data known
at the time of original description, or unearthed at a later time, for such doubt-
fully referred specimens, should not be eligible for use in fixation of type locality
for the species.

In paragraph 23(6) it might be well to make it clear (1) that choice of a
neotype or a lectotype automatically limits selection of a type locality, exactly
as though it were an originally designated holotype ; and (2) that selection of a
type locality automatically limits subsequent selection of a lectotype or neotype.
Special cases should be submitted to the Commission for consideration.

Annexe 1 to Professor Hobart M. Smith’s letter

Commentary by Dr. EDWARD H. TAYLOR (paraphrased)

On the whole agrees with the proposals made. They do not, however,
clearly indicate proper procedure for two situations recently encountered, as
follows :

(1) A given species has “ Guatemala ”’ as the locality. A reviser restricts
it to Tomulco, Guatemala. The original expedition can be shown
not to have passed near that locality, although positive records
for the species are known from there. Is the reviser’s choice
acceptable ?

(2) A manuscript description of a new Mexican species is written by
Dugés and sent to a colleague in Paris. This colleague has specimens
from another locality of that species, from which drawings are
made and published. Some years later the Dugés description is
published and attributed to Dugés, but actually Dugés has never
seen the specimens that served as the original “indication ” of
the species. What is the type locality—that of Dugés’ specimens
which served for the description, or that of the specimens serving
as the original “‘ indication ”’ ?

Annexe 2 to Professor Hobart M. Smith’s letter

Commentary by Dr. CHARLES D. MICHENER (paraphrased)

In general in agreement with the proposals made, but believes that too much
work would be placed upon the International Commission. Wherever possible
the Rules should allow the worker to make the decisions, as a matter of time-
economy.

> oe a)

Pare kt r

Ne ae

+

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 43
Annexe 3 to Professor Hobart M. Smith’s letter

Statement by R. W. WILSON
(University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas, U.S.A.)

Fixing of Geologic Age and Position within Section

I do not think it is practical to set rules in respect of geologic age for nomen-
clatorial purposes. Such rules would aid on occasion, but the net result would
be to cause more troubles than they would alleviate—particularly so if the age
for nomenclatorial purposes were to be established by methods used for the
selection of types.

The time scale was developed to more or less its present structure in the
19th Century concomitantly with the naming of thousands of fossil species.
New divisions were added as the need seemed to arise, and these modifications
extended well into the present century, if indeed, modification is not still in
process. One result of the historical growth of the time scale is that the geo-
logical ages assigned to many species by the namers are not now acceptable,
and in addition there were the usual number of outright errors in age assignment.
As an example of the former situation what we now call Oligocene was at one
time called early Miocene. As an example of the latter, the Etchegoin formation
of California was originally dated as Miocene (species from this formation named
X-miocenicus attest to this fact), but is nowregarded as of Pliocene age, possibly
in part early Pleistocene. Even at present, for example in mammalian paleonto-
logy, age determinations based on standard time units (e.g., late Miocene, early
Pliocene, late Pliocene, early Pleistocene) are frequently so ambiguous that
most American mammalian paleontologists make use of a system of provincial
ages rather than the “‘ international ” time divisions (Eocene, Oligocene, etc.)
of the Cenozoic.

Certainly if the proposed rules were to be used at all, the Commission would
be passing judgment on hundreds of fossil species. I feel rather certain that
most mammalian paleontologists would simply ignore such rules rather than
appeal to the Commission for a change in “ nomenclatorial” age. In this
connection, perhaps it should be pointed out that many of the geological surveys
(state and national) exercise rather tight control of the dates assigned to certain
levels. Age assignments of strata may differ from one such organisation to
another. I doubt that the surveys would be willing to assign their “ rights ”
to a non-geological commission.

A fairly concrete example illustrates some of the difficulties if selection of
age were made as suggested.

_ Ernestokokenia patagonica (Ameghino) : Cretaceous (Cenomonian) according
to Ameghino.

No member of the Order to which Ernestokokenia belongs is Cretaceous in
age. In fact no known Cretaceous mammal remotely approaches members of
this genus in structure,

44 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Ernestokokenia yirunhor Simpson is of late Paleocene age according to its
namer. It is a smaller animal with simpler molar patterns than Ameghino’s
species. EH. patagonica is actually slightly younger (early Eocene) rather than
considerably older.

Ernestokokenia is a South American genus. Except for relatively recently
named species, virtually the entire pre-Recent fauna of South America would
have similar problems. Aside from formal dating, in some cases the strati-
graphic sequence in South America is agreed upon, in others it is not—thus
presenting additional problems for the Commission.

R. W. WILSON.

DOCUMENT 1/22

By H. ENGEL
(Zoologisch Museum, Amsterdam, The Netherlands)

Extract from a letter dated 18th March 1952

I have received the latest Parts of the Bulletin (Vol. 7, Pts. 1-6). You have
put forward the questions admirably. I think that the best way will be to
complete the Official Lists of names as fast and as far as possible, as you propose.

DOCUMENT 1/23

By L. B. HOLTHUIS
(Ryksmuseum van Natuurlyke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands)

Letter dated 15th April 1952

I consider that the stabilization of zoological nomenclature will be best
promoted by means of amplifications, clarifications and extensions as proposed
in 9-30 of your (1952, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 7 (5/6) : 148-188) paper’ and by the
more extended use of Official Lists.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45
DOCUMENT 1/24

By G. H. E. HOPKINS, O.B.E., M.A.
(British Museum (Natural History), Zoological M useum, Tring, Herts, England)

Letter dated 30th April 1952

Commission’s Reference Z.N.(S.)359

In Bull. zool. Nomencl. 7 : 187 and 188 you ask for replies from specialists
to specific questions. Here are my replies :—

(1) I am opposed to an attempt to stabilize zoological nomenclature by
the adoption of any novel expedient such as a “ Law of Prescrip-
tion”, partly because I think such a law would prove almost
unworkable in practice, and partly because I think the aim is
more easily attainable by the less drastic methods mentioned in
paras. 9-37 of your article.

(2) I do not think that the disadvantages and difficulties can be ade-
quately foreseen and provided against, and therefore have no
suggestions for dealing with them.

(3) I would have thought certain of the suggestions enumerated in
paras 9-37 of your article to be unnecessary, but there are none to
which I object. I particularly welcome the suggestions in paras. 16
to 18 for the elimination of nomina dubia, both generic and specific,
and that in para. 21 for the proposed recognition of neotypes.

(4) I have no additional proposals for promoting stability in
nomenclature.

46 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

DOCUMENT 1/25

By FRANZ DANIEL
(Zoologische Sammlung des Bayerischen Staates, Entomologische Abteilung,
Miinchen, Germany)

Letter dated 30th April 1952

Kine Bereinigung der zoologischen Nomenklatur ist in Weiterentwicklung
der bestehendden “ Regeln ”’ nicht mehr durchfiihrbar. Die von Herrn Professor
Hering vorschlagenen Verbesserungsvorschlage miissen sich genau so totlaufen
wie die bisherigen Anweisungen, da es praktisch unmédglich ist ein solches
Gesetz wirklich eindeutig zu fassen. Eine erlésende Bereinigung kann nur
durch eine radikale Abkehr von den bisher beschrittenen Weg erreicht werden.
Dies mag hart klingen, wird sich aber eines Tages doch als einziger Ausweg
durchsetzen. Je friiher dies eingesehen wird, um so eher wird die Last von
allen Beteiligten genommen einen wesentlichen Teil ihrer Lebensarbeit mit
unfruchtbaren Auseinandersetzungen iiber Nomenklaturfragen auszufiillen.

Als méglicher Weg erscheint mir in ganz grossen Ziigen folgende Verfahrens- °
weise :

Kin IZK wahlt eine Kommission fiir jede einzelne Tiergruppe, die
innerhalb ihres Arbeitsbereichs eine nomenklatorische Unterteilung bis
zur Familie vornimmt. Sie ist hierbei weder an Prioritatsregeln, noch andere
einschrankende Bestimmungen gebunden, soll aber im Rahmen ihres
subjektiven Eimessens bisher eingefiihrte Benennungen nach Méglichkeit
tibernehmen. Sie legt fiir die von ihr vorschlagenen Einheiten genaue
Diagnosen, sowie die Typen hoherer Ordnung fest. Diese Vorschlige sind
von einem IZK zu priifen und bestatigen, womit sie fiir die Zukunft als
alleinige Grundlage dienen.

Von Tage der Anerkennung an hat die Neuaufstellung, Teilung oder
Verschmelzung solcher Kategorien, sowie eine Anderung oder Erwieterung
der festgelegten Diagnosen nur mehr Giltigkeit, wenn sie von einer fiir
jede Tiergruppe permanent aufgestellten internationalen Kommission
anerkennt wurde. Der Verdffentlichung ist die Genehmigungsnummer
beizufiigen, anderenfalls ihr die internationale Anerkennung zu verweigern
ist. Alle zoologischen Fachzeitschriften sind anzuhalten nicht genehmigten
Anderungen die Verdffentlichung zu verweigern. Gegen einen negativen
Bescheid steht jedem Autoren ein Beschwerderecht zur nichsten IZK zu.

Dieser Beschneidung der Freiheit wissentschaftlicher Forschung miissen
sich alle Kreise im Interesse einer gedeihlichen Zusammenarbeit fiigen.
Sie hat gewiss nichts mit Gewissenszwang in irgend einer Form zu tun.

Fiir die Bereiningung der Nomenklatur der Familien sind geeignete
Bearbeiter zu ermitteln, die frei von allen Hemmungen durch den iiberlebten
Prioritatsstandpukt die Benennung der unteren Kategorien bis zur Sub-
species durchfiihren. Sie sind gleichfalls gehalten nach Mdéglichkeit einge-
fiihrte Bezeichnungen beizubehalten. In ihren Diagnosen gehen sie von dem
erreichbaren Typenmaterial aus, soweit sie dieses jedoch nicht beschaffen
k6nnen, oder falls der Typus durch mangelnde Voraussetzungen (schlecht

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47

Bezettelung, Alterserscheinung etc.) nicht mehr voll auswertbar ist, bestim-
men sie nach freiem Ermessen einen neuen Typus. Simtliche verwendeten
Typen sind als “ Typus neuer Art” zu bezetteln und soweit noétig nach
modernen Gesichtspunkten unter Anwendung einer Differenzialdiagnose
zu bescreiben. LEbenso ist, falls nicht gute Bilder verwiesen werden kann,
in denjenigen Gruppen, bei denen habituelle Gesamteindruck durch die
Sprache nicht vermittelt werden kann (Lepidoptera !) der Typus abzubilden.
Genitaldiagnosen ist grosse Bedeutung einzuraumen, jedoch ist die in
einigen Landern eingerissene Unsitte nur nach Genitalmerkmalen zu urteilen
und den Koppulations-Apparat allein abzubilden wenigstens bei Lepidoptera
tunlichst zu vermeiden. Die Typenform ist sowohl ihrer genauesten Heimat
nach, wie in Bezug auf ihr Aussehen innerhalb der modifikatorischen
MOglichkeiten festzulegen. Benennungen von regelmassig wiederkehrenden
Aberrationen sind weiterhin von internationalen Bindungen freizuhalten,
es ist aber tunlichst darauf hinzuarbeiten fiir gréssere Gruppen durch
Aufstellung von Collektivbezeichnungen eine vereinfachte Verstandigung
zu erreichen. Alle nicht mehr sicher aufklarbaren Beschreibungen, bei
denen aber auf Grund der vorhandenen Unterlagen eine Einreihung als
Synonym nicht ratsam erscheint, sind als sp. dubiosa aufzufiihren. Bei
spiiterer Klarung des Falles sind sie neu zu beschreiben, wobei der damit
Betraute als Autor zu gelten hat. Der bisher fraglich gefiihrte Name wird
dabei zum Synonym.

Alle von den Familien Bearbeitern als Synonyme angesprochenen Bezeich-
nungen scheiden endgiltig aus, auch wenn sich spater herausstellen sollte,
dass diese Ansicht unrichtig war. Ebenso sind alle von den Familien
Bearbeitern etwa iibersehene Namengebungen automatisch gestrichen. Fiir
beide Falle ist gegebenfalls eine Neubeschreibung unabhangig von den
bisherigen Literaturangaben, durchzufiihren.

Alle diese Vorschlage sind vom Standpunkt der Entomologie aus gesehen,
wo die Verhaltnisse durch den ungeheueren Formenreichtum vdllig anders
hegen als in den iibrigen Gebieten der Zoologie. Es ware deshalb zu erwagen
ob nicht eine internationale Vereinbarung méglich ware, die einen Teil
(ich denke hier vor allem an die Entscheidung von der Familie abwirts)
der notwendigen Regelungen im Insekten Bereich dem IEK iibertragen
wiirde.

Ich bin mir bewusst, dass die hier in ganz groben Umrissen niedergelegten
Vorschlage heute noch keinerlei Aussicht auf Erfolg haben. Ebensosehr
glaube ich aberauch unbedingt, dass die von Prof. Dr. Hering angeregten
Verbesserungs-Wiinsche zu keiner Bereinigung der chaotischen Zustinde
unseres systematischen Gerippes fiihren kénnen. Dazu gibt es meines
Erachtens keinen anderen Weg als den einer véllig neuen Grundlage. Je
eher der Entschluss hierzu gefasst wird umso leichter wird diese Umstellung
sein. Ich denke hierbei besonders auch an das Ansehen des Systematikers,
welches in den weiten Kreisen derjenigen, die dessen Erkentnisse nur als
Arbeitsunterlage benutzen, stindig sinkt—und sinken muss, da ihnen ein
stets schwankendes Geriist geboten wird, dass sie nicht mehr als inter-
nationales Verstiindigungsmittel anerkennen kénnen. Mit Massnahmen,
die lediglich auf eine Verbesserung nicht mehr tragbarer Grundlagen hinaus-
laufen ist der Krankheitsherd nicht mehr zu heilen.

48 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

DOCUMENT 1/26

By FRIEDRICH KUHLHORN

(Museum, Miinchen, Germany)

Statement dated 2nd May 1952 communicated by Professor EH. M. Hering

Editorial Note: The present communication from Dr. Kiihlhorn and also
the immediately following communications from Dr. Haltenorth (Document
1/27) and from Dr. Sheljuzhko (Document 1/28) were prepared by the
specialists concerned by reference to a summary of the points raised in
my paper of March 1952 (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 7 : 148-188) which Professor
EK. M. Hering kindly prepared for communication to German zoologists.
Since Dr. Hering’s summary bears numbers different from those used in the
foregoing paper, the three comments in question are not intelligible without
Dr. Hering’s summary, which is accordingly reproduced as an annexe to
the present document. (intl’d. F. H., 10th April 1953).

Stellungsnahme zu den vorschlagen zur neufassung Internationalen
Nomenklaturregeln

Eine Neufassung der Regeln darf auf keinen Fall zu einer weiteren Komp-
lizierung der zoologischen Nomenklatur fiihren, die trotz aller Verbesserunger
immer noch genungend geschichtlich verstiindliche Schwichepunkte behalten
werden.

Die Systematik darf nicht nur Selbstzweck sein, sondern sie muss bei der
grossen wirtschaftlichen Bedeutung vieler Tiere auch die berechtigten Wiinsche
der Praktiker beriicksichtigen, fiir die eine Vereinfachung eine ungeheure
Erleichterung ihrer Arbeit bedeuten wiirde. Ich trete deshalb allein schon
aus diesen Griinden fiir die Betbehaltwng des Prioritétsprinzips ein, des en
Schwiichen durch die im Absatz VII/II vorgeschlagenen Erweiterungen weit-
gehend ausgeglichen werden kénnten.

Annexe to Editorial Note to Document 1/26

Summary prepared by Professor E. M. Hering of the main points in regard
to zoological nomenclature raised in the seven papers by Mr. Francis Hemming;
papers published in 1952 in Parts 1-6 of volume 7 of the “Bulletin of Zoological
Nomenclature.’

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49

Sieben Probleme der zoologischen Nomenklatur

die eine Neufassung der Internationalen Regeln notwendig erscheinen lassen,
liber die auf dem 14. Internationalen Kongress fiir Zoologie, Kopenhagen, 1953,
entschieden werden soll.

In dem Zeitraum von 1901 bis zur Gegenwart hat sich die Fassung ver-
schiedener Artikel der ‘“‘ Internationalen Regeln fiir die zoologische Nomen-
klatur”” (nachfolgend als “ Regeln?’ bezeichnet) als unzulanglich erwiesen.

Der Internationale Kongress fiir Zoologie Paris, 1948, beauftragte die
Internationale Kommission fiir zoologische Literatur (nachfolgend als INK.
abgekiirst), Neufassungsvorschlige der betreffenden Artikel dem 14. Int.
Kongr. f. Zoologie, Kopenhagen, 1953, vorzulegen, der iiber sie entscheiden
und die Entscheidungen in die ‘“‘ Regeln ” einkérpern soll.

Das in Paris, 1948, endgiiltig festgelegte Verfahren der Internationalen
Kommission zur Ausiibung der ihr vom Kongress Monaco, 1913, iibertragenen
Vollmachten zur fallweisen Suspendierung der “ Regeln’ (im folgenden kurz
als ‘‘ Verfahren ’’ bezeichnet) besteht darin, dass.

(2) Kin oder mehrere Spezialisten stellen einen begriindeten Antrag
auf Klarung einer zweifelhaften Frage oder auf Aufhebung der
Regeln in einem gewissen Falle, dass die INK. eine Entscheidung
auf Grund ihrer Vollmachten treffen mége.

(6) Dieser Antrag muss im Wortlaut mit der Begriindung veroffentlicht
werden.

(c) Die auf diese Verdffentlichung eingehenden Stellungnahmen der
Spezialisten werden ebenfalls verdffentlicht.

(d) Auf Grund dieser Stellungnahmen und sonstiger Befragung von
zustandigen Spezialisten entscheidet die INK. regelverbindlich
tiber den Fall, wobei sie Erwigungen iiber Stabilitat und Uni-
formitat den Vorrang gibt gegeniiber philologischen Argumenten.

Ich habe die Behandlung dieser Probleme in vol. 7 des Bulletin of Zoological
Nomenclature in méglichster Kiirze darzustellen versucht, um eine Stellung-
nahme der deutschen Zoologen und Palaontologen ohne die grosse Miihe des
eingehenden tudiums dieses Bandes des “ Bulletin’ zu erméglichen. Wo ich
mich nicht klar ausgedriickt habe, bin ich gern bereit, auf Anfrage nahere
Mitteilungen zu machen.

D

50 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Ich halte es fiir aussererdentlich wichtig, dass Spezialisten sichmdg lichst
zahlreich zu den zur Entscheidung kommenden Vorschlagen aussern, damit
einmal keine Entscheidung in Bezug auf die Neufassung der “ Regeln ” getroffen
wird, die den Wiinschen der Mehrheit der Wissenschaftler widerspricht, zum
andern die deutsche zoologische Wissenschaft ihre Existenz dokumentiert
und aus ihrer Abseitsstellung herauskommt, die sich in gewissen Beschliissen
Int. Kongr. f. Zoologie zeigt (Paris, 1948 beschloss Ausschaltung der deutschen
als offizieller Sprache fiir INK. und Verdéffentlichungsverpflichtungsaufhebung
fiir Ausserkraftsetzung von “ Regeln” im “ Zoologischen Anzeiger” die
frither vorgeschen war). Abstellung solcher Mangel kann nur durch Aktivitat
und Beteiligung auch deutscher Wissenschaftler erreicht werden.

Da ich bis Ende Mai ein Referat iiber solche Stellungnahmen auszuarbeiten
habe, ware ich fiir recht baldige Stellungnahme des Stabes der Wissenschaftler
des Museums—wie auch anderer befragter Spezialisten—zu den nachfolgend
berichteten Vorschlaigen fiir die Neufassung der ‘“‘ Regeln”? zu Danke verp-
flichtet.

KH. M. HERING,

deutsches Mitglied der Internationalen Kommassion fiir Zoologische Nomenklatur.

VII. Vorschlage zur Erzielung grésstmoglicher Stabilitat in der
Nomenklatur

A. Die mangelhafte Stabilitaét zoologischer Namen hat sich in letzter Zeit zu
einer grossen Erschwernis wissenschaftlicher Arbeit ausgewirkt, so dass an
Massnahmen zur Erzielung einer grésseren Stabilitat gedacht werden muss.
Sie kénnen bestehen entweder in der Hinfiihrung ganz neuer Prinzipien
in die ‘‘ Regeln,” oder in der Erweiterung und Kliérung schon vorhandener
Regeln, oder im erweiterten Gebrauch der schon in den “ Regeln ” vorhandenen
Vorschriften.

B. Vorschlige zur Besitigung der Instabilitat :

I. Einfiihrung eines “ Praescriptions-Prinzips” (etwa dem “ Kon-
zinuitats-prinzip von HEIKERTINGER entsprechend). Es wiirde
besagen: Gattungs-oder Artnamen, die etwa vor 1850 verdffent-
licht wurden und seitdem von keinem Autor mehr verwendet wurden,
sollen zu verwerfen sein, wenn sie mit einem nach diesem Zeitpunkt
dauernd gebauchten Namen in Konflikt kommen. (Andere Vor-
schlige schreiben anstelle eines festen Datums von “ liingerer Zeit ”
etc.).

1. Ist ein solches Prinzip durchfiihrbar? Es wiirde in besonderen
Faller das Prioritits-Gesetz unterdriicken, miisste auch unter-
scheiden, ob ein Name vielleicht einmal, in anderen Fallen
dauernd gebraucht wiirde, der Zeitpunkt vom Beginn der
Giiltigkeit miisste exact fornuliert werden.

2. Schwiichen des Prinzips: Es ist wnmédglich, einen negativen
Begriff (Nichtgebrauch) in die “‘ Regeln” aufsunchmen. Der
Nichtgebrauchsnachweis ab 1850 etwa erfordert ein nicht

pD*

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51

durchfiihrbares Studium der gesamten Literatur. Die Gewissheit
zu erreichen, wiirde unvorstllbaren Zeitverlust bei der wissen-
schaftlichen Arbeit kosten. Uberraschungen wie die kiirzlich
erfolgte Auffindung einer Schrift von Linnaeus, die bisher
unbekannt gewesen ist, kénnten sich auch in Bezug auf spitere
Literatur erwarten lassen.

II. Stabilitat durch Erklarung und Erweiterung der schon vorhandenen

“

Regeln”! Wo eine die Stabilitat gefahrdende Unklarheit in den

Regeln besteht, ist eine Entscheidung durch Antrag an die INK.
zu erzielen.

a. Erklérungen.

¥

Die Regeln sollen eine Priambel erhalten, die die Grund-
prinzipien enthilt, unter denen die nachfolgenden Artikel
angewendet werden sollen.

. Strittige Begriffe in den Vorschriften der “ Regeln” sollen

durch aus fiihrlichere Vorschriften geklart werden (ef. I.
Problem : Emendation).

. Die der INK. gegebenen Vollmachten (Monaco 1913, Paris 1948)

geben jede Méglichkeit, Vorschriften der ‘“‘ Regeln’ in Bezug
auf einzelne Falle aufzuheben, um Stabilitat zu erhalten.

. Wo mehrfache Interpretation eine Artikels der “ Regeln”

moglich ist, kann immer Entscheidung durch Antrag an die
INK. erfolgen.

. In allen anderen Fallen, wo unerwiinschter, die Stabilitat

gefahrdender Namenwechsel droht, kann durch Antrag an die
INK. eine zugunsten der Stabilitat ausfallende Entscheidung
erwirkt werden.

. Notwendig ist analog den bereits in den ‘‘ Regeln ” verankerten

“Offiziellen Listen” ein “ Offizieller Index” der zu ver-
wefenden Biicher aufzustellen (die entweder nicht der binomi-
nalen Nomenklatur folgen oder anderweitig die Stabilitat
gefahrden). Die Uverfiihrung auf diese Liste soll nach iiblichem
Verfahren durch Vollmacht der INK. iibertragen werden, die
in den “‘ Regeln ”’ zu verankern ist.

. Zweifelhafte Typenbestimmung fiir Genera kann durch die

INK! auf Antrag festgelegt werden (Lumbricus L. Typus
terrestris L., terrestris ist Nomen dubium !)

. Artnamen, die Nomina dubia sind, kénnen nach iiblichem

Verfahren durch die INK. auf den Bereits vorhandenen
“Index der verworfenen Namen” gesetzt werden. Not-

wendigkeit ergibt sich aus spaiterer Deutung friiherer Nomina
dubia (cf. STRESEMANN iiber die Gmelin-1789-Namen !).

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

b. Erweiterung der Regeln.

1. Begriffsfestlegung fiir ‘““Typus” in Art. 31 der “ Regeln”
(Kongress Paris 1948) durch Anrekennung und Definition fiir
Holo-, Syn- und Lektotypus, sowie Prozedur und Bedingungen
fiir Schaffung von Lektotypen.

2. Dir Pariser Regelung lasst Typenfestlegung unklar in Fallen,
wo kein typisches Material mehr existiert und macht keine
bindenden Vorschirften iiber nominotypische Subspecies, wenn
urspriingliche Fundortangabe zu unbestimmt ist. Hierfiir
sind ausfiihrliche Vorschriften notwendig.

3. Einfiigung des “ Neotypus”’ (cf. VI. Problem).

4. Vorschriften iiber die typische Lokalitét polytoper Artnamen,
deren Fehlen zur Vieldeutigkeit bei der Aufstellung der
nominotypischen Unterart gefiihrt hat. Deswegen sind in
Art. 30, 31 der “‘ Regeln” einzufiigen folgende Vorschlage :

a. Wo der Autor selbst die Typenlokalitat bezeichnet hat
(wenn er sie nicht selbst als zweifelhaft bezeichnet)
gilt dies auch fiir die nominotypische Unterart.

b. Der am Holo-bezw-Lektotypus angebrachte Fundert-
zettel ist, wenn genauer als in der Beschreibung, fiir
die Aufstellung der nominotypischen Unterart mass-
geblich, wenn vom gleichen oder spateren Autor spater
veroffentlicht.

c. Wo Art-oder Unterartname eine Lokalitaét bezeichnet,
ist diese als topotypisch anzusehen, wenn Patria-Angabe
bei der Beschreibung fehlt.

d. Wenn ein Art-oder Unterartname fiir ungiiltig erklart
und durch einen neuen (oder ein Synonym) ersetzt wird,
soll der Ersatzname gleichen Topotypus besitzen.

e. Wo die Lokalitat nicht genauer in der Originalbeschreibung
prazisiert wurde und auch nach (6) nicht zu erhalten ist,
ist Auswahl durch gleichen oder spateren Autor spater
massgeblich. Weitere Eestriktion der Lokulitat erfelgt
durch die folgenden Autoren.

f. Wo Patria-Angabe bei der Beschreibung fehlt, aber
Hinweis auf friihere Veréffentlichung des Autors ange-
geben ist, wird die dort angegebene Lokalitat als topo-
typisch angesehen und geht den Lokalitaten in anderen
gleichzeitig angegebenen Referenzen auf andere Autoren

- vor. ae a

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53

g. Wo urspriingliche Fundortangabe irrig ist oder fehlt,
kann auf Antrag die INK. den Topotypus fiir Art oder
Unterart festlegen. Wenn nach solcher Festlegung
vermisste Holo-oder Syntypen wieder auftauchen, die
die Lokalitaét in anderem Sinne kliren, ist Entscheidung
durch die INK. zu beantragen.

5. Bei Fossilien ist geologisches Alter und Horizont wichtiger
als die Lokalitat, deshalb sollen die Vorschriften einen Zusatz
erhalten, dass fiir erste analog zu vorigen Regeln zu verfahren
ist.

6. Bei Parasiten ist analoger Zusatz in Bezug auf den Wirt nétig.

III. Erweiterter Gebrauch schon bestehender Vorschriften zur Erhéhung
der Stabilitat.

Der Kongress von Monaco, 1913, schuf die “‘ Offizielle Liste ” der
Genusnamen (fiir Nomina conservanda), von der bisher zu wenig
Gebrauch gemacht wurde (seitdem etwa 600 Namen eingefiigt !).
Der Kongress von Paris, 1948, legte das Verfahren fiir die INK.
fest und schuf die “ Offizielle Liste ’’ auch fiir die Artnamen, sowie
den “ Offiziellen Index” der zu verwerfenden Namen. Dir
Listen sind jetzt in den ‘“‘ Regeln” verankert, das liberum Veto
in der Kommission wurde beseitigt. Diese Listen geben jederzeit
die Méglichkeit durch Antrag an die INK. Namensinderungen,
die die Stabilitaét gefahrden, auszuschalten.

Fragen an die Spezalisten

1. Kann Stabilitét besser erreicht werden durch ein “ Praeskrip-
tionsgesetz oder durch Ausbau des Systems der “ Regeln ”?—
Wenn im Sinne der Praeskription : wie kénnen die Schwichen
nach B.I.2. beseitigt werden?—Wenn im Sinn des Ausbaues
der “Regeln”: Ist man fiir die obigen Vorschlige, welche
‘weiteren Vorschlage zu machen ?

DOCUMENT 1/27

By Th. HALTENORTH
(Museum, Miinchen, Germany)

Statement, dated 14th May 1952, communicated by Professor E. M. Hering

Editorial Note: For an explanation of the reference cited by Dr. Haltenorth
in the following note, see Editorial Note to Document 1/26 and the docu-
- ment prepared by Professor Hering annexed thereto.

VII. B.II sollte bevorzugt werden, d.h. Namens-Stabilitét durch Ausbau
der Regeln, die bereits weitgehend fiir Stabilitit sorgen und nach denen schon
Jahrzehnte gearbeitet wird.

54 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
DOCUMENT 1/28

By LEO SHELJUZHKO
(Zoologische Sammlung des Bayerischen Staates, Miinchen, Germany)

(1) Statement, dated 16th May 1952, communicated by
Professor E. M. Hering

Editorial Note: For an explanation of the reference cited by Dr. Sheljuzhko
in the following note, see Editorial Note to Document 1/26 and the docu-
ment prepared by Professor Hering annexed thereto.

VII. “ Einfuhrung eines Praeskriptions-Prinzips ’—michte ich als kaum
durchfiihrbar und unzulissig verwerfen. Dagegen scheint es mir, dass die
Stabilitét durch Erklérung und Erweiterung der schon vorhandenen Regeln
allmaihlich gute Fortschritte erzielen kann.

Zu dem Penkt 4d der “ Erweiterung der Regel”’ ware zu bemerken, dass
dieser unerfiillbar ist. Ein Synonym ist ein Name, der auf bestimmtem Material
basiert ist, das aus einem bestimmten Fundort stammt. Sollte solch eine
synonyme Bezeichnung aus irgend-welchen Griinden Gultigkeit bekommen und
den friiher gebrauchten Namen ersetzen, so bleiben doch die Typen der beiden
Formen mit ihren Fundorten bestehen und kénnen diese Fundorte nicht
geaindert werden. Ganz anders verhilt es sich, falls es sich um einen nomen
novum handelt ; dieser nom. nov. soll iiberhaupt keine eigene Typen besitzen,
d.h., dass als Typen des nom. nov. diejenigen der Form gelten, fiir die er den
Ersatznamen bildet.

(2) Letter dated 27th March 1953

Bei einem Ersatz eines Art—oder Unterartnamens kenn es sich um zwei
recht vershiedene Fiille handeln.

Im ersten Fall ist der Name nur ein novem novum, der als Ersatzname fiir
die friihere Bezeichnung geschaffen wurde. Solche nomina nova sollten iiber-
haupt keine Typen und miissten also solche diejenigen das alten Namens
gelten.

Ganz andere verhiilt sich die Sache falls an die Stelle des alten Namen ein
Synonym trit. Diese Synonymy wurde bei ihrer Aufstellung auf bestimmtes
Material gefriindet, d.h., dass sie auchihre Typen aus bestimmten Fundorten
besitzen. Es wire ein reiner Zufall, wann diese Typen aus den selben Orte
stammen sollten, von wo die Typen der Form stammten, fiir die die synonyme —
Bezeichnung eintreten soll. Nun glaube ich, dass es nicht méglich ware zu
fordern, dass der in diesem Fall der Ersatzname den gleichen Topotypus hat,
wie es im Punkt “4.d” gefordert wird. ietdiel

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55
DOCUMENT 1/29

By W. J. ARKELL, M.A., D.Sc., F.R.S.
(Sedgwick Museum, Cambridge University, Cambridge)

Letter dated 23rd May 1952

I have read with admiration your most thorough and clear papers in the
Bull. zool. Nomencl. Vol. 7, Parts 1-6.

I enclose comments on Z.N.(S.)359 (stability). I should be content to see
everything not covered by my comments go through as expounded in your
papers.

Enclosure to Dr. W. J. Arkell’s letter of 23rd May 1952

I am not in favour of a Law of Prescription. In my opinion it would cause
far more confusion than it would be worth, and the objects desired can be
achieved by sensible behaviour of specialists in refusing to be hustled into
unnecessary changes until they have submitted the case to the Commission
and invoked the Plenary Powers.

My recent applications on Pachyceras, Sphaeroceras, Pecten asper, Exogyra
virgula, etc., illustrate the kind of action to be encouraged before sweeping
changes are accepted under the Rule of Priority.

In the past, authors have not had the chance to use the existing machinery
in this way, because of the extreme slowness of publication and processing of
applications. If one was ever going to publish any work in a lifetime, one simply
had to ignore the Commission and follow the letter of the existing Rules. (As
you know, one waited 10-15 years for a case to be dealt with.) Now that you
have got all that changed, I consider it should be made widely known by a
Recommendation that it is the duty of an author to investigate possibilities of
adjustment under the Plenary Powers before rushing into changes of name as
the result of “ bibliographical discovery ’—i.e., reading Neave’s Nomenclator.

DOCUMENT 1/30

By J. R. DYMOND
(Department of Zoology, University of Toronto, Canada)

Statement received 27th May 1952

I consider that the stabilization of zoological nomenclature would best be
promoted by means of amplifications, clarifications and extensions carried out
within the existing framework of the Régles and by the more extended use of the
existing provisions for stabilizing individual names through the Official Lists.

56. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
DOCUMENT 1/31

By CHARLES H. BLAKE

(Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Department of Biology, Cambridge,
Massachusetts, U.S.A.)

Enclosure to a letter dated 5th June 1952

Proposal of a Nomenclatorial Statute of Limitation

Preamble.—In the interest of nomenclatorial stability a statute of limita-
tion should be enacted as set forth below. It has been the general experience
of those peoples living under systems of elaborate statute laws that more harm
than good flows from permitting actions to be initiated indefinitely long after
the cause of action comes into existence. It has also become apparent that the °
unrestricted application of the Rules of Priority and Homonymy has not led to
nomenclatorial stability.

The following rule or statute shall come into force six months after its
enactment by the International Zoological Congress.

Section 1. Definitions —Terms used in this statute shall have the definitions
given in paragraphs (a) to (e) of this section.

(a) The actual zoological organism or concept bearing a name is an
onomatophore. It acquires prescriptive right to a name by de facto,
published assignment of the name to the given onomatophore. Its
prescriptive right to a name is extinguished by non-application of
the name within the term of this statute.

(b) A nomen conservatum is a name which has been placed on the “ List
of Official Names” by action of the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature (hereafter, the Commission).

(c) A nomen conservandum is a name belonging to either of the following
categories :—

(1) The name of a genus that is the type of a supergeneric category.

(2) Any name which can qualify for the benefit of this statute and
which has not been the subject of a final determination by the
Commission.

(d) Contested application is the application of a name to more than one
onomatophore. Such application shall be deemed contested as
regards all of the onomatophores.

(e) Primary zoological literature is all published work in which the
authors could have contested the applications of the names used.
For the purposes of this statute literature shall be deemed primary
unless there is conclusive evidence to the contrary.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 57

Section 2. A name shall be entitled to the benefit of this statute regardless
of its original rank or of the rank subsequently or currently assigned to it.

Section 3. The benefit of this statute must be expressly claimed.

Section 4. The provisions of this statute apply to all cases of priority,
synonymy, and homonymy, except as provided otherwise. (Sections 3, 8, 9
and 10).

Section 5. The provisions of this statute apply to all cases of the designation
of types of genera or their subdivisions or of higher rank than genera, except
as provided otherwise. (Sections 3, 8, 9 and 10).

Section 6. Exclusive and uncontested possession of a name by an onoma-
tophore for fifty years or more shall be deemed conclusive as to the correct
application of the name provided, however, that the given application shall
have been made on three different occasions in primary zoological literature
within the period of fifty years.

Section 7. Exclusive and uncontested possession of a name by an onomato-
phore for seventy years or more shall be deemed conclusive as to the correct
application of the name even though it shall not have been applied on three
different occasions within the period of seventy years.

Section 8. The doubtful application of a name to an onomatophore or a
doubtful type designation shall be deemed non-application for the purposes of
this statute.

Section 9. The provisions of this statute shall not apply during any time
when fraudulent concealment of the facts shall be adjudged to have occurred.

Section 10. This statute shall not apply to cases where action which could
have been challenged under this statute has been taken prior to the coming into
force of this statute.

58 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

DOCUMENT 1/32
By S. G. KIRIAKOFF, L.Sc.
(Zoological Museum, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium)
Enclosure to a letter dated 5th June 1952
MEANS TO BE FOUND FOR PROMOTING THE GREATEST POSSIBLE
STABILITY IN ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE
(Bull. zool. Nomencel. 7, Pts. 5-6, 148-188)

Preliminary remark.—I am fundamentally against any restriction of the
Law of Priority. In my opinion, any case of suspension of the Régles in favour
of a more recent name on the ground that the latter has been in general use,
is a solution of facility and is, moreover, nothing less than an encouragement
either of (former) mistake or of ignorance. The first describer of a form has,
I believe, the (mostly posthumous) moral right to have the name he has given
used in preference to any younger name regardless of the fact that the latter
has been in common and general use for ever so long.

The above is, however, only a declaration of principle, and, 4s it seems that
the great majority of the zoologists (although most of the latter are physio-
logists, ecologists, biochemists and so on, who are not interested in Taxonomy
and who often do not have a clear idea of the objects and of the meaning of the
latter) are against the unrestricted use of the Law of Priority, I am quite willing
to help in promoting the stability in nomenclature they are in such a hurry to find.

Answers to the questions 1.c., p. 187-188 :—

(1) I consider that a ‘‘ Law of Prescription ” such as it has been proposed
by some zoologists (par. 4-7) would be unable to achieve any serious
purpose ; for those impatient to preclude any possibility of further
name changing, a means is suggested below (vide (2)). But per-
sonally I am in favour of gradually achieving the stability so desired
by means of amplifications and so on, within the existing framework
of the Régles, as suggested in para. 9-37.

(2) The radical means suggested to achieve at once the stability in
nomenclature is the following :—

An article is to be inserted in the Régles to the effect that—
(a) no further changes of generic and specific names will be accepted ;
(b) that any paper or book published before the date of publication of
the present article in the Bull. zool. Nomencl. and containing
names of genera and/or species generally known under other
younger names, and consequently apt to supersede the latter,
is to be considered as non-existent for nomenclatorial purposes.

Of course, the provision under (b) would apply in fact only to the (relatively
few) old papers or books that have remained unknown for perhaps a century or
longer, and that are being periodically unearthed by people (bona fide or otherwise)
with as result necessary but, to many workers, irritating changes in nomenclature. -

The means suggested above makes it unnecessary to make up the proposed
list of invalid publications.

(3) I fully agree with the various suggestions enumerated in para. 9-37
of your inquiry.

(4) See under (2).

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59
DOCUMENT 1/33

By ERICK M. HERING
(Abteilungsleiter am Zoologischen Museum der Humboldt-Universitit, Berlin)

Statement received on 7th June 1952

Stellungnahme zu den Vorschlagen zur Sicherung der Stabilitat in der
zoologischen Nomenklatur

Das in den Para. 4-7 im Bull. zool. Nomencl. vol. 7 behandelte ‘‘ Praeskrip-
tions-Prinzip ” wird nach Mitteilung von Dr. Walter Forster von der Zoo-
logischen Sammlungs des Bayerischen Staates mit 11 von 12 Stimmen des
Zoologen-Stabes des Museums Miinchen unbedingt abgelehnt. Die Vorschlage
zur Sicherung der Stabilitaét durch Erklarung und Erweiterung der “ Régles ”’
werden unterstiitzt.

Der Zoologen-Stab des Museums Berlin lehnt das Praeskriptions-Prinzip
ebenfalls ab und wnterstiitzt die Vorschlige zur Sicherung der Stabilitét durch
Erklarung und Erweiterung der “ Régles”” mit folgenden Ausnahmen :

Zu Para. 18 (p. 168-170) : Der Vorschlag, dass nomina dubia auf Antrag
der Spezialisten durch die International Commission on Zoological Nomen-
clature auf den “ Offiziellen Index der zu verwerfenden Namen” gesetzt
werden kénnen, wird mit 13 von 14 Stimmen abgelehnt.

Zu Par. 23 (4) wird fiir den Vorschlag der Zusatz fiir notig gehalten :
“wen die Spezies oder Subspezies an dem Ort vorkommt oder vorkam,
den der Name bezeichnet.”’

60 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

DOCUMENT 1/34

Statement of the views of the NOMEMCLATURE COMMITTEE established

jointly by the DEUTSCHE ZOOLOGISCHE GESELLSCHAFT, the

PALAONTOLOGISCHE GESELLSCHAFT and the SENCKENBERGISCHE
NATURFORSCHENDE GESELLSCHAFT

Editorial Note: The following document which was published in the issue
of 15th June 1952 of the serial publication Senckenbergiana (33(1/3) :
193-196), deals with a number of questions, of which some only are directly
concerned with the problem whether provisions and, if so, what provisions
should be inserted in the Régles for the purpose of promoting stability in
zoological nomenclature. It is published here 1m extenso, since in the
circumstances this appears to be the most appropriate course, having
regard to the fact that the authors of this document base all their argu-
ments upon the need for promoting stability in zoological nomenclature.
At later points in the present volume backward references will be made to
those portions of the present document which refer to subjects which form
separate items on the Agenda for the Copenhagen Meetings, in order thereby
to obviate the risk of the views expressed in regard to those matters in the
present document from being overlooked by reason of not having been
submitted in the form of separate statements (intl’d) F.H. 10th April 1953.

Antrag an die
Internationale Kommission fur Zoologische Nomenklatur

Die unterzeichneten Gesellschaften haben zur Priifung der laufenden Fragen
eine Nomenklatur-Kommission eigesetzt und diese zu folgender Erklirung
ermachtigt. .

A. Aufschub jeder Anderung der Regeln bis nach dem Kongress von 1953

.. Die auf dem Zoologen-Kongress in Paris 1948 gefassten Beschliisse zur
Anderung der geltenden Internationalen Regeln der Zoologischen Nomen-
_klatur sind, vor allem in Nord-Amerika, auf den Widerspruch vieler Forscher
und grosser Kérperschaften gestossen!). Die formellen Einwande richten sich
gegen die Unrechtmissigkeit des Verfahrens, besonders gegen die ungeniigende
Vorbereitung und das nicht einwandfreie Zustandekommen der Beschliisse.

1Veréffentlicht sind besonders scharfe Proteste der Nomenclature Discussion
Group in “‘ Science,”’ 110 : 594, 1949 und 112 : 27-30, 1950. Diese Gruppe besteht
aus 71 Zoologen (Neo- und Paliozoologen) folgender Anstalten in Washington :
Smithsonian Institution, U.S. National Museum, Paleontological Branch of the
U.S. Geological Survey, Bureau of Entomology of the U.S. Dep. of Agriculture,
Fish and Wildlife Service of the U.S. Dep. of the Interior, U.S. Public Health
Service. Ja sogar der Priasident der Internationalen Nomenklatur-Kommission
selber, der in Paris nicht anwesende Dr. J. L. Peters-Cambridge (Mass.), hat sich
diesem Protest gegen die Pariser Beschliisse seiner Kommission (d. h. der dort in
Erscheinung getretenen Kommission) angeschlossen und hat den unterzeichneten
Vertreter der Paliontologischen Gesellschaft brieflich zu einem ahnlichen Vorgehen
aufgefordert.

Fiir wertvolle Anregungen danken wir Dr. R. E. Blackwelder (Secretary der
Nomenclature Discussion Group, Washington) und Dr. E. Mayr (American Museum
of Natural History, New York).

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 61

Die sachlichen Einwiinde betonen die Beunruhigung der Nomenklatur durch
die drohende und unnétige Anderung sehr vieler Namen.

Die Zoologen (neontologische und palaontologische) ganzer Lander sind zu
dem “ Internationalen ” Kongress in Paris 1948 weder eingeladen noch zugelassen
worden. Sie diirfen erwarten, dass ihnen ausreichende Gelegenheit zur person-
lichen Beteiligung an allen Beratungen und Beschliissen gegeben wird, die eine
internationale Anerkennung finden sollen.

Erst der Internationale Zoologen-Kongress in Kopenhagen 1953 wird
diese Méglichkeit bieten. Vorgreifende Entscheidungen wiirden die Gefahr
eines Schismas der Nomenklatur heraufbeschwéren.

B. Sachliche Einspriiche gegen die Pariser Beschliisse von 1948

Die Pariser Beschliisse widersprechen in vielen Punkten dem obersten
Grundsatz der Nomenklatur, nimlich dem Prinzip der Stabilitit. Ohne damit
die iibrigen zu billigen, wird hier gegen folgende Punkte Einspruch erhoben :

1, Allgemein: Neue Bestimmungen sollen mit riickwirkender Kraft
eingefiihrt werden, z.B. bei der Zeilen-Prioritat, bei Emendationen
und in einer Reihe weiterer Falle. Es sollen also verOffentlichte
und bisher gebrauchte Namen nachtraglich gedindert werden, wenn
sie den neuen Bestimmungen nicht entsprechen. Das ware gegen den
Sinn und die gesunde Entwicklung der Nomenklatur zur Stabilitat.

2. Die private Verinderung veréffentlichter Namen aus nicht-zoolo-
gischen Griinden soll, statt verhindert, begiinstigt werden. Eine
Reihe von neuen Bestimmungen fordert zu ‘“Emendationen” aus
philologischen und ahnlichen Erwagungen geradezu heraus. Das
Prinzip der Stabilitat verlangt dagegen, dass ein Name in der veréffent-
lichten Form grundsiitzlich unantastbar bleibt?).. Ist in einem bes-

timmten Falle die Anderung der Form eines Namens begriindet, dann
kann nur die Kommission eine endgiiltige und obligatorische Emenda-
tion vollziehen. Die Erlaubnis oder gar die Verpflichtung zu privaten
Emendationen, die oft in mehr als einer Weise méglich sind, fiihrt
zu einer dauernden Beunruhigung der Namen.

3. Die Prioritaét soll verscharft werden zu einer “ Seiten-Prioritat,
Zeilen-Prioritaét und Stellung-in-der-Zeile-Prioritit.” Es soll also,
bei einer taxonomisch notigen Vereinigung von Gattungen oder
Arten, der Revisor nicht mehr denjenigen Namen konservieren
diirfen, der sich durch Gebriiuchlichkeit oder Sicherheit der Unterlagen
am besten fiir die Wissenschaft eignet. Vielmehr soll der Revisor
gezwungen werden, dén Namen zu wihlen, der in der betreffenden
Verdffentlichung durch Zufall an erster Stelle gedruckt worden ist.
Damit wird das Prioritats-Prinzip, das doch nur als Hilfsmittel fiir
die Stabilitaét eingefiihrt worden ist, missverstanden und wird der
Stabilitat als Selbstzweck tibergeordnet*). Dieses von den geltenden

*Vgl. Rud. Richter: Schutz der Tier-N amen vor Emendation.—Sencken-
bergiana, 32 : 357-366, Frankfurt a. M., Februar 1952.

*Vgl. Rud. Richter : ‘“ Seiten-Prioritat ” ist keine Prioritaét.—Senckenbergiana,
33 : 73-74, Frankfurt a. M., Juni 1952.

62 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Regeln abgelehnte und nun neu _hervorgeholte “ Prioritats ”-
Prinzip soll sogar riickwirkend fiir alle Veréffentlichungen bis 1758
durchgefiihrt werden! Alle seitdem beniitzten Namen sollen geandert
werden, wenn sich dabei erweist, dass sie der neuen “ Seiten (usw).-
Prioritaét ” nicht entsprechen. Die Kommission erbietet sich zwar,
‘“‘Namen von Wichtigkeit ’’ auf besonders zu begriindenden Antrag
ausnahmsweise durch Aufhebung der Regeln zu retten; aber die
Moglichkeit zu solchen umstindlichen Einzel-Verfahren im Ausnah-

mefall fallt nicht ins Gewicht gegeniiber der mutwilligen Anderung
aller Namen im Normalfall.

4, Subjektive Homonymie soll einen Art-Namen fiir immer illegitim

machen und zu einer Anderung des Namens zwingen. Nach den
geltenden Regeln schlaft ein Art-Name nur, solange er zu einer
Gattung versetzt wird, in welcher derselbe Name schon mit einem
friiheren Datum vorhanden ist; aber er bleibt legitim und tritt
unverandert wieder in sein Recht, sobald er der betreffenden Gattung
nicht mehr zugerechnet wird‘). Nach den Pariser Beschliissen dagegen
wird ein Art-Name fiir immer tot und daher ersatz-bediirftig, wenn er
zu irgendeiner Zeit, vielleicht nur fiir ganz kurze Zeit und von emem
Unkundigen (wenn nicht gar einem Tauf-Gierigen), in eine Gattungs-
Kombination gebracht worden war, in der er voriibergehend ein
subjektives Homonym gewesen ist. Fiir eine Flut von neuen Namen
wird damit absichtlich ein Tor aufgetan®).

5. Nomina nuda und Manuskript-Namen sollen als legitimiert gelten,
wenn sie in einer Synonymie-Liste erwahnt worden sind, und zwar
auch dann, wenn der Autor der Liste emen solchen unfassbaren und
daher gefihrlichen Namen durch die Erwahnung unschadlich machen
wollte. Er hat einen Stolperstein aus dem Weg geraumt, und die
Literatur ist ihm dankbar gefolgt. Der gefahrliche Name schien damit
vorsorglich beseitigt zu sein. Bereits die geltenden Regeln bediirfen in
diesem stabilisierenden Sinne eine noch klarere Fassunga |s bisher‘®).
Stattdessen richten sich die Pariser Beschliisse gegen die Stabilitat :
Jede Synonymierung soll als Legitimierung gelten ! Die wohliiberlegte
Absicht des Revisors soll in das Gegenteil verkehrt werden. Gewiss,
fiir die Zukunft wird man sich dagegen schiitzen konnen, indemniemand

4Vgl.: “ Die endgiiltige und zeitweilige Verwerfung homonymer Art-Namen ”’
in: Rud. Richter, Einfithrung in die Zoologische Nomenklatur durch Erlauterung
der Internationalen Regeln,” 2. umgearbeitete Auflage, S. 195-202, Frankfurt
a. M. 1948.

’Obwohl die Pariser Beschliisse noch keinerlei Rechtskraft besitzen, haben sie
in der kurzen Zeit seit 1948 schon Schaden genug angerichtet. Ein Beispiel aus
der Ornithologie, auf das man in Amerika aufmerksam gemacht hat: Ein Autor
hat sich in Katalogen planmissig alle Arten zusammengesucht, die einmal durch
voriibergehende Zurechnung zu einer bestimmten Gattung subjektive Homonym

geworden sind und veréffentlicht daraufhin Listen neuer Namen.

6. Stresemann & E. Mayr: Uber den Rechtsstand in Synonymielisten
enthaltener Nomina Nuda.—Senckenbergiana, 82 : 211-218, Frankfurt a. M. Juli
1951. : :

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 63

mehr Nomina nuda und Manuskript-Namen erwahnen wird. Aber
fiir die Vergangenheit soll es keinen Schutz geben. Denn auch dieser
neue Beschluss soll riickwirkend sein und allen als synonym erwihnten,
mit Recht vergessenen Nomina nuda und Manuskript-Namen legitime
Rechte verleihen auf Kosten der gebrauchlichen Namen.

C. Notwendigkeit einer Praambel fiir die Internationalen Regeln

Eine Praambel sollte den Internationalen Regeln als Richtschnur voran-
gestellt werden und folgende iibergeordnete Siitze enthalten :

1. Der oberste Zweck der Regeln ist die Stabilitit der Namen.

2. Wenn eine Bestimmung der Regeln mit dem Prinzip der Stabilitat in
Widerstreit steht, so ist es die Pflicht der Internationalen Kommission

die Anderung der betreffenden Bestimmung herbeizufiihren, Denn

die Namen sind wichtiger als die Nomenklatur.

3. Die Zustindigkeit der Internationalen Kommissionen beschrankt
sich auf die Nomenklatur und erstreckt sich nicht auf Fragen der
Taxonomie.

D. Notwendige Beschleunigung auf dem Wege zu einer stabilen
Nomenklatur

1. Die Regeln sollten zum Schutz gegen die Exhumierung vergessener
Namen eine Verjahrung der Prioritit einfiihren. Nach Vorschligen, die

2. Zusammenfassende Werke sollten im Block mit allen darin enthaltenen
Namen der Gattungen und deren Typus-Arten endgiiltig als Nomina conservata
auf die Offizielle Liste gesetzt werden. Es gibt solche Werke, in denen aner-
kannte Spezialisten die Gattungen (mit den Genotypen) grésserer Gruppen
zusammenfassend dargestellt haben. Ausschiisse von Spezialisten, berufen
von den wissenschaftlichen Gesellschaften, kénnten solche Werke der Inter-
nationalen Kommission empfehlen und den Schutz der darin enthaltenen
Namen beantragen.

Als Beispiel sei der “ Treatise on Evertebrate Paleontology ” genannt, an
dem Spezialisten fast aller Lander ihre Gruppen bearbeiten. Die Anerkennung
des Treatise in diesem Sinne, wie sie bereits bei der Kommission beantragt
Worden ist?) wiirde ein miarchenhaft erscheinendes Ziel mit einem Schlage
verwirklichen: Praktisch simtliche Gattungs-Namen (mit Genotypen) der
fossilen Wirbellosen wiirden jeder kiinftigen Erérterung enthoben sein. Ein
gewaltiges Kapital an Geld und noch mehr an Zeit ware dadurch fiir wirkliche
Forschungs-Aufgaben gewonnen. in solcher Prazedenz-Fall wiirde die
Entwicklung der Zoologischen Nomenklatur auf einen neuen Weg und schnell
zum Ziele fiihren.

eee 2 ' Tulren..
7Rud. Richter :. Antrag.— Bull. zool. Nomenclature, 6: 184, London, May 1952.

64 _ Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Sollten sich dann wirklich fiir den einen oder anderen Namen begriindete
Bedenken ergeben, dann ist es die unvergleichlich geringere Miihe, diese
einzelnen Fille als Ausnahmen durch die Kommission mit Hilfe der Suspension
zu lésen. Die Kommission wiirde also nicht sofort véllig arbeitslos werden.

Wenn sich dagegen auch in Zukunft die Kommission darauf beschrankt,
jeden Namen einzeln in seiner Historie zu untersuchen, und zwar oft unwichtige
und nur durch Zufall aufgetauchte Namen, und diese dann nach jahrelangen
Sonder-Verhandlungen und in jedem Einzelfall mit grossem Aufwand an
Druckwerk zu schiitzen, so werden noch Hunderte von Jahren vergehen, bis
das Ziel erreicht ist, zu dem man einst hoffnungsvoll die Regeln und die Kom-
mission geschaffen hat.

3. Eine kurze und klare Fassung aller Regeln ist erforderlich und wire
leicht méglich.

Fiir die geltenden Regeln, die noch den Geist von R. Blanchard und Franz
Eilhard Schulze atmen, ware der logische Einbau aller etwaigen neuen Bestim-
mungen einfach. Fiir die Neu-Fassung einiger Artikel sind bereits von ver-

schiedenen Seiten Vorschlige veréffentlicht worden. Grundsitzlicher Ander-
ungen bedarf es dabei nirgends; solche waren auch nicht im Interesse der
Kontinuitat und Stabilitat.

Dieselbe Forderung wird erhoben fiir die ‘‘ Gutachten ’’ (opinions) und fiir
alle Verhandlungen der Internationalen Kommission. Die Grundsitze und
Ausfiihrungs-Bestimmungen sind an sich logisch und einfach; sie kénnen,
wenn man es ernstlich will, in der schlichten Sprache des Lebens ausgedriickt
werden. Leider ist die Kommission in den letzten Jahren zu einer umstandlichen
Juristen-Sprache iibergegangen, welche die Klarheit nicht erhoht, aber die
Verstandlichkeit so erschwert, dass kaum ein Zoologe davon Notiz nimmt. Die
standigen Wiederholungen unnétiger Floskeln machen diese Veroffentlichungen
dickleibig ; der Preis wird so hoch, dass sie nur an sehr wenigen Stellen zug-
anglich sind.

Die wissenschaftliche Welt ist daher iiber die Vorginge und Plaine auf dem
Gebeit der Nomenklatur ohne Unterrichtung geblieben. Daher kann auch
dieser Einspruch gegen die Pariser Beschliisse erst heute, im letzten Augenblick
vor dem auf den 1. Juli 1952 festgesetzten Termin, erfolgen.

Im Auftrag folgender Gesellschaften :

Deutsche Zoologische Gesellschaft :
KE. STRESEMANN, K. GUNTHER, O. KorHter, H.-J. STAMMER

Paldontologische Gesellschaft :
Rup. Ricuter, R. Dex, J. GorcEs, W. Gross, H. HItTERMANN, O. Kuan,
O. H. ScurnpEWwoLr, HERMANN SCHMIDT.
Senckenbergische Naturforschende Gesellschaft :

R. Mertens, E. Franz, Rup. Ricuter, W. ScHAFER, Herta SCHMIDT,
J. STEINBACHER, W. StruvE, E. TRIEBEL, A. ZILCH.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 65

DOCUMENT 1/35

Views of MEMBERS OF THE SOCIETY OF SYSTEMATIC ZOOLOGY
on the question of the Law of Priority

Letter, with enclosure, dated 19th June 1952, from Professor CHARLES D.

MICHENER, former Chairman of the Nomenclature Committee of the above

Society (letter transmitted by Dr. W. I. FOLLETT, Professor Michener’s
successor as Chairman of the foregoing Committee)

The Nomenclature Committee of the Society of Systematic Zoology has
recently made a study of a number of nomenclatorial problems. In some
instances it has sent a ballot to members of the Society in order that its opinion
and recommendations to you would correctly reflect the viewpoint of American
taxonomists.

The material on the enclosed sheets deals with the results of such ballots.
It is transmitted to you with the request that the members of the International
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature be notified of the stand of the Society
on the problems concerned, and that, where rules or opinions are involved, this
stand be considered in connection with the proposed revisions of the Reégles.

Editorial Note: The document here reproduced was the only one of the enclosures
to Professor Michener’s letter which was concerned with the problem of stability
and the Law of Priority and is therefore the only one of those enclosures
reproduced at this point (intl’d F.H. 10th April 1953).

Enclosure to Professor Michener’s letter

Law of Priority

It appears that the Law of Priority, which many taxonomists have regarded
as the cornerstone of nomenclature, is now under strong attack in some quarters
(cf. Hemming, 1950, Minutes of the Meeting of the ICZN, 1948, in Bull. zool.
Nomenclature, vol. 4, p. 233. ‘‘ 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 ’’).

In order to determine the views of American taxonomists on this matter,
the ballot shown below was sent to members of the Society of Systematic
Zoology.

1. I favour the STRICT application of priority, with no exceptions.

2. I favour REASONABLY STRICT application of priority, with few
exceptions, that must be virtually universally approved (e.g., Musca domestica,
Plasmodium, etc.), where confusion would result in other fields as well.

3. I favour MODERATE APPLICATION of priority, with more exceptions
than in No. 2, but applications for these exceptions must be carefully and fully
documented and must receive general approval. Generally, exceptions should
be made only for cases of real confusion, i.e., not for straight synonymy but to
prevent REVERSAL OF USAGE in important names.

E

66 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

4. I favour PRIORITY as a general principle, but with reasonably free
exceptions, to be made in any group whenever the specialists in that group so
agree, regardless of how important the case is and whether confusion or mere
synonymy is involved.

5. I favour USAGE as the guiding principle, regardless of priority.

The voting on these choices was as follows :—
(1) 33 (Strict application of priority).

2) 119 (Reasonably strict application of priority).

)
(2)

(3) 187 (Moderate application of priority).
(4) 29 (Free exceptions).

(5) 3 (Usage as the guiding principle).

In view of these returns, and also in view of the consensus of opinion among
the members of the Nomenclature Committee of the Society of Systematic
Zoology, it is recommended that the International Commission of Zoological
Nomenclature consider setting aside the law of priority only when carefully
and fully documented cases are presented to it, and then only (1) when virtually
universally approved names (e.g., Musca domestica, Plasmodium) are to be
conserved or (2) when real confusion such as reversal of usage would result from
strict application of the law of priority, or (3) when changes in subfamily or
family names would result from strict application of the law of priority.

CHARLES D. MICHENER,

Chairman, Nomenclature Committee,
Society of Systematic Zoology.

DOCUMENT 1/36

By ANGEL CABRERA
(Eva Peron, F.C.N.G.R., Argentina)

Statement dated 22nd June 1952
ON THE LAW OF PRESCRIPTION. Z.N.(S.)359

1 do not consider that a Law of Prescription would be the best means of
promoting the stabilisation of Zoological Nomenclature. On the contrary,
such a law would seem to me the best way to go back to the chaotic situation
which existed prior to the adoption of the Régles. Personally, I am somewhat
sceptical about stability of Nomenclature. Every human thing is unstable,
specially so laws and regulations voted in international congresses, in which
by reasons of distance and travel expenses the influence of a local majority
is exaggerated. Whether our efforts will end in relative stability remains
to be seen, but common sense tells us that we can approach such an ideal
only through objective, impersonal means, and not by subjective and changeable
ways. The Law of Priority is not perfect, but it is at least a sound, objective

E*

uJ

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 67

law, resting on the neutral and impersonal basis of the date of the beginning
of binominal nomenclature. A Law of Prescription—apart from the weak
points so aptly pointed out by yourself—would be a subjective law, based on
an arbitrary date and therefore open to constant modification. I suppose
the date 1850 in Dr. Lemche’s proposal has been selected with a view to the
difficulties about old zoological literature. Since no less than forty-four Danish
zoologists advocate this proposal, it is possible that it may be approved in
the Copenhagen Congress. Well, the next Congress, or the one following the
next, may transfer the Prescription date to 1950, or to any other year, on
the ground that the two World Wars involved a serious drawback for scientific
research and scientific intercommunication. The principle of Prescription
has not yet been discussed and we already have two or three different opinions
about its regulation. That suffices to show that, in whichever way we see the
matter, it is not by falling into the complications and discrepancies of Pres-
cription that we can escape the disadvantages of Priority.

DOCUMENT 1/37

By ANGEL CABRERA
(Eva Peron, F.C.N.G.R., Argentina)

Statement dated 22nd June 1952
ON “NOMINA DUBIA.” Z.N.(8.)359

The nomina dubia question is more taxonomical than nomenclatorial, but
I think it absolutely necessary to have in the Régles some provisions about
such names, this being one of the cases in which taxonomy and nomenclature
are inseparable. The suggestions about the treatment to be given to generic
nomina dubia of classes (1) and (2) are quite acceptable. As for class (3), I
dare to suggest the inclusion in the Reégles of a provision ruling that, when
a nominal genus based on an unrecognisable species has been accepted by
specialists during the fifty years following its publication to include species
supposedly congeneric with the unrecognisable type, that nominal genus must
be declared valid, and its new type should be the first recognisable species
selected as such either by the author of the genus or by another author. As
to trivial nomina dubia, I think that in cases where the specialists are utterly
unable to identify the corresponding taxonomic species, it is necessary to
distinguish two classes: (1) names of species unrecognisable because the
identification is impossible without seeing the type material, and this type
material is lost (e.g. Simia apedia Linnaeus, 1758, not determinable from
description and based on a lost specimen); and (2) names established on a
fantastic or imaginary basis (e.g. Megophias megophias Rafinesque, 1817,
based on an imaginary sea serpent). In my opinion, names in class (1) must
be rejected for the purposes of the Law of Priority, but not for those of the
Law of Homonymy, whereas names in class (2) must be rejected for the purposes
of both laws. In fact, these names, although sometimes accepted, fall under
the scope of Opinion 2 and of the Recommendation agreed to in Paris (Bull.
zool. Nomencl. 4 : 144), as they are not based on actual things.

68 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

DOCUMENT 1/38

By JOSHUA L. BAILY, Jr.
(San Diego, California, U.S.A.)

Statement received on 24th June 1952
REFERENCE Z.N.(8.)359 : Bull. zool..Nomencl. 7: 174, Paragraph 23(4)

Examples of specific trivial names which are also the names of types localities
are Sonorella mustang Pilsbry and Ferriss, from the Mustang mountains, and
Vespericola columbiana shasta Berry, from Mt. Shasta.

Personally I disapprove of such names, and would like to have the Com-
mission issue a ruling that when a geographic name becomes a trivial name it
should first be Latinized (unless it already has the form of a Latin noun) and
then either given the genitive form or an appropriate termination such as
‘-ensis ”’ or an equivalent.

I would caution against adoption of a rule declaring such localities as type
localities. Generally they are such, but not always. Sometimes such names are
given as the result of a misunderstanding of the facts. Pecten magellanicus
does not come from the Straits of Magellan but from New England. , Cassis
madagascariensis does not come from Madagascar but from the West Indies.
Unio peruvianus does not come from Peru but from the Ohio River.

Whether these names should be changed by suspension of the rules is a
question that will someday come before the Commission. Until that time it
would seem to me wiser to defer the action contemplated by this application,
desirable as it may be in most instances.

DOCUMENT 1/39

Statement furnished on behalf of the

SCIENTIFIC STAFF OF THE ROYAL ONTARIO MUSEUM
OF ZOOLOGY AND PALAEONTOLOGY, TORONTO,
CANADA

Letter, dated 26th June 1952, from F. A. URQUHART, Director

As you are no doubt aware, the Royal Ontario Museum of Zoology and
Palaeontology is rapidly becoming the centre for the study of systematic
zoology in Canada. In view of the fact that we now have a trained staff of
systematic workers, I thought it advisable to bring the various matters con-
tained in the publications of the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature to their attention. After due consideration we held meetings
to discuss the various problems upon which you have asked for advice. _

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 69

I most humbly submit to you some suggestions and conclusions which we
as a body of systematic workers have drawn up for your consideration.

I do sincerely hope that we may have added clarification, rather than con-
fusion, to some of the problems which are now being considered by you for
presentation at the next annual congress. I realise only too well the many
difficulties that are involved. I also realise that it would be quite impossible
to formulate any set of rules and expect to get a unanimous approval on all of

them. It is, however, my sincere hope as Director of one of the largest system-

atic institutions in North America that we shall eventually arrive at simplified
rules which can be grasped by the beginning student, and rules which when
followed by all workers will eventually lead to extreme clarification.

May I take this Hi aaa Pe to congratulate you on the very fine work
which you have been doing. The manner in which you have outlined the
various problems concerned and the amount of research which you have done
on these various problems is most commendable. May I wish you every
success in your very great and very important task.

Enclosure to Dr. F. A. Urquhart’s letter of 26th June 1952

We unanimously agreed that the stabilization of zoological nomenclature
could best be secured by means of amplifications, clarifications and extensions
carried out within the existing framework of the rules and by the more extended
use of the existing provisions for stabilizing individual names through the

Official Lists.
We felt that it would be helpful if a preamble introduced the entire code,

making clear the purposes for which rules of zoological nomenclature have been
established.

We agreed with the suggestion that, as part of any general plan for the
promotion of stability in nomenclature, the plenary powers provision should
be reworded by the omission of the phrase “‘ greater confusion than uniformity ”
and having inserted in its place a condition that the plenary powers are for use
where, in the judgment of the Commission, the use of those powers is clearly
necessary for the purpose of promoting stability and uniformity in zoological
nomenclature.

We agree with the suggestion submitted by Dr. Mayr and outlined by you

in paragraph 15, page 164 of volume 7, parts 5 and 6.

We unanimously agreed with the suggestion set forth by you in paragraph 16,
page 167 of volume 7, parts 5 and 6.

We unanimously agreed with the suggestion set forth by you in paragraph 18,
pages 169-170. We again suggest however, that application to the Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature might be made through the person or persons in
charge of the Systematic Studies for a particular Order who, as previously
outlined, would be in communication with other workers in this particular field.

We unanimously agreed with the provision as set forth by you in paragraph
23, page 174 of volume 7, parts 5 and 6,

70 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
DOCUMENT 1/40

By A. MYRA KEEN and SIEMON 8. MULLER
(Stanford University, Stanford, California, U.S.A.)

Enclosure to a letter dated 1st July 1952

COMMENTS ON THE QUESTION OF MEANS FOR PROMOTING THE
GREATEST POSSIBLE STABILITY IN
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

The ‘‘ Law of Prescription ” seems to us to be, at this late date, not practic-
able. Had it been promulgated some fifty years ago, before many long-forgotten
works had been exhumed, it might have been useful. Its application now
would only lead to confusion. ’

As to means of promoting greater stability, we feel that strict adherence to
the Régles as now in effect, or at least to the Régles as they will be when the
clarifications adopted by the 1948 Congress are included, will lead to stability.
We deplore too frequent resort to the use of the plenary powers of the Com-
mission, for the result of such action will be to set up an esoteric body of know-
ledge available only to those who have access to the facilities of a large library
or who can afford to subscribe to the publications of the Commission and also
to those persons having leisure and inclination to read a large volume of output.
Priority may at times require the dropping of a familiar name and the learning
of an unfamiliar one; but this, we feel, is much to be preferred to the un-
certainty that results when suddenly one discovers that by action of the
Commission, priority has been set aside to favour the wishes or convenience of
some petitioner. As one of our correspondents has wryly said of such action,
“‘ This cuts the ground from under us.”

—

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 71

DOCUMENT 1/41

Statement furnished on behalf of the NOMENCLATURE COMMITTEE AT
THE AMERICAN MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY, NEW YORK,
J U.S.A.

Extract from a letter dated 10th July 1952, from JOHN T. ZIMMER

As I wrote you before, I have had considerable difficulty in attempting to
get the Committee’s action on the various proposals on which you wished our
opinion. As I said then, it is a bad time of year, since many of the members of
the staff and of the Committee are away for the summer, and some left before
the matter could be brought to their attention. Consequently, I have no full
Committee action to report. However, I have drafted our reply and suggestions
and have added the names of the individuals who approved them as written ;
some of them are not members of the Committee.

Enclosure to Dr. John T. Zimmer’s letter of 10th July 1952

MEANS FOR SECURING STABILITY IN NOMENCLATURE
Z.N.(8.)359

Under this heading is the question of a “ Law of Prescription ” as against
removal of obscurities in existing rules. The former denies priority to names
that have been unused for 100 years following original publication, but its
adoption and use would entail exhaustive searches through all literature,
probably an impossible task. Dr. Mayr suggests 50 years and excludes mere
citations in synonymy from consideration as “ usage.” It might be possible
to require evidence of consistent usage in even moderate degree in compre-
hensive treatments to establish usage, not complete absence of such ; a modified
“auctorium plurimorum” plan with a “Statute of Limitations.” Such a
statute presents many difficulties of adequate formulation and should be
thoroughly discussed before final adoption. It is possible that a 95 per cent.
usage other than in synonymies, bibliographies, and compendiums such as
Sherborn’s ‘‘ Index Animalium,” should constitute adequate acceptance.

The removal of obscurities in existing rules should also be accomplished, but
not necessarily as an alternative to the Law of Prescription, if adopted. It
should include a “‘ Sub-Title or Preamble ” defining the primary purpose of
the Code as to ensure stability of nomenclature.

An Official Index of rejected and invalid books should be useful.

Elimination of generic and specific names of indeterminate application.
This should aid in stability. The names will be rejected for the purposes of
priority but not of homonymy.

Elaborate rules have been proposed for fixing type localities: original
designation, monotypy, restriction to originally included localities in subsequent
designation, etc. Correction of erroneous original localities to be by the Com-
mission. In subsequent fixation, if supposedly lost holotype is rediscovered

72 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

and has a different locality from that selected, the case is to be referred to the
Commission. Similarly, if overlooked data are discovered in books or manu-
scripts by the original author upsetting the designated locality, the case will
go to the Commission. Similar rules are proposed for horizons of fossil species ;
also for hosts of parasitic species. On the whole, such rules ought to be fairly
simple to operate, although it is questionable how much should be put on the
shoulders of the Commission. Common sense should dictate the selection of
type localities from among those from which the type could have come, and on
discovery of error could be automatically corrected by the first reviser principle.
No elaborate rules are required. The Commission should not be saddled with
more work than it can accomplish without long delays.

A.M.N.H. Committee on Nomenclature

(Signed) Edwin H. Colbert
John T. Nichols
Ernst Mayr
George H. H. Tate
John T. Zimmer (Chairman).

|
:
.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 73
DOCUMENT 1/42

Statement furnished on behalf of the

NOMENCLATURE DISCUSSION GROUP OF WASHINGTON, D.C.,
U.S.A.

Enclosure to a letter, dated 16th July 1952, from R. E. BLACK WELDER,
Secretary

RESUBMISSION OF PETITION REGARDING THE PLENARY
POWERS* Z.N.(S.)359

The Nomenclature Discussion Group of Washington, D.C., under its then
used name of Smithsonian Institution Committee on Nomenclature, submitted
to the Secretary of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
prior to the Paris Congress a petition on the subject of the use of the Plenary
Powers to establish nomina conservanda (Science 107 : 543-544, May 21, 1948).
This petition was supported by votes and comments from a number of American
zoologists. The letter of transmittal submitted this material for presentation
and discussion at the Paris Meeting of the Commission.

Unfortunately this petition and the supporting material were not presented
at Paris. On the other hand, Dr. Henning Lemche did present a petition on a
different viewpoint, on behalf of a large number of Scandinavian zoologists.
Furthermore, during the Congress there was received, and at once presented,

a letter from Austrian zoologists stating views similar to those of Dr. Lemche.

Both of these have been published in full with all signatories in the reports of
the nomenclature proceedings of the Paris Congress (Bull. zool. Nomel. 3 : 158-
161 and 5: 77-78, 1950). In the light of the foregoing, the omission of our
petition from both presentation at the meetings and the printed minutes of
the meetings has resulted in a rather onesided appearance of the views of
zoologists, an appearance which has been referred to with some emphasis
(Hemming, 1951, Trans. Soc. Brit. Ent. 2: 1-15; Hemming, 1952, Bull. zool.
Nomencl. 7 : 148-188).

In view of the recent appeal for statements on the general problem of
stability in nomenclature, we have examined again our petition, and find that
it still outlines the position that we wish to present for the consideration of the
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Accordingly we hereby
formally resubmit the petition for the Nomenclature Discussion Group. The
petition is already in the files of the Commission, but two copies of the printed

_ petition are appended.

We have not republished this petition, nor contacted the previous supporting
signers, and accordingly we do not formally resubmit the supporting material
at this time. However, we do wish to call attention to the fact that of the
170 zoologists who voluntarily responded on the original petition, 156 sup-
ported our petition, and 7 would even have gone much farther in limiting the
plenary powers. It is doubtful that there would be much change in the votes
at the present time.

*See immediately following Editorial Note,

74 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Editorial Note

The document enclosed with the foregoing letter was the same as that which
had been enclosed with Dr. Curtis W. Sabrosky’s letter of 25th June 1948. In
view of the fact that that document had been earmarked for consideration at
Copenhagen when the discussion on the proposed introduction of a Law of
Prescription came to be resumed from the point at which it was adjourned at
Paris in July 1948 (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencel. 4 : 233), I reached the conclusion,
when I came to prepare the present volume for publication, that the most
appropriate course would be to publish the document in question, together
with Dr. Sabrosky’s letter of June 1948, at the appropriate point in the historical
series in which it had been decided that communications received on the subject
of the stabilisation of zoological nomenclature should be arranged, and to
publish at the point appropriate for documents dated July 1952 the covering
note enclosed with Dr. Richard E. Blackwelder’s letter of 16th July 1952,
while not reprinting the longer paper submitted in June 1948, since under the
procedure proposed that document would already have been published in the
present volume in its historically correct place, namely as the enclosure to
Dr. Sabrosky’s letter of 25th June 1948.

2. Accordingly, in a letter dated 17th January 1953 I put the foregoing
suggestion to Dr. Blackwelder, by whom the document referred to above had
been resubmitted to the Commission and who had succeeded to the position
formerly held by Dr. Sabrosky as Secretary of the body which had in the mean
time been renamed the Nomenclature Discussion Group, Washington, D.C. As
will be seen from the extract from Dr. Blackwelder’s reply of 5th February 1953,
given in the annexe to the present note, he concurred in the procedure which
I had suggested.

3. Accordingly, the statement prepared by the Smithsonian Institution
Committee on Nomenclature, transmitted under cover of Dr. Sabrosky’s letter
of 25th June 1948, is reproduced as Document 1/8 in the present series (see
pp. 9-11), while the covering note prepared by the Nomenclature Discussion
Group, when resubmitting the foregoing statement (under cover of a letter,
dated 16th July 1952, by Dr. Blackwelder) is reproduced here as Document
1/42, but without the document then resubmitted, that document appearing
(as explained above) in its place as the annexe to Dr. Sabrosky’s letter of
25th June 1948.

(intl’d) F. H., 25th February 1953.

Annexe to Editorial Note

Extract from a letter dated 5th February 1953, from Dr. Richard E. Blackwelder,
Secretary Nomenclature Discussion Group, Washington, D.C.

Perhaps our ‘“‘ resubmission ” of the application on the use of the plenary
powers, and the wording used in referring to the original documents was not
as clear a statement of our intention as we should have made. The original
(1948) application was submitted for consideration by the International Com-

mission on Zoological Nomenclature and is presumably still before them. -

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 75

The resubmission was intended merely to call attention to it and reiterate our
belief in the contents. Our inability to speak again for the original supporters
in no way affects the original proposal or their support of it.

It appears to us that the original application is the one to be considered,
with our resubmission as possible supplementary matter. No doubt it would
also be useful to include the pertinent paragraphs from Mr. Sabrosky’s letter
of June 25 1948, because they constitute a summary of the attached papers.

DOCUMENT 1/43

By C. W. WRIGHT
(London)

Enclosure to a letter dated 18th July 1952

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS RAISED IN PARAGRAPH 39 OF THE
PAPER BY THE SECRETARY TO THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION
ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE (1952, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 7 : 187-188)

Question (1) A Law of Prescription would be a confession of defeat. I see
no reason, taking a long view, for pessimism. The Rules must be amended if
necessary to deal with every type of problem that crops up. Given common
sense and the Rules difficulties will be resolved. The great peril to nomen-
clature lies in the fact that many authors are both ignorant and selfish. Several
prominent palaeontological monographers of my acquaintance either do not

trouble to apply the Rules or if they do try to apply them they misunderstand
them.

(3) The main solution to the difficulty of ancient works is for authors to get
into the habit of considering the possibility and advisability of applying for
such works to be placed on the Index before starting to use names excavated
from them,

76 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
DOCUMENT 1/44

By the NOMENCLATURE COMMITTEE AT THE AMERICAN MUSEUM
OF NATURAL HISTORY, NEW YORK, U.S.A.

Letter, dated 18th July 1952, from ERNST MAYR

T am sending you herewith an additional petition to the Commission concerning
a Preamble to the Reégles '

Enclosure to Dr. Ernst Mayr’s letter of 18th July 1952

It has been criticised by numerous taxonomists that the present version of
the Régles does not contain an adequate statement of the object of the rules
of nomenclature. To meet this criticism we propose that the following preamble
of the Rules be adopted.

PREAMBLE

The object of the Rules of the Zoological Nomenclature is to establish the
basis for a uniform and stable set of zoological names. All individual provisions
of the Rules are subservient to this ultimate goal. If the application of the
Rules in an individual case threatens the stability of nomenclature such a case
shall be brought to the attention of the International Commission for possible
exercise of its Plenary Powers. If the application of a given Rule consistently
disturbs the stability of nomenclature, it shall be the duty of the Commission
to modify said rule in such a manner as to restore stability.

Signed :
The Nomenclature Committee at
the American Museum of Natural
History, New York.

Ernst Mayr

John T. Zimmer

G. H. H. Tate

C. H. Curran

DOCUMENT 1/45
By ERNST MAYR (The American Museum of Natural History, New York)
Enclosure to a letter dated 18th July 1952

The Commission is herewith petitioned to redraft Article 25. The provisions
now included in Article 25 should be separated into two articles, one dealing
with the availability of names and one with the validity of names. In the

former article all provisions concerning proper publication of names should be
included.

The article on validity of names should contain provisions concerning
synonymy and homonymy, as well as a statute of limitations, It should

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 77

include a statement on priority as well as rules specifying under which. con-
ditions priority may be set aside. A suggested draft of such specifications is
attached.

Enclosure to Dr. Ernst Mayr’s application of 18th July 1952

RULE OF VALIDITY

If two names are available for the same taxonomic unit, the earlier published
available name (“senior synonym”) is the valid name unless it is invalid
owing to homonymy or unless the later published name (“‘ junior synonym ”’)
has special rights as nomen conservatum or nomen conservandum.

A nomen conservatum is a name that has been preserved by a special decision
under the plenary powers of the International Commission and which has
been placed on the appropriate “ List of Official Names.”

A nomen conservandum is any name belonging to either of the following
categories of names :

(1) Any name on one of the Official Insts of Names in Zoology (excluding
lists of names not available) but concerning which the Commission
has not taken action under its plenary powers.

(2) Any name in current usage for the conservation of which a petition
to the Commission is pending.

A presumptive nomen conservandum is any name belonging to either of the
following categories :

(1) The name of any genus that is the type-genus of a super-generic
category.

(2) Any name (excluding a binomial or trinomial combination) that has
been applied exclusively or virtually exclusively to a taxonomic
unit for a period of fifty years or more. Such a name must have
been used in at least ten separate publications in order to qualify.
This period may be shortened to not less than 30 years for names that
have been used in 100 publications or more during that period.

The law of priority does not apply to nomina conservata. It shall not be
applied to nomina conservanda or presumptive nomina conservanda in such a
manner as to disturb current usage, or the user’s view as to what is current
usage, unless the Commission so directs. When a taxonomist discovers that
the application of priority to a presumptive nomen conservandum would disturb
usage, it shall be his duty to present the case to the International Commission,
but to conserve current usage pending their decision.

When a presumptive nomen conservandum is thus laid before the Inter-
national Commission, that body shall give it due consideration and shall deter-
mine whether the name in question shall become a nomen conservatum or
whether the Régles should, in this case, take their normal course.

78 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
DOCUMENT 1/46

By HENNING LEMCHE
(Universitetets Zoologiska Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark)

Letter dated 20th July 1952

(See also Document 1/7)

To the main question about stabilizing nomenclature, viz. the proposed
Rule of Prescription (we have not and cannot have real laws), I would like
to express my regret that you seem to have misunderstood the way in which
it is intended to act. Especially, I felt a little disappointed when I read your
suggestive heading to your par. 7: “The weakness of any Law of Pres-
cription arising from the negative character of the test imposed.”’ There is no
weakness here, as the whole proposal is positive.

The thing to do is to rule that every case where an old name is found and
an author wishes to use it, he will have to cite both the old quotation and at
least one newer record indicating that the name has been used more recently.
If he cannot find any newer record, he has no right to alter current usage. So,
contrary to the rule of priority, the burden of looking through literature is
entirely on the man who wishes to overthrow current usage. The weakness of
the priority rule has always been the impossibility to state that a name is
really the first one. Therefore, your main objections to my proposal could be
applied with their full force against the rule of priority, but not against a rule
of prescription where the proof that the name is available lies in the presentation
of a later quotation (from a place where it is used, not in any synonymy).

The proposed rule is exclusively for future use, so that no new disturbance
can be started. Moreover, no library difficulties can be involved, because if
the author has the book and finds the old name, he must not use it, he will have
to keep to current usage, and let the man near a great library have the sole
chance to disturb nomenclature. If, in future, an author revives an old name,
other authors should not follow him if he gives no newer citation, because the
procedure is incorrect and the change invalid.

To your alternative proposals, I totally agree that it is very good to make
the Régles as definite and sharp as possible. But, again, we come to our main
difficulty: the difference between your deductively trained brain and the
inductively trained ones of the zoologists who are to use your text.

I prefer, a single, definite article about the plenary powers, but no other
references thereto. If we add such references to some articles, there might
be authors believing therefrom in that the plenary powers can not be used
concerning any other articles. So, we will fall in the pit we are trying to escape.

The Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Books seems a good idea. An
asterisk could indicate volumes, the names of which would be “ sympathetically
regarded ” by the Commission for use of the plenary powers.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 79
DOCUMENT 1/47

By JOHN H. LOCHHEAD

(Department of Zoology, University of Vermont, Burlington, Vermont, U.S.A.,
and Marine Biological Laboratory, Woods Hole, Massachusetts, U.S.A.)

Enclosure to a letter dated 21st July 1952

COMMENTS ON THE MEANS TO BE FOUND FOR PROMOTING THE
GREATEST POSSIBLE STABILITY IN
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

Since the comments on the Limulus versus Xiphosura controversy which I
am enclosing herewith have some bearing on the general question of how best
to promote uniformity and stability of taxonomic names, you may wish a
separate statement from me on this latter topic.

Some general conclusions that seem to me to emerge from the Limulus
versus Xiphosura case are the following. 1. The Official Lists must be published
and made easily accessible to all zoologists. 2. The legal force of the Official
Jists must be made clear and widely known among zoologists. 3. In particular,
a name once on an Official List should not be removed because of new discoveries
in the literature, except when the Commission may decide that such removal
really would be in the best interests of taxonomic stability and uniformity.
4. The Official Indexes of Rejected and Invalid Names also should be published
and made easily accessible to all zoologists. 5. An “ Official Index of Rejected
and Invalid Books” (rather than “ Books” I would say “ Publications ”’)
should likewise be published and made widely accessible. 6. There should be
full publication of the arguments involved in each case considered by the
Commission.

All of the above proposals have, of course, already been acted on by the
Commission or are set forth in Secretary Hemming’s report. It is my belief
that had they all been in force some years ago, we would not have had such
disputes as that involved in the case of Limulus versus Xiphosura.

It will be seen that I favour developments carried out within the existing

framework of the Régles rather than a Law of Prescription. As pointed out by

Secretary Hemming in paragraph 7, the latter proposal has the same weakness
as does unyielding adherence to the Law of Priority—namely that it demands a
knowledge of the entire literature before the stability of a name can be assured.

In reference to discoveries in the literature which under the rules would
require the changing of long established taxonomic names, it seems-to be

assumed (in paragraphs 34-36 of Secretary Hemming’s report) that the specia-

lists who make such discoveries will voluntarily apply to the Commission for
validation on the Official Lists of the established names, and rejection on the
Official Indexes of the newly discovered competitors. Perhaps I have overlooked
a proposal already made, but at any rate I would like to suggest that some sort

*The reference here is to Case Z.N.(S.)506, for which see 1951, Bull. zool.
Nomencl. 2:319-322.

80 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

of obligation be placed on zoologists to consult the Commission before displacing
a long established name on a merely legal technicality. The main objection
might be that publication of taxonomic papers would be held up while awaiting
a decision by the Commission. However, it would seem to me that pending
such a decision a genus or species could be referred to by its established name,
with a note to the effect that the name is one currently under consideration by
the International Commission. As a non-taxonomist, I cannot help feeling
that perhaps some taxonomists take a wicked delight in changing names, a
pleasure that should be denied them so far as possible under the Régles.

In regard to the proposal in paragraph 15, of an “‘ Official Index of Rejected
and Invalid Books ” [or “ Publications ” ?], might there not also be use for an
“Index of Publications partly or wholly approved by the Commission ’—
with references to the discussions and Opinions regarding them ?

DOCUMENT 1/48
By E. RAYMOND HALL ~
(Department of Zoology, University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas, U.S.A.)
Enclosure to a letter dated 22nd July 1952 J

Avoid extending list of nomina conservanda and employ instead the rule of
priority with 1758 as the controlling date.

-

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 81
DOCUMENT 1/49

Statement furnished covering the views of three members of the NOMEN-
CLATURE COMMITTEE OF THE SOCIETY OF SYSTEMATIC ZOOLOGY,
U.S.A.

Letter, dated 27th July 1952, from W. I. FOLLETT, Chairman
STABILITY IN ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

I enclose herewith comments on this subject, received from members of
the Nomenclature Committee of the Society of Systematic Zoology.

Annexe 1 to the Chairman’s letter of 27th July 1952

Extract from a letter, dated 20th May 1952, fom HENRY TOWNES,
North Carolina State College of Agriculture and Engineering of the University of
North Carolina, Raleigh, North Carolina, U.S.A.

(7) I would suggest abolishing all exceptions to the rule of priority as the
first step.

Annexe 2 to the Chairman’s letter of 27th July 1952

Statement by JOHN T. ZIMMER
(American Museum of Natural History, New York)

359. Most of the proposals in this section are incorporated in previous
sections.

A “ Law of Prescription ’’ might be highly desirable if it can be formulated
in a workable condition. I do not believe it possible to insist on a name having
been “ unused ”’ for 100 years or even 50 years following original publication,
even excluding citations in synonymy from the category of usage. It is always
possible for an obscure and utterly overlooked paper to be found that would
cancel the non-usage provision. Possibly some sort of “ auctorum plurimorum ”’
principle could be devised that would recognise some general acceptance of a
name for lengthy periods even if an occasional author adopted another available
name. If the Commission were not so overworked, the Official List would
offer an acceptable solution for this problem of stability.

I believe a “ Sub-Title ” of “‘ Preamble” should be printed with the new

_ Code, defining the primary purpose of the Code as the establishment of stability

in nomenclature.
The proposed Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Books is desirable.

Elimination of generic and specific names of indeterminate application
should promote stability. The names should be rejected for purposes of priority
but not of homonymy.

F

82 Bulletin of Zoological. Nomenclature

The proposed rules covering fixation of type localities are too elaborate.
They should be on a first reviser principle, with the requirement that the locality
selected must be reasonable—a place from which the type could have come at
the time it was presumably collected, a place on the itinerary of the known
collector, a place from which the original author is known to have received
material, certainly a place in the known range of the form, etc. Such designation
is to be subject to revision if overlooked data are discovered that permit greater
accuracy. Any disputed data may go to the Commission for action, but such
cases should be few if the evidence is conclusive.*

Extract from a letter dated 21st July 1952, from Francis
Hemming, Secretary to the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature, to Dr. John T. Zimmer

Type localities ; I discussed this matter with Dr. Erwin Stresemann, when
I met him in Lappland two years ago, and he then told me that in birds this did
not give rise to difficulty. That in some cases it does is shown however by
what has recently happened in the case of the name of the Syrian Ostrich,
where, as there is at present no provision in the Code, Colonel Meimertzhagen has
thought it necessary to make a special application to the Commission (shortly
to be published in the Bulletin)!, which would have been entirely unnecessary
if the Code had contained rules on this subject. Speaking as a lepidopterist
and not as a member of the Commission, I am quite certain that the lack of
rules relating to this subject is one of the principal remaining obstacles to
stability in nomenclature. The European fauna contains a much larger number
of cases where species possess no type localities than any other, owing naturally
to the fact that Linnaeus and the other early authors dealt with a relatively
much larger number of European species than they did from any other part
of the world—probably more than all other parts of the world put together.
This problem is therefore one of special urgency and importance to European
zoologists. It is clearly, however, not confined either to European workers or
to the Lepidoptera, as may be seen, for example, in the arguments raised by
the recent attempt by two American herpetologists to catalogue the type
localities of the Reptiles and Amphibia of Mexico’.

* See also in this connection, Document 1/42.
1See Meinertzhagen, 1953, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 9 : 96-97.
8See Smith (Hobart M.) & Taylor (Edward H.), 1950, Sci. Bull. Univ. Kansas
83 (Pt. 2) (No. 8) : 313-380.

|
|
.
4
.

a

<P

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 83

Extract from a letter, dated 6th August 1952, from
John T. Zimmer

I have delayed in replying to your letters of July 21. . . The difficulty has
been that members of other Departments of the Museum are away on vacations
and field trips. . . .

As regard type localities, we admit the desirability of fixing type localities.
In my own case, I have proposed many such fixations or finer restrictions.
The rules, however, should be simple and not necessarily rigid, if the reviser
uses good judgment and selects a locality where the collector (if known) is
known to have worked ; or a locality from which material was available to
taxonomists in a possibly early time when the creature was originally described;
or a locality not antagonistic to any data given by the describer ; or a locality
from which material is now available showing agreement with the existing
holotype, etc. However, future evidence may show the basis to have been
faulty, in which case it should be remediable. Many times this will result in no
confusion, although sometimes it may do so. Evidence for alteration would
need to be positive and proof would have to be supplied by the would-be
reviser.

As a case of what I mean, I may mention one of the humming birds discussed
in one of my papers. Originally described from the “ Upper Amazon” with
certain characters given for it that are definitive. A more recent taxonomist
proposed “ Bolivia ” as restricted type locality. I objected on the ground that
Bolivia is not the ‘Upper Amazon” and Bolivian specimens lack the characters
mentioned in the original description, which examples from localities on the
Upper Amazon show well. Accordingly, I proposed a new restriction to an
Upper-Amazonian locality, in all probability the exact place visited by the
supposed collector of the original specimens. To necessitate holding to the
first proposal of “‘ Bolivia ’’ would be in disregard of the weight of evidence,
and yet it would have been difficult to outlaw such suggestion in advance.
Our suggestion to require common sense in the selection of type localities by
revisers would have done so much as elaborate rules. In this case ‘two sub-
species were involved.

Another case I have in mind. Count Berlepsch proposed a restriction of
type locality for one of Spix’s Amazonian birds to a certain locality. Hellmayr
rejected Berlepsch’s proposal on the grounds that Spix had never visited this
place. I happened to come across a brief note in Spix to the effect that he had
spent a night there. Consequently, I reverted to Berlepsch, but in this inter-
change there was not the slightest effect on the identity or validity of Spix’s
species. The same form occurs throughout the area in question.

In any case, we believe any rules for fixation of type localities should be

simple, though authority for such fixation may well become a part of the new
Code.

NE ee
ee

84 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
Annexe 3 to the Chairman’s letter of 27th July 1952

Statement by W. I. FOLLETT
(California Academy of Sciences, San Francisco, California, U.S.A.)

With considerable diffidence, I venture to suggest the futility of our attempt-
ing to eliminate minor causes of instability in zoological nomenclature, while we
continue to wink at the major cause.

As long as our rules continue to saddle nomenclature with the burden of
expressing purely subjective notions of generic relationship, there can be no
stability in nomenclature. ;

In order to avoid transitional inconveniences, we adhere to the system of
_ the past 200 years, in disregard of stability and the requirements of the next
200—and 2000—years.

Supplementary statement by Dr. Follett in response to a question raised
by the Secretary to the International Commission

Letter dated 18th February 1953

Your letter of 4th February 1953, concerning my comments submitted under
date of July 27th 1952, has just arrived. With the exceptions hereinafter noted,
I would answer your queries in the affirmative.

It was not my intention to express disapproval of measures to promote
stability, such as those considered in volume 7, parts 5/6, of the Bulletin of
Zoological Nomenclature. Instead, I wished to emphasise the apparent in-
difference of zoologists to the major cause of nomenclatorial instability, and to
express concern that the frequent sharp protests should so often be directed
against minor factors such as the law of priority rather than against that
major cause.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 85

I am convinced that the number of changes in nomenclature that have
resulted from purely nomenclatorial factors, including priority, homonymy,
emendations, position-precedence, and all changes that have been effected in
the International Rules, comprise but an insignificant total in comparison with
the number of changes in nomenclature that have resulted solely from shifts
in generic evaluation. These shifts are based on subjective considerations, and
are accordingly subject to continual modification.

In other words, the binominal system of Linnaeus itself appears to be the
major cause of instability in nomenclature.

Theoretically, a uninominal system would therefore seem capable of eliminat-
ing a substantial element of instability, even though it would not eliminate
variations inherent in the definition of species.

It appears unlikely that a uninominal system will be acceptable to zoologists,
because of the transitional inconveniences that would arise from so drastic a
change, and to a greater degree because of the prevalent desire that nomenclature
express relationship.

Tam unable, however, to avoid the conclusion that nomenclatorial expression
of relationship is in irreconcilable conflict with the attainment of nomen-
-clatorial stability.

86 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

DOCUMENT 1/50

By J. CHESTER BRADLEY
(Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.)

Statement dated 29th July 1952

(Note: The numbers cited in this statement refer to the paragraphs in the
paper published by the Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature, 1952, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 7 : 148-188).

PROMOTING STABILITY IN NOMENCLATURE

A. Answers to specific questions in Section 39

(1) and (2). I consider that the stabilisation of zoological nomenclature
would be importantly promoted by the introduction into the Régles of a principle
of prescription. I do not say a law, because I do not see how it can be made so
objective as to be automatically operative. Nevertheless, I think that great
good would derive under the following provisions. (This suggestion is essentially
and in brief a plan suggested by Dr. EK. Mayr.)

(a) That any generic or trivial name that has been virtually exclusively in
use for a given taxonomic unit for at least a specified number of years and has
been used in at least a specified minimum number of publications shall be
presumed to be a nomen conservandum.*

(b) That when any taxonomist observes that what he deems to be such a
name is not tenable under some provision of the Régles he shall not disturb
usage, but shall present the case to the Commission.

(c) That the Commission acting not under plenary powers, but by way of
putting into operation the principle of prescription, in precedence over other
provisions of the Reégles, shall place the name upon the appropriate Official List
as one to be conserved, provided in their judgement it qualifies, and such action
is not for some reason contra-indicated.

By the preceding plan the subjective element expressed by the word
“virtually ” is not interpreted by the perhaps conflicting views of different
taxonomists, but by central authority instead, and that is just where the existence
of central authority provides efficiency.

3. Prescription is not an alternative to developments within the present
framework of the Régles. Everything must be carried out that will contribute
to stability.

*Note that nomen conservandum means a name that ought to be conserved,
as contrasted with nomen conservatum meaning a name that has been preserved,
i.e., by official act of the Commission. This distinction of definition has been pointed .
out in litt. by Dr. E. Mayr and has been employed by Stresemann, Richter, Mertens
and others (1952, Senckenbergiana 33 : 193-196). [J.C. B.]

—V = ——

a

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 87

4. Particular suggestion for promoting stability.

A regulation to be inserted in the Régles to the effect that : Whenever the
status of a name having been correctly determined under the Reégles and
Opinions in force at the time, it has come into use as so determined, but some
amendment to the Régles made subsequent to 1907 would enforce a change, it
shall be presumed to be a nomen conservandum. It shall be the duty of every
taxonomist becoming aware of such a name to present the facts to the Com-
mission, who shall, without having need to apply their plenary power, decide
the course to be pursued in the interests of continuity and stability. It is
thus to be understood that no amendment made since 4907 is designed to over-
turn continuity or prevent stability, and is not operative in any case where in
the opinion of the Commission it would do so.

B. Comments on numbered section of the Secretary’s Paper

11. Preamble. A preamble is desirable.

I have seen the preamble suggested by the Committee on Nomenclature of
the American Museum of Natural History. I like its brevity, and the way that
it touches significantly upon just the right points. Its last sentence seems to me
not to go far enough.

Before I read their suggestion I had written out some of my own, a copy of
which I attach. Mine is far too long, nevertheless I think that some thoughts in
it, especially clarification of the fields of nomenclature versus taxonomy are
important and ought to be included.

In the Secretary’s paragraph 11, I suggest that in the 7th line from the
bottom, the word “ objective ” should be inserted before “ species,”’ and that
the word “ trivial’? should be inserted before the word “name.” (Let no
impression get abroad that it is an aim to freeze specific names, i.e. generic
and trivial combinations.) I should add at the end of the section that the system
refrains from trespass upon the field of taxonomy. With these changes I
fully endorse section 11.

12. Plenary powers. I strongly endorse this section. I should reword the
last three lines to read ‘“‘ powers are for use where, in the judgment of the
Commission, they will promote stability, continuity and uniformity in zoo-
logical nomenclature.’’ As previously worded the last sentence places emphasis
on whether it is clearly necessary to use the plenary powers to secure the objec-
tives named, or whether they might be secured in some other way. My modifi-
cation is to place emphasis on the objectives themselves as the important
factor. I have added the word “ continuity ”’ because stability alone might be
thought to mean stability from the time of action, without necessarily including
continuity with the past.

13. Obscurities and lacunae in the Régles. Agreed.

14. Stability despite emendation. I strongly support this section. Instead
of lengthening the Régles by frequent provisions of the sort indicated, each in
connection with some particular instance, would not the drafting be greatly
strengthened by a single general provision, somewhat along the lines suggested
above under Section A (4).

88 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

15. Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Books in Zoology. I support the
proposal for action. Since we do not wish to give the public impression that we
are casting any stigma upon these books, or rejecting en masse as unreliable the
biological or anatomical detail that they contain, would not the title better be
“ Official Index of Books Rejected or Invalid for the Purpose of Zoological
Nomenclature ” ?

In rejecting a work we reject every zoological name in it, unless special
exception are made. Does this not imply that each such name should be entered
in the appropriate Official List of Rejected Names ?

17. Suppression of nomina dubia at the specific level which no specialist
claims to recognise. The fact that no specialist claims to recognise a name does
not mean that no specialist can recognise it. No one may ever have had occasion
to make a serious attempt to study the type. That is continually found to be
the case, ex. gr. with North American insects the types of which are housed in
Europe. We are confronted not only with what the specialist of the past or
today has or can do, but what the specialist of tomorrow may do when he has
opportunity. Instead of the provision in Article 31 (B.Z.N.4:76 g.2) would
not provision along the following line better serve such a case :

If the name in question has consistently had the status of a nomen dubium,
and no type specimen is known to exist, the Commission may, upon request,
suppress the name under their plenary powers.

If a type specimen is known to exist and the Commission is satisfied that
adequate study has been given to the type, and that all are agreed that identi-
fication is hopeless, the Commission may, under their plenary powers either (a)
suppress the name, or (b) cancel the type, thus paving the way to selection of a
neotype, according to which may be the better course in the individual case,
from the standpoint of continuity of nomenclatorial usage.

If the name has been traditionally employed to represent a certain taxonomic
species, but due to the non-existence of a type, or failure to study the type, or
unrecognisable condition of the type, doubt is now cast upon its actual identity
and it is threatened with becoming a nomen dubium, the Commission may if
necessary, cancel the type. The way will then be clear for establishing a
neotype which will reflect the traditional sense in which the name has been
employed.

18. Nomina dubia which specialists cannot identify. Of the alternative
actions suggested for the Commission, I agree to (1) suppression of the name.
I cannot agree to (2) in the form stated because that is a taxonomic question.
The Commission is not competent to rule directly as a matter of fact that a
disputed name belongs to a particular taxonomic species, because they may be
wrong, and they may not force any taxonomist to accept as a fact what he
believes is not a fact. However, the same desired result can better be attained
indirectly. They can cancel any existing type material. This paves the way for
recognition of a neotype in the sense desired. That done, no question longer
remains of whether the original author did or did not describe a particular
taxonomic species. The neotype thereafter determines the application of the
name. For the same reason Conclusion 11(2) (g) (3) B.Z.N. p. 76, affecting
Article 31, is wrong in principle and must be changed if it implies a direct

SS see ee nn ee ee)

ee intiaiibes aS ia agg

4
y

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 89

taxonomic decision. It is perfectly correct if the Commission acts by either
suppressing the name, cancelling the type, or recognising a neotype.

19. See my comments on Article 31, on lectotypes and on neotypes.

20-28. Type Locality. I am perplexed by the Secretary’s discussion of
this topic. What is a type locality? We must agree upon a definition before
our minds can reach a common groove.

To my mind (but clearly not the Secretary’s, who may perhaps reflect a
view peculiar to Lepidopterists) the type locality is the spot on the face of the
earth where the holotype, lectotype or neotype was living a natural life (un-
affected by artificial transport) at the time of its capture. If it were a bred
specimen, it would be the spot where its nearest free ancestor was captured.
That spot of “locality”? can only be known to the person who “ collected” the
specimen in nature, or from some record left by and derived from its captor,
and in many cases cannot be known at all, because no record was kept, or if
kept has been lost, or an erroneous record substituted. It is, however, a matter
of fact, of truth, just as much as the size of the type, or the number of scales or
something else that it possesses is factual. The only method of determining the
size is to measure the type, of the number of Scales is to count them. These
things cannot be determined by the decision of a commission, no one of whom
ever saw the type itself.

The Secretary’s views appear to be that the type locality is a nomenclatorial
fiction, divorced from reality, that a commission may establish.

In paragraph 26 we read “a species based upon an erroneous type locality
occupies a position very similar to that of a genus based upon an erroneously
determined type species.” But a species is not based upon a type locality, it is
based upon a type specimen and solely that. It is impossible to have two
criteria for determination of the application of a trivial name.’

Species and subspecies are, by the Régles, co-ordinate, and whether a species
is polytypic with two or more subspecies, or each of these populations is a
distinct species is purely a matter for taxonomy to decide. It is a matter upon
which taxonomists hold diverse views. When the holotype, lectotype or neotype
determines the taxonomic form to which a specific name belongs it equally
determines the form which is the potential nominotypical subspecies. For
those who regard the species as polytypic, it is the nominotypical subspecies.
Each of the other subspecies (which may be species in the eyes of some taxono-
mists) has its own type and from the standpoint of nomenclature must be
regarded indifferently as species or subspecies.

There may be subspecies individual specimens of which can be differentiated
only by those taxonomists who know where the specimen came from. Usually
we expect subspecies to be sufficiently distinct for the taxonomist to be able to
perceive from where the individual did come. That is not always the case
because the criteria of differentiation may regard percentage of the population,

rather than individuals. In any case it is purely a taxonomic problem. If

nomenclature tries to solve it or to set up artificial standards, it will get its
fingers burned.

What then to do, if we have a type with no record, or with an incorrect
record, of the locality from which it emanated? What, one might equally

90 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

ask, to do if we have a type that has lost its head, where all differentiating
characters are to be found ? Certainly we cannot, in the latter instance, permit
any commission to rule that the type had six, or seven supraorbital setae, or
what not. No commission saw the type, none knows, and they probably would
not have been capable of making an objective determination if the unmutilated
type were before them. Equally, in the former instance, they cannot establish
a fictional locality, for the taxonomist wants fact, not fiction, and especially not
fiction established arbitrarily by those who know nothing about the taxonomy
of the group concerned. In either case, we are dealing with an imperfect type
specimen, and if that imperfection is so great that taxonomists in the group
concerned find it useless as a criterion for correctly applying a specific (or
subspecific) name, they may seek relief by petitioning the Commission to cancel
the type, and thus to pave the way for the establishment of a neotype which
has preserved not only the necessary physical characters, but an accurate
record of its place of capture, which will then be, without arbitrary action, the
factual type locality.

A type locality is not, or is only rarely, essential to the interpretation of a
species (subspecies). The fact to be filled in by taxonomists as rapidly as
possible is the area and physical conditions within the area that the population
inhabits in nature. The center of abundance is much more important than the
incidental spot where the type was captured. But none of this concerns the
nomenclaturist at all until (occasionally) the point is reached where the taxo-
nomist can not determine his material until he knows where it came from. It
follows that the usefulness of stating a type locality, if factually correct, is to
serve as a check on the geographic differentiation of populations. If fictional
and erroneous it would have to be disregarded by any taxonomist as soon as the
fact became known.

Two instances will illustrate the absurd results that could and would arise
if the Commission were empowered artificially to designate type localities
without cancelling the status of the type specimen :

(1) Paragraph 26, deals with type localities originally erroneously cited.
If the actual locality is unknown, it is suggested that the Commission shall,
under certain circumstances, designate whatever locality they consider to be
most appropriate.

A species of Campsomeris was described as from China. The Oriental species
of Campsomeris have been critically studied by a recent author who recognised
the fact that no such species occurs there. That author listed it as a species
inguirenda. Suppose that, on the contrary, wishing to clear his list, and thinking
to have recognised the form in an African species, although he had no critical
knowledge of the Ethiopian fauna, he had recommended to the Commission
that the type locality be designated “ Africa.”” There would at that time have
been no taxonomist who knew anything to the contrary, and the Commission
(had the proposed rule been in effect) would doubtless have acceded.

Actually the type is a specimen of a common South American species, a
fact that no one but the writer happens to know, and that by reason of having
studied the type and compared it in the South American material. Would
he be keeping faith with truth and science if he were to accept the arbitrary
ruling that the type locality (and therefore the holotype) were African ? In this

——

Mie
%
bi
i

E
-
‘

7
>

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 91

instance there is no need to establish the type locality. When the writer was
able to identify the holotype with an actual living species, he was able to state
the geographical distribution of that species, and where the holotype happened
to have been caught was not even of academic interest.

(2) In paragraph 23, suggested rule (7), it is proposed in brief that where the
type locality has not been designated or indicated it shall be the first subse-
quently selected as such.

Let us assume a species “a ”’ described from New York, Carolina, Jamaica.
The holotype has no indication as to which place it came from. Three subspecies
are known to exist, one inhabiting the Appalachian Mountains (hence including
New York State and the mountains of North Carolina), one the coastal plain
(hence including Long Island in New York) and the third the West Indies. A
taxonomist, concluding that the holotype could have been any of the three,
sets Jamaica as the type locality. Later taxonomists, with more precise
discrimination, are able to definitely determine that the holotype belongs to
the Carolinian coastal plain form. Then we have the type continental, the type
locality insular, where the subspecies represented by the type does not occur.
That is the sort of absurdity that may result from establishing two criteria
that may conflict for application of a name.

From such considerations I cannot support the proposed rules, which appear
to me a sort of shadow-boxing, a method of setting up taxonomic fictions to
pose as fact, and which in the end do not concern nomenclature.

29 and 30. Fossil Species : Parasitic Species. The principles conform with
the preceding and the same remarks apply.

34-37. Official Lists. Nomina conservanda. Perhaps some feeling exists
that these are intended only for very widely applied names and not for the host
of minor names known chiefly to specialists. A strong publicity drive might be
very successful in enlarging the List rapidly.

In the Hymenoptera lists of all generic names with type-species have been
issued for Chalastogastra, Ichneumonoidea, Chalcidoidea, Cynipoidea, Ants,
Pompilidae and Bees. All establish the types believed by the authors to be
correct under the Régles as then formulated. If they could be re-examined and
changed wherever contrary to current interpretations of the Régles, and cases
at variance with continuity brought to the attention of the Commission for
decision, we could soon add the major block of generic names employed in this
great order to the Just. It would be an example for others. All the names in
“Generic Names of British Insects,” if incorporated into the es Inst
would themselves make an even greater block.

I have also long felt, that in cases where all generic names in a group are too
numerous for any taxonomist or group of taxonomists to handle, that the
important results desired could be largely attained by a study of all generic
names up to about 1825 or some other period varying according to publication
of some early basic work in the particular field involved. Here again a little
publicity might instigate such investigations, and the mere fact that the results
would be incorporated in the Official List would be a strong stimulus. People
may say that it is extremely difficult to be sure one is right in a large list of old
names. But correctness in every detail is far less important than a definite decision
forthe future, inconformation with usage where that has been clearly established.

92 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Annexe to Statement furnished by Professor J. Chester Bradley

NOTES TOWARD AN INTRODUCTION TO THE INTERNATIONAL
CODE OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

These International Rules of Zoological Nomenclature are a set of laws
designed to govern in an orderly manner the application of names to all of the
categories involved in the classification of animals. They are enactments of
the successive International Congresses of Zoology, but their authority lies
only in the extent to which they interpret and express the will of zoologists in
whose conscience their enforcement lies. The penalties for their fracture are
not material but are expressed in the disservice done to Zoology.

While based on principles, they recognise none as paramount to their
fundamental aim, which is to provide the maximum stability and continuity in
nomenclature compatible with freedom of taxonomic thought. They seek to
provide the name which every zoologist, under whatever circumstances may be
imposed by his personal taxonomic judgment, shall apply to any given kind or
group of animals. They especially seek to provide that, under the same cir-
cumstances, that name shall be permanently the same.

They refrain from impinging upon taxonomic judgment, which must not
be made subject to regulation nor restraint. Harmony with taxonomy, however
the latter fluctuates, is secured by the device of types. Each name is conceived
to be based on a type of inferior category, which for nomenclatorial purposes
defines it objectively. Thus the name of a species is ultimately defined by the
characters of an individual—its type, that of a genus by its type-species, that
of a family by its type-genus. From the viewpoint of nomenclature species,
genus or family consists each of its type plus all the other individuals, species
or genera that any given taxonomist holds to belong to it. The limits of each
are questions of taxonomy, ignored by nomenclature. Nomenclature accepts
as objective synonyms only those units that are based on the same type; but
it is prepared at the same time to accept or to reject subjectively as synonyms
units based on other types, in the sense that it provides the proper name for the
taxonomist to use, whichever course his taxonomic judgment prescribes.

Equally nomenclature does not determine the rank accorded to any group
of organisms, but it does provide the name that shall be applied to whatsoever
rank any taxonomist may wish to assign it.

From these considerations it follows that the complete binomial name of a
species can be stabilised only for the type-species of each nominal genus, since
the generic placement of all others is a matter of fluctuating taxonomic judgment.

Conceiving nomenclatorial rules as tools useful only to the point where they
provide the maximum stability compatible with taxonomic freedom, certain
measures have been adopted to prevent their becoming tyrannical, and actually
destructive of their own usefulness.

-
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 93

The first of these provides that the rules may be suspended by an authorised
body in any case where their operation would cause change and confusion.

The second provides that where practice has established a certain name under
the International Rules as they existed in 1907 or later, that name shall not
thereafter be changed to conform to subsequent revision of the Rules.

The third provides that long established usage shall, under certain safe-
guards, take precedence over priority in case where application of the latter
principle would overthrow such usage.

The fourth provides that where an author discovers that a well-established
name must suffer a serious change under the rules, he shall bring the matter
to the attention of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
for a ruling before instituting such change.

(Note: Provisions 2 and 3 above are “ wishful thinking.” They are tenta-
tively inserted with the conviction that such rules should exist, and the hopes
that they will.—J. C. B.)

94 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

DOCUMENT 1/51

Statement of the views of the ENTOMOLOGISCHE GESELLSCHAFT, BASEL
Extract from a letter dated 30th July 1952 from M. HENRY BEURET

Sur ma demande vous avez eu la grande obligeance de m’envoyer les parties
1-8 dy vol. 7 du Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature contenant divers problémes
de nomenclature ainsi que les déductions et propositions qui devraient étre
soumises au Congres international qui aura lieu l’année prochaine 4 Copenhague.

Tout d’abord je tiens 4 vous remercier cordialement d’avoir bien voulu me
transmettre ces publications et ensuite 4 vous féliciter chaleureusement pour
limmense travail que vous avez accompli en étudiant a fond les problémes qui
nous interessent.

L’Entomologische Gesellschaft, Basel, qui s’intéresse vivement a toutes ces
- te >
questions de nomenclature a étudié vos exposés et m’a chargé de répondre aux
diverses questions que vous avez posées.

Je suis heureux de vous dire d’emblée que, dans les grandes lignes, nous
voyons la résolution des divers problémes sous le méme angle que vous-mémes.
Comme nous avons un grand intérét a ce que le Congrés de Copenhague fasse
du bon travail, nous n’avons nullement l’intention de créer des difficultés
mais nous voudrions plutot vous appuyer dans vos efforts. C’est dans cet ordre
d’idees que nous avons examiné vos propositions ; nous ne ferons donc que les
remarques suivantes :—

Pages 152 et suivantes :
No. 1- 3. Rien & objecter.
No. 4- 7 Une “law of prescription ” est dangéreuse et nullement necés-
saire pour arriver a une solution satisfaisante du probléme
soulevé sous No. 1-3!

No. 8-15 Rien a objecter.

No.16-17 D’accord, mais le terme “‘ General body of workers’ devrait a
notre avis étre mieux précisé.

No. 18 D’accord. (“general body of workers” éventuellement a
preciser).

No. 19-22 Rien 4 objecter.

H*

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 95

No. 23
Rules a, b, c, d, e, f: D’accord.

Ruleg: Si Vauteur de la description originale choisi ultérieurement lui-
meme une localité comme “type locality’ parmi celles qu’il
avait mentionnées dans la description originale, nous ne voyons
rien a objecter,;

si un autre auteur fait ce choix, n’y aurait-il pas lieu de l’obliger
de choisir la premiére localité mentionnée dans la description
originale? En effet, il nous semble que la localité citée en
premier lieu a plus de poid, ce qui ressort dailleurs trés souvent

- des descriptions originales, sans que leurs auteurs aient expresse-
ment mentionné qu'il s’agit la de la “‘ type locality.”

Doit-on admettre que l’auteur d’une forme ou une autre per-
sonne puissent ultérieurement choisir comme “type locality ”
une localité qui ne figure pas parm celles mentionnées dans la
description originale? (Le cas n’est pas exactement le méme,
lorsque la description originale ne mentione aucune localité, ou
seulement une indication trés imprécise comme par exemple

“dans les Alpes ” !)
No. 24 — Rien & ajouter.
No. 25 Why only a “ Recommendation ” and not a rule?
No. 26-28 Rien a objecter.
No. 31-37 Rien a objecter.
No. 39 (1) ‘‘ Law of Prescription”’: Non!

(3) ‘‘ stability by means of developments carried out within
the existing Régles’’: Oui!

Dans vos propositions vous utilisez souvent les termes suivants ‘ specialist”
ou “ general body of workers.” Si ces expressions doivent étre admises dans
le texte officiel des Reégles, il y aurait, nous semble-t-il, lieu de donner une

A . . . 2
définition précise de ces expressions. Qui est “ specialist” ?

‘ ”

Lorsque les “ specialists’ ne seront pas d’accord sur un probléme quel-
conque, est-ce l’opinion de la majorité qui décidera ? Il se peut fort bien que
suivent la minorité ait raison.

En ce qui concerne les noms douteux, nous estimons qu’un tel nom cesse
d’étre douteux si par n’importe quelle méthode on arrive 4 reconnaitre avec
certitude la forme désignée ou décrite sous ce nom.

J’espére vivement que le grand travail que vous avez accompli soit suivi
par des décisions qui marquent un grand pas vers l’assainissement complet de
la nomenclature.

96 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Extract from a letter, dated 13th August 1952, from Francis
Hemming, the Secretary to the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature, to Henry Beuret

The point raised on the last page of your letter in regard to the meaning of
such phrases as “ specialist ’’ requires, I agree, careful consideration. In the
context in which these phrases were used in my papers in volume 7 of the
Bulletin, this expression was intended to mean that what was wanted in regard
to whatever might be the subject under consideration was a statement of the
views of specialists (workers in, or students of) the group concerned ; it was
intended to exclude comments from zoologists whose work was not directly
affected by the question at issue. I fully agree that, if any expression of this
sort is used in the Reégles, it must be so used that its meaning is entirely un-
ambiguous. So far as the Régles are concerned, this problem of drafting arises
chiefly in connection with such questions as the use of the plenary powers, the
determination of nomina dubia and the like. Here it is the views of persons con-
cerned with the group and the views of no one else which are directly relevant.
On the question which you also raise as to the position when in any given group
some specialists hold one view and others another, what I had in mind was that
any interested specialist in the group concerned should be at liberty to put his
views before the Commission and that the Commission, after taking into con-
sideration any comments, either for or against the proposal in question, which
might be elicited by the “ advertisement ” by the Commission of the proposal
concerned, would itself decide what action ought to be taken. Reverting to the
first of your two points, I think that it will be important to avoid using in the
Régles any expression in this connection which might later be interpreted in
too restrictive a sense. By this I mean that, while it is important to secure the
general feeling of specialists in any given group, it is often important also to take
account of the views of other interested workers, e.g. workers in the fields of
applied biology who may be deeply concerned with the maintenance of a given
name but who are not “ specialists ” in the particular group in question, so far
as its systematics are concerned. Moreover, no expression should be used which
implied that, for a problem arising in a given group, the only persons whose
views were desired or who were authorised to raise a matter with the Commis-
sion were professional zoologists working on that group, for it often happens
that independent zoologists (i.e. what in this country we call by the rather
misleading title of “ amateur’) have an important contribution to make.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 97
DOCUMENT 1/52

By W. E. CHINA, D.Sc.
(British Museum (Natural History), London)

Extract from a letter dated 20th August 1952

REF. Z.N.(8.)359 (STABILITY IN ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE)

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON PAGES 187-188 (PARAGRAPH 39) IN

THE PAPER BY THE SECRETARY TO THE INTERNATIONAL COM-
MISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

1. I consider that a properly stated Law of Prescription would be of
great help in stabilising nomenclature.

2. It should not be made retrospective otherwise all the changes in the
40 years which have now been more or less generally accepted will be
invalidated and a further series of changes be necessary. It should
become operative at some future date to be advertised. Ideally each
case should be reported to the Commission and the old names discovered
should form part of the Official List of invalid names.

3. At the same time developments within the existing framework of the
Régles should be promoted and would form an additional safeguard for
future work.

4. One of the factors bringing about instability in names which is not dealt
with in your report is the uncertainty of the exact date of many publica-
tions e.g. Laporte’s Kasai Class Syst. Hemipt. 1832 or 1833. Research
into dates often brings about a change of date which results in changes of
generic and even of family names. I suggest that the Commission should
publish a complete list of literature prior to 1900 giving (arbitrarily if
necessary) official dates of publication and at the same time indicating
those works which are officially regarded as invalid.

5. As an example of an entirely new scheme, one of the novel expedients
mentioned in paragraph 3, I propose that which has long been suggested
and discussed by workers at this Museum. It is the proposal that there
should be an International Museum and that no species should be valid
unless the type is deposited in this museum. The law of priority would
hold only so far as type specimens were available. Species without types
would be invalid. Until such time as the International Museum could be
established, its place would be taken by the National Museums. Each
country would maintain specialists at the International Museum who
would gradually built up authoritatively named collections for their own
National Museum. This scheme would have the advantage of close
contact between specialists of various nations working on the same group,
and the elimination of the majority of dubious species described in the
old literature. If necessary, neotypes could be established in this Inter-
national Institution for all those older specific names which it was desirable
to maintain,

98 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Extract from a letter, dated 19th September 1952, from
Dr. W. E. China to the Secretary to the International Com-
mission on Zoological Nomenclature

I agree about the difficulty of enunciating a satisfactory Law of Prescription
to cover all Classes and Orders. It would almost certainly be necessary to have
a different starting point for each group, to date from the first real monograph
of the group, this work to be agreed upon by the specialists in that group.

Another method would be to advance the starting point of Zoological
Nomenclature from 1758 to say 1900, giving the workers operating at that date
the authorship of all the pre-1900, names. This of course would create a pre-
cedent and would deal a death blow to the law of Priority since similar “ purges ”
could be expected every few generations when the nomenclature again became
chaotic.

Official Inst of publications :

I should prefer a list, to be compiled by someone with the assistance of
specialists, of all the taxonomic works, say up to 1900 which are to be officially
regarded as valid*. The generally accepted dates should be given unless already
proved to be otherwise, and all dates on the list arbitrarily fixed. I would
suggest allowing a few years in which changes could be made during which
specialists should be encouraged to make application for the addition of titles
and alteration of dates. After that no change in the list should be allowed on
any account.

I can think of no one, other than yourself, with sufficient energy and enthu-
siasm to compile such a list.

International Museum : I agree that this will be impracticable for many
generations but the same idea could be adopted using the leading National.
Museum. Private collectors would, naturally be against such a scheme, but
what I am anxious to do by this method is to invalidate all the old species
based on lost or doubtful types. This would result in a more rational and less
unstable nomenclature. At the moment the types of very many species are
lost or the location unknown and such species are really based on unofficial
neotypes in such institutions as the British Museum and other National Museums
where identifications have been continually circulated for many years. The real
types are the “ neotypes”’ not the specimens actually seen by the original
authors. My scheme would merely legalise the present set-up.

*This list could be based on Sherborn up to 1850,

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 99
DOCUMENT 1/53

By the
NOMENCLATURE COMMITTSE OF THE AMERICAN MUSEUM
OF NATURAL HISTORY, NEW YORK

Enclosure to a letter, dated 28th August 1952, from Dr. ERNST MAYR

We propose that in the ruling, based on the Monaco Resolution, which
grants Plenary Powers to the Commission, the wording should be altered to
provide that these Powers are to be used for the purpose of preventing confusion
and of promoting uniformity and stability in zoological nomenclature.

Signed :
The Nomenclature Committee at

the American Museum of Natural
History, New York,

ERNST MAYR,
G. HH: TATE,
JOHN T. ZIMMER,
C. H. CURRAN.

100 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
DOCUMENT 1/54

By K. H. L. KEY

(Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Canberra,
Australia)

Extract from a letter dated 4th September 1952

I have studied your proposals in connection with the other six questions
referred to you by the Thirteenth Congress,* and in general I find myself in
hearty agreement with them. I do not like the definition of “ subspecies ”
adopted by the Thirteenth Congress ; I hope to be able to submit a short paper
on this later on. .

DOCUMENT 1/55
Statement furnished by the

AMERICAN SOCIETY OF PARASITOLOGISTS
Extract from a letter dated 8th September 1952

The American Society of Parasitologists at its meeting in November of
1951 appointed a committee to investigate the controversy that arose following
the announcement that “ far-reaching decisions in regard to zoological nomen-
clature (had been) taken by the Thirteenth International Congress.”

In undertaking its assignment the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature was
studied and the requests for advice in Volume 7 were noticed. The com-
mittee reached a unanimous decision on only three points.

(3) The committee agrees that a preamble to the International Rules such
as you suggest would be valuable.

In submitting these comments to you the Society wishes to express its
gratitude to you and the entire International Commission for the considerable
effort that has been expended on behalf of zoological nomenclature.

Signed for the Society by its Committee,

ALLEN McINTOSH,

D. H. WENRICH,

G. W. WHARTON, Chairman.
*j.e. the questions other than that relating to the emendation of names on

which Dr. Key submitted a separate statement, This will be published later in the
«* Document 5”’ Series,

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 101
DOCUMENT 1/56

By JOSHUA L. BAILY, Jr.
(San Diego, California, U.S.A.)

Extract from a letter dated 8th January 1953

Stability and the Plenary Powers

As I have so often said to you, the most helpful step you can take in
stabilising nomenclature is to suspend the rules whenever necessary to preserve
a name universally understood, where the application of the rules would compel
recognition of a name that has never been used.

DOCUMENT 1/57

Statement furnished by the WIENER ENTOMOLOGISCHE GESELLSCHAFT
Letter from Dr. HANS REISSER, dated 7th March 1953

Editorial Note: This letter is concerned mainly with an individual case
(that of the name Papilio adippe Linnaeus), but is included here because
in it the Society states its view on the general question of the use of the
plenary powers.)

By our member, Mr. Schwingenschuss, we have got your inquiry from
20th September 1952, about the question of nomenclature of the species Argynnis
adippe L. We beg to excuse the delay in answering.

Of course we agree with great pleasure that the name of adippe should be
conserved. This case illustrates that the application of the strictest priority
_and exhumations of obsolete names only produces such a trouble that it
_ becomes necessary to use the vulgar denominations instead of the scientific ones
in order to signify the real species meant! Our Society would prefer the
application of Heikertinger’s “‘ principle of continuity ” and we should be very
glad if it would become possible for a resolution of the authorities, treating
with nomenclature problems, to introduce this principle into practice.

102 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

DOCUMENT 1/58

By CYRIL F. DOS PASSOS, LL.B.
(Research Associate, The American Museum of Natural History, New York)

Statement enclosed with a letter dated 2nd April 1953

Shall the “ Régles ” be amended so as to regulate the fixation of type
localities and if so upon what terms and conditions ?

Introduction

This problem has been considered recently in a very able review of the
subject by the Secretary of the Commission (1952, Bull zool. Nomencl. 7:
172-180), as part of a general study on the means to be found for promoting
the greatest possible stability in zoological nomenclature. Secretary Hemming
concludes that instability in nomenclature at the species-name level arises
chiefly out of the lack of provisions in the Régles for determining the locality
to be accepted as the type locality of a given nominal species, and he suggests
provisions for putting an end to instability for this cause in the names of
subspecies due to inadequate information regarding type localities. Most of
the Secretary’s recommendations cover recent species, but he has also considered
parasitic species and fossil species. Most suggestions, it is believed, will meet
with the general approval of zoologists.

The fixation of type localities is not a new procedure in the zoological
sciences. It has been the well-established practice of entomologists, mamma-
logists, ornithologists, and probably other zoologists for many years. My
colleagues, Dr. George H. H. Tate, Curator, Department of Mammals, and
Dr. John T. Zimmer, Curator, Department of Birds, both of the American
Museum of Natural History, have kindly furnished me with many examples of
this procedure in their respective branches of zoology. In mammalogy may be
mentioned papers by Merriam (1901), Allen (1916), Kloss (1921), Sanborn (1930),
and Hershkovitz (1947). In ornithology there is a lengthy paper by Zimmer
(1951) in which many type localities are suggested and fixed. In entomology
it is necessary to refer only to a paper by Comstock (1944), one of my colleagues
in the Department of Insects and Spiders of that institution, and to one by the
present author in collaboration with Grey (1947).

Some zoologists have objected that in a small percentage of cases the fixing
of type localities is a nomenclatorial fiction. That may be true where no type
locality is given in the original description, or where a type locality is erroneous.
But those situations demand correction, even if the remedy is fictional. There
are other fictions in nomenclature. The lectotype designated to replace a
holotype that has been lost or destroyed may, in a small percentage of cases, be
another species! But by selecting it stability is obtained, because the name is
tied to an object. The same may be said of neotypes, if authorised by the
coming Congress. Stability in nomenclature cannot be obtained until many
type localities are fixed, and is so important that the possibility that some
errors may occur, or a few fictions result, cannot be allowed to prevent its
attainment.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 103

It does not seem necessary to the present author to argue too strenuously
for rules governing the fixation of type localities. The reasons for incorporating
such rules in the Code has been presented fully and ably by the Secretary in
paragraph 22 (1952, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 7 : 172-173). It seems necessary only
to add that zoologists for many years have fixed type localities from sheer
necessity in their systematic work when dealing with polytypic species, because
without fixing the type locality of the nominotypical subspecies, how can any
other subspecies be named without the risk that one of them will be a synonym
of the first subspecies named? Which that one may be will be uncertain until
the type locality of the oldest name has been fixed.

The problems before the International Congress of Zoology in 1953 in
studying this subject are to determine first, whether provisions for the fixation
of type localities shall be incorporated in the Reégles, and if so, secondly, what
these provisions shall be. This paper will consider the second problem, because
the first seems to have been pretty well settled, and the main efforts should be
directed to the codification of the present practice.

Preliminary Considerations

The phraseology used by the authors mentioned above in fixing type
localities has not been uniform, and in a few cases could have been more definite.
For instance, Comstock (1944 : 541-542) states “‘ Therefore . . . is hereby fixed

as the type locality of ...”’ while Zimmer (1951 : 6, 16) has used a variety of
expressions ranging from “ For this reason I have selected it as the restricted
type locality for...” to ““ I suggest...” to cite two examples only. Perhaps

if rules covering this subject are adopted, it would be well to provide for a
definite formula to be used in the future, with a somewhat milder formula for
those type localities already selected.

Furthermore, different words have been employed from time to time by
authors in fixing type localities, and it would be well to select one for the rules
on this subject. Some of those appearing in the literature are “ designate,”
“fix,” “restrict,” ‘select,’ “suggest,” etc. In view of the fact that
“designate” or “indicate” have been used in connection with a holotype
(1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4: 186), “ designate,” “indicate,” and “‘select”’
with the type species of a nominal genus (1950, zbid. 4 : 179), “‘ designate ”’
with the type specimen of a species (1950, ibid. 4 : 187-188), ‘select’ with
a lectotype (1950, zbid. 4 : 186), and that “designate” has been proposed
for neotypes (1952, ibid. 7 : 137), maybe it would be well to choose one of
the other words. In the proposed rules hereinafter set forth, “ fix” has been
used, because it is rather usual to employ that word in the United States of
America, but the only matter of importance is uniformity. Any of the other
words would be equally suitable.

Consequently, I proceed to the formulation of proposed rules. Three
different situations arise which should be covered by the Régles. First, where -
no type locality is mentioned in the original description, secondly, an erroneous
type locality, such as India for a species that never occurred there, but does
occur in America, and, thirdly, where the type locality mentioned is so indefinite

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 8 (June 1953)

104 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

that present day knowledge shows it to be insufficient for all practical purposes,
i.e. America, Europe, etc. All other cases where it appears necessary or
desirable to fix a type locality would appear to fall within one of these three
main divisions.

Credit for most of the proposals must be given to the Secretary of the Com-
mission, but in the concluding paragraphs of this paper some instances have
been pointed out in which our agreement is not complete. Certain drafting
changes and omissions have been made also in the Secretary’s proposed rules
which, however, are not believed to affect their meaning substantially.

Proposed Rules for the Fixation of Type Localities

Derinition.—The type locality of a species, subspecies, or infra-subspecific
form (all hereinafter included in the word “ species ’’), shall be that place where
the species was taken or found in nature (unaffected by artificial transportation),
unless for good and sufficient reason, and in accordance with the provisions of
the following rules; (1) an author shall select subsequently a different type
locality for the species, or (2) the Commission, upon application, shall otherwise
direct.

Rvuites.—(a) Where no type locality is given in the original description,
an author may fix a type locality where the species did occur at that time.*

(b) Where no type locality is given in the original description, but the author
cites bibliographical references which mention one or more localities where the
species occurs, an author may fix one of said localities as the type locality of
” the species.

(c) Where the type locality given in the original description is erroneous
(being a place where the species did not occur at that time), an author may fix
a type locality where the species did occur at that time.

(d) Where an author in the original description indicates a single type
locality, that locality, if not erroneous, is to be accepted as such.

(e) Where an author indicates several type localities, the locality where the
holotype was taken or found, or from which a lectotype is designated, shall be
accepted as the type locality.

(f) Where the label attached to the holotype, or as the case may be to the
lectotype, gives a more precise indication of the locality where the species was
taken or found than that given in the original description, the more detailed
locality so given is to be accepted as the type locality of the species concerned,
when a subsequent author publishes the particulars thereof.

*It is a question whether a name proposed in an original description that does
not contain a statement where the type was found should not be considered a
nomen nudum, since a type locality is an essential ingredient of a good original
description, but perhaps such cases are not very frequent or much worse even than
those in which the type locality is entirely erroneous,

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 105

(g) Where an author finds that the fixation of the type locality as specified
in Rules (a), (0), (c), (d), (e) and (f) is not sufficiently definite, he may fix the
type locality more definitely by publishing such fixation with his reasons
therefor, in which event the restricted type locality so fixed shall be accepted
as such.

(h) The localities to be regarded as having been originally cited for a given
nominal species shall be (i) the locality or localities cited in the original descrip-
tion of the species (including any more detailed locality ascertainable from the
label attached to the holotype, or where no holotype was designated the syntype
later selected to be the lectotype), or any restricted locality comprised within
one of the localities aforesaid, and (ii) in default thereof the locality or localities
indicated in any previously published work cited by the original author as
applying to the species in question, but shall not include any locality only
doubtfully cited by the original author, but preference shall be given to any
localities given in earlier works by the author of the specific name in question
when bibliographical references to such earlier works were cited in the original
description of the species in question.

(c) When the original locality or one of the original localities cited by the
author of the name of a given species is found to be incorrect, such other locality
or localities indicated as being the locality or one of the localities in which the
type material or part of it was obtained, is to be deemed to be such locality.

(7) When the name of a species is found to be invalid and a new name is
proposed for it, the nominal species so established shall have the same type
locality as the nominal species for which it has been established as a substitute. _

(k) Where the type locality of a species has not been fixed under any of the
preceding rules, the type locality of that species shall be whichever of the
originally included localities is first definitely fixed as such at a later date,

_ either by the original author or by any other author.

(l) When after a type locality has been fixed under the foregoing rules it is
found that the restricted type locality so selected is not sufficiently precise, it
shall be open to an author to restrict further the type locality of the species
concerned by fixing some place or area comprised within the previously selected
type locality to be the restricted type locality of the species in question, and if
necessary a succession of restricted type localities may be fixed, each situated
within the area comprised in the “type locality ”’ last previously selected.

(m) In fixing the type locality of a parasitic species, the species to be accepted
as the host species shall also be determined for nomenclatorial purposes.

(n) In fixing the type locality of a fossil species, the geological age of the
rocks and the horizon in which the species was found shall also be determined
for nomenclatorial purposes.

106 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

(0) If subsequent to the fixation of a type locality new evidence is discovered,
either from the rediscovery of the holotype, syntype, or from manuscript notes
showing the true type locality of the species in question, the matter shall be
referred to the Commission, which shall have power to fix the type locality.

(p) A type locality fixation made prior to the atloption of these rules, if in
substantial compliance therewith, and evidencing an intent on the part of the
author to fix a type locality, shall be recognised as valid.

(q) After these rules take effect, the expression “ fix a type locality ” is to be
strictly construed, and to exclude the mere mention on a later occasion of a
locality as one in which the species occurs.

(r) The Commission, upon application, for good and sufficient reason, may
cancel or alter the fixation of any type locality of a nominal species made by an
author hereunder, or prior to the adoption of these rules, except where the
original author cites one type locality only, unless that locality is erroneous, and
fix a new type locality.

(s) Whenever the Commission is requested to fix a type locality, or otherwise
act hereunder, it shall give public notice of the receipt of such application in
like manner as that prescribed in cases involving the use of the plenary powers,
and shall prescribe that a period of twelve months shall elapse from the date on
which such public notice is given and the date on which the Commission may
take its decision thereon.

(t) In the fixation of a type locality, the Commission shall select one which
harmonises best with current nomenclatorial practice, except where the Com-
mission on the advice of specialists is of the opinion that such practice is
erroneous and that its perpetuation would lead to confusion, in which event the
Commission may designate as the type locality of the nominal species in question
whatever locality it may consider to be the most appropriate.

RECOMMENDATION.—Authors are urged in their original descriptions to fix
the most precise type locality possible for a species, and to give at least the
name of the country, state, or province, as well as the county or district, and
the city, town, or village where the species was taken or found, and if the
locality is remote to give the latitude and longitude. It is also advisable for
authors to add the altitude and describe briefly the faunal zone. In the case
of parasites, the name of the host, if known, should be given, and in describing
fossil species the name of the geological formation should be added.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 107

Conclusion

In preparing the foregoing rules an effort has been made to keep them
as simple as possible, and to cover most foreseeable contingencies. Also, it
has been assumed that the primary responsibility for fixing type localities
should rest upon the author. Recourse to the Commission should be had only
when authors find themselves in disagreement. However, at that point full
and complete authority should be vested in the Commission to solve all the
problems submitted to it as it may believe best. We now proceed to a few
matters in which I do not find myself in complete accord with the Secretary’s
proposals.

I do not concur with the Secretary’s Rule proposed in paragraph 23 (d)
(type by [absolute or virtual] tautonymy) (1952, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 7 : 174),
because such type localities as those given as illustrations, i.e., zermattensis,
adriaticus, and altaianus, are too indefinite to be of much value, and sometimes
similar type localities are false, or at least misleading, 1.e., britannicus for an
Trish insect (1950, zbed. 3: 115). In one case the name Argynnis atlantis
canadensis was proposed for a Newfoundland insect by the author of the
present paper (1935 : 85), not because the insect occurred only in that country,
but because it occurred in that faunal zone. In another case the name Par-
nassius phoebus manitobaensis was proposed by Bryk and Hisner (1935 : 55),
and the type locality was given as “ Manitoba, End-Mountains,” but there
are no ‘‘ End-Mountains”’ in Manitoba, nor does the insect occur in that
province of Canada. However, there are End Mountains in Alberta, where
the insect does occur. These few illustrations show the danger of having
anything to do with tautonymy in fixing type localities. Consequently, no
tule has been drafted to cover such cases.

Neither do I agree with the Secretary’s suggestion (1952, Bull. zool. Nomenel.
7: 175) that a rule governing the subsequent fixation of a type locality shall
provide “ .. . that no locality can be validly selected as the type locality
of a species, if it was not included among, or comprised within one of, the
localities cited at the time when the species in question was originally described.”
Such a rule would prevent the proper fixing of some place in North America
as the type locality of an insect erroneously described from India, where it
never did occur, i.e., Papilio genutia Fabricius, 1793. However, the Secretary’s
proposal would be quite proper if it were qualified, as he may have intended,
by substantially the following phrase “ except when no type locality was cited
in the original description, or that locality was erroneous.”

It does not seem necessary, as proposed by the Secretary in paragraph 26
(1952, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 7: 178) to provide for the case when one of the
original localities cited by the author of the name of a given species is found
to be incorrect, because the other correct locality would govern such a case.
It is to be assumed that an author would not fix an incorrect type locality.

It is accordingly urged that the Régles be amended by the Fourteenth
International Congress of Zoology at Copenhagen in 1953 so as to include a
new article governing type localities. The suggestions herein made are offered
as a basis for the discussion of that problem.

108 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
Bibliography

Allen, Joel Asa, 1916. Article XVIII.—List of mammals collected in Columbia
by the American Museum of Natural History Expeditions, 1910-1915.
Bull. Amer. Mus. nat. Hist. 35 : 191-238.

Bryk, Felix, and Curt Eisner, 1935. Kritische Revision der Gattung Par-
nassius unter Benutzung des Materials der Kollektion Eisner. Parnassiana
3 : 47-62.

Comstock, William Phillips, 1944. Scientific survey of Porto Rico and the
Virgin Islands. N. Y. Acad. Sct. 12 (pt. 4) : 421-622, pls. 1-12, figs. 1-29.

Dos Passos, Cyril Franklin, 1935.. Some butterflies of southern Newfoundland
with descriptions of new subspecies (Lepid. Rhopal.). Canad. Ent. 67:
82-88.

Dos Passos, Cyril Franklin, and Lionel Paul Grey, 1947. Systematic catalogue
of Speyeria (Lepidoptera, Nymphalidae) with designations of types and
fixations of type localities. Amer. Mus. Novitates No. 1370 : 1-30.

Hershkovitz, Philip, 1947. Mammals of northern Columbia. Preliminary
report No. 1: Squirrels (Sciwridae). Bull. U.S. nat. Mus. 97 (No. 3028):
1-46.

Kloss, Cecil Boden, 1921. 7 new Malaysian mammals. J. Fed. Malay States
Mus. 10 : 229-234.

Merriam, Clinton Hart, 1901. Synopsis of the rice rats (Genus Oryzomys) of
the United States and Mexico. Proc. Wash. Acad. Sci. 3 : 273-295.

Sanborn, Colin Campbell, 1930. Distribution and habits of the three-banded
armadillo (Tolypeutes). J. Mammal. 11 : 61-68, pls. 4, fig. 1.

Zimmer, John Todd, 1951. Studies of Peruvian birds, No. 61. The genera
Aglaeactis, Lafresnaya, Pterophanes, Boissonneaua, Heliangelus, Eriocnemis,
Haplophaedia, Ocreatus, and Lesbia. Amer. Mus. Novitates No. 1540: 1-55.

= rm “rn 3
fie t hos
bed wid
= =,

CONTENTS
(continued from front wrapper)

PROMOTION OF STABILITY IN ZOOLOGICAL

-D.1/28
- -D.1/29

NOMENCLATURE : DOCUMENTS

Origin of present investigation ..

Reference to 1952 Survey by the Secretary 73

Law of Prescription—P. BONNET (Toulouse) ‘?

Homonymy, suggested restriction of Law of: P.
BONNET (Toulouse) .

Comment on D.1/3: ‘the late LODOVICO DI
CAPORIACCO

Comment on D.1/4: ‘the late LODOVICO DI
CAPORIACCO

Law of Prescription : HENNING LEMCHE (Copen-
hagen)

Plenary Powers: SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION
SN a ae ON NOMENCLATURE (see also
D.1/42) ..

Statement submitted in 1948 by the ZOOLOGISCHES
INSTITUT DER UNIVERSITAT WIEN, the
NATURHISTORISCHES MUSEUMS WIEN,
ZOOLOGISCHE ABTEILUNG, and the ZOO-
LOGISCH-BOTANISCHE GESELLSCHAFT ..

Type localities: L. T. S. NORRIS-ELYE (Winnipeg)

A Suggestion: THORD RAGNAR NORDENSK-
JOLD (Stockholm) ‘ ‘

Plenary Powers: W. D. LANG (London) a

Law of Prescription: CH. FERRIERE (Geneva)

A Proposal: the late K. W. DAMMERMAN

Official List of Generic Names in Zoology, proposed
extension: RUDOLF RICHTER (Senckenberg,
Frankfurt)

Law of Recency : D. SHENEFELT & J. a MEDLER
(Madison, Wisconsin, U.S.A.) .

Type localities: R. MEINERTZHAGEN (London) .

Categories of Availability and Validity: HOBART M.
SMITH (Urbana, Ill., U.S.A.)

Type localities and type hosts: PER BRINCK (Lund).

Priority: E. BERIO (Genoa) ..

Statements furnished in response to the
Appeal in the Secretary’s 1952 Survey

HOBART M. SMITH eee Til., pernee (type
localities) oe ‘

H. ENGEL (Amsterdam)

L. B. HOLTHUIS (Leiden) :

G. H. E. HOPKINS (Tring, England) .

FRANZ DANIEL (Miinchen) ..

FRIEDRICH KUHLHORN (Miinchen)

Th. HALTENORTH (Miinchen) ‘

LEO SHELJUZHKO (Miinchen)

W. J. ARKELL (Cambridge)

Page

1°.) ~] “I i>.) Mau

1/30 J. R. DYMOND (Toronto)

1/32. S. G. KIRIAKOFF (Ghent)
‘1/33 ERICH M. HERING (Berlin) .

D.1/35 SOCIETY OF SYSTEMATIC ZOOLOGY (U. S. A)
y,

D.1/36 ANGEL CABRERA (Eva Peron, Argentina) ‘(Law of

D.1/37 ANGEL CABRERA ae Peron, Argentina) (nomina

D.1/39 ROYAL ONTARIO MUSEUM OF ZOOLOGY
D.1/40 A. MYRA KEEN & SIEMON MULLER (Stanford,

D.1/42 NOMENCLATURE DISCUSSION GROUP,

D.1/43. C. W. WRIGHT (London)
D.1/44 AMERICAN MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY,

D.1/45 ERNST MAYR (New York) ..
D.1/46 HENNING LEMCHE (Copenhagen)

D.1/48 E. RAYMOND HALL (Lawrence, Kansas, U.S.A.) ..
D.1/49 SOCIETY OF SYSTEMATIC ZOOLOGY (U.S. im

D.1/50 J. CHESTER BRADLEY (Ithaca, N. Y., U.S.A. sre
D.1/51 ENTOMOLOGISCHE GESELLSCHAFT, BASEL
D.1/52 W.E. CHINA (London) .

D.1/53 AMERICAN MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY,

1/54 K. H. L. KEY (Canberra)

CONTENTS
(continued from overleaf)

PROMOTION OF STABILITY IN ZOOLOGICAL
NOMENCLATURE

Statements furnished in response to the
Appeal in the Secretary’s 1952 Survey (continued)

.1/31 CHARLES H. BLAKE (Cambridge, Mass., U.S.A. ).

.1/34 Nomenclature Committee of the DEUTSCHE
ZOOLOGISCHE GESELLSCHAFT, the PALA-
ONTOLOGISCHE GESELLSCHAFT, and _ the
SENCKENBERGISCHE NATURHISTORISCHE
GESELLSCHAFT

(priority)

Prescription : comment)

dubia) .

D.1/38 JOSHUA ive BAILY, Jr. (San Diego, ‘Cal. U.S.A.)
(type localities) .

AND PALAEONTOLOGY .

Cal., U.S.A.)

D.1/41 AMERICAN MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY,
NEW YORK (geteral comment)

WASHINGTON, D.C. (see also D.1/8)
NEW YORK (Preamble)
D.1/47 JOHN H. LOCHHEAD (Burlington, Vermont, U.S.A.)

(general comment)

NEW YORK (Plenary Powers)

1/55 AMERICAN SOCIETY OF PARASITOLOGISTS
1/56 JOSHUA L. BAILY, Jr. (San Diego, Cal., U.S.A.)
(Plenary Powers)

1/57 WIENER ENTOMOLOGISCHE GESELLSCHAFT
1/58 CYRIL F. dos PASSOS Pears cule NJo paar
(type localities) . ;

pace Tee Ey aE ee OE
Printed in Great Britain by MetcHim AND Son Ltp., Westminster, London

VOLUME 8. Double-Part PIP OHASED 30th Fune 1953
pp. 109—166 1 1 JUL 1953

THE BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL
; NOMENCLATURE

ve The Official high of
; = THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON
| ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

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

Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature

CONTENTS :

a Question whether “ neotypes ”’ should be recognised in the Régles
ag as a category of type specimen : a collection of papers submitted
to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature

LONDON :
Printed by Order of the International Trust for
Zoological Nomenclature
and
pe old on behalf of the Injernachiial Commission on Zoological Nomenclature by the
ae International Trust for. Zoological Nomenclature
at its Publications Office
41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7.
1953

Price One Pound
(All rights reserved)

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL
NOMENCLATURE

A. The Officers of the Commission
Honorary Life President : Dr. Karl Jordan (United Kingdom)

President : Professor J. Chester Bradley (U.S.A.)
Vice-President : Senhor Dr. Afranio do Amaral (Brazil)
Secretary : Mr. Francis Hemming (United Kingdom)

B. The Members of the Commission

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

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

Professor J. Chester Bradley (President) (U.S.A.) (28th March 1944)
Professor Harold E. Vokes (U.S.A.) (23rd April 1944)

Professor Bela Hank6é (Hungary) (1st January 1947)

Dr. Norman R. Stoll (U.S.A.) (1st January 1947)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Professor Robert Mertens (Germany) (6th July 1950)

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

C. The Staff of the Secretariat of the Commission

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

D. The International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature

Chairman : Colonel The Right Hon. Walter Elliot, C.H., M.C., F.R.S., M.P.

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

Honorary Registrar : Mr. A. S. Pankhurst, C.B.E.
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, S.W.7

;

BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

Volume 8, Double-Part 4/5 (pp. 109-166) 25th June 1953

CASE NO. 2

DOCUMENTS RELATING TO THE QUESTION WHETHER
“NEOTYPES” SHOULD BE RECOGNISED IN THE
“REGLES” AS A CATEGORY OF TYPE SPECIMENS

DOCUMENT 2/1

Origin of the Present Investigation

Editorial Note.—The present investigation into the question whether
“neotypes”’ should be recognised in the Reégles as a category of type
specimen was undertaken in response to an invitation given in July 1948
when the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature at its
Paris Session had under consideration a suggestion received from Dr.
Don L. Frizzell and Dr. Harry Wheeler on the subject of the recognition
of neotypes (see Document 2/2 below). The Commission then agreed
(see 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 192) :—

“(a) that the proposal to recognise the category ‘neotype’ raised
complex problems which required much closer and more detailed
study than had yet been given to them ;

110 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

““(b) that, if the Congress were to be recommended to recognise the
category ‘neotype,’ it would be essential that the proposals so
submitted should be comprehensive in character and should contain
adequate safeguards against the abuse of the new provision by
mercenary or irresponsible persons ;

“(e) that, m view both of the intrinsic difficulties involved in the
proposed recognition of the category ‘ neotype’ and of the wide
differences of opinion on the subject which at present existed
among zoologists, it was essential that further discussions should
be held with interested groups of specialists before the Commission
submitted any recommendations to the Congress for the amendment
of the Regles to deal with this subject.”

2. The Commission further agreed to recommend (1950, ibid. 4 : 192-193)
“that the Secretary to the Commission should be invited to make a thorough
study, in conjunction with interested specialists, of the problems involved in
the proposal that the category ‘neotype’ should be recognised in the Régles
and to submit a Report thereon, 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 a considered
statement of their views on this subject and, if they decided in favour of
recommending that the foregoing category of type specimen should be recognised
in the Régles, of a comprehensive scheme to that end.”

3. The foregoing recommendation, with other recommendations, was
submitted to, and approved by, the Section on Nomenclature of the Thirteenth
International Congress of Zoology at its Second Meeting held on 24th July
1948 (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 5 : 71, 76).

DOCUMENT 2/2

General Consultation With Specialists and Issue of an Appeal
for Advice in 1952

Editorial Note.—Attention is drawn to the review prepared by the Secretary
to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature of the
problems involved in the question whether the category “ neotype ”
should be recognised in the Régles as a category of type specimen which
was published in March 1952 (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 7 : 131-147). This
review contained an appeal to specialists to assist in the present investiga-
tion by furnishing statements of their views on the action which it was
desirable should be taken. It was in response to this appeal that the
majority of the documents now submitted was furnished.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature lil
DOCUMENT 2/3

The question whether “ neotypes”’ should be recognised as a category of
type specimen was first brought before the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature by DON L. FRIZZELL and HARRY E. WHEELER
in a paper entitled “On the Question of recognising ‘ Neotypes’.” This
paper was published in August 1945 (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 1 : 106-108).

The stand taken in the above paper is shown by the following extracts
therefrom :—

In a case in which the original types of a species “‘ A” are lost or other-
wise unavailable, and in which two or more species—all fitting the des-
cription of species “ A ”’—occur at the type locality, can the identity of
species ‘‘ A” be established by the designation of one or more neotypes ?

. If the designation of “ neotypes ”’ is not accepted, how is the identity of
species “A” to be determined? The following case is submitted to the
Commission in the hope of obtaining a ruling on the validity of the term
*‘neotype’”’ and the principle involved, rather than merely to solve the
specific problem offered by the following example. .

If the holotype of a composite species such as . . . were in existence,
there would be no doubt that it would represent the species to which the
original name must be attributed. When the original types are com-
pletely unavailable, however, the reviser must select arbitrarily the species
to bear the name. If at the same time he can designate a “‘ neotype ” (or
“neotypes,” if “‘neoholotype” and “neoparatype” can be admitted)
which will be accepted by the Commission as they now accept holotypes,
such procedure will certainly tend to stabilise nomenclature and prevent
some of the shuffling about of names which is common at present.

DOCUMENT 2/4

In a paper published at the same time as that by Frizzell and Wheeler,
FRANCIS HEMMING, Secretary to the International Commission on Zoo-
logical Nomenclature, drew attention to certain abuses which might arise if
the “ neotype ”’ concept were to be incorporated into the Régles, unless at the
same time stringent safeguards were laid down (Hemming, 1945, Bull. zool.
Nomencl. 1: 108-111).

112 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

DOCUMENT 2/5
By H. §. BARBER

(United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Organisation
Bureau of Entomology and Plant Quarantine, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.)

Letter dated 23rd June 1947

The enclosed article* was written before I saw your discussion of ‘‘ neotypes ”’
in your Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (Vol. 1, No. 5, p. 108 (Z.N.(S.)24)).

I protest that :—
(1) The neotype question is one of taxonomic practice and not one of
nomenclature.
(2) Questions of nomenclature begin and end in such published literature
as complies with the Code.
(3) Zoological questions are problems for taxonomic research and are as
yet not covered by rules authorised by the International Congresses.

(4) Since type specimens can never be published (although they are
recorded in publications) they are not nomenclatural (as in 2) but
are subjects of zoological research (as in 3).

(5) Neotypes are proposed by zoological analysts for consideration by
their colleagues and successors. These colleagues and successors
will evaluate their significance as they do other units of evidence
bearing on identification of named kinds.

(6) Your Commission has no jurisdiction over processes of zoological
analysis, including neotype establishment, but may rule on validity

of published nomenclature.

;

(7) As example of neotype proposal for solution of a problem of zoological ;
- identity I would cite and here include part of my published dis- ;
cussion (Proc. ent. Soc. Wash. 49 : 155, 157) as follows :— ;

“ Believing the original Fabrician type of Crioceris vittata from
Carolina, in the collection of a Mr. Monson, has been lost, I
designate as neoholotype and neoparatypes 90 specimens
collected on squash, 18th April 1938, at Charleston, 8.C., by
W. J. Reid, preserved in the United States National Museum.
This locality is, most likely, the one from which the original
type was obtained. No other Carolinian species in my ex-
perience seems to agree so well with the original description.
Such confusion has resulted from the brief statement by Lever,
1930, that the type of Cistela melanocephala F., 1775, is the
species we have called vittata, that my action above indicated
seems required. If, however, the authentic holotype of vittata
can be produced and shown to be other than the species here
indicated, this action will fall. Lever was not the first reviser.

ait icen ts Latte

*The paper here referred to, of which a separate was enclosed with Dr. Barber’s letter, is a
paper entitled ‘‘ Science and Legality ’’ published in April 1950 in the Nautilus (Vol. 63 (No. 4) :

128-130).

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 113

Fabricius himself in 1792 chose vittata instead of melanocephala
as the name for this pest, and page priority claimed by Lever
is not here applicable. His choice of the name vittata happens
to comply with Article 35 of our present Code whereas resur-
rection of melanocephala violates Article 36.”

DOCUMENT 2/6

By the late LODOVICO DI CAPORIACCO
(Unwersity of Parma, Italy)

Extract from an enclosure to a letter dated 31st December 1947

Nomina dubia are undoubtedly an evil for taxonomy, but nevertheless, if
neotypes are to be recognised, great care will need to be taken. For, in addition
to providing measures to guard against the dangers listed by Mr. Hemming
in points (1), (2) and (3) of his paper (1945, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 1 : 108-111)*,
with which I fully agree, it will be necessary to prevent the acceptance of
neotypes from fostering the tendency to consider that type specimens and not
descriptions as the base of taxonomy. Such a development would be an evil
worse even than nomina dubia. It is essential that descriptions should be
drawn up in such a way that they are sufficient to permit the recognition
of the species described without examining the example (or examples) upon
which the description was made, if taxonomists are to be scientists and not
merely workers on collections.

In the case of Arachnid species, the designation of neotypes in cases where
the type specimens are lost and the descriptions are insufficient for the purposes
of recognition, would, I consider, give rise to more trouble than uniformity.

DOCUMENT 2/7

By HORACE H. BAKER

(University of Pennsylvania, Zoological Laboratory, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania,
U.S.A.)

Extract from a letter dated 22nd July 1950

99

A “neotype”’ is a handy standard of reference, but should not be given
legal status, because the fundamental principles of the international rules are :
(1) The law of priority. (2) Publication. This accent on publication is very
important because the printed page never changes, while the care (labels and
rearrangements) of museum specimens varies greatly with the individual
curator, and, since inflation has embarrassed most museums financially, may
become worse instead of better. The Commission should be careful not to
discourage careful study in favor of artificiality; e.g., Opinion 78 was a ridiculous
decision. Such artificiality is the reason why the majority of non-taxonomic
zoologists ridicule the International Rules.

The present Commission is doing an excellent job in its suspension of the
Rules in certain cases. Such actions are in delightful contrast to the reticence
of earlier Commissions in the use of these powers.

*See Document 2/4.

114 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

DOCUMENT 2/8

By G. H. E. HOPKINS, O.B.E., M.A.
(British Museum (Natural History), Zoological Museum, Tring, Herts, England)

Letter dated 8th April 1952

I have just been reading, with considerable interest, your article on the
neotype question in Trans. Soc. Brit. Ent. As Miss Theresa Clay and I have
erected quite a lot of neotypes, I think it is up to me to make some comments :—

(i) In Mallophaga neotypes are absolutely essential if we are to attempt
to use the older names. Something like 80 per cent. of the types
of the species described before 1880 are lost and we are finding
more and more instances in which two species which are indistin-
guishable by means of the old descriptions occur on the same host.
Moreover, a large proportion of the older names refer to a complex
of several species, and there is no method under the present Rules
by which a type host (or locality) can be fixed other than selection
of a lectotype; this cannot be done if the type material is lost,
and the only possible way is to erect a neotype. ~

(ui) I entirely agree with your suggestions (a) that neotypes must be
placed in a public museum or other similar institution where they
are accessible, (b) should be adequately (what a large question
that word begs—and “ fully ”’ is worse !) described and illustrated
in the paper in which they are proposed, (c) that a paratype should
have preference other things being equal. But quite often other
things may not be equal—it is sometimes possible to state with
certainty that a specimen is not from the supposed host, and it
would obviously be wrong to make such a specimen a neotype
if it can be avoided. Syntypes surely do not come into this
question of preference, though you mention them, for if syntypes
exist a lectotype can be selected and a neotype is unnecessary.

(iii) Obviously it is desirable that a neotype should also be a topotype,
but I am strongly against this provision being made too rigid.
Wrong host-records are infinitely more frequent in parasitic
insects (Mallophaga in particular) than wrong localities among
free-living insects ; you will realize that this is inevitable when a
huge proportion of species were described from material obtained
either from skins in museums or from captive hosts, in zoos. I
would suggest that the neotype should be a topotype unless there
is reason to believe that the original locality or host is erroneous,
but even this should not be mandatory, because (as you say) the
condition might make erection of a neotype impossible. In any
case, what exactly is a topotype? Often nowadays an author
gives the type-locality almost to a yard—a specimen caught at
the exact spot is obviously a topotype, but what of one caught
100 yards away, or 400 yards, half a mile, 2 miles, 10 miles... ? And
parasites very rarely pay any heed to the subspecies of their hosts,
but occasionally they do.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 115

(iv) I am most strongly of the opinion that authors (even Miss Clay and
myself!) should not be allowed the final word in this matter.
One author (I am sure you will guess his name!) has already
made one neotype which is not congeneric with the original
material ; obviously he was misled by an erroneous bit of nine-
teenth century synonymy and never looked at the drawing pub-
lished as part of the original description, which is poor but
recognizable. I suggest that authors should erect provisional
neotypes and that these (after receiving the same sort of publicity
as is given to proposals to suspend the Rules) should be confirmed
(or disallowed) by the Commission; during the interval they
would have provisional validity. Applications to the Commission
for confirmation of provisional neotypes should not be confined
to the author who erects them.

(v) It is, I think, absolutely essential that, once the Commission has
’ recognized a neotype, that fact should entirely and permanently
deprive the original type-material of any status.

(vi) The problem of whether neotypes should go to the museum which
once possessed the original material is complicated. Miss Clay
and I, for instance, have already transgressed badly against this
suggestion. The reason is quite simple: the majority of the
species we have dealt with either never were in any museum as far
as is known or were at Halle. Now Halle is behind the curtain,
and to send specimens there would mean that they would be
utterly inaccessible to any western student of the lice. Moreoever,
is it very useful to have the types of a few species in some museum
where there is only a tiny collection of the group and nobody
working on it ? This would often be the case.

116 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

DOCUMENT 2/9

By L, B. HOLTHUIS
(Riyksmuseum van Natuurlyke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands)

Letter dated 15th April 1952

Neotypes

Your paper (1952, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 7 (5/6): 131-147) has been read
with great interest. I can assure you that I am greatly in favour of the
recognition of. neotypes, of course under adequate safeguards against abuse
of them. Perhaps I may make the following remarks :—

(1) Your paragraph 10, p. 136. It has always been a nuisance to zoologists
who had to examine type specimens, that such types generally are scattered
over a large number of museums. In this way much time is lost which could
have been spent more profitably in the examimation of material. Even a
concentration of type specimens in a restricted number of institutions is
impossible, not the least because of institutional pride ; the ideal of one type
museum, apart from severe practical disadvantages, is of course unattainable.
With neotypes the Commission indeed possesses the means to restrict the
number of institutions in which the types may be stored. I would advocate
that the utmost use should be made of this power by limiting the number
of Museums in which neotypes may be stored to the minimum. Would it
not be possible to make it a general principle that each country should have
only one neotype-museum, and that this principle should be abandoned only
in very special cases? This would greatly serve visiting foreign scientists.

(2) Your paragraph 24, p. 145. It seems best to me to use the name
“* unofficial neotypes ” for those neotypes established before the official scheme
concerning neotypes comes into action. The word “neotypes”’ or “ official
neotypes””’ may be used for the other neotypes. Unofficial neotypes should
have no standing, I think, and scientists having established unofficial neotypes
or being aware of the existence of such unofficial neotypes in their speciality
should be urged to take as soon as possible the necessary steps to let these
unofficial neotypes become official neotypes.

DOCUMENT 2/10

VIEWS OF SEVEN WORKERS IN SYSTEMATIC ENTOMOLOGY IN
THE MUSEUM OF COMPARATIVE ZOOLOGY AND THE BIOLOGICAL
LABORATORIES, HARVARD UNIVERSITY, CAMBRIDGE,

MASSACHUSETTS, .U.S.A.

Enclosure to a letter dated 28th April 1952, from Dr. JOS. BEQUAERT

In answer to your appeal for advice “on the question whether ‘ neotypes ’
should be recognised in the Régles as a category of type specimen”: Z.N.(8.)
308 :—

(1) The undersigned are opposed to the insertion in the Regles of any
provision making it compulsory to observe neotypes as a category
of type specimen.

Bulletin of Zoological N. omenclature 117

(2) It is felt that the chances for both conscious and unconscious abuse
of a compulsory neotype category are so great as to render legi-
timisation of neotypes under the Réegles very dangerous to
systematics.

(3) We approve insertion in the Régles of a provision expressly denying
the right of any worker to designate a neotype, binding upon

other workers as a typical specimen.

JOS. BEQUAERT F. M. CARPENTER
P. J. DARLINGTON, Jr. WILLIAM L. BROWN, Jr.
E. O. WILSON F. Y. CHENG

PHILLIP A. ADAMS

Workers in systematic entomology in the
Museum of Comparative Zoology and the
Biological Laboratories, Harvard University.

118 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

DOCUMENT 2/11

By D. K. McK. KEVAN

(School of Agriculture, Zoology Section, University of Nottingham,
Sutton Bonington, Loughborough, England)

(1) Enclosure to a letter dated 29th April 1952

Comments on the problem of neotypes discussed in Part 5 of Volume 7 of the
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

I am fully in favour of the recognition of neotypes providing sufficient
safeguards to prevent their abuse be provided.

Para. 11

In cases where an adequate description and/or figures exist already for
type specimens which have been lost, I am of the opinion that a statement
to the effect that a proposed neotype agrees fully with the description and/or
illustration of the original type should be deemed equivalent to a description
and figure of the neotype. In cases where only minute details differ, I consider
that it should be sufficient to point these out. I agree that a complete re-
description and re-illustration should be recommended, but I do not think it
should be a rule. It might be that the original description or figures are in-
adequate, but it is equally likely that re-description and re-illustration would
be redundant.

Two difficulties arise. Firstly it would be difficult to pre-judge what should
be considered an adequate description or illustration and secondly, if re-illus-
tration were to be ruled necessary for the recognition of a neotype, what would
constitute an illustration ? Would it in the latter case have to be stated that
it was indeed a figure of the neotype (or part of it) itself or would it be sufficient
to illustrate the species to which the neotype belonged when designating the
neotype. Would a figure need to show the whole animal, or, if only a part,
how would one qualify the type of illustration acceptable ? Clearly one could
not insist on the whole animal since this is sometimes not known (especially
in fossils), but an illustration of a single scale or a bunch of bristles might
be quite inadequate by itself although satisfactory if taken in conjunction
with previously published figures of the original type or other material.

Para. 15

I favour alternative (b) since a rediscovered holotype or syntype may be
clearly shown to belong to a species other than that to which the neotype
belongs.

Para. 16 ‘

To Bull. zool. Nomencl. could we not add “‘ or some other specified pub-
lications”’ ? I feel that there would be reluctanve on the part of many authors,
having designated a neotype in one journal, to write a further paper, perhaps
stating his reasons again, for the Bulletin.

Para. 24

I suggest that all unofficial heotypes designated prior to any rule coming
into effect should automatically be recognised, providing holotypes and syntypes

oore ee rere.

>

se
+s

a

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 119

shown to belong to a different species from the neotype in question are not
known to be in existence. If any specialist wishes to have the recognition
of any neotype rejected for any other reason than that holotypes and/or
syntypes are discovered and shown to belong to a different species, he should
make application to the Commission for the purpose.

It should be recommended that all established unofficial neotypes should
be brought to the notice of the Commission for consideration and placing
upon an Official Inst, but failure to bring forward for recognition any neotype

designated before the rules governing neotype designation should not render
such designations invalid.

I suggest also that to distinguish unofficial neotypes from official ones,
no irritating serial number is required, but merely the date (in brackets) when
the unofficial neotype was designated. An official neotype would require no
date and an unofficial neotype admitted to the list would automatically be
excused from carrying a date thereafter. Unofficial neotypes designated
subsequent to the rules governing neotypes would be invalid. Only one neotype

should be permitted. An official neotype would take precedence over any
unofficial one.

In addition to the above notes I should like to suggest that it should be
possible to designate neotypes for species which have been described or figured
but not named until a later date (by another author). In such cases there
never has been a type specimen, e.g. the Acridid, Tenwitarsus angustus (Blanch.)
was figured by Savigny (1825 ?) but was not given a name until Blanchard
did so in 1836, calling it Ommexecha angustum. This species thus never had a
type—even if the specimen figured by Savigny were in existence (which it
is not). Something similar may be found to be the case with animals invalidly
described (either before or after 1758) and later given a valid name. The
material used by the original describer cannot be considered the type of the
valid species unless it was actually seen* by the author who first gave it its
valid name. The “holotype”? would technically be the earlier invalid
description or illustration (as with Savigny above) and not the material upon
which that description or illustration was based. Where the author who
first gave the valid name had not seen the material, it would be necessary
to designate as neotype a specimen from .among that material if any were
found to exist or, failing that, from another reliable source.

If, for example, the original specimen illustrated by Savigny (above) were
discovered, it would not be the type of Ommezxecha angustum Blanch. because
Blanchard never saw it. It could, however, be designated a neotype. It
might also be placed in a special category taking precedence over any other

unofficial neotype (and even perhaps by application to the Commission over
any other official neotype 2).

In the case of an invalidly named or unnamed species being subsequently
given a valid name by its original author, the original material would be deemed
typical whether or not it was still available to the author at the time he gave
the valid name, unless the author chose to designate other material as typical.

*This might be difficult to confirm or deny. It should therefore only be accepted that he
had seen it if it is clear that he had done so—preferably by a statement to this effect.

120 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

(2) Extract from a letter dated 12th June 1952

My suggestion on the subject of the publication of proposals relating to
the establishment of neotypes in particular cases was due to a feeling that
authors wishing to designate neotypes may wish to do so in connection with
some taxonomic work which would not be of concern to the Commission,
since the latter deals with nomenclature only. Having proposed that such
and such a specimen be regarded as a neotype, an author might feel reluctant
to write up again the whole of his evidence for regarding it as such. I would
agree that formal application to the Commission should be published in the
Bulletin, but I feel that this should be brief, merely referring to the relevant
literature and summarising the case. I feel that the whole case need not be
stated in detail, otherwise the Bulletin would be in danger of becoming a journal
devoted to a certain type of taxonomic problem as much as one of nomenclature.

DOCUMENT 2/12

Suggestions furnished by FRANZ DANIEL
(Zoologische Sammlung, des Bayerischen Staates, Miinchen, Germany)

Editorial Note.—Attention is drawn to the letter, dated 30th April 1952,
from Dr. Franz Daniel (Zoologische Sammlung des Bayerischen Staates,
Miinchen), which, being mainly concerned with the problem of promoting
stability in zoological nomenclature has been included in the series of
papers which has been assembled in regard to that subject. It is there
included as Document 1/25.

In the letter referred to above, Dr. Daniel suggested that the stabilisation
of nomenclature should be sought by the establishment of committees of
interested specialists in particular groups at the family level, wide powers
being given to these Committees to promote stability without being unduly
trammelled by the principle of priority. It will be seen that Dr. Daniel included
in his scheme a proposal that power should be granted to the Committees to
establish neotypes in cases where by reason of their age or for other reasons
the existing type material was insufficient effectively to serve the required
purpose.

;
;
a
‘1
.
5

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 12]

DOCUMENT 2/13

By CYRIL F. DOS PASSOS, LL.B.
(Research Associate, American Museum of Natural History, New York)

Enclosure to a letter dated 3rd May 1952

ON THE QUESTION WHETHER AND SUBJECT TO WHAT CON-

DITIONS THE CONCEPT OF A “ NEOTYPE ” SHOULD BE OFFICIALLY

RECOGNISED BY AN APPROPRIATE AMENDMENT TO THE
“ REGLES ”

Introduction

In recent years it has become the practice among some zoologists to
designate neotypes when the type has been lost or destroyed. Examples
of this custom among entomologists will be found in the papers of Freeman
(1952), dos Passos (1943, 1949), dos Passos and Grey (1947), Sabrosky (1959),
and others.

The practice of designating neotypes has no basis at present in the Reégles,
but it grew up, like the practice of designating lectotypes, as the result of
what was deemed to be a matter of necessity. The problem presented by the
question of recognising neotypes was brought first to the attention of the
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature by Frizzell and Wheeler
(1935, 1945) who in the case discussed by them concluded that such recognition
would certainly tend to stabilise nomenclature and prevent some of the
shuffling about of names, which is so common at present. This interesting
paper (1945) was commented upon by the Secretary of the Commission in the
same volume (1945) and he brought that question up at the 1948 International
Congress of Zoology at Paris, where it was recognised that there is a widespread
desire for the recognition of neotypes under certain conditions. At that
Congress the Commission agreed to recommend (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencel.,
vol. 4, pp. 191-193) :—

“that the Secretary to the Commission should be invited to make a
thorough study, in conjunction with interested specialists, of the problems
involved in the proposal that the category ‘ neotype’ should be recognised
in the Régles and to submit a Report thereon, 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 a considered statement of their views on this subject
and, if they decided in favour of recommending that the foregoing category
of type specimen should be recognised in the Reégles, of a comprehensive
scheme to that end.”

The matter was again discussed informally in the Section on Nomenclature
at the 1951 International Congress of Entomology at Amsterdam, where it
was described as one of the important matters coming up for decision in 1953.
Recently the Secretary of the International Commission on Zoological Nomen-
clature published an elaborate report on the subject of recognising neotypes
with numerous recommendations, and an appeal to zoologists for advice

Bull. zool. Nomencel., Vol. 8 (July 1953)

122 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

(1952 a). It is to assist in the decision whether (1) neotypes should be recognised
by the Régles, and if so (2) to formulate appropriate rules covering this subject
that the present paper is submitted to the Commission. Some of the Secretary’s
recommendations will be commented upon at the conclusion of this paper.

Should Neotypes be Recognised ?

In zoology a name is applied to an object called the type specimen. The
type specimen is identified by a name and defined by a description in words
or by a figure, as prescribed by the Régles. Words can never fully describe
an object because (a) they are inadequate, and (b) the author may overlook
some essential character, etc. Figures also are fallible, although often better
than words, but they cannot be dissected—sometimes a matter of supreme
importance. Old descriptions are especially troublesome with scanty wording
frequently applicable to two or more objects, and with many indefinite or
false localities. In every case nothing is better than, and nothing is quite as
good as the type specimen itself. If the type specimen is lost or destroyed,
the next best thing is a new type specimen—a neotype—believed to be similar
to the old one from the same locality, and taking its place.

A neotype is defined as “ . . . a specimen identified with a species already
described, and selected as a standard of reference where the original type
or co-types are lost or destroyed ” (Smith, 1906, p. 87), ““ . . . a later selected

type of a species necessitated by loss of the original material; the neotype
must come from the original locality ”’ (Frizzell, 1933, p. 658), or more modernly
as ‘“... a plesiotype ...; selected to represent the holotype when the
original type or holotype is lost or destroyed ”’ (de la Torre-Bueno, 1937, pp.

180, 214). Other definitions have been proposed by Banks and Caudell (1912),

Frizzell (1933), and Schenk and McMasters (1935).

There are two additional situations not covered by present definitions in
which the designation of a neotype may be necessary or advisable. If a type
specimen is unrecognisable as a result of a serious injury, a new type specimen
should be designated. An unrecognisable type specimen is no better than one
that has been lost or destroyed. Often in Lepidoptera the abdomen of a type
specimen is missing. Many species of Lepidoptera can be determined correctly
only by an examination of their genitalia. This is an illustration of a case
where the type specimen, although in existence, is not recognisable. The
second case is where a type specimen is fragmentary. Perhaps a name may
have been proposed from a bone or a tooth, and later a complete skeleton is
discovered. In such an instance a paleontologist may well wish to designate
a neotype for the complete animal. Certainly that would be highly desirable.
Such cases should be provided for if neotypes are to be recognised by the
Reégles.

The principal objection to the designation of neotypes is that it would
encourage unscrupulous dealers and others to create such types for commercial
or private purposes. This objection is met by a provision in the proposed
rules, hereinafter set forth, that neotypes shall not be created en masse and
must be deposited in certain specified institutions. Thus the incentive to
designate neotypes for personal gain is removed. There are also those who
believe that neotypes are unnecessary. That obviously is a matter for each

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 123

individual worker to decide for himself. Perhaps in some cases they are
unnecessary to some individuals, but to others the contrary is often true.
Others have inquired, ‘‘ What becomes of the neotype if the type is rediscovered
at some later time ?”’ There appears to be no objection to having the neotype
fall if the type is subsequently discovered. No new name has been created.
If the neotype is found not to be conspecific with the type, a new name could
then be proposed for it if necessary, and all references thereto placed in the
synonymy of the new name. This phase of the matter seems to present no
complications. On the whole it is believed that neotypes under some terms
and conditions should be recognised by the Régles.

What Conditions Should be Required by the “ Régles” to Authorise
the Designation of Neotypes?

With a view to advancing the discussion of the subject so that rules may
be drafted and circulated among zoologists before any action is taken on this
important subject by the International Congress of Zoology at Copenhagen
in 1953, the following rules for the regulation of neotypes are suggested :—

DEFINITION. A neotype is a specimen designated to replace the holotype
or the lectotype (both hereinafter referred to as the type specimen), when
the type is lost, destroyed, unrecognisable, or fragmentary. A type specimen
is unrecognisable or fragmentary when it lacks a character necessary or helpful
in establishing its correct determination.

RULES. After —th January 195[?], an author may designate a neotype
by complying with the following rules :—

A. The type must be lost, destroyed, unrecognisable, or fragmentary, and
detailed evidence of that fact must be set forth in the paper containing the
designation.

B. The designation of the neotype must be (1) published, (2) the neotype
must be labelled as such by its designator, and (3) the neotype must be deposited
_in a recognised scientific or educational institution which maintains a research
zoological collection with proper facilities for conserving types and giving
access to its collection by accredited students.

C. The neotype must agree with the original description and any published
redescription of the type before its loss, destruction or unrecognisableness,
or with the fragment described in an original description.

D. The neotype must agree also with the first published restriction of the
species, even though not accompanied by a lectotype or neotype designation.

E. The neotype must be (1) from approximately the same locality, if definite,
as the type specimen, or if indefinite, from a locality subsequently fixed, (2)
taken at approximately the same season, and (3) of the same sex and host
as the type, if any or all these facts are known.

F. If the type locality, as originally published, is shown to be false, the

neotype must be from approximately the same locality as that subsequently
fixed.

G. Neotypes shall not be designated en masse, but (except as hereinafter
provided) in a revisionary paper only, to which the designation is relevant and
material.

SAVING CLAUSES. Nothing herein contained shall be deemed to :—

1. Invalidate any neotype designation published on or before 31st December,
195[?], in conformity with these rules, and the burden of proving non-conformity
shall be upon the author alleging that fact, but such neotype, if published in

124 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

substantial conformity with these rules, may be republished in conformity
therewith in a paper whether revisionary or not, and shall date from the time
of the original publication.

2. Validate any neotype designation whenever published, if at any subsequent
time the type is found, unless it is unrecognisable or fragmentary.

PENALTY. After —th January 195[?], a neotype not designated in accor-
dance with these rules shall be null and void, and shall not prevent the sub-
sequent designation of a neotype in accordance with the provisions hereof,
but in such event the author shall set forth in detail the reason for ¢laiming
that the prior designation is invalid.

Comments on the Secretary’s Recommendations

Careful consideration has been given to the proposals of the Secretary
(1952 a) with many of which agreement will be almost unanimous. There
are others, however, which seem unnecessary, or unduly restrictive, such as
those wherein he recommends, among other things, the institution of some
central authority, without the approval of which no neotype could be validly -
established (paragraph 8), or by which the neotype would be designated
(paragraphs 9 and 20), and by which the depository would be selected in
which the neotype would be placed (paragraph 10), and they are not favoured.
The same reasoning applies to the publication of a figure (paragraph 11) of
the neotype—something not required for a type or lectotype, and the suggestion
also advocated by Usinger (1952) that a new description be published (paragraph
11), and that these be overseen by the central authority. Who, it may be
asked, is to pay for such a figure in a day when the cost of illustrating a paper
has become almost prohibitive, and why is a new description to be required
when in most cases there already is a description of the type? May there
not be danger that two descriptions will conflict with each other in some
particular ? With the Commission lacking as it does both a sufficient staff
and ample funds, there is no central authority in existence capable of handling
all the work envisaged by the Secretary, and most of it is no more necessary
in the case of a neotype than in the case of a holotype or a lectotype. Neither
the Commission nor its Secretary should be burdened with such a vast amount
of additional labour, and how, it may be inquired, is the financing of a central
authority to be provided for ?

Neotypes should be considered no more sacred than holotypes or lectotypes,
except insofar as it is necessary to prevent abuse in designating them. Until
some provision is made for the care and accessibility of holotypes and lectotypes,
no provision on these subjects need be made for neotypes other than requiring
their deposit in a suitable institution, something that should be compulsory
for all types. In the meantime it may safely be left to the author to decide
where neotypes will be deposited, trusting to his interest to see that they are
preserved and made accessible to students; as is the case at present with other
types.

It is believed that the Secretary’s well-intentioned desire to secure adequate
safeguards against the exploitation of neotypes for commercial reasons or
otherwise, with which everyone must be in accord, has moved him to suggest
such drastic requirements in some cases that if adopted the desirable authority
to designate neotypes will be frustrated in many instances and that few will —

ced

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 125

be created. The freedom and responsibility of authors must be maintained.
Let us by all means have neotypes, but let them be designated under simple,
self-operative rules which each author may apply on his own responsibility.

In conclusion, I oppose the suggestions appearing in paragraphs 8 to 11
of the Secretary’s report (1952 a), including the so-called need for the avoidance
of duplicate neotypes (paragraph 9)—something easily controlled by the law
of priority as it is in the designation of types. A second neotype, erroneously
designated, would merely become a synonym of the first. I disagree also with
paragraph 15, depriving of its status a subsequently discovered type believed
to have been lost or destroyed, unless it is found to be unrecognisable or
fragmentary, and with paragraph 16, requiring the fullest discussion between
interested specialists, as often impracticable and leading to much waste of
time and no tangible results when such specialists disagree, and paragraph 17,
requiring approval by a central authority for neotypes.

As to the type locality from which the neotype must be selected, that
involves other considerations discussed by the Secretary in a separate paper
(1952 b, pp. 172-180), and may perhaps not necessarily be gone into any further
in the present paper. It suffices to say that the neotype must be from the
type locality, subject, however, to certain obvious exceptions, which have
been provided for in the rules herein proposed.

Acknowledgment

I am indebted to Professor Alexander Barrett Klots, of the American
Museum of Natural History and the College of the City of New York, and
Mr. Curtis Williams Sabrosky, of the Division of Insect Detection and Iden-
tification, United States Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Entomology
and Plant Quarantine, Washington, D.C., for valuable suggestions in the
preparation of the above rules, many of which have been incorporated in
words or in substance. Mr. Sabrosky has been particularly obliging in reading
several times and commenting upon these suggestions at considerable length.
While we have not agreed fully on all of their provisions, it is a pleasure to
state that we found ourselves to be of one mind upon many of the questions
involved. I have also discussed the proposed rules with Mr. Frederick Martin
Brown, of the Fountain Valley School, Colorado Springs, Colorado, who has
made valuable suggestions too.

Bibliography
BANKS, NATHAN, and ANDREW NELSON CAUDELL

1912. The entomological code. A code of nomenclature for use in en-

tomology. Washington, D.C., Judd and Detweiler, Inc., 32 pp.

DOS PASSOS, CYRIL FRANKLIN

1943. Some new subspecies of Incisalia from North America (Lepidoptera,
Lycaenidae). Amer. Mus. Novit. 1230: 1-5.

1949. The distribution of Oeneis taygete Geyer in North America with
descriptions of new subspecies (Lepidoptera, Satyridae). bid.
1399 : 1-21, figs. 1-16.

126 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

DOS PASSOS, FRANKLIN CYRIL, and LIONEL PAUL GREY

1947. Systematic catalogue of Speyeria (Lepidoptera, Nymphalidae) with
designations of types and fixations of type localities. Ibid.
1370 : 1-30.

FREEMAN, HUGH AVERY

1952. Notes on Megathymus yuccae (Boisduval & Leconte), with description
of a new subspecies (Lepidoptera, Rhopalocera, Megathymidae).
Field & Lab. 20 : 29-33.

FRIZZELL, DON[ALD] LESLIE
1933. Terminology of types. Amer. Mid. Nat. 14 : 637-668.

FRIZZELL, DON[ALD] LESLIE, and HARRY EUGENE WHEELER
1935. Neotypes in zoological nomenclature. J. Palaeont. 9 : 453-454.

1945. On the question of recognising ‘‘ neotypes.” Bull. zool. Nomenel.
1: 106-108. |

HEMMING, ARTHUR FRANCIS

1945. On the proposal that the International Code should be amended
to provide for the establishment of “‘ neotypes.”’ Bull. zool. Nomenel.
1: 108-111.

1952. a. On the question whether ‘‘ neotypes ” should be recognised in the
Régles as a category of type specimen: an appeal to zoologists for
advice. Ibid. 7: 131-147.

19526. On the means to be found for promoting the greatest possible

stability in zoological nomenclature: an appeal to zoologists for
advice. Ibid. 7: 148-188.

SABROSKY, CURTIS WILLIAMS

1950. Entomology.—Notes on Trichopodini (Diptera, Larvaevoridae), with
description of a new parasite of cotton stainers in Puerto Rico.
J. Wash. Acad. Sci. 40 : 361-371, figs. 1-11.

SCHENK, EDWARD THEODORE, and JOHN HERBERT McMASTERS

1935. Procedure in taxonomy including a reprint of the International
Rules of Zoological Nomenclature with summaries of opinions
rendered to the present date. London, Oxford University Press ;
California, Stanford University Press, vii + 72 pp.

SMITH, JOHN BERNHARDT
1906. Explanation of terms used in entomology. Brooklyn, New York,
Brooklyn Ent. Soc., viii x 154 pp., 3 pls.

TORRE-BUENO, JOSE ROLLIN DE LA

1937. A glossary of entomology. Smith’s ‘‘ An explanation of terms used
in entomology’ completely revised and rewritten. Lancaster,
Pennsylvania, The Science Press Printing Co., x + 336 pp., 9 pls.

a She I

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 127

USINGER, ROBERT LESLIE

1952. In Pacific Coast Entomological Society Proceedings, Two Hundred
and Twenty-first meeting. Pan-Pacif. Ent. 28 : 70.

DOCUMENT 2/14

By Th. HALTENORTH
(Museum, Miinchen, Germany)

Statement, dated 14th May 1952, communicated by Professor H. M. Hering

VI. Die im “ Richter” p. 24-34 gegebene Typen-Handhabung sollte
verbindlich gemacht werden, da danach allgemein gearbeitet wird.

DOCUMENT 2/15

By W. J. ARKELL, M.A., D.Sc., F.R.S.
(Sedgwick Museum, Cambridge University, Cambridge)

Enclosure to letter dated 23rd May 1952

I am not in favour of the official regulation of neotypes by additions to
the Rules. Neither the setting up of neotypes nor their acceptance by later
workers has given any trouble in my group. Some people have been motivated
by patriotism and have figured a German specimen (say) as neotype of an
English species. One simply ignores such performances, and no harm is done.
If setting up of neotypes becomes legalised I am afraid some authors who
have hitherto been fond of “‘emending” every species and genus will find
ways and means of doing the job with more effect by setting up neotypes
wherever possible. Subsequent authors will then have the added burden of
sifting the credentials of hundreds of neotypes to ascertain whether they
must be accepted under the Rules, with consequent changes of concept.

In recent years some type specimens from the Sowerby Collection have
found their way to the B.M. on the death of a relative—over a century after
publication. It seems to me intolerable that such types should lose their
legal status in favour of a neotype trotted out by some upstart “ reviser ”
in the meantime, on the ground that “ the types are lost.”

There are so many shades and degrees of adequacy and inadequacy in
type specimens that it would be impossible to define at what stage of inadequacy
a neotype becomes justifiable. I can see this sort of thing: “‘ Sowerby’s
specimens are all hopeless. Neotype author’s coll. No. 4265783.” All this
is a further burden on subsequent workers.

There is no reason why an author should not accept a predecessor’s neotype
if it is reasonable ; but why should he be forced to do so if he is convinced

that it is not the same as the original types or type figures, which he may

know better than the less conscientious predecessor ?

128 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

DOCUMENT 2/16

By J. R. DYMOND
(University of Toronto, Department of Zoology, Toronto, Canada)

Statement received on 27th May 1952

I am in favour of the recognition in the Régles of the concept of neotypes
as a category of type specimen and I consider the draft plan submitted in
Volume 7, Parts 5 and 6, of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature adequate
for the decision of question arising in connection with the designation of
neotypes.

DOCUMENT 2/17

By ERICH M. HERING
(Abtetlungsleiter am Zoologischen Museum der Humboldt-Universitat zu Berlin)

Statement received on 7th June 1952

Stellungnahme zur vorgeschlagenen Einfiihrung des
“ Neotypus ”-Begriffes in die “ Régles ”

Die Vorschlige iiber die Einfiihrung des Neotypus in die Régles, die in
Bull. zool. Nomencl. 7, Pt. 5/6, p. 133-147 ausgefiihrt wurden, werden vom
Stab der Zoologen des Zoologischen Museums Berlin mit 13 von 14 Stimmen,
vom Stab des Zoologischen Museum Miinchen (nach Mitteilung von Dr. Walter
Forster von der Zoologischen Sammlung des Bayerischen Saates) mit 11 von
12 der befragten Zoologen unterstiitzt.

Die in Para. 7 (p. 134) vorgesehenen Sicherungs-Klauseln werden von den
Zoologen beider Museen als unbedingt notwendig angesehen.

Die Paras. 8-14 (p. 135-138) werden mit 13 von 14 Stimmen des Museums
Berlin und mit 11 von 12 Stimmen des Museums Miinchen wnterstiitzt.

Von Para. 15 wird der Vorschlag (a) (p. 140) mit 13 von 14 Stimmen des
Museums Berlin abgelehnt. Es soll also der Neotypus seinen Status verlieren,
wenn Holotypus oder Syntypen wiedergefunden werden und sich als zu emer
anderen taxonomischen Hinheit gehorend erweisen.

Aus Para. 13 (p. 137) werden die Worte “‘ in such a case, it may be thought
desirable to designate as the neotype a more representative example” mit
13 von 14 Stimmen des Zoologischen Museums Berlin abgelehunt,

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 129

Zu Para. 24. Unoffizielle Neotypen, die bisher aufgestellt worden sind,
werden von den Zoologen des Berliner Museums mit 14 von 14 Stimmen
abgelehnt. Dr. Walter Forster fordert im Einverstiindnis mit dem Zoologen-
Stab des Miinchener Museums, dass solche Neotypen durch ein entsprechendes
Verfahren legalisiert werden sollen.

DOCUMENT 2/18

‘By RICHARD MEINERTZHAGEN, D.S.0.
(London)

Extract from a letter dated 16th June 1952

I have just read your Bull. zool. Nomencl. 1952 paper on neotypes.

I agree with all your safeguards, but it may be very difficult for a central
authority to assess the efficiency of museums to look after their types. I
think it might be better if agreement could be reached by which each country
selected one of its museums for reception of neotypes; for oe in this
country the B.M.

I do not like the idea of inventing a new name for agreed neotypes. It
would overburden an already congested type-nomenclature.

I should like to insist that all descriptions of neotypes be in English, French
or German.

DOCUMENT 2/19

By ANGEL CABRERA
(Eva Peron, F.C.N.G.R., Argentina)

Statement dated 22nd June 1952
On Neotypes. Z.N.(S.)358

I am in favour of the recognition in the Régles of the concept of neotype,
and I agree with your suggestions in paragraphs 21-24 (pp. 141-146). It seems
to me, however, that it is very important to distinguish between the two
kinds of neotypes : (1) neotypes s.s., to be designated because the type material
was lost, or supposedly lost, and (2) complementary neotypes, designated
because the type material is considered either insufficient or inadequate for
exact specific identification, as in the case of a partly destroyed specimen,
or a fossil type consisting only of isolated teeth. Now, a difficult question
is the one exposed in your paragraph 15. What must we do if, after designating
a neotype, the supposedly lost type (case 1) reappears, or the parts missing
in the defective type (case 2) are found ? You suggest (p. 140) two alternatives :
(a) to deprive all the surviving type material of its status as such, and (b)
_ to rely on a decision of the International Commission. I am sorry that I

130 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

dissent from your suggestion that “of these alternatives (a) is preferable to
(b).”’ In fact, alternative (a) means to deprive an author of the paternity of
his species. And what if, through comparison between the neotype and the
rediscovered (or completed) original type, they are found to belong to different
species? E.g. John Smith describes a new species, names it and designates
a type. Afterwards, by war, fire or earthquake, the type appears to be lost,
and Peter Jones designates a neotype, subsequently recognised as such by
the International Commission. But five, six or twenty years afterwards the
supposedly lost type is found, and careful comparison reveals that the neotype
belongs to another species. Is it fair to assert that the neotype designated
by Jones represents the “final and irrevocable standard” for identifying a
species to which it really does not belong ? How is it possible to say that the
characters of the species to which the neotype belongs are those of the species
described by Smith, thus ascribing to Smith the authorship of a species which
he did not even know 2? We cannot build a system of zoological nomenclature
on false foundations.

As to incomplete types, so long as the Régles permit a nominal species
to be described and established on “any part of an animal,” I cannot see
how we can deprive a type of its status as such on the ground that it is a
fragmentary specimen.

In my opinion, a neotype s.s. ceases to be such if the original type reappears,
and a complementary neotype retains this status only as long as it is not
shown to represent a species different from the species of the original type.

DOCUMENT 2/20

By JOSHUA L. BAILY, Jr.
(San Diego, California, U.S.A.)

Statement received on 24th June 1952

Neotypes (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 7 : 131-147)
Para. 8

The fact that the original type specimen of a species was placed in a certain
museum is no reason, I think, for ruling that in the event of their destruction
or loss, the eligible species to be selected as neotypes should be confined to
specimens in the same museum. The type specimen should be kept in a_
museum near the type locality.

As an example I might mention the family ACHATINELLIDAE, which is
confined to the Hawaiian archipelago in the mid-Pacific. The types of many
of its species are in Vienna. The inconvenience that confronts the student
who has to go to Hawaii to collect his living material and to Vienna to study
the types is obvious. If as the result of any calamity the types in Vienna
should be destroyed the neotypes should be selected from the museum in
Honolulu.

:

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 131
DOCUMENT 2/21

Statement of the views of the scientific staff of the

ROYAL ONTARIO MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY, TORONTO,
CANADA

Enclosure to a letter, dated 26th June 1952, from Dr. F. A. URQUHART
Director

(For the text of the above letter, see Document 1/39 (pp.67-68)
Neotypes : Commission’s Reference Z.N.(S.)358

We are unanimously in agreement that the concept of neotypes should
be recognised in the rules as a category of type specimens.

We unanimously agreed that provision should be inserted in the rules
stipulating that neotypes must become the property of a museum or other
public institution or, on being so selected, be presented to, or placed on
permanent loan in such an institution.

We unanimously agreed that a full description and figures of specimens
should be presented when designating a neotype. Further, that a specimen
to be a neotype should conform as closely as possible with the original
description of the species concerned.

We unanimously agreed that a neotype must not necessarily be a specimen
from the same locality as the original type material of the species concerned.

It was unanimously agreed that, on the establishment of a neotype, all
surviving type material, whether at that time known to be in existence (this
being a provision which, as already shown, would in any case be necessary
for other reasons) or discovered subsequent to the establishment of a neotype
for the species in question, should be deprived of its status as such.

It was unanimously agreed that, before any specimen is officially recognised
as a neotype, there should be the fullest consultation between interested
specialists.

Suggestion

_ The suggestion is offered that central bodies be set up in connection with
establishing neotypes. These bodies would be connected with institutions
concerned with the systematic studies of a particular Order. For example,
at the present time Dr. Rehn of the Philadelphia Academy of Sciences might
be elected to oversee the erection of neotypes in the Order Orthoptera in
North America. Individuals for the study of other Orders of animals might
be similarly elected to pass judgment on the establishment of neotypes, and
also through consultation with other workers in the Order, to decide what
institution should receive the neotype material. If such is deemed necessary,
a public notice might be published before approving the establishment of a
neotype. It is our opinion, however, that acting through the office of an
elected person outstanding in research in a particular. Order, correspondence
would eventually solve the question without publication: We feel that such

a a suggestion would take care of most of the questions presented by you in

132 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

paragraph 20, page 143, of Volume 7, Parts 5 and 6. We might further suggest

that such elected individuals might work through the International Com-

mission on Zoological Nomenclature, if such is deemed advisable. It might

well be that this particular individual (or committee) in charge of a particular

Order might make application to the Commission for permission to designate

a neotype, after having duly considered the matter. It is further proposed

that the International Commission would prescribe rules regarding the in-

formation to be furnished in any application for the designation of neotypes —
to that person or persons so designated as in charge of the systematic study

of a particular Order.

DOCUMENT 2/22

By A. MYRA KEEN and SIEMON W. MULLER
(Stanford University, Stanford, California, U.S.A.)

Enclosure to a letter dated 1st July 1952
On the Question of Recognition of “‘ Neotypes ” in the “ Régles ”

We favour the acceptance of “‘ neotypes ” as a category of type specimen
with the safeguards suggested—namely, that the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature have exclusive right to designate the type specimens
and that such types should be registered on the Official List of Specific Trivial
Names.

DOCUMENT 2/23

Statement of the views of the
COMMITTEE ON NOMENCLATURE OF THE AMERICAN MUSEUM OF
NATURAL HISTORY, NEW YORK

Enclosure to a letter dated 10th July 1952
(For an extract from the above letter, see Document 1/41 (pp. 70-71)

General designation of neotypes should be placed under high restrictions.
It is questionable whether they should be permitted at all, smce they may
easily serve to fix a name on a totally different concept than that envisaged
by the original author. If the name cannot be identified without the (lost
or deficient) holotype, how can its exact identity be bonded with a specimen
arbitrarily selected by anyone, including the original author? If the name
is identifiable, no neotype is needed. Unidentifiable names are provided for
by the class of nomina dubia, where they should remain. Yet, where names
are, strictly speaking, unidentifiable, but are of universal usage to designate
well-known species, such usage is to be maintained.

=,’ a

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 133

However, we realise that neotypes are in favour among certain taxonomists,
particularly palaeonotologists, who find them of particular service as adjuncts
to deficient holotypes rather than as replacements for lost holotypes. If
they are recognised by the Commission, restrictions should require documented
and adequate proof of the absolute necessity for each such neotype; the
designation should be made only in a complete review of the group concerned ;
it should be approved by a committee of experts in its limited field and after
advance notice through the Commission; the neotype should be deposited
in a recognised public museum of international repute.

One question involves the procedure in case a supposedly lost holotype
is rediscovered. Mr. Hemming proposes two alternate solutions. (1) The
holotype will have lost all rights; (2) The case must be re-examined by the
Commission. We favour alternate No. 2. Any automatic ruling could easily
upset existing nomenclature. The first alternative emphasises the possibility
that the neotype may prove to be something other than the holotype, showing
that what is being done is creating a new concept and attempting to use an
old name for it which is of uncertain application.

A.M.N.H. Committee on Nomenclature.

(Signed) JOHN T. NICHOLS.
ERNST MAYR.
GEORGE H. H. TATE.
JOHN T. ZIMMER (Chairman).

Edwin H. Colbert looks with more favour on the use of neotypes, but
believes with us that they should be used sparingly and subject to careful
control. If lost types are found, he agrees the matter should be referred to

the.Commission.
(Signed) JOHN T. ZIMMER.

DOCUMENT 2/24

Statement submitted on behalf of the
NOMENCLATURE DISCUSSION GROUP, WASHINGTON, D.C.

Enclosure to a letter, dated 16th July 1952, from
Dr. R. E. BLACK WELDER, Secretary

Neotypes

Discussion of this problem revealed such wide and strong differences of
opinion that it appeared impossible to draft any general statement for the
Nomenclature Discussion Group. Accordingly, a ballot was prepared, con-
taining brief statements of various important points, and the results of the
vote are herewith submitted to the L.C.Z.N.

134 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

(1) 18. Neotypes should not be recognised in the Code.
-31. Neotypes should be recognised in the Code.

All but three of those opposed to neotypes also registered their beliefs
on the following questions that would have to be considered if neotypes were
adopted. A breakdown of the votes showed approximately the same reactions
to the other questions on the part of those against neotypes and those for
neotypes, except in the fourth question.

On most points there was a definite majority in favour of one view, but
with a sizeable minority. On the sixth and seventh points, however, the
margin was particularly noteworthy.

(2) 20. They should be governed by definite rules in the Code.

26. The Code should contain a few basic rules, with recommendations
for matters where mandatory provisions seem impractical (e. g-
agreement with type locality).

(3) 11. Neotype designation should be vested exclusively in the Inter-
; national Commission.

35. Designation should be by individuals, operating under rules and
recommendations in the Code.

(4) 30. Neotypes should replace only lost or destroyed types.

16. Neotypes should replace fragmentary or unrecognisable types as
well as those lost or destroyed.

On this point, the taxonomists who are fundamentally opposed to neotypes
voted 12 to 3 for the first alternative (neotypes to replace only lost or destroyed
types). Among those favourable to neotypes, however, the vote was much
closer, with the first alternative favoured by 18 to 13.

(5) 25. Neotypes should be deposited only in museums, or other public
institutions suitable as type depositories.

10. As above, but if the original type was in a certain museum or
comparable public institution, or in a collection now the property
of such, the neotype must be deposited there, unless such place
no longer maintains type or research collections.

9. Neotypes may be deposited in any collection, public or private,
as the designator may choose.

2. [For the original collection, whether public or private, or if
destroyed, then in any eae

It is possible to analyse these answers in various ways. Thirty-five favour
putting neotypes in museums or other suitable public institutions, as against

Bulletin of Zoological N omenclature 135
eleven who favour the right to put them in any collection, public or private.
Twelve would give precedence to the original collection, but thirty-four would
not insist on that rule.

(6) 40. Neotypes automatically fall if types are later found.

6. Neotypes, once established, take precedence over any type material
subsequently discovered.

or its subspecies).

6. There should be no restraints on when neotypes may be designated

DOCUMENT 2/25 ©

By HENNING LEMCHE
(Universitetes Zoologiska Museum, Copenhagen)

Extract from a letter dated 20th July 1952

On your interesting and exhaustive comment [in Vol. 7 of the Bull. zool.

_ Nomenel.] on neotypes (Z.N.(8.)358) I have no comments.

136 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

DOCUMENT 2/26

Statement submitted on behalf of the
NOMENCLATURE COMMITTEE OF THE SOCIETY OF SYSTEMATIC
ZOOLOGY

Letter, dated 21st July 1952, with enclosures, from
Dr. W. I. FOLLETT, Chairman

The Nomenclature Committee of the Society of Systematic Zoology re-
commends as follows :—

(1) The Rules should recognise the concept of neotypes.
(2) Neotypes should be confined to the replacement of lost types.

(3) Neotypes should be designated by individuals, not by the International
Commission.

On the remaining aspects of this subject concerning which you have
requested advice, there is considerable divergence of opinion within the Com-
mittee, which is best illustrated by the replies to the two memoranda that
were issued to the Committee during the chairmanship of Dr. Charles D.
Michener. This material (enclosed herewith in duplicate) comprises the
following :—

(2) Memorandum to the American Committee on Entomological Nomen-
clature on the subject of neotypes, by Robert L. Usinger.

(b) Memorandum on neotypes, by C. F. Dos Passos (Appendix 2).

(c) Reply of each Committee member to the foregoing memoranda. Some
of these have been submitted on page 4 of a copy of Dr. Usinger’s paper ;
others by separate letter (Appendix 3). -

Further discussion of this subject by a member of this Committee (and
by other members of the Society) is submitted by way of the minutes of a
symposium recently conducted by the Pacific Section of the Society (Appendix
4). Only that portion of these minutes which deals with neotypes is enclosed.
This material does not constitute a part of the Committee’s report, but is
submitted by way of a supplement thereto. :

~ Apel ee A aa nate

r

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 137

APPENDIX 1 TO DR. W. I. FOLLETT’S LETTER OF
21st JULY 1952

MEMORANDUM SUBMITTED BY PROFESSOR ROBERT L. USINGER
TO THE AMERICAN COMMITTEE ON ENTOMOLOGICAL
NOMENCLATURE

MEMORANDUM TO THE AMERICAN COMMITTEE ON
ENTOMOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE ON THE SUBJECT OF
NEOTYPES

By ROBERT L. USINGER
(University of California)

I have been asked by Chairman E. G. Linsley to prepare a brief on the
question of neotypes for consideration by our committee. This was prompted
by the appearance of a preliminary consideration of this subject by the
Secretary of the International Commission, Francis Hemming (Bull. zool.
Nomencl. 7 : 131-147, 1952). Secretary Hemming requests that the views
of our own and other committees be sent to him by 31st July 1952, so that
they may be considered while preparing the Report which he is to publish in
the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature as a basis for discussion at the Copen-
hagen Congress.

The procedure that I have chosen for this memorandum is (A) A summary
of Secretary Hemming’s views as expressed in the Bulletin of Zoological
Nomenclature ; (B) A critique of these views; (C) Recommendations on
which a vote is requested by our Committee.

A. Summary of Secretary Hemming’s Discussion of Neotypes

(1) Purpose: ‘“‘ The sole purpose of authorising the establishment of
neotypes is to provide a final and irrevocable standard for the
identification of a species in cases where there is no surviving
type material or where the known surviving type material is
insufficient for this purpose” (B.Z.N. 7: 140, 1952). Secretary
Hemming adds that “ The official recognition of a specimen as a
neotype amounts in effect to the provision of an entirely new
basis for the identification of the species concerned, while retaining
for that species its original name with its original author and
priority.”

(2) No specimen should be eligible for designation as a neotype unless
it is, or becomes, the property of a museum.

(3) Museums have a moral claim to the right to designate neotypes
for lost types which were once in their possession.

(4) Rigorous safeguards are needed in neotype designation to prevent
exploitation by museums and by individuals.

(5) The power to designate neotypes should be vested exclusively in the
International Commission.

138

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

(6) This central authority is needed to avoid competing or duplicate
neotypes, to determine which institutions can be relied upon to
take adequate care of neotypes, and to decide when to permit
departure from original descriptions and from original type
localities.

(7) Neotype designation must be accompanied by a full description
and figures.

(8) Neotypes may be designated to supplement original but inadequate
type material.

(9) Neotypes take precedence over any surviving type material.

(10) Public notice should be given twelve months in advance of neotype
designation.

(11) The neotype should not run counter to any restrictions or restricted
identifications and should agree with the appropriate subspecies
in cases involving polytypic species.

(12) Neotypes should be substituted for the figures cited by the Com-
mission (Danaus plexippus Linn., etc.) as the basis for identifica-
tion.

(13) The International Commission should prescribe the information to
be furnished in applications relating to the designating of neotypes.

(14) Official neotypes should be differentiated by a code number such
as “I.C.Z.N./1” from the unofficial neotypes established before
the new scheme comes into operation, the unofficial neotypes to
have no status in nomenclature.

(15) The trivial name of every nominal species for which a neotype is
established should be entered on the “ Official List.”

B. Critique of the Above Proposals on Neotypes

(1) The neotype concept, originally confined to the replacement of lost
types, has been expanded to cover cases where existing type
material is insufficient to provide a standard for the identification
of species. Worthy though this might at first appear, it introduces
a new subjective element into the picture because there will be
differences of opinion as to the adequacy of most type material.
The action of the “ First Reviser ”’ has sufficed in the past to take
care of questions of this kind.

(2) Museums are generally considered to be the rightful depositories
for all primary types, it being generally agreed that such specimens,
upon which scientific work has been based, are the property of
science. Nevertheless, this is no more than a recommendation
for holotypes, etc., and it is not clear that neotypes are in any
way more sacred than holotypes. It would appear that in the
present state of international freedom in systematic zoology any
central body that sets itself up as an arbiter as to the adequacy,
competence and moral claim of competing museums and individuals
is doomed to failure,

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 139

(3) Exploitation of neotypes could presumably be prevented just as
well in the case of individuals as institutions (just as exploitation
of the secondary homonym procedure can be prevented) by action
of the International Commission. The difference between the
present method of designating neotypes (by individuals) and the
proposed method (exclusively by the International Commission) is
that the individual taxonomist is provided with a procedure that
he can use when he needs it, e.g. when he is doing the work. By
the other method a formal petition must be submitted to the
already hopelessly overworked Commission. Under the present
“ unofficial” scheme the Commission would have to act only in
the rare instances when actual abuses have been noted and have
been submitted to it for adjudication.

This is the fundamental issue in all recent publications from
the Commission. On the one hand statistics are provided to
show that the Commission is swamped with more applications,
more letters, etc., per year than in all of the previous fifty years
combined. On the other hand the trend, as in the present neotype
recommendations, is away from so-called “ automatic’ nomen-
clature and toward central authority with the inevitable result
that more and more cases must be referred to the Commission
for arbitrary action.

(4) Central authority is not needed to avoid competing and duplicate
neotypes, since priority of designation is a perfectly satisfactory
criterion in such cases; no central authority should be charged
with keeping the museums of the world under surveillance in
order to insure that adequate care is being taken of neotypes.
No central authority need decide when to permit departure from
original descriptions or original type localities if the Rules were
simply to require that neotypes be not inconsistent in characters —
and type locality with the data provided in the original description.

(5) The requirement that a full description and figures be provided when
designating neotypes is fine but is an “ideal ’’ recommendation.
Neotypes should be validated by the same requirements as
holotypes, e.g. the provisions of Article 25, the Law of Priority.

(6) Public notice could serve a useful function in neotype designation
and still not require formal action of the Commission and twelve .
months’ public notice in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature.
A method might be to allow a twelve months’ period, or even
longer, after the designation of a neotype by a specialist during
which period the neotype is open to challenge. If at the end of
the specified period no protest has been received by the Commission,
the neotype is deemed to have been accepted by taxonomists
and is not subject to change without formal action by the Com-
mission,

140 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
(7) It should be realised that due to the fragile nature of most scientific
specimens, nearly all original types will ultimately have to be
replaced, in 100 or 1,000 years. Seen in this perspective, the
procedure to be set up should be geared to regular taxonomic practice
rather than to a central authority.

APPENDIX 2 TO DR. W. I. FOLLETT’S LETTER OF
21st JULY 1952

Notice of a Meeting of the NOMENCLATURE DISCUSSION GROUP,
Washington, D.C., U.S.A., called for 18th June 1952 for the purpose of
considering the question of the recognition of neotypes as a category of type
specimen
NOMENCLATURE DISCUSSION GROUP
U.S. National Museum.
13th June 1952.
NOTICE TO ALL TAXONOMISTS :
The twenty-seventh meeting of the Nomenclature Discussion Group will
be held in Room 43 of the U.S.N.M. on Wednesday, 18th June 1952, at 2.00 p.m.
SUBJECT: The proposals on neotypes.
CHAIRMAN : Curtis W. Sabrosky.
PROPOSAL BY C. F. DOS PASSOS on neotypes (in press, Bull. zool. Nomencel.).
[EDITORIAL NOTE: At this point there followed in the foregoing Notice
the text of the proposals prepared by Mr. Cyril D. Dos Passos which have
been published as Document 2/13 in the present Part of the Bulletin
(pp. 121-127).]

APPENDIX 3 TO DR. W. I. FOLLETT’S LETTER OF
21st JULY 1952
COMMENTS FURNISHED BY THE MEMBERS OF THE NOMENCLA-
TURE COMMITTEE OF THE SOCIETY OF SYSTEMATIC ZOOLOGY

ON THE DOCUMENTS CONSTITUTING APPENDICES 1 AND 2 TO
DR. FOLLETT’S LETTER OF 21st JULY 1952

Enclosure 1 to Appendix 3 to Dr. Follett’s letter

COMMENT FURNISHED BY DR. W. I. FOLLETT

I am opposed to the recognition of neotypes, since I believe that (1) they

would produce more confusion than would the absence of type material, (2)

they would offer an inducement to the destruction of original type material

' by misguided workers, and (3) they would add a new subjective element to
the Rules.

Enclosure 2 to Appendix 3 to Dr. Follett’s letter
COMMENT FURNISHED BY PROFESSOR CHARLES D. MICHENER

I agree with Dos Passos’ proposal except that I believe neotypes should
be designated only for lost or destroyed types, not for unrecognisable ones.
By whom is a type determined to be unrecognisable ?

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 141
Enclosure 3 to Appendix 3 to Dr. Follett’s letter

COMMENTS FURNISHED BY DR. ROBERT R. MILLER
The Proposals on Neotypes

Views on suggestions by Hemming (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 7 : 131-47, 1952)
as commented upon by Usinger and on proposals by Dos Passos :—

(1) A neotype should be designated only when the holotype or lectotype
is lost or destroyed. To include designation where type material
is “ insufficient,” ‘‘ unrecognisable,”’ or “ fragmentary ” introduces
a subjective element which I believe to be undesirable.

(2) Neotypes should be governed by the same recommendations used
for holotypes and should be deposited in a recognised scientific
or educational institution that maintains a research collection
(but not necessarily a museum, sensu stricto).

(3) Neotypes should be designated by individuals, not by the International
Commission.

(4) Museums have a moral claim to the right to designate neotypes for
lost types once in their possession or, if designated by another
worker, museums have a moral claim to the specimen designated.

(5) Rigorous safeguards (see items 4 and 6 in Usinger’s summary of
Hemming’s discussion), etc., are not necessary.

(6) It is strongly recommended (but not required) that neotype designation
be accompanied by a full description and figure(s). The designation
must be published, and the specimen must be labelled as such
by its designator.

(7) The designation of a neotype becomes invalid if at any subsequent
time the type (cotype, holotype, lectotype) is found.

(8) Public notice in advance of a neotype designation should not be
mandatory. Usinger’s suggestion for a period of twelve months
(or longer) after the designation during which the neotype selection
is to be open to challenge meets with my approval.

(9) The neotype should agree closely (but not necessarily in every detail)

with the original description. It should be (a) from the type
locality (if known) or, if the species is no longer extant there,
from a locality nearby that is subsequently fixed, (b) taken at
approximately the same season, and (c) of the same sex and host
as the type, if any or all of these facts are known.

142 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Annexe to Enclosure 3 to Appendix 3 to Dr. Follett’s letter

COMMENT BY DR. ROBERT R. MILLER IN A LETTER TO
DR. FOLLETT

As to neotypes, I agree with the thesis as presented by you over John 8.
Garth’s signature. I strenuously object to the purely subjective clause inserted
by Hemming that a neotype can be designated when the known surviving
type material is insufficient for identification. I also sympathise with the
discussion regarding type locality since there are numerous instances in
ichthyology where the species or subspecies is now extinct at the type locality..
Above all things, neotypes should not be subjected to the exclusive jurisdiction
of the International Commission.

Enclosure 4 to Appendix 3 to Dr. Follett’s letter
COMMENTS FURNISHED BY MR. CURTIS W. SABROSKY

(Editorial Note: The numbers cited by Mr. Sabrosky refer to the numbers
given by Professor Usinger in Sections A and B of the paper which formed
_ Appendix 1 to Dr. Follett’s letter of 21st July 1952. Where at the beginning
of an item a sentence is placed in inverted commas, this signifies that
that sentence forms part of the Voting Paper issued by the Committee

to its members.)

Section A ;
(1) “ Iam in favour of the recognition in the Rules of the concept of neotypes

as a category of type specimen.” [Answer given.] Yes, but only if strict
regulatory provisions are included. .

(3) I agree with numbers 2; 3, 4, 9 (if they are designated in line with
strict requirements), 11, 12 and disagree with numbers 5, 6, 7, 8, 10 (but I
should like to require prior consultation with other specialists), 13 (certain
things should be required by the rules, however), 14, 15 (one might wish to
designate a neotype for a synonym) in Section A above.

Section B
(1) Agree. ©

(2) I favour a rule that both holotypes and neotypes should be deposited
in a reputable institution where they will be accessible to specialists, and
not hoarded in private collections where they are not always cared for and
not always accessible.

(3) I agree as far as the overworked Commission angle is concerned. But
I don’t believe that the present scheme should continue with an “ unofficial ”
status, which is implied by Dr. Usinger’s comment. Much as I dislike some
things about the neotype problem, I believe that we shall have it with us
more and more, and that we must establish some clear-cut rules to regulate
neotypes and to furnish guidance for authors. It is scarcely necessary to
point out, however, that not all neotypes have been designated when taxono-
mists really and truly needed them !

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 143

(4) Good, though I would go farther in requiring agreement with original
information as far as possible.

(5) Impracticable to require that we fully redescribe and figure all 900,000
species (the threat that looms large from your comment 7) already described,
in addition to all the new ones coming along! As for validation under Article
25, could not all neotypes be easily validated merely by a bibliographic reference
to the original description ?

(6) I dislike the passive attitude here. I should prefer to require that a
specialist consult before he designates a neotype (perhaps too idealistic, but
lack of sufficient co-operation, and too much of unilateral actions, have been
the bane of taxonomy in the past).

(7) Perhaps more emphasis should be placed on careful and full original
descriptions, with figures where necessary and/or desirable.

Enclosure 5 to Appendix 3 to Dr. Follett’s letter
COMMENTS FURNISHED BY PROFESSOR HENRY TOWNES

(For an explanation of the numbers cited in the following document see Editorial
Note to Enclosure 4 to the present Appendix.)

Section A

(1) ‘‘ lam in favour of the recognition in the Rules of the concept of neotypes
as a category of type specimen.” [Answer given.] Yes.

(2) “I agree with the proposals on neotypes presented by Hemming as
summarised in Section A above.’ [Answer given.] No.

(3) I agree with number 11 and disagree with all others in Section A above.

Section B

(4) “I agree in general with the critique presented in Section B above.”
[Answer given.] Yes.

(5) I agree with numbers 1-5, 7-and disagree with number 6 (this formality
is burdensome) in Section B above.

(6) ““I wish to make the following additional comments and | authorise
the Committee to incorporate these views in its report and transmit them
to the International Commission for consideration at the Copenhagen Congress
in 1953.”

In regard to museums as correct depositories for all type material, the
_ discussion is pointless until a “museum” is defined, and the definition is
not intellectually possible without arbitrary restrictions.

2 Section 11 of Hemming’s proposals is opposed to all the other sections.
_ Section 11 alone is sufficient as a philosophy and guide for neotype designation
and use. Section 11 recognises priority, first reviser, and any information
in the original description and surviving type material. When these principles
are recognised, where is there any room for other principles or procedures ?

144 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Annexe to Enclosure 5 to Appendix 3 to Dr. Follett’s letter

COMMENT BY PROFESSOR HENRY TOWNES IN A LETTER TO
, DR. FOLLETT :

Neotypes, in my opinion, represent only a taxonomist’s interpretation
of a name and have value only in clarifying his interpretation.

Enclosure 6 to Appendix 3 to Dr. Follett’s letter
COMMENT FURNISHED BY PROFESSOR JOHN W. WELLS

The proposals on neotypes by Dos Passos seem very sound and under-
standable to me. They are clear and simple, and I would recommend them
strongly. .

Enclosure 7 to Appendix 3 to Dr. Follett’s letter
COMMENTS FURNISHED BY DR. JOHN T. ZIMMER

(For an explanation of the numbers cited in the following document see
Editorial Note to Enclosure 4 to the present Appendix.)

Section A

(1) “I am in favour of the recognition in the Rules of the concept of
neotypes as a category of type specimen.” [Answer given.] No.

(2) ‘I agree with the proposals on neotypes presented by Hemming as
summarised in Section. A above.’ [Answer given.] No.

(3) I agree with numbers 1, 2, 4, 10, 11, 15 and disagree with numbers
3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 12 in Section A above. Nos. 7, 13, 14 problematical.

Section B

(5) I agree with numbers 1, 3-7 and disagree with number 2 in Section B
above.

(6) “I wish to make the following additional comments and I authorise
the Committee to incorporate these views in its report and transmit them
to the International Commission for consideration at the Copenhagen Congress
in 1953.”

I disapprove of the concept of neotypes, but in case there is a successful
effort to establish them, I believe they should be under restrictions that will
prevent their abuse. Hence the seemingly inconsistent approval and dis-
approval in my vote.

_ My disapproval of neotypes is based on belief that they do not truly
represent the original concept. If an original name is unidentifiable without
the holotype, it should be discarded, not transferred to a new entity that
may or may not be identical with the original concept. If it can be identified,
no neotype is needed.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 145

Annexe to Enclosure 7 to Appendix 3 to Dr. Follett’s letter

COMMENTS FURNISHED BY DR. JOHN T. ZIMMER IN A LETTER
TO DR. FOLLETT

I disapprove of neotypes, as indicated on another sheet. If they are adopted,
their designation should be made only in a comprehensive review of the group
concerned, should be approved by a special committee of experts in the
particular field after advance notice through the Commission, and the neotype
should be deposited in a public institution of recognised international repute.
If a supposedly lost holotype reappears, it should be entitled to its original
standing, regardless of dispositions made during its absence. This is one
of the points that illustrate the illogical nature of neotypes. In attempting
to fix the name on a new concept, some proponents are willing to admit that
the rediscovery of the holotype may upset their conclusions, but are not willing
to take the consequences. I maintain that if the name is unidentifiable, it
belongs in the nomina dubia and is not entitled to association with another
entity.

APPENDIX 4 TO DR. W. I. FOLLETT’S LETTER OF
21st JULY 1952

EXTRACT FROM THE PROCEEDINGS OF A SYMPOSIUM ON ZOO-

LOGICAL NOMENCLATURE RELATING TO THE QUESTION OF THE

RECOGNITION OF NEOTYPES AS A CATEGORY OF TYPE SPECIMEN

HELD BY THE PACIFIC SECTION OF THE SOCIETY OF SYSTEMATIC

ZOOLOGY AT THE OREGON STATE COLLEGE, CORNWALLIS,
OREGON, U.S.A., ON FRIDAY 20th JUNE 1952

SYMPOSIUM: Problems of Nomenclatorial Practice Now Under Consideration
by the International Commission. W. I. Follett, presiding

(1) The Question of Whether, and Subject to What Conditions, the Concept
of a “‘ Neotype”’ Should be Officially Recognised in the Régles. Robert L.
Usinger, University of California at Berkeley.

Dr. Usinger reviewed the historical definitions of the neotype, beginning
with that of Kossman (1896): “a topotype figured or described to replace
a specimen which has been lost or destroyed,” and later modified by to read :
“a specimen, not necessarily a topotype, figured or described to replace a
specimen which has been lost or destroyed.’’ With this he contrasted the
definition proposed by Hemming (Bull. zool. Nomencl., 7, 1952: 140): “a
final and irrevocable standard for the identification of a species in cases where
there is no surviving type material or where the known surviving type material
is insufficient for this purpose.”

In the discussion that followed, Dr. G. F. Ferris agreed with Dr. Usinger
that the first definition, as later modified, is the one most generally understood
by systematists when the term “‘ neotype ”’ is mentioned, and that the definition
proposed by Hemming was unwise, in that it opens new views and permits

Individual interpretations of what constitutes insufficient surviving type
- material.

146 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Dr. M. W. de Laubenfels raised the question of neotypes of genera, which
he believes are needed in his work on sponges.

Dr. J. S. Garth spoke in opposition to any requirement that neotypes
be deposited in the institutions which had custody of the original types prior
to their destruction. He pointed out that the west coast crustacena types
of A. Milne Edwards, Stimpson, Lockington, and Cano were destroyed by a
series of catastrophes, and that if Pacific coast workers were to be held to
such a provision, they would be working almost exclusively for the benefit
of institutions other than their own and in most cases remote from the present
centres of activity on Pacific coast Crustacea. Dr. Ferris agreed that such
a stipulation was unwise and unnecessary.

With respect to the feared exploitation of the neotype (Hemming, 1952 :
135) and the consequent expressed desire that the sole right to designate
neotypes be vested in the International Commission, Dr. Martin R. Brittan
inquired whether the Commission has a staff of specialists competent to
adjudicate these matters. Dr. Usinger replied that, while the principle of
consulting specialists is well established, the number of petitions is already
great and the addition of the responsibility of designating neotypes would,
in his opinion, seriously overload the Commission and its consultative machinery.

Concerning the proposed stipulations (Hemming, 1952: 137, 138) that the
neotype should conform to the original description and be from the same
locality as the type, Dr. Usinger suggested that ‘‘ the neotype be not inconsistent
with the original description with respect to type locality, etc.’ He also
was of the opinion that the law of priority would suffice in cases involving
possible duplicate neotypes (Hemming, 1952: 135).

Regarding the statement (Hemming, 1952: 140) that the neotype, once
established, should take precedence over all surviving type material, Dr.
Usinger affirmed that there should be no surviving type material; otherwise,
there would be no necessity for establishing the neotype. The case of loss
of the holotype with subsequent rediscovery was raised, Dr. Ferris being
firmly of the opinion that a neotype proposed under these circumstances
should lose its validity upon such rediscovery of the lost holotype.

Instead of the one year of public notice that would be required by Hemming
(1952: 141) before a neotype could be designated as such, Dr. Usinger proposed
that a one-year period of protest be allowed subsequent to publication of a
neotype designation. This proposal met with general approval among those
present.

The proposal for the restriction of the type locality (Hemming, 1952:
139) was discussed by Dr. Brittan, who raised the question of extinction of
the species in the locality from which the lost type came, and its survival
in some other locality. To this Dr. Usinger opined that the present trend
was away from restricting type locality in the designation of neotypes.

The distinction made between official and unofficial neotypes and the
implication that the latter would have no standing under the proposed new
system (Hemming, 1952: 146) drew forth some of the sharpest comment
of the day. It was generally felt that to declare null and void all neotypes
proposed before the date of inauguration of the new system would undo much

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 147

careful work by many competent specialists who have preceded their colleagues
(and the International Commission) in recognising the need for neotypes, and
in establishing them.

Although no vote was taken, it appeared to be the consensus of those
present (1) that neotypes should be recognised ; (2) that if the original type
were rediscovered, it should take precedence over the neotype; (3) that the
concept of neotypes should not be extended to supplement inadequate types,
but only to replace lost types; (4) that neotypes should not be subjected
to the exclusive jurisdiction of the International Commission ; and (5) that
the suggestions embodied in Dr. Usinger’s critique of Mr. Hemming’s views
are generally acceptable.

JOHN S. GARTH,
Provisional Secretary.

DOCUMENT 2/27

By E. RAYMOND HALL
(University of Kansas, Department of Zoology, Lawrence, Kansas, U.S.A.)

Enclosure to a letter dated 22nd July 1952

No rules necessary ; any author who writes about a given species (or
_ subspecies) in a taxonomic fashion will do well to designate precisely, by
Museum Catalogue number or other appropriate means, a particular specimen
4 that he considers representative of the name concerned if there is no holotype.

148 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

DOCUMENT 2/28

Statement of the views of the
AMERICAN COMMITTEE ON ENTOMOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE
Enclosure to a letter, dated 24th July 1952, from
Professor CHARLES D. MICHENER, Chairman

Neotypes (Commission’s Reference Z.N.(S.)358)

The neotype concept, originally confined to the replacement of lost types,
should not be expanded to cover cases where existing type material is insufficient
to provide a standard for the identification of species. Worthy though this
might at first appear, it introduces a new subjective element into the picture
because there will be differences of opinion as to the adequacy of most type
material. One individual may find a type inadequate while another student
may discover characters which make it adequate. The action of the “ First
Reviser ’’ has sufficed in the past to take care of questions of this kind until
or unless the type becomes identifiable with further study.

Museums are generally considered to be the rightful depositories for all
primary types, it being generally agreed that such specimens, upon which
scientific work has been based, are the property of science. Nevertheless,
this is no more than a recommendation for holotypes, etc., and it is not clear
that neotypes are in any way more sacred than holotypes.

Exploitation of neotypes could presumably be prevented just as well in
the case of individuals as institutions (just as exploitation of the secondary
homonym procedure can be prevented) by action of the International Com-
mission. The difference between the present method of designating neotypes
(by individuals) and the proposed method (exclusively by the International
Commission) is that at present the individual taxonomist is provided with a
procedure that he can use when he needs it, i.e. when he is doing the work.
By the other method a formal petition must be submitted to the already
overworked Commission. Under the present ‘“‘ unofficial” scheme the Com-
mission would have to act only in the rare instances when actual abuses have
been noted and have been submitted to it for adjudication.

Central authority is not needed to avoid competing and duplicate neotypes,
since priority of designation is a perfectly satisfactory criterion in such cases ;
no central authority should be charged with keeping the museums of the
world under surveillance in order to ensure that adequate care is being taken
of neotypes. No central authority need decide when to permit departure
from original descriptions or original type localities if the Rules were simply
to require that neotypes be not inconsistent in characters and type locality
with the data provided in the original description.

The requirement that a full description and figures be provided when
designating neotypes is fine, but is an “ ideal’ recommendation, and should
not be a rule.

It should be realised that due to the fragile nature of most scientific
specimens, nearly all original types will ultimately have to be replaced, in
100 or 1,000 years. Seen in this perspective, the procedure to be set up should
be geared to regular taxonomic practice rather than to a central authority.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 149

In view of the above comments, the American Committee on Entomological
Nomenclature recommends the following rules, modified from those originally
drawn up by Mr. C. F. Dos Passos.*

Definition. A neotype is a specimen designated to replace the holotype
or the lectotype (both hereinafter referred to as the type) when the type is
lost or destroyed.

Rules. After lst January 195[?], an author may designate a neotype by
complying with the following rules :—

A. The type must be lost, or destroyed, and evidence of that fact must:
be set forth in the publication containing the designation.

B. The designation of the neotype must be published and the neotype
must be labelled as such by its designator.

C. Except for inaccuracies in descriptions, the neotype must agree
with the original description and any published redescription of
‘the type before its loss or destruction.

D. The neotype must agree also with the first published restriction of
the species, even though not accompanied by a lectotype or neotype
designation unless this restriction is at variance with the original
description or locality.

E. The neotype must be from the original type series (i.e. from among
“paratypes ’’) if there is a surviving recognisable specimen in
agreement with the first tenable restriction ; otherwise it must be
(1) from approximately the same locality, if definite, as the type,
or in indefinite, from a locality subsequently fixed, (2) taken at
approximately the same season, and (3) of the same sex and host
as the type, if any or all these facts are known.

F. If the type locality, as originally published, is shown to be false,
the neotype must be from approximately the same locality as
that subsequently fixed.

G. Neotypes shall not be designated en masse, but (except as provided
under H below) in a revisionary paper only, to which the designation
is relevant and material.

H. Nothing herein contained shall

(1) invalidate any neotype designation published on or before
31st December 195[?], in conformity with these rules and
the burden of proving non-conformity shall be upon the
author alleging that fact, but such neotype, if published in
substantial conformity with these rules, may be republished
in conformity therewith in a paper whether revisionary or
not, and shall date from the time of the original publication.

(2) validate any neotype designation whenever published, if at any
subsequent time the type is found.

*For the original proposals by Mr. Dos Passos see Document 2/13 (pp. 121-127).

150 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

I. After lst January 195[?], a neotype not designated in accordance
with these rules shall be null and void, and shall not prevent the
subsequent designation of a neotype in accordance with the
provisions hereof, but in such event the author shall set forth in
detail the reason for claiming that the prior designation is invalid.

J. In the event that two neotypes are designated for the same entity,
the first published shall be the valid neotype.

American Committee on Entomological Nomenclature.
CHARLES D. MICHENER, Secretary.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 151

DOCUMENT 2/29
By J. CHESTER BRADLEY
(Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.)
Statement received on 25th July 1952
Neotypes (Reference Z.N.(S.)358)

I express in sequence my views on the three questions asked by the Secretary
in paragraph 25 on page 147 of Volume 7 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomen-
clature.

(A) I am strongly in favour of the recognition of neotypes. A contrary
course would tend to block progress and precision. In fact while the Commission
could withhold official recognition of neotypes, it would be unable to prevent
zoologists from establishing them on the same basis that they have been doing.

(B) The draft plan is in general good ; but I think it goes too far in trying
to establish an ideal.

It must be remembered that prior to 1948 the Reégles did not recognise
any category of type specimens for the fixation of a trivial name. In that
respect they were very many decades behind zoological practice. It is only
within four years that “ neotype ”’ has been any less official than ‘“ holotype,”
“lectotype,” or ‘‘syntype.” Nevertheless there is a distinction in principle
between on the one hand “ holotype and syntype ” and on the other “ lectotype
and neotype.”’ The former two are factual, being the individual specimen
or specimens upon which the original author based his species. The latter
involve selection by a subsequent author and therefore the application of
judgment to restrict or interpret the intent of the founder of the species. It
is appropriate that such selection and restriction or interpretation be restrained,
if need be, by regulation.

I shall speak elsewhere of the need for doing this in connection with
lectotype. ;

There is no compulsion (it may not even be desirable) to make the regu-
lations for establishing a neotype more stringent than for establishing the
holotype of a new species. Let us not establish a standard so strict that
zoologists will not live up to it. I suggest that the provision that a neotype
must be newly described (as an individual specimen) and figured be made
advisory, not mandatory. As in the case of selection of a lectotype, there
__ are just two things that are essential so far as public notice is concerned :
___ (a) that the specimen selected as neotype and its labelling be so clearly indicated
ina publication that it can be positively recognised by other workers as being
_ the specimen designated, and (6) that.the selector when doing so make clearly
__ evident the taxonomic species with which he subjectively identifies the neotype.
_ The method of doing this may vary with the circumstances. It should be
left to the judgment of the selector. Sometimes it might be best done by
__ publishing an illustration, but again it might be as well done and less expensively
by referring to an already published illustration of the species. Certainly
q to have to publish a figure of Papilio plexippus in order to establish a neotype
_ would be wasted expense, since adequate figures exist and can be referred

152 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

to, and since the taxonomic sub-species can be clearly identified without
reference to any figure. A figure of a sub-species of Ursus might be of little
use in establishing a neotype for the grizzly bear, but statement of locality
and reference to the work of Merriam might be entirely definitive. If the
selector cannot perceive the characters upon which authors may eventually
rely to separate species or sub-species, the chances are that his illustration
will not depict them. The neotype is always the court of last resort, in case
questions of discrimination arise. Even if the selector completely fails to
convey any idea of the actual taxonomic identity of the neotype, the case
is no worse than those of thousands of holotypes of species that have been
inadequately described and not restudied.

There exist innumerable ancient trivial names, with no known corresponding
type specimens, the descriptions of which apply each to any of several well-
known species, but which remain nomina dubia because of lack of evidence
for applying them to any particular ones. In other cases such names are
applied by tradition to a particular taxonomic species, but for no other reason.
It will be a step toward security if systematists are encouraged to establish
neotypes for such nominal species. Almost invariably nothing further would
be desirable than to clearly mark and locate the specimen, and then to define
the taxonomic species which it typifies in terms of already published work.

In permitting the establishment of such and other neotypes, the Commission
will have to meet the problem of how to make sure that the selector has actually
exhausted the possibilities of finding existing type material.

In the present world situation a policy will have to be adopted in regard
to types that are (a) known to exist in or (b) may exist in certain or even all
countries behind the iron curtain, where they are not available to western
scientists. Would the Commission favour requests to establish neotypes in
such cases ? Or would it find it a better policy to continue the names involved
in them as nomina dubia, always with the hope that at some future time the
type specimens in these countries may again be available for study ?

I will comment upon the numbered paragraphs in the draft plan: _
7. Agreed and important. 8. Agreed. It would seem that what is desirable
should be set forth in a Recommendation, in general terms, and that to do
so would prevent many cases coming to the Commission that would have
to be rejected or remanded for modification. 9, Agreed. 10. I agree to the
necessity, but the proposal to authorise a central body (presumably the
I.C.Z.N.) to decide what institutions are acceptable for preservation of neotypes
is one that is likely, if adopted, to give rise to bitterness and especially to
international ill-will. I once visited the national museum of a certain country.
I noted that type specimens of insects had been virtually abandoned, were
crowded into drawers of discards, with no recognition or indication of their
status. Yet if the Commission were to veto locating neotypes of the fauna
of that country in that museum it would be a tremendous blow to the. pride
of the nationals of the country. Another difficult question that will surely
arise: Should it be permissible to locate neotypes in institutions behind the
“jron curtain”? The museums of Budapest, Stettin, Konigsberg, Dresden,
Berlin, of Russia and of China are not accessible to specialists from the western
world. I am far from enthusiastic about seeing the Commission assume such

eer ina eae .

Pe 6a ge

‘

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 153

responsibilities. Is it not enough to lay down in a Recommendation the
conditions as to where neotypes ought to be placed and then assume that
the author will act responsibly ? If it is deemed necessary for the Commission
to decide, then I believe that as far as it could well go would be to submit
a series of questions to the-institution, asking whether it desired to become
a custodian of type specimens in public trust, whether it is prepared to give
them adequate permanent care and protection, and to make them available
for study to all properly qualified zoologists ? I do not think that it would
be wise for the Commission to look behind the face value of the answers. It
would probably be desirable, if the plan is put into effect, to establish a list
of accepted institutions. 11. See above. 12. The necessity is clear. I should
like to inquire to what extent this would be carried in certain respects. (a)
In case the sex of the existing holotype or lectotype is not determinable on
the basis of taxonomic knowledge of the time, would it be deemed appropriate
to replace it with a neotype of the opposite sex ? Would it permit substituting
an adult neotype for the holotype of a species based on larva, in cases where
the larva cannot be differentiated specifically, or where it has not been possible
to determine correspondence between larva and adult ? What would be the
attitude towards establishment of a neotype to replace a holotype on the
grounds that the authorities of the institution that possessed the latter would
not permit a dissection essential to determination, or would not permit adequate
examination (some institutions are known to refuse to allow specimens to
be removed from cases for close examination), or, as in the case of some private
collections, would not permit any examination to be made ? In case a neotype
is established to replace an existing holotype or lectotype, would it not be
well to provide that it would have to become the property of the institution
in which the replaced type specimen existed ? Otherwise abuse might arise.
The establishment of a neotype could be a pretext to get the type away from
some institution. The less cases of that sort that have to be met the better,
for the Commission cannot be expected to serve as detectives. 14. The principle
could be established that a neotype should come from as near as possible
to the locality where holotype or lectotype was collected, if known, or to the
locality where some one of the syntypes was collected, and in no case should
it come from an area where the species or sub-species that the original holotype
or lectotype represents could only doubtfully have come from. 15. I favour
plan (6), with the further exception that it should apply primarily to those
cases in which the neotype was established to replace a type believed to be
lost and not to those where it was at the time known to exist. This for the
reason that at times in obscure groups great harm can be and doubtless will
be effected by the poor judgment of some systematist in attempting to establish.
neotypes ; yet we may apparently make out an excellent case for his intent, and
if there is no other systematist familiar with the group, his views will not
be challenged, but in later years systematists may discover the confusion
that has resulted and apply to the Commission to remedy it. 16. I do not know
how to improve on this, and yet if there is only one systematist actively working
on a group, it will be impossible to check upon the wisdom of what he proposes.
17. Twelve months would be satisfactory. 18. Agreed. It must be born in
mind that a neotype is as necessary for a name that is a junior synonym,
whether subjective or objective, of another, as for a nomenclatorially valid

154 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

name. Furthermore it might be well to recommend that in the case of a name
that has never been in wide use, because never fully identified, the best way
to dispose of it would be to establish the holotype or lectotype of an older
nominal species as its neotype, where circumstances would permit. The
effect, of course, would be to sink it as an objective junior synonym. 19. See my
remarks elsewhere concerning Article XXXI. I am not fully in accord with
the Secretary’s views at this point, unless a holotype or lectotype has been
previously established and is now being replaced by a neotype. In such case
I fully agree that the latter must be as precisely equivalent in value to the
type that it is replacing as humanly possible, and above all things of the same
taxonomic species, sub-species and form. But if the syntypes consist of a
mixture of species or sub-species and no lectotype has been selected, the species
has never been objectively defined. It would seem then to be adequate to
recommend to the selector of the neotype that under normal circumstances
he avoid choosing a specimen that represents a species or sub-species that
someone has removed from the original. Circumstances can arise, however,
under which just that would be the better course. For example, assume
“a” “bh” and “ce” are syntypes of one nominal species H-us y, but “a”
really belongs to one, ““b” and “‘c” to a second taxonomic species; an
author (without establishing a lectotype) notes that the description embraces
two species, and establishes a new nominal species for specimen “c” (as
evidenced let us say by the data on that specimen). Further assume that
his action is quite overlooked and that all authors use the name E-us y in
the sense of specimens “b” and “c,” while the species represented by “a”
is quite lost track of. In such a case clearly the desirable thing would be to
establish specimen “ b ” or “‘c” as neotype of H-us y, and let the overlooked
name E-us y fall as a synonym. It would surely be wise, however, to require
that any zoologist proposing to select a neotype that represented a form or
was the identical specimen that the work of some prior revisee had intended
to remove from the species to state his reasons for so doing in asking the
Commission to validate the neotype.

The principle involved here is like that of selection of a type species of a
genus. It may often be wise to select one that has not been made the type
of a later genus, but is not required. It is quite the old rejected principle
of type by elimination.

The entire argument applies as the equal force to selection of a lectotype,
which I discuss elsewhere, and it would seem desirable to deal with most
details of selecting lectotype and neotype together and with identical provision.

I quite agree that the no longer necessary powers referred to in Section 19
should be repealed.

I also fully concur that neotypes and not figures are essential for precise
definition. The unanswerable argument here lies in the fact that a figure
can only depict what the artist chooses to show, while a specimen possesses
every characteristic with which Nature has endowed it. Furthermore, figures
may be and often are inaccurate.

I should carry this conclusion to the point of revising the regulation con-
cerning holotype, ruling out an illustration altogether; and requiring that

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 155

in the case of every species based only on a figure, a neotype must be established
before complete objective definition is possible. This does not preclude the
fact that species exist which may have no type specimen, but that are so
completely known that no type specimen would be of any practical use, domestic
animals for example, the human species, etc. Complete objectivity becomes
unnecessary.

20. Agreed to, with limitations previously set forth. With the innumerable
cases that may arise, I do not think that it will be possible for the Commission
to assure itself of these matters from first hand knowledge, or to do more
than assure itself that the would-be selector has made an honest effort to
solve each problem in the manner most suitable to the individual case, and
that no strong dissenting opinion exists. The unfortunate thing is that in
many cases no opinion would develop one way or another, perhaps for years,
until some other worker began a critical study of the genus concerned.

21, 22 and 23. Agreed, with some limitation as previously expressed.

24. It does not seem desirable to have two classes of neotypes. It would
seem desirable that the official recognition of a neotype should be signalised
by some such notation as the Secretary suggests. I believe the proper course
is to recommend specialists to recognise and abide by neotypes that have
been in the past published as established, where there is no serious reason
for an opposite course, but at the same time to urgently request them to bring
all such selections before the Commission for official confirmation as rapidly
as possible.

The Commission should be directed to accept all such previously published
neotypes unless there should be strong cause in a given case for not doing so,
and not to attempt to apply the several regulations so strictly to them. It
must be remembered that these have had the sanction of custom, and prior
to 1948 were on the same plane as holotypes, in that neither were recognised
by the Régles. It would cause quite a furore if the Commission were some
day to decide that no holotype had any status until accepted by the Commission,
and then try to apply that regulation to the past.

(C) Except as noted above, there are no questions not dealt with in the
draft plan, that appear to me to require inclusion in the Régles in connection
with this subject unless perhaps in answering Dr. Frizzell’s question about
the terms neotype, neoholotype and neoparatype it should become desirable
to state that :—

A neotype is a single specimen selected to replace a holotype or a lectotype
that has been destroyed or that is believed to have been destroyed, or which
is inadequate to permit specific and subspecific determination. The term
neotype also applies to a single specimen selected to serve instead of a holotype
in case no holotype has ever existed, no lectotype has ever been chosen, and
no syntypes exist from which a lectotype can satisfactorily be chosen.

The term neoholotype is rejected as synonymous with neotype.

The term neoparatype if useful to taxonomists is not nomenclatorially
objectionable. As such a specimen cannot objectively determine the application
of a trivial name, no provision for it is made in these Regles.

156 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Annexe 1

SUPPLEMENT TO PRECEDING REMARKS

8. I do not accept the conclusion (last sentence in paragraph 8) that ‘ites
must be a central authority. I believe that a plain statement of what is
desirable and of abuses that should be avoided is adequate. Then the case
of any neotype established in flagrant abuse of the proprieties, as thus set
forth, could be brought before the Commission for review. Such cases would
be few, and could easily be handled. It is not practical for the Commission
to handle all cases.

20. The preceding paragraph applies more widely here. The longer I
consider the matter the less practical does it seem for the Commission to
undertake to act on all neotypes. Only the author can know and visualise
the taxonomic and anatomical facts—the Commission can only accept or
reject the views of others. The best results will come from clearly stating
everything that is desirable and all that should be avoided, then from letting
each author use his own judgment. If he decides to establish a neotype all
that he need then do is publish what is required, register the neotype, and
receive the assignment of an official number. The Commission will then have
only to consider those cases where abuses or faulty judgment raise the question
as to whether the neotype concerned should be cancelled.

12. I believe that at the present time it would be unwise to recognise
neotypes created to replace an imperfect extant type, or one which is of a
sex, stage or form that taxonomists are unable to specifically identify. Dis-
cussion on this matter could be invited pending the next Congress after
Copenhagen. But I think that a clear demand should arise before provision
is included in the Reégles. As a first step the Commission might be given power
in exceptional cases, to deal with names that remain nomina dubia because
the type, though known, gives no clue to the taxonomic identity of the species.
In cases where no systematist who has examined the type claims to be able
to positively recognise it, and no one raises taxonomic objection, the Com-
mission might set aside the holotype or lectotype and establish a neotype.
In doing this they should be required : (a) in case the name is in current use,
to establish a neotype in accordance with such usage, or (0) in case the name
is not in current use, either to sink it as an objective synonym of an older
name, by establishing the holotype or lectotype of the older name to be neotype
of the name in question, or (under their plenary powers) to suppress the name,
if there is no older name with which it could be appropriately synonymised.

i
» .
¥
¥
:
q
if
|

Bulletin: of Zoological Nomenclature 157

Annexe 2

PROPOSED RULES FOR NEOTYPES*
(Reference Z.N.(S.)358)

Definition : A neotype is a specimen identified with a species already
described and selected as a standard of reference to replace the lost or destroyed
holotype, lectotype or prior neotype of that species. In cases where no holotype
was originally designated, no lectotype ever selected, and no syntypes remain
from which a lectotype may be selected, the neotype serves in lieu of a lectotype.
Tn any case where the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
cancels the status of a holotype, lectotype or neotype, that shall be considered
the equivalent of its destruction.

Tentative Establishment : A specimen receives tentative status as a neotype
only when notice of its selection is published under conditions of publication
specified in Article 25 of these Reégles, and provided further that the following
conditions are adhered to :—

(a) that the author states his reasons for believing the holotype, lectotype
or all syntypes to be destroyed or lost, and in the latter case what
measures have been taken to find them.

(6) that the neotype is, or at time of selection becomes, the property
of a public institution, the name of which is given, or is placed
on permanent loan in the custody of such institution.

(c) that the specimen be so identified that it can be unmistakably
recognised as the neotype. All labels that it bears should be
indicated.

(d) that the author states his views as to the taxonomic status of the
neotype.

(e) that if the neotype is to replace a lost lectotype, and syntypes still
exist, it shall be chosen from among the syntypes, or the author
shall demonstrate either that in his view no existing syntype is
of the same taxonomic species as the lost lectotype, or that for
some reason it would be futile to establish any one of them as
neotype.

Final Establishment : During a period of twelve months following pub-
lication of notice of selection of a lectotype the selector may publish a statement
withdrawing such selection ; or during the same period any taxonomist finding
the selection unsuitable may refer the case to the Commission for decision.
If no such action occurs within the prescribed period, the case shall be deemed
closed. ;

If it is impractical to secure actual publication of the notice of withdrawal
within the twelve-month period, submission of the manuscript to an editor
within that period shall be considered to satisfy the requirement provided

*These are not offered as final or perfected rules, but merely as illustrative of my personal
present conclusion as to what is wise at the present time. In reaching them I have been influenced
by the views of Messrs. Dos Passos, Usinger and Sabrosky. —

158 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

notice is published showing the date of submission to have been with the
period, a dated copy of the manuscript is submitted to the Secretary of the
Commission and actual publication occurs within a further period of twelve
months.

Subsequent to the elapse of the above-mentioned first twelve-month period,
changes in the status of a specimen selected as a neotype can only be made
by the Commission.

Recommendation : Any taxonomist finding a neotype selection unsuitable
is urged to correspond within the twelve-month period with the selector, if
at all possible, and to endeavour to reach agreement as to the most suitable
selection. He should apply to the Commission only in cases where such a
course is not practical or agreement cannot be attained.

Priority in Neotype Selection : If two or more specimens are each designated
neotype of one nominal species, the ordinary rules of priority shall obtain,
each selection dating from the time of its first publication under the preceding
Tules. '

Neotypes Not Objects of Commerce: Neotypes are not subject to sale or
barter, except as between public institutions. If it shall be brought to the
attention of the Secretary of the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature that a neotype has been sold or offered for sale or barter by a
private individual or a commercial firm, he shall publish in the Bulletin of
Zoological Nomenclature notice of the automatic cancellation of the status of
that specimen as a neotype, without requiring action of the Commission.

Rediscovered Type Material : If type material believed to have been lost
or destroyed is rediscovered subsequent to the final establishment of a neotype,
it shall automatically replace the neotype. The Commission, upon application,
may reinstate the neotype if circumstances render such action desirable, as,
for instance, a threat to continuity of established usage. (The wording
employed in this section has been suggested to me by Mr. C. F. Dos Passos.)

Recommendations : Individual cases vary in nature to such a degree that
the following recommendations cannot be made obligatory. Nevertheless the
selector of a lectotype should adhere to each of them unless there is compelling
reason for not doing so, in which case he should explain his reasons. Failure
to adhere to any one of them may, in appropriate circumstances, be deemed
adequate reason for cancellation of a neotype by the Commission.

(a) Locality : When the precise locality from which the original holotype
or lectotype originated is known, subject only to the availability of material,
a neotype should be selected from specimens collected from as near to that
locality as possible. In no case may a neotype be selected from a locality which
the selector suspects may be outside of the natural range of the species, or nomino-
typical sub-species when the species is divided.

(6) Characters: The neotype must agree with the origina] description
and any published redescription of the type in all respects that the selector
deems of specific or subspecific significance. If the species has as originally
proposed been subsequently revised and restricted (even without lectotype
designation) the neotype should ordinarily similarly agree with the restricted
description,

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 159

(c) Sex, Form, Host, etc.: When the sex, stage, form, etc., of the lost
holotype or lectotype are known, and these matters are of significance, the
neotype should be equivalent, unless that would destroy or reduce its utility
for specific diagnosis. In the case of parasitic species, it is ordinarily desirable
that the neotype should have the same host as the original.

(d) Who Should Designate Neotypes : Neotypes should be designated only
by taxonomists engaged in revisionary work on or similar special study of
the group concerned ; they should never be designated as part of curatorial
routine.

(e) Institution in Which a Neotype Should be Placed: The selector of a
neotype should exercise precaution to make sure that the institution to which
the neotype will belong or in which it will be placed on deposit has adequate
facilities for the care of type material, and provision for its study by competent
taxonomists. If the holotype or lectotype was in the custody of a particular
institution the neotype should be placed in the same institution, unless
conditions strongly contra-indicate.

(f) Agreement on Neotypes : A taxonomist intending to designate a neotype
should confer with other taxonomists actively working on the group concerned,
if any, in order that agreement on the best selection may be attained in advance
of publication.

(g) Search for Missing Type Material : A neotype should be selected only
after the fate of all type material has been accounted for, or an exhaustive
study convinces the selector that it is hopelessly lost.

(h) In indicating his view as to the taxonomic identity of the neotype,
the selector should either describe or figure it, or identify it with a description
or figure of a species previously published.

Date Rules Become Effective: These rules concerning neotypes become
effective upon the date of their adoption by an International Congress of
Zoology. Neotypes published prior to their adoption shall be presumed to
have been valid as from the date of their publication, but any taxonomist
convinced that any such neotype should be cancelled may present his reasons
to the International Commission for decision.

DOCUMENT 2/30

Statement of the views of the
ENTOMOLOGISCHE GESELLSCHAFT, BASEL

Extract from a letter, dated 30th July 1952, from M. HENRY BEURET

(Note :—The numbers cited in the following statement are the numbers allotted
to the paragraphs in the paper on the subject of neotypes by the Secretary
to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature published in
March 1952 in Double-Part 5/6 of Volume 7 of the Bulletin of Zoological
Nomenclature.)

Vol. 7, Parts 5/6

No. 1-6. Rien & remarquer.

160 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

No. 7-14. Nouse sommes d’accord avec la création de ‘ négtypes,” aux
conditions suivantes :—

1. qwils correspondent autant que possible 4 la description
originale, éventuellement 4 la figure origininale ;

2. quils proviennent si possible de la “type locality’ (qwils
soient done des topotypes) ou d’un biotope correspondant a
la “ type locality ” et pas trop éloigné de cette derniére ;

3. qu il soit exclu que l’on puisse établir des neotypes pour des
raisons lucratives ;

4. que l’établissement de néotypes soit subordonné a l’autorisation
d’un office central qui devra établir une liste officielle des
néotypes et la compléter au fir et 4 mesure ;

5. que les néotypes soient déposés dans un muséum et accessibles
aux spécialistes, comme vous le proposez ;

6. guwaucun néotype ne puisse étre établi avant qu'un Congres
international ait fixé éxactement les conditions sous lesquelles un
néotype pourra étre établi.

No. 15. Acceptons l’alternative b.

No. 16-23. Rien & objecter.

No. 24. Les néotypes non officials créés jusqu’au moment ot des néotypes
officiels seront admis devraient, pour autant qu ils aient une
raison d’étre, étre transformé en néotypes officiels.

No. 25. Question 1 = oui

2 = voir remarque : ci-dessus
3 = non.

DOCUMENT 2/31

By W. E. CHINA, M.A., D.Sc.
(British Museum (Natural History) London)

Ref. Z.N.(S.)358

(1) Extract from a letter dated 20th August 1952

I am not in favour of the recognition in the Régles of the concept of neotypes
as a category of type specimen.

(2) Extract from a letter dated 19th September 1952

If neotypes are recognised officially I should certainly be interested in
the discussion to ensure the maximum of safeguards against abuse of the
regulation. I particularly agree with your suggestion that when types are
destroyed the museum suffering the loss should have the first right to fix
neotypes. We must ensure that the commercially minded individual is not
allowed to establish neotypes wholesale with a view to their sale at some
later date or that some very active museum curator should not be allowed
to build up his collection by establishing hundreds of neotypes of species of
which he knows the types to have been lost or destroyed.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 161

DOCUMENT 2/32

By H. B. WHITTINGTON

(Department of Invertebrate Palaeontology, Museum of Comparative Zoology ut
Harvard College, Cambridge, Massachusetts, U.S.A.)

Enclosure to a letter dated 26th August 1952

RECOGNITION OF NEOTYPES

While I have in my published systematic work proposed two neotypes,
I consider now that this step was probably ill-advised. As you point out,
in fossil species the need for a neotype arises when either the type material
is lost or when it is too incomplete for a full description. The need seems great
when the species has been designated as type of a genus. However, there
is so much uncertainty about the selection of a neotype of a fossil species—
whether it is from the original locality and horizon—that I consider it best
no longer to use the name of a species of which the type material is either
lost or inadequate. I consider this especially advisable if the species is a type.
I, therefore, join my entomological colleagues in this museum* in urging that
neotypes should not be recognised and that no provision be made in the Régles
for such recognition.

DOCUMENT 2/33

By K. H. L. KEY

(Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation,
Division of Entomology, Canberra, Australia)

Extract from a letter dated 4th September 1952

(Note :—The main portion of the above letter was concerned with the problem
of the emendation of names, on which a separate note has been submitted
by Dr. Key and which is one of the documents included under Case 5 in
the Copenhagen Series.

I have studied your proposals in connection with the other six questions
referred to you by the Thirteenth Congress, and in general I find myself in
hearty agreement with them.

*See Document 2/10 (pp. 116-117).

162 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

DOCUMENT 2/34

By J. BALFOUR-BROWNEH, M.A.
(British Museum (Natural History) London)

Enclosure to a letter dated 25th September 1952

On the Question Whether “ Neotypes ” Should be Recognised
in the “ Régles” as a Category of Type Specimen

Vol. 7, pp. 131-147

7. Agree that neotype should be deposited in a museum or other
public institution.

8. Agree.

9. The duplication of neotypes could be prevented by the definition of
what constitutes a neotype—which should be a single specimen which is to
be accepted as the type specimen of a species of which the original type
(holotype) specimen has been lost or destroyed.

10. Agreed.

11. If an adequate description of the lost or destroyed holotype specimen
already exists and a specimen is designated as a neotype it must accord with
the original description as nearly as possible as is envisaged in *13 of your
paper. A further full description would seem to be supererogatory.

12. I would only agree to the designation of a neotype if the holotype
or lectotype was completely lost or destroyed. Any other ground would
be dangerous as, for example, due to an erroneous determination of sex of a
partly defective specimen. A faulty examination might lead to the conclusion
that a holotype was a defective female whereas it was actually as more careful
study showed a partly defective male which still possessed the truly definite
characters of the species. This could lead to a totally wrong conception of
species, and if a neotype is created under these circumstances the situation
is insupportable. There is also the case of a holotype being entire but in such
fragile condition that any attempt to remount it might be disastrous, but
it might be possible to obtain the essential characters by means which broke
up the specimen—this would not justify creation of a neotype.

If a figure of the essential specific characters (e.g. aedeagus) of a destroyed
holotype is extant that figure should be accepted as the neotype even if it is
only a portion of a specimen.

13. Agreed, see 11 above.

14. This is not always possible. A Fabrician species might be from the
West Indies without specifying which. Agreed that it should, if possible,
be from the same locality or horizon.

15. As I disagree that a neotype and holotype or lectotype can be in
existence at the same time I can only agree in part—that a neotype will take
the same precedence as a lost or destroyed holotype or lectotype possessed
and will immediately lose that precedence if a “lost” holotype or lectotype
is re-discovered even if this should necessitate a change in conception of a
species.

oa*

TIE

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 163

16. I agree with the need for the publicity suggested, but would regard
it as essential if a full description of a neotype is required to replace any
inadequately described lost or destroyed holotype that the description must
be published with the application or it would be impossible for interested
specialists to express an opinion on the merits of the application.

17. Agreed.

18. This would be covered by 16 above.

19. Clearly essential, but I would not at any time agree to the setting
aside of any decision of the Commission under the circumstances quoted for
Papilio plexippus Linnaeus, 1758.

The power of decision should clearly be irrevocable.

20. If an application for the designation of a neotype must be made to the
Commission it is clear that the Commission alone is competent to give a decision
and is therefore in possession of the exclusive right desired.

21. No comment.

22. Agreed.

23. Agreed.

24. No. All neotypes “ unofficially established ’’ at the time of the intro-
duction of the revised Régles should be submitted for verification under the
agreed procedure. A rejected “ unofficially established”? neotype would
automatically lose all type status just as much as a specimen proposed under
the Reégles as suggested but which is rejected by the Commission. If any
application to the Commission for designation of a neotype ignored an “ un-
officially established ” neotype it is extremely likely that the publication of
the application would expose the oversight. The suggestion that there can
be an officially established and an unofficially established neotype coexistent
is insupportable.

DOCUMENT 2/35

By THERESA CLAY, B.Sc.
(British Museum (Natural History), London)

Neotypes (Ref. Z.N.(S.)358)

See Bull. zool. Nomencl. 7 (5/6) : 133-146. 1952.
1. Iam in favour of the recognition in the Régles of the neotype as a category
of type specimen.

2. Iam in general agreement with the draft plan submitted in pages 133-145
with the following comments on alternative suggestions.

Paragraph 8, p. 135.

I agree that it is quite impracticable to make it essential to select neotypes
from material possessed by the institution in which the original type material
had formerly been deposited, nor do I think that it should be a proviso that

164 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

the neotype must be deposited in the above-mentioned institution, but it
might be recommended that a neoparatype (if there is such a category) should
be, where possible, presented to the original institution.

Paragraph 12, p. 137.

I agree that a neotype should be erected even where part of the original
type material is in existence, if this is unrecognisable. There is also the case
to be considered where the holotype belongs to a sex, say female, of a species
which is at the present time only recognisable in the male.

Paragraph 14, p. 138.

In the case of parasites it may be essential to ensure that the neotype is
from the same subspecies of host. Now that the trend in bird systematics
is to widen the concept of subspecies so that many forms formerly recognised
as species and with distinct species of parasite, are now considered as subspecies.
It is therefore important that the same subspecies is selected as host of the
neotype. On the other hand there are cases where the host form is only of
doubtful subspecific value and in this case the neotype could be taken from
a closely related subspecies. This is a point which could presumably be settled
by the specialists in the subject when any given neotype was put up for
consideration.

Paragraph 15, p. 137.

I think it is most important that (a) should be put into practice, that is
that once a neotype has been established, all surviving type material known
or unknown should be deprived of its status as such.

Paragraph 19, p. 142.

This I think is most important, namely that the selection of a specimen
for neotype does not run counter to any previous restrictions or restricted
identifications.

Paragraph 24, p. 145.

I consider that the present unofficial neotypes, if they fulfilled the require-
ments for the establishment of neotypes, should take precedence over an
application by another author for the establishment of a neotype for the
same species, even if the unofficial neotypes had not yet been put before the
Commission. It would have to be declared to the Commission during the
proposed 12-month period, in the same way as type material believed to be
lost must be declared. .

Sh i el apes ee LE EEO AGE Cm

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 165
DOCUMENT 2/36
Statement furnished by the AMERICAN SOCIETY OF PARASITOLOGISTS
Extract from a letter dated 8th September 1952

The American Society of Parasitologists at its meeting in November of
1951 appointed a committee to investigate the controversy that arose following
the announcement that “‘ far-reaching decisions in regard to zoological nomen-
clature (had been) taken by the Thirteenth International Congress.”

In undertaking its assignment the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature was
studied and the requests for advice in Volume 7 were noticed. The committee
reached a unanimous decision on only three points.*

(2) The Committee does not feel that the recognition of lectotypes and
neotypes should be designated to the International Commission
because such a function involves more than a decision on purely
nomenclatorial issues.

In submitting these comments to you the Society wishes to express its
gratitude to you and the entire International Commission for the considerable
effort that has been expended in behalf of zoological nomenclature.

Signed for the Society by its Committee.

ALLEN McINTOSH.
D. H. WENRICH.
G. W. WHARTON, Chairman.

*The other Resolutions referred to here are reproduced at the appropriate points in the
Copenhagen Series,

166 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
DOCUMENT 2/37

By A. E. PARR
(The American Museum of Natural History, New York)

Extract from a letter dated 27th March 1953

You are probably also aware that a committee of the International Council
of Museums, under the chairmanship of Dr. Swinton of the British Museum,
had a meeting at Oxford last summer considering various problems related
to type specimens, which are of concern in relation to nomenclature. One
of the proposals that interest me very much is the proposal to establish some
sort of machinery for having a type specimen that has been destroyed beyond
practical usefulness, or for which there is adequate evidence that it has in all
probability been lost, declared null and void so that a new type can be
established in order to create stability of nomenclature. I believe it is the
intention that this proposal should be presented at Copenhagen.

a ES
ROHASSU

11 JUL 1953

fr ~
f
K ’
re
% e 4

American Committee on Entomo-
logical Nomenclature ..

American Museum of Natural
History, New York, Committee
on Nomenclature of

American Society of Parasitologists
Arkell, W. J.

Baily, Jr., Joshua L.
Baker, Horace H. ..
Balfour-Browne, J.
Barber; H: 'S.

Bequaert, Jos.

Bradley, J. Chester
Cabrera, Angel
Caporiacco, the late L. di
China, W. E.

Clay, Theresa

Daniel, Franz

dos Passos, Cyril F.
Dymond, J. R.

Entomologische Gesellschaft,
Basel oe a as

Follett, W. I.
Frizzell, Don L.
Hall, E. Raymond
Haltenorth, Th.
Hemming, Francis
Hering, E. M.

pan OS Es tO a ee ee
Printed in Great Britain by Metcum anp Son Lrp., Westminster, London

Page

148

132
165
127
130
113
162
112
116
151
129
113
160
163
120
121
128

159
140
111
147
127
111
128

Holthuis, L. B.
Hopkins, G. H. E.
Keen, A. Myra
Kevan, D. K. McE.
Key, K. H. L.
Lemche, Henning

Meinertzhagen, R.

‘Michener, Charles D.

Miller, Robert R. ..
Muller, Siemon W.

Museum of Comparative Zoology
and the Biological Laboratories,
Harvard University

Nomenclature Discussion Group,
Washington, D.C.

Parr, A. E.

Royal Ontario Museum of Natural
History, Toronto, Scientific Staff
of ‘ oe bs oe

Sabrosky, Curtis W.
Society of Systematic Zoology,

Nomenclature Committee of .. 136

Townes, Henry
Usinger, Robert L.
Well, John W.
Wheeler, Harry E.
Whittington, H. B. - “fs

Zimmer, John T. ..

-VOLUMEs. Pas69 PUROEAS. wo July 1953
| Pp. 167-282 271 JUL 1953

‘THE BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL
NOMENCLATURE

The Official Organ of

THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

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

Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature

CONTENTS :

Problems involved in the regulation of the naming of families
and lower suprageneric groups

LONDON :

Printed by Order of the International Trust for
Zoological Nomenclature
and \ \
on behalf of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
by the International Trust at its Publications Office
41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7.
1953

Price Two Pounds, five shillings
(All rights reserved)

fi ©

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL
NOMENCLATURE
A. The Officers of the Commission
Honorary Life President : Dr. Karl Jordan (United Kingdom)

President : Professor J. Chester Bradley (U.S.A.)
Vice-President : Senhor Dr. Afranio do Amaral (Brazil)
Secretary : Mr. Francis Hemming (United Kingdom)

B. The Members of the Commission

(Arranged in order of precedence by reference to date of election or of most recent 4
re-election, as prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology) i.

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

Professor J. Chester Bradley (U.S.A.) (President) (28th March 1944)
Professor Harold E. Vokes (U.S.A.) (23rd April 1944)

Professor Bela Hanké (Hungary) (lst January 1947)

Dr. Norman R. Stoll (U.S.A.) (1st January 1947)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

C. The Staff of the Secretariat of the Commission
Honorary Secretary : Mr. Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E.

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

D. The International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature

Chairman : The Right Hon. Walter Eilict, C.H., M.C., F.R.S., M.P.

Honorary Secretary and Managing Director : Mr. Francis Hemming, C.M.G., — ‘
C.B.E. _ |

Publications Officer : Mrs. C. Rosner or =

E. The Addresses of the Commission and the Trust ;
Secretariat of the Commission : 28, Park Village East, Regent’s Park, London, ‘3
N.W.1. k 34
Offices of the Trust : 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7 ere

BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

ee EEE EE eee
Volume 8, Parts 6/9 (pp. 167-282) July 1953

CASE No. 3

DOCUMENTS RELATING TO THE QUESTION OF THE

REFORM OF THE PROVISIONS IN THE “REGLES”

RELATING TO THE NAMING OF FAMILIES AND LOWER
SUPRAGENERIC GROUPS

DOCUMENT 3/1

. ag

Origin of the Present Investigation

Editorial Note.—The present investigation into the question of the reform
of the provisions in the Régles relating to the naming of families and
lower categories of suprageneric rank was undertaken in response to an
invitation given in July 1948 when the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature at its Paris Session had under consideration the
question of consolidating into the Régles the interpretations of the existing
provisions relating to the foregoing subject rendered by it in various of
its Opinions. The Commission then agreed to recommend (1950, Bull.
zool. Nomencl. 4 : 138) :—

(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 thereon, 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 comprehensive pro-
visions dealing with this subject.”

168 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

2. The foregoing recommendation, with other recommendations, was
submitted to, and approved by, the Section on Nomenclature of the Thirteenth
International Congress of Zoology at its Second Meeting held on 24th July
1948 (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 5 : 67, 76).

DOCUMENT 3/2

General Consultation With Specialists and Issue of an Appeal
: for Advice in 1952

Editorial Note.—Attention is drawn to the review prepared by the Secretary
to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature of the
problems involved in the naming of Families and lower categories of
suprageneric rank which was published in March 1952 (Bull. zool. Nomenel.
7 : 61-94). This review contained an appeal to specialists to assist in
the present investigation by furnishing statements of their views on the
action which it was desirable should be taken. It was in response to this
appeal that the majority of the documents now submitted was furnished.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 169

DOCUMENT 3/3

The Question Raised by Dr. Harold W. Manter Regarding the
Name Properly Applicable to the Family Containing the Genus
“ Dissotrema ” Goto & Matsudaira, 1918 (Trematoda)

Editorial Note.—Attention is drawn to the application submitted to the
International Commission by Dr. Harold W. Manter in 1935 in regard
to the name properly applicable to the Family containing the genus
Dissotrema Goto & Matsudaira, 1918 (Trematoda). The point here was
(1) that, after the Family Name pissoTREMATIDAE had been established
for the above genus, it was found that the name Dissotrema was an
objective junior synonym of the name Gyliauchen Nicoll, 1915, but that
the author who recognised this synonymy (Goto, 1919), while taking the
view that this genus required to be placed in a separate Family, did not
rename the Family GYLIAUCHENIDAE, (2) that later Fukui (1928) placed
the above genera in the same Family as Opzstholebes Nicoll, 1915, and
gave the name OPISTHOLOBETIDAE to the Family which he so recognised.

Dr. Manter’s application in regard to the foregoing case was published
in 1947 (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 1: 197-198). When in Paris in 1948 preliminary
consideration was given to this case by the International Commission, it was
decided that a decision on it should be deferred until after the completion
of the general review of the problems involved in the naming of Families, the
institution of which had already been decided upon, it being agreed at the
same time that the papers relating to this case should form part of the docu-
mentation for that review (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 401-402).

170 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
DOCUMENT 3/4

By H. BOSCHMA
(Ryksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands)

Examples of Homonymous Family Names

(1) Enclosure to a letter dated 30th January 1946

The names CYPRINIDAE, type genus Cyprinus Linnaeus, 1758, and
CYPRINIDAE, type genus Cyprina Lamarck, 1818, both seem to have been in
constant use for about a century. It is rather difficult to trace the authors
of family names, as these are rarely mentioned in literature.

Giinther (1868, Cat. Fishes Brit. Mus. 7:3) mentions Agassiz (1843, Rech.
Poiss. foss. 5) as author of the family name CyPRINIDAE (fishes).

Jeffreys (1863, Brit. Conch. 2: 297) mentions Geinitz as author of the
family name CYPRINIDAE (molluscs). In Agassiz & Strickland (1852-1853,
Bibl. Zool. Geol. 3) and in Carus & Engelmann (1861, Bibl. Zool. 2) papers by
Geinitz are cited dating from 1837 to 1861.

Bucquoy, Dautzenberg & Dollfus (1892, Moll. mar. Roussillon 2: 313)
state that Pictet (1835, Traité Paléont.. 3: 463) established the family
CYPRINIDAE (molluscs). They add (l.c.): ‘“‘ Le nom de Cyprinidae ne peut
étre conservé pour cette famille, car il a été employé plus anciennement pour
désigner une famille de poissons.”” As a substitute for CyPRINIDAE (molluscs),
they use the family name ISOCARDIIDAE, a name which they prefer to GLOSSIDAE,
which appears to have been used for the same family by Stoliczka & Cossmann
(the name Glossus had been proposed to replace Isocardia).

It is not advisable to use the name ISOCARDIIDAE instead of CYPRINIDAE.
The genera Cyprina and Isocardia form rather different groups, so that some
later author may be inclined to place these genera in separate families.

However this may be, to avoid confusion it is necessary to restrict the
family name CYPRINIDAE to one of the two groups of animals, fishes or molluscs.

The CYPRINIDAE (fishes) form a group of animals of economic importance,
so that the literature on this subject is much more extensive than that dealing
with the CYPRINIDAE (molluscs). It is, therefore, advisable to restrict the
family name CYPRINIDAE to the group of fishes.

In Opinion 140 (MEROPIDAE and MEROPEIDAE) an elegant solution of the
difficulty could be found; here the case is less simple. Perhaps the name
CYPRINAIDAE might be proposed, although this name is not rigidly derived
from the stem of the name of the type genus Cyprina.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 171

(2) Letter dated 9th January 1950

Besides the case of MEROPIDAE, now settled by the Commission, and that
of the name CYPRINIDAE, now brought before the Commission, there are two
more interesting cases of identical Family Names :—

(1) The genus Metridium (Anthozoa, Actiniaria), Family Name, metrt-
DUDAE ; the genus Metridia (Crustacea, Copepoda), Family Name,
METRIDIIDAE.

(2) The genus Gerris (Insecta, Hemiptera), Family Name, GERRIDAE ;
the genus Gerres (Pisces, Acanthopterygii), Family Name, GERRIDAE,

DOCUMENT 3/5

By CURTIS W. SABROSKY

(of (at the time when, the following paper was written) the U.S. Public Health,
Service, Manning, South Carolina, U.S.A.)

Extract from an enclosure to a letter dated 14th March 1946

The Correct Names for Families in Zoology*

Family names are among the most widely used of all the technical names
for animals or groups of animals, Introductory textbooks are commonly
organised on that basis, beginning students learn to classify the subjects of
their study by them, and specialists in non-taxonomic fields may recognise
few names beyond those of families.

*The principles discussed in the paper apply equally to subfamily names, but the discussion
has been centered on families to avoid the cumbersome phrase “‘ family and subfamily names.”
Further, because of the large number of names referred to, almost all references have been placed
at the end of the paper in order not to interrupt the continuity of the discussion. Aside from
the citation of their dates, references for generic names have not been given because in the light
of Opinions 133 and 141 they are not essential to the arguments in this paper. [E£d.—The
bibliographical references referred to by Dr. Sabrosky have not been reproduced here. ]

172 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Nowhere is the above more true than in entomology, because of the vast
numbers of genera and species involved. Whereas the ornithologist, for
example, can recognise and give both generic and specific, and perhaps even
subspecific, names for the birds in his region, the taxonomic entomologist
often does well to know a reasonable proportion of the family names of the
insects of his area, outside of the common genera and species and those of
his own particular speciality. The economic entomologist will recognise species
of economic importance, but beyond that will rely mainly on group names
for the various forms that he meets.

Many family names, particularly in entomology, have become quite generally
used and understood as common names, not only by taxonomists, but also
by biologists, general zoologists, science teachers, etc. Such names as tabanids,
tipulids, and sarcophagids have become nearly as well known as their counter-
parts of horseflies, crane flies, and flesh flies. In some cases, such as the
parasitic flies of the family TaAcHINIDAE, there exists no common name for
the group other than that founded upon the family name itself. In other
cases, it is convenient to use a common name based on the family name, such
as the noctuid moths or NOCTUIDAE (cutworms, stalk borers, earworms, etc.,
now known as the PHALAENIDAE), either because of the diversity of common
names for groups of species within the family, or because the common names
apply to larval forms and not to adults.

Obviously, therefore, the changing of family names may have more extended
repercussions than the changing of generic or specific names. No matter
how vehemently specialists may argue for or against changes in names, they
will have to admit that, because of their specialised knowledge and training,
no change will be likely to cause them more than temporary annoyance or
occasional slips in their book-keeping. However, to specialists in other fields
of biology, to students of other sciences, and to non-technical workers, the
changing of familiar and long-recognised names, and the continued use of
conflicting names by different specialists, contribute not only to confusion,
but to a low regard in some quarters for both taxonomy and nomenclature.
For example, the pictured-winged flies of the family long known as the
TRYPETIDAE are commonly called the trypetids, and they are widely known
and recognised because of such common species as the cherry fruit flies, the
apple maggot or “railroad worm,” the Mediterranean fruit fly, the round
golden rod fall maker, and many others. Yet the appearance of such names
for the family as TRUPANEIDAE, TRYPANEIDAE, EURIBIIDAE, and TEPHRITIDAE,
leaves the average reader only bewildered.

Some changes are of course inevitable, such as the necessity of avoiding
homonyms in order to prevent the confusion of having identical names in use
contemporaneously for two different groups. In many cases, however, we
need prompt action by the International Commission on Zoological Nomen-
clature in order to clarify certain general principles and to bring system into
the often confusing terminology of family names.

Articles 4 and 5 of the International Rules of Zoological Nomenclature,
simple and direct as they seem, have been the subject of considerable dispute
and conflicting interpretations. Some of the doubts about family names
have been resolved by Opinions 133 and 141, published in 1936 and 1943 by

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 173

the International Commission. However, in spite of the clear-cut statement
of principles contained in Opinion 141, there still remain several points of
contention. Even though in some cases the answer may seem obvious, or the
probable answer is indicated by the discussion in the above or other Opinions,
nevertheless a more comprehensive statement of principles by the International
Commission would clear up certain difficulties that now exist in the nomen-
clature of family names, as indicated in the following discussions.

1. Shall a family name, based on an included generic name,

have priority and authorship from the date of its first proposal

for a super-generic group, whether originally called a family,

or stirps, or etc., and regardless of the patronymic ending
employed ?

The use of “-idae”’ as a uniform patronymic ending for family names
was first advocated by William Kirby in 1813. Although the idea soon found
favour in many quarters, it was naturally many years before it was consistently
and universally applied. Meanwhile, authors used such terminations as
“ites,” “‘-ides,” and “‘-ina.”” In many cases, these were called “ family ”
or “‘ subfamily ” ; in others, “ stirps,” “‘ section,” ‘‘ natural order,”’ etc.

Many of our best-known family names date from this period when there
was no uniform family patronymic. The critical study of the origins of these
names will sometimes reveal that insistence upon the “-idae’’ ending for
determining priority would overthrow long-established names in favour of
unknown or obscure ones. In the two-winged flies (Class Insecta, Order
Diptera), for example, a number of our familiar family names were apparently
first used by Edward Newman (1834), who consistently used the suffix “ -ites ”’
to designate his ‘‘ natural orders’ (modern families) in such combinations
as Bibionites, Psychodites, and Chironomites.

In fairness to early taxonomists, who based their super-generic names on
included genera, but merely with different endings to designate the groups,
it is believed that the question should be answered in the affirmative.

A suggestion to this effect, in the nature of a proposed amendment to the
International Rules, was also submitted to the Commission some years ago
(Cf. Science 68 : 102-104, 1928; Ent. News 40 : 332, 1929), as was the principle
discussed in the third section.

2. When a family name is changed because the name of the

type genus is found to be a homonym, must the new family

name be founded upon a new generic name replacing the pre-
occupied one, or upon the next available generic name?

Although it is believed that the answer will favour the first alternative,
it would be well to have a clear and unequivocal statement. The continuity
of the type concept is important, when a certain generic group is used as the
standard of reference for a family. If a preoccupied generic name which is a
familiotype (type genus of a family) should be replaced by a name which is
not isogenotypic with it, then the new family name might conceivably be
based on a group of species which might sometime be recognised as quite

174 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

different from the original type genus. We would then find that the family
name would pass to the new segregate, and we would be forced again to rename
the original and long established genus and the family name founded upon it.

To cite a definite example, a large and common family of picture-winged
flies, similar to the trypetid fruit flies in appearance and size, has been well
known for years under the name ORTALIDAE. Not until 1932 was it pointed
out that the generic name Ortalis Fallén (1810) is preoccupied by Ortalis
Merren (1786) in ornithology. Two authors almost simultaneously proposed
new names for the family, OTITIDAE and PLATYSTOMIDAE.* In each case, the
name is based on an. entirely different genus than the original ORTALIDAE,
thus changing the family’s type standard. The choice of PLATYSTOMIDAE
was particularly unfortunate, since it is based on a genus in another subfamily
from the original Ortalis, and one which is recognised by some authors as a
family in its own right.

3. Must a family name be changed when its type genus is found
to be a synonym ?

There is no question that, in order to avoid possible confusion, a family
name must be changed when the name of the type genus upon which it is
based is found to be a homonym.

Changing with synonymy is not so convincing. A homonym is forever
dead: it was stillborn and cannot be revived; but it is always possible to
resurrect and reinstate a synonym. A homonym engenders confusion because
it has the same name as some other animal group ; a synonym is a distinctive
name in itself, but merely superseded by an older name, sometimes only as a
matter of opinion. A synonym is always present in the literature on the
family, and a family name based on it would always represent the same type
concept, regardless of any changes in the prevailing opinion of its status and
synonymy. It is not possible to foresee the trends of future revisionary work
and the results of the discovery of thousands of new species. Genera may
be combined, later separated, perhaps recombined, with refinements in classi-
fication, discovery of annectant species, etc. Ifa family had to be renamed
because of synonymy, there might be frequent changes or vacillation in the
family name.

Two examples may be cited by way of illustration :—

(a) In the order Diptera (Insecta), the Meigen (1800) generic names (which
were first brought to the attention of dipterists by Hendel in 1908) under
the Rules supplant the well-known and century-old names of Meigen (1803)
for many common genera that gave their names to large and cosmopolitan
families. Assuming for present discussion that the 1803 generic names must
be changed (which is opposed by some workers), why should we necessarily
have to change the familiar CHIRONOMIDAE to TENDIPEDIDAE, OF TACHINIDAE
to LARVAEVORIDAE, for example ?

(b) The so-called false crane flies were known for years under the family
name RHYPHIDAE, based on Rhyphus Latreille (1804). Not until the early
20th century did authors change to ANISOPIDAE (or ANISOPODIDAE) based on

*Based on Otites Latreille, 1804, and Platystoma Meigen, 1803,

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 175

Anisopus Meigen (1803) with Rhyphus as synonym. Following Hendel (1908),
however, some workers changed to PHRYNEIDAE, based on Phryne Meigen
(1800) (=Anisopus Meigen, 1803). For the next few decades, dipterists
were divided on the use of the 1800 names, and both PHRYNEIDAE and ANISO-
PODIDAE existed in the literature. Finally, as a crowning touch, careful research
into the place of the 1800 names in the taxonomic structure (Stone, 1941)
revealed that both Phryne and Anisopus were synonyms of the still older
but hitherto overlooked Sylvicola Harris (1776). Thus the family name can
once more be changed, to SsyLvIcoLipa£, which incidentally is a name once
used in ornithology for the American wood warblers. How much senseless
change would have been avoided, through the years of changing synonymy.
by the continued use of the original name, RHYPHIDAE !

4. Is a family name to be rejected as a homonym of another
family name?

It is possible that each case might have to be considered on its own merits,
but the statement of a general principle should help in many situations. Two
problems will illustrate different ways in which family homonyms may arise.

(a) In the preceding section, the family of the false crane flies was found
to have had four different family names as a result of successive changes in
the recognised synonymy of the type genus. Although the name SYLVICOLIDAE
has not yet been noticed in the literature, it is the logical step if the nomen-
clature of family names continues as it has in the past. However, the name
SYLVICOLIDAE has already been used in ornithology for the American wood
warblers, although later abandoned when its type genus (Sylvicola Swainson,
1827) was found to be a homonym. Does this existence of a previous though
now unused SYLVICOLIDAE preoccupy the use of the name ?

(6) Are identical family names, which are based on similar but not identical
(and therefore not strictly homonymous) generic names, to be considered
homonyms ?

For example, in the “Statement of the Case” in Opinion 153 (p. 199)
it was pointed out that a situation appeared to require the use of the name
PSILIDAE for a family of bethylid wasps, based on Psilus Jurine (1801). For-
tunately, with the suppression of the “ Erlangen List,” the name Psilus ceased
to be available, for otherwise we might have had a family PstLipDaE in the
Hymenoptera, based on Psilus Jurine (1801), and the identical name PSILIDAE
in the Diptera, based on the valid and distinct name Psila Meigen (1803).
As a similar situation, there is a family name LaRIDAE both in Aves and in
the Insecta (Coleoptera), based respectively on Zarus Linnaeus and Lara
Leconte.? What shall be done with family names based on valid generic names
which differ only by ending in -us and -a, where the family names derived
from the stem of the name of the type genus are inevitably identical ?

3] am indebted to Dr. E. Gorton Linsley for calling my attention to the case of LARIDAE,
and also to the fact that family names with a similar sound but different forms are LARRIDAE
in the Hymenoptera (from Larra Fabricius), and LARmDAE in Coleoptera (from Laria Scopoli).
The last two names undoubtedly are sufficiently distinct, for we have the example set by the
International Commission in Opinion 140, in which official sanction was given to the names
MEROPIDAE and MEROPEIDAE, respectively based on Merops Linnaeus and Merope Newman.

176 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

5. What spelling is to be considered proper and official in the
case of certain kinds of family names that have appeared in
both short and long forms ?

A few examples from the Diptera will suffice :—

ACROCERIDAE Or ACROCERATIDAE EMPIDAE OF EMPIDIDAE
TRICHOCERIDAE Or TRICHOCERATIDAE DOLICHOPIDAE Or DOLICHOPODIDAE

Inasmuch as Opinion 36 (p. 85) called attention to a change from DIO0Xxo-
CERIDAE to DIOZOCERATIDAE, it is to be presumed that the longer form, based
on the full stem of the name of the type genus, is the proper and correct spelling
under Article 4 of the Code. It would promote uniformity, however, if the
Commission would review the interpretation of the stem of the names of type
genera where the proper combining form is not apparent in the generic name
itself (as in Acrocera, Empiz, Dolichopus, Termes, Leptocerus, etc.).

An “ Official List of Family Names in Zoology ”

A statement of general principles from the International Commission
would aid in solving many problems in the nomenclature of family names.
Even beyond this, however, it is believed that the preparation of an Official
List of such names would do much to promote stability and uniformity in the
terminology of these widely used names.

In addition to a request for the statement on general principles, therefore,
it is proposed that the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature,
with the aid of special committees of specialists on the various groups of
animals, undertake the preparation of an “‘ Official List of Family Names in
Zoology.” When cases are discovered that appear to warrant Suspension of
the Rules in order to prevent greater confusion than uniformity, these can
then be promptly submitted to the Commission for action.

The idea is by no means new, though not previously proposed as an
* Official List.”” At the Fourth International Congress of Entomology (Ithaca,
N.Y.) in 1929, in the discussion of a paper by Dr. A. L. Melander, Dr. Karl
Jordan expressed the view that family names should be stabilised by means
of a list of ‘‘ nomina familiarum conservanda’”’ prepared by a committee for
each large order.

Undoubtedly, the difficult cases in family names would eventually be
discovered and settled in due course. Rather than wait for the haphazard
discovery of problems and the slow accumulation of approved names, however,
it is believed that more good would result from the active research and pre-
paration of a comprehensive list that would be a contribution to stability and
an orderly nomenclature.

DOCUMENT 3/6
By L. W. GRENSTED, D.D.
(Oriel College, Oxford University)
Enclosure to a letter dated 5th October 1947
EprrortaL Note.—The following paper was published in June 1947 in Ent.
mon. Mag. 83 : 137-141.
On the formation of Family Names

If we are ever to reach security and uniformity in nomenclature it is
absolutely necessary, first, that the Opinions of the International Commission,

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 177

when issued, should be accepted and followed without question, second, that
where the Rules upon which those Opinions are based are inadequate it should
be open to the Commission to re-interpret or to revise them, and, third, that
the procedure of the Commission should be such as to inspire confidence in
its learning and scientific integrity, as well as in its administrative efficiency
and its ability to settle disputed problems with reasonable speed. In what
follows I am going to argue that the decision given in Opinion 143, establishing
the family name TINGIDAE as correct, has implications which are far-reaching
and which, if accepted, will greatly simplify one of the more awkward problems
as to the formation of such names. I propose, in fact, to treat the Opinion
in legal fashion, as providing us with case law, fixing the interpretation of
Article 3 of the International Rules, and thereby enabling us to determine
the meaning and application of Article 4. The argument applies more especially
to generic names with alleged i-stems, but it may appear in the end that it
has a wider application. If in what follows I seem to suggest some criticism
of the work of the Commission, it is not with any desire to undermine confidence
in its findings, and certainly not without recognition of the great practical
difficulties under which its work is carried on. Entomologists everywhere
are under a very great debt to the Commission, and to its Secretary, Mr.
Hemming, in particular. It is in the hope that discussion of its work may
help to speed the plough that I have written what follows.

It will be convenient to have before us the two relevant Articles of the
Rules :—

Article 3.—The scientific names of animals must be words which are either
Latin or Latinized, or considered and treated as such in case they are not of
classic origin.

Article 4.—The name of a family is formed by adding the ending ¢dae,
the name of a subfamily by adding inae, to the stem of the name of its type
genus.

It will be noticed that Article 3 does not determine what is meant by Latin,
which, as a living and changing language, has a history of more than two
thousand years, though it certainly suggests that what is commonly called
“classical ’’ Latin is the norm. But it does lay down quite clearly that such
names as Hmpis or Anthocoris, however Greek their origin, are to be “ considered
and treated’ as Latin. And this certainly applies when they are being used
as the basis for the formation of family names.

So much by way of Preface.

Opinion 143 of the Commission on Zoological Nomenclature reads as
follows :—

On the Method of forming the Family Name for Tingis Fabricius, 1803

(Insecta, Hemiptera)

Summary.—The family name for Tingis Fabricius, 1803 (Syst. Rhyng. :
124) in the Hemiptera is TINGIDAE.

178 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

The case submitted by Dr. A. C. Baker in January 1923 is set ont in these
terms:
TINGITIDAE, TINGIDAE or TINGIIDAE

Dr. W. J. Holland (1922, Science 56 : 334-5) contends that Fabricius in-
tended to use the word Tinge, the Latin equivalent of the Greek word Tiyyue,
of which the stem is Tingit. He therefore makes the family name TINGITIDAE]

Dr. H. M. Parshley (1922, Scrence 56 : 449) contends that Fabricius coined
the word Tingis and did not base it on the Greek word Tiyy1c, and following
the genitive used by Fabricius he makes the word an i-stem and writes the
family name TINGIDAE.

Dr. Baker (1922, Scrence 56 : 603) contends that Fabricius introduced into
the Latin language the Greek word Ttyyc, and since an i-stem in Greek made
it an istem in Latin, following Article 4 strictly, he writes the family name
TINGIIDAE.

Dr. Holland (1922, Science 56 : 535-6) replies to Dr. Parshley objecting to
his stand.

Dr. Parshley (1922, Science 56 : 754) accepts Dr. Baker’s conclusion about
the origin of the word, but objects to the application of Article 4. He claims
that Dr. Baker introduced this use in such cases.

Dr. Baker informs you of the fact that the word mentioned by Dr. Parshley,
APHIIDAE, has been in the literature for ten years, so that others have followed
Article 4 in such cases.

Shall Article 4 be followed 2

This was submitted to the International Committee on Entomological
Nomenclature, which, at Paris in 1932, passed the following resolution :—

TINGIDAE versus TINGITIDAE et TINGIIDAE

Tingis étant un nom latin dont le génitif est Tingis et laccusatif Tingim,
TINGIDAE est la forme correcte de nom de la famille.

This resolution was confirmed by the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature at Lisbon in 1935, and the Opinion, as above, published
in 1943.

For our purpose the above citations from the Opinion will suffice, the
remainder being merely the indication (at no little length) of the authority
under which it is issued.

A first comment must be that it was nine years before Dr. Baker’s case
was considered at all, three more before the confirmation, and twenty in all
before the Opinion upon it was published. It is certainly better to be slow
than to be wrong, but this is a speed which, since zoologists must use some
nomenclature, can only mean the establishment of wrong names during the
period while the right ones are emerging.

The second comment is that the only defence of the Opinion, since it rejects
Dr. Baker’s view, is contained in the Resolution, and that, to an ordinary
classical scholar, every single statement in that Resolution is wrong. For
(a) the Latin word is not Tingis but Tinge or Tingi; (b) its declension is

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 179

unknown ; (c) if its genitive were Tingis and its accusative Tingim, it would
certainly be a third declension noun, i.e. an i-stem; (d) and in that case the
application of Article 4 would necessarily give TINGIIDAE as the family name.

Nevertheless, curiously enough, I think that the Opinion in favour of
TINGIDAE is right, and that it can be adequately defended. But the consequences
of that defence must be a more careful statement of Article 3 and a full inter-
pretation (or a re-writing) of Article 4. If, as I suggest, we can treat Opinion
143 as case-law, both these things will become possible.

A short discussion of Dr. Baker’s case, as quoted above, will clear the
ground. A discussion of this kind ought, of course, to have been included
in the Opinion. For full details I must refer readers to the five articles cited.

In the first place we note that Dr. Baker’s summaries are not wholly accurate
and are in one case, his own article, so ungrammatical as to be obscure at a
crucial point. Further, in his summary of Dr. Parshley’s second paper he
completely omits matter which probably influenced the International Com-
mittee more than anything else in making its decision, since at this point he
had taken the opinion of eminent classical scholars, though he had not, in
fact, put the problem before them sufficiently fully. It is really their answer
that is embodied in the Resolution and Opinion. But, as Dr. Baker urges,
their answer does not conform to the requirements of Article 4. It may be
noted that the International Committee makes no reply to Dr. Baker’s questior
“Shall Article 4 be followed ?”’ and that they do not in fact follow it.

The basic fact is that Fabricius, 1803, Syst. Rhyng. : 124, erects the name
Tingis and, in a footnote, uses the genitive Tingis. I can find no evidence
for the alleged accusative Tingim cited in the Resolution. If it exists it would
strengthen Dr. Baker’s argument, as against the Opinion, to some small extent.
But the genitive Tingis is sufficient in itself to establish the stem Tingi-,
as opposed to Tingid- (cf. Empid-) or Holland’s suggestion Tingit-. Tingis
is clearly the Latinized Greek form of the North African (Berber ?) name
given on coins as Tenga, Tinga, Tetga (Pauly-Wissowa, Real-Encyclopéidie,
6 : 2517), and in the Latin geographers (Pliny, Historia Naturalis V. 1. 1;
Pomponius Mela, I. 1. 4) as Tinge or Tingi. The place, the modern Tangiers,
gave its name to the district known as Tingitana (Pliny, loc. cit.), but this
does not, as Holland suggested, establish a stem Tvngit-, any more than
Neapolitana establishes a stem Neapolit- for Neapolis, which makes its genitive
sunply Neapolis. But Holland is right in saying that Fabricius is using the
place-name Tingis in its Latinized Greek form and not just inventing a new
Latin word, for Fabricius gave the preceding genus the name of Syrts, the
famous sandbank off the North African coast, not far from Tingi. The name
in Greek is found in Strabo (I. 3. 1 (with genitive,-toc), III, 1. 8; Ptolemaeus,
IV, 1.5; Dio Cassius, XLVIII, 45; Stephanus Byzantius, 655).

Thus Parshley’s first contention is wrong, and Baker’s main contention
is right, though his further argument that an i-stem in Greek makes an i-stem
in Latin, true up to a point, needs, as we shall see, much consideration.

Parshley’s final contribution is more important, and Baker does not do
it justice. It is true that Parshley accepts the evidence as to the origin of

180 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

the name, but he makes the important remark that ‘* Fabricius did not adopt
the word, rather he introduced into the neo-Latin language the word Tingis,
genitive Tingis, stem Tingi-.” This distinction of neo-Latin from Latin is of
far-reaching importance in the whole discussion. He then goes on to point
out that the classical mode of forming patronymics from i-stems always
proceeded by the elision of the redundant i, “‘ and indeed who ever heard
of such terms as Apiidae, Aphiidae, Feliidae, or Caniidae.’”’ He then cites
eminent classical authorities, Mr. H. Pennypacker and Prof. C. H. Moore, as
follows :—

“ Rules regarding the formation of family names which may be described
as patronymics are subject to modification not only in the interest of con-
venience, but also of euphony, and in spite of the fact that the stems of the
nouns you mention [Nahis, Apis, Tingis, Coris, Aphis] in Latin end in *i,’
and that the termination -idae is conventional in such cases there seems to
be no doubt that the spelling with a single ‘i’ carries universal authority and

the penultimate ‘i’ is short in quantity.”

It is, of course, true that zoological family names are intended to be formed
as patronymics, but they are, nevertheless, something else, scientific terms in
‘“ neo-Latin,” with a precise purpose. Dr. Baker’s case, to which the Resolution
and Opinion make no reply, is that Article 4 precludes us from following the
classical usage correctly stated in Dr. Parshley’s article, and that we must
stand by the letter of the law and not say, as Parshley does, that “‘ the authors
of the International Code, of course, were fully conversant with this principle,
and expected it to be applied in connection with Article 4, as it had been in
the past,’ since they were, in fact, “educated men, and their own works
contain no such monstrosities as Feliidae or Anguiidae.”

The Opinion, without intelligible argument, supports Dr. Parshley. But
if it is correct, as I think it is, it is on grounds other than those stated or implied,
and it involves the admission that Article 3 is not clear and that Article 4
completely fails to state its own intention.

Article 3 is the easier case. Where it fails is in its tacit assumption that
classical Latin is the only Latin which need be taken into account and that
all the complicated multitude of amorphous generic names can be “ considered
and treated as such.” In the formation of family and sub-family names this
is certainly not the case, as we shall see, and other difficulties arise of various
kinds, especially in the establishment of genders. It is highly desirable that
the International Commission should attach a note to the Article in the
following terms :—

“* Tt should be noted that Latin as used for scientific purposes, and especially
as used at the end of the eighteenth century, is a living language not agreeing
in all respects with the Latin commonly called classical. While classical Latin
is necessarily the standard to which scientific terms should conform, that
standard must not be so applied as to override considerations of scientific
accuracy, uniformity, intelligibility, and practical usefulness.”

The importance of some such note will appear in what follows.

:

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 181

Article 4 suffers from a radical defect. It does not define what is meant
by the stem of a word. Asa result we note, first, that it has never been applied
at all in a large number of cases and, second, that it cannot be applied to
many of them without absurd results. An example or two will make this
immediately obvious. The stems of Latin nouns end with the five vowels of
the five declensions, except in some cases, often derived from the Greek, where
a consonant, implicit in the nominative, appears in the genitive. Thus the
stem of Plusia is Plusia-, of Gryllus Gryllo-, of Apis Api-, of Empis Empid-.
By applying Article 4 literally we get PLUSIAIDAE, GRYLLOIDAE, APIIDAE and
EMPIDIDAE, the last alone being euphonious and reasonable.

To interpret the Article in this way would make hay of our nomenclature,
and nobody has even attempted to do it, except in the case of certain i-stems.
Words such as TINGIIDAE are obviously not too shapeless to use, and Dr.
Baker and others have pressed us in that direction. But if we agree we have
got to admit the dreadful PLustarpaE and, worse still, CECIDOMYIAIDAE,
ANTHOMYIAIDAE and their kind. I think that there will be general consent
that that cannot be done.

That leaves two alternatives.

First, we can form our family and subfamily names exactly as though
they were Latin patronymics of the classical period. That would give clear
and easily pronounced forms. The rules are (1) that a-stems form -adae,
e.g. PLUSIADAE, CECIDOMYIADAE ; (2) that other vowel stems form -idae, e.g.
GRYLLIDAE, APIDAE, TINGIDAE; (3) that stems ending in a consonant add
-idae, €.g. EMPIDIDAE, DOLICHOPODIDAE. This is the principle which has in
fact been more or less operative throughout the whole period during which
zoologists have been struggling with this particular problem. It would have
been perfectly clear if Article 4 had not introduced the grammatical term
“stem,” which is barely intelligible except to classical specialists, working
on the theoretical hypotheses of grammar and philology. It is the principle
presupposed in Parshley’s argument, though he did not work it out to its
conclusion, or realise that it would mean introducing forms in -adae. Some
writers, such as Meyrick, e.g. 1927, Insects of Samoa, 3, fasc. 2 (Microlepidoptera),
with E. E. Austen’s note on p. 76, have frankly abandoned Article 4, and
used such orthodox classical forms as GELECHIADAE, PLUSIADAE. But this
solution has one great difficulty. There are very many generic names, such
as Notodonta, Ephydra, which do not fall readily into the classical scheme.
being of modern and often of obscure origin. And it has also the practical
disadvantage of destroying the present uniformity of usage whereby -idae is
the universal mark of a family name.

It was probably a not very clearly thought out argument on these lines
which underlay Opinion 143 and the Resolution cited above.

But, second, another alternative is possible, and, I believe, necessary.
We can retain the general use of -idae and -inae, and also retain Article 4 in
its present form, if we re-define the word “ stem,” using it not in the gram-
matical sense, with reference to classical Latin, but in a practical sense,

182 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

applicable to scientific Latin, the neo-Latin of Parshley’s article. This could
be secured by a note attached to the Article in the following terms :—

“For the purposes of Article 4 the term ‘stem’ is to be taken to mean
either the grammatical and classical stem or such part of it as will make wholly
clear the relation between the generic name and the name of the family or
subfamily, and will at the same time give the family or subfamily name the
simplest and most euphonious form compatible with that relationship. The
stem, in this sense, will normally be found by putting the generic name into
the genitive case and then cutting off the termination, -ae, -i, -is, or -us,
according to the ordinary rules of Latin declension.”

Such a note would in practice be found perfectly clear and easily applied.
It would give a consistent usage, and, which is important, one in all essentials
in agreement with the usage most commonly employed today. Thus forms
like Plusia and Cecidomyia would give PLUSIIDAE and CECIDOMYLIDAE ; Gryllus,
GRYLLIDAE ; Tingis and Anthocoris, TINGIDAE and ANTHOCORIDAE ; Empis,
EMPIDIDAE. And there need be no qualms about this on the part of classical
scholars, since it is not with classical Latin, but with scientific or neo-Latin
that we are dealing. Difficult forms like Notodonta, for which it is hardly
possible to determine a genitive (or a gender) could be dealt with out of hand,
giving NOTODONTIDAE, as at present.

In two cases I think that a formal Opinion would be desirable.

(1) Cis. Here the root is Ci-, the i being long. But cmpae is neither
clear in its relation to Cis nor euphonious, and the obvious family name should
be cISIDAE (Grensted, 1940, Ent. mon. Mag., 76: 145-6). -

(2) Aphis. Here an Opinion should decide between APHIDAE and APHIDIDAE,
either of which is equally tenable. Personally I prefer apHipDAE (Grensted,
1946, Ent. mon. Mag., 82 : 246-7).

It is the great service of Opinion 143 that, treated as case-law, it can be
regarded as a ruling which, coupled with Article 4, renders this general solution
practically inevitable. I have no doubt that the notes suggested above embody
the principles by which the International Committee, consciously or uncon-
sciously, was guided, and I hope that Opinions on these lines may be promul-
gated as soon as possible. They would solve quite a number of our problems
at a stroke.

|

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 183

DOCUMENT 3/7
By JESUS MOURE, C.M.F.

(do Museu Paranaense e Universidade do Parana)

and L. TRAVASSOS FILHO
(do Departamento de Zoologia de Sao Paolo)

Notas sobre a Nomenclatura dos Grupos Superiores a Generos

(Published in November 1947 in Museu Paranaense, Publicacoes Avulsas
No. 4: 1-19)

Eprrortat Nore.—The following document is the Summary annexed by the
authors to their paper.

Summary
Basie principles to render uniform the nomenclature of groups above
genera.*
(1) The suffixes that designate Super-families, Families, Sub-families,
Tribes and Sub-tribes are, respectively : oidea, idae, inae, ini, ina.

(2) In order to add these suffixes to Latin (or Latinized) or Greek words,
the rules of these languages must be obeyed, both for the investigation of the
stems and for the combination of the vowels.

(3) Undeclinable nouns, or nouns belonging to other languages, and not
Latinized, are to be considered as absolute stems. Suffixes must then be
added without any alteration.

The second principle will here be more amply discussed, in order to render
easier the task of the non-initiated in the Latin and Greek languages.

(a) Latin or Latinized Words

The following words are to be considered here :—

Latin (v.g.: Musca) ;

Greek, when used in Latin (v.g.: Buprestis < for'rpnottc) ;
Latinized Greek words (v.g.: Leptocerus < Aezto + x¢px<) ;
Latinized words of other languages (v.g.: Knowiella > Know).

After the stems are found, the designations of families, etc., are formed
according to the following rules :—

(1) The stems of the Ist, 2nd, 4th and 5th Latin declensions are respectively
a, o, u and e. The ending must be taken from the genitive, as found in
dictionaries, the thematic vowel being then added. In the third declension
the stems may end in consonants or vowels (i or u), and to form them it is
only necessary to take the desinence from the genitive.

*The authors are much indebted to Dr. F. Lane and R. L. Araujo for their help in the
preparation of the English summary.

B

184 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

(2) The suffixes that designate families, sub-families, etc., eliminate the
last thematic vowel (excepting u in the third declension), taking its place, or
are added immediately to the stems ending in a consonant, or u, of the third
declension.

Examples: Musca < Muscae < Musca < Musc < Muscidae
Culex < Culicis < Culic < Culicidae
Sus < Suis < Su < Suidae
(b) Greek Words

We consider as such the words that keep their genuine Greek desinence
in the nominative, and not used in Latin.

The following rules, notwithstanding their bemg a little more involved,
are easily applicable :-—

(ist) The nouns belonging to the lst and 2nd declensions have the stem
a or o (« or o), and drop this last vowel before receiving the suffixes idae,
inae, etc.

Example: Cecidomyia < Cecidomyi < Cecidomyiidae.

(2nd) The stem of the words belonging to the 3rd declension are to be
obtained from the genitive as found in dictionaries. The following remarks
should be kept in mind :—

(a) Genitive oc

Preceded by consonant or o it is sufficient to take off the desinence, in
order to obtain the stem.

Example: Schistosoma < Schistosomatos < Schistosomat.

Preceded by «, o or v the o¢ desinence is taken off, and a digamma (F)
is added in order that the stem may be obtained.

Example : Echimys < Echimyos < Echimy (F).
(b) Genitive w<

When not preceded by «, is usually a contracted noun, or a jomic form.
Dictionaries always give in first place the normal form, which should be used.

When preceded by «, the following cases are to be considered, according
to the nominatives :—

(1) Nominative vc, stem « (F).
Example: vews (vave)—=na (F).
(2) Nominative eve, b¢ or b, stem < (F).
Example : govéwe (povebc)—phone (F).
(3) Nominative tc or 1, stem «.
Example : Mévtews (uévtuc)=Mante (j) (= Manti).
(c) Genitive ovc
Nominative <c, 4¢ or o¢ stem ¢< (0).
Example: caporc (nom. cagec) cage (o)=saphe(s).

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 185

Nominative w¢ stem o (co).

Example: «dov%c (nom. & tec) ado (c)=aedo(s).
Nominative w, stem o (j).

Example : zewovg (nom. e180) melo (j)=pitho (j).

(3rd) After the stem is obtained, according to the second rule, the
following rules should be obeyed :—

The stems ending in a consonant or in receive the suffixes without any
alteration.

Example: Phaenomeris (gxtvoucpic) < Phaemonerid < Phaenomer-
ididae.

The stems ending in « (F), o (F) and v (F) drop the digamma (F) and receive
the suffix without any other alteration.

Example: Echimys (’Ex1jc) < Echimyos < Echimy (F) < Echimyidae.

The stems ending in « (F), < (a), o (¢), ¢ (j), o (j) drop this assemblage,
before receiving the suffixes.

Example: Coelioxys (Ko:\rogvc) < Coelioxeos < Coelioxe (F) <

Coelioxinae.

NOTE: The authors have very serious doubts with regard to certain generic
names of Greek origin, of a definitely adjectival character, but with
the incorrect ending is. These nouns are in existence in Greek, but
have a different meaning as, for instance, Eucnemis (’Evxvij1c)
that should normally be Eucnemos (’Evxvijoc). In accordance
with Brues & Melander we prefer to interpret these irregular forma-
tions as Latin adjectives of the 3rd declension. Thence Eucnemidae,
instead of Eucnemididae, because ’Evxv7ju1c—id0¢ means he who
has good leggings, while Euenemos (Kvxvyjuoc) means he who has
good legs. The same applies to Megalostomis (Meyx\oortomtc, of
irregular adjectival form), which should give originto Megalostominae
because Ltouic—idog means the part of the horse-bit that is put
into the horse’s mouth. This meaning does not surely apply to the
genus erected by Lacordaire for a group of the Clytridae.

DOCUMENT 3/8

Comment on Dr. Harold Manter’s Application Relating to the
Family Name Properly Applicable to the Genus “ Dissotrema ”
Goto & Matsudaira, 1918 (Nematoda)

By the late LODOVICO DI CAPORIACCO
(Unwersity of Parma, Italy)

Extract from an enclosure to a letter dated 31st December 1947

As in the case raised by Dr. Manter,* the Family in question was first
established for the genus Dissotrema, it is clear to me that that genus must
remain the type genus of that Family. No one has the right to change it.
If the name Dissotrema is an identical junior synonym of Gyliauchen—that

*See Document 3/3.

B*

L186 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

is, if the two genera have the same type species—then, of course, the name
of the Family must be changed from DISSOTREMATIDAE tO GYLIAUCHENIDAE.
But the name of the Family ought not to be changed to OPISTHOLEBETIDAE,
if the genus Dissotrema (or Gyliauchen) is placed in the same Family as
Opistholebes, for that would involve changing the type genus of the Family.

DOCUMENT 3/9

Professor Jeannel’s Proposal for the Introduction of a New
Termination for Names Denoting Tribes

Note by the Secretary

Attention is drawn to a paper entitled ‘‘ Sur la Nomenclature des groupe-
ments supergénériques ’’ which was submitted to the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature by Professor R. Jeannel in connection with its
meeting held in Paris in July 1948. This paper has already been published
in the Bulletin (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 3 : 164-165), to which readers are
referred.

It will be seen that the following points are made in the foregoing paper :—

(1) It is illogical to employ a feminine termination “—INAE” for
the names of sub-families and the masculine termination ““—INI”
of the same word for the names of tribes. M. Jeannel therefore
proposed that for the names of sub-families the feminine ter-
mination “—INAE” should be replaced by the masculine ter-
mination “—ITAE ”.

(2) On the question of the priority to be assigned to the names of super-
generic groups, M. Jeannel expressed the following view :—

La priorité appartient non pas au nom formé avec le radical
du genre le plus anciennement décrit, mais bien au nom le plus
anciennement proposé pour désigner le groupement, a la condition,
bien entendu, que ce nom soit formé avec le radical de celui d’un
genre faisant partie de groupement et actuellement valable.
Contrairement au principe énoncé par Bradley (Science LXVII,
1928, p. 103), la priorité doit jouer pour les noms supergénériques,
méme lorsquils n’ont pas été donnés sous une forme latine plurale, a
la condition quils aient été formés avec le radical du nom d’un
genre contenu dans le groupement et actuellement valable. Le
contraire eliminerait injustement Toeuvre des grands entomo-
logistes du début du XIX¢ siécle, 4 qui on doit le fondement de la
systématique des Insectes (par exemple, Lacordaire pour les
Coléopteéres).

(3) On the question of the rules to be laid down for the availability of
names of supergeneric groups, M. Jeannel expressed the following
view :—

LA LEGITIMITE.—Un nom de genre une fois donné est
immuable. I] ne peut pas en étre de méme pour les noms de
groupements supergénériques, qui n’ont rien d’obligatoire, car la
constitution de ces groupements est conventionelle et variable.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 187

. . » Le Code pourra dire, par exemple, qu’un nom de groupement
supergénérique ayant la priorité pourra étre rejeté comme “ jJlé-
gitime,”* lorsque son adoption entrainerait un désaccord évident
entre la diagnose du premier description et celle du groupement
tel qu'il doit étre défini. Bien entendu, il entrera un élément
subjectif dans l’application de ce principe de “ légitimité”’, Mais
qu’on veuille bien remarquer que tout code doit étre fait pour
étre appliqué par un tribunal jugeant selon l’esprit et non selon
la lettre.

DOCUMENT 3/10

Note on the statement submitted in 1948 jointly by
Professor E. GORTON LINSLEY and Professor ROBERT L. USINGER

to a detailed consultation with specialists before the next (Copenhagen)

' Congress in 1953 (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 273). The above paper
is not reproduced here because more recently a much more detailed
statement of Professor Usinger’s views has been received from De Wi
Follett, Chairman of the Nomenclature Committee of the Society of
Systematic Zoology. This later statement constitutes Appendix 1 to
Dr. Follett’s letter of 23rd July 1952 (Document 3/30, Appendix 1).
Professor Linsley is a member of the American Committee on Entomological
Nomenclature and, as such, took part in the preparation of the document
submitted by that Committee (see Document 3/35).

DOCUMENT 3/11

By HOBART M. SMITH
(University of Illinois, Department of Zoology, Urbana, Illinois, U.S.A.)

Letter dated 12th June 1950

Enclosed herewith is a copy of a letter which brings up a point of procedure
with regard to the formation of family names. Has any action on this point
been requested already of the International Commission? If not, there
certainly is a need for it,

188 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
Enclosure to Professor Hobart M. Smith’s Letter

Letter dated 12th June 1950 from Professor Hobart M. Smath to
Dr. Ernest Williams, The Biological Laboratories, Harvard University,
Cambridge, Massachusetts, U.S.A.

To perhaps carry an academic matter into the ground, I would like to pass
on a viewpoint which at least merits consideration with regard to family names
and the stems from which they were formed. Gradually I have been coming
to the opinion that one should not form family names by use of stems obtained
in the manner dictated by the language from which the name was derived.
If the name happens to be obtained from some obscure language, obvious
difficulties are courted thereby. Furthermore, in effecting the stem, one may
duplicate another name, as for example was done in the case of Hmys and
Emyda.

I know that a large school advocates classical formation of stems for family
endings, but in view of the certain confusion that this procedure occasions,
I favour addition of the family name ending to a stem as nearly identical with
the actual generic name as is phonetically possible. The International Com-
mission has not apparently made a definite decision on this matter, although
I hope that it will do so eventually.

DOCUMENT 3/12

Views of the late K. W. DAMMERMAN
(Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands)

Attention is drawn to the paper entitled “‘ Proposals concerning the nomen-
clature of family names and of names of economically important insects ”’
submitted to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature by
the late Dr. K. W. DAMMERMAN (through Professor H. Boschma) in August
1951.

The above paper was prepared for consideration in the first instance by the
Ninth International Congress of Entomology at its meeting held at Amsterdam
in August 1951.

In view of the fact that the proposals in the foregoing paper have as
their main object the promotion of stability in zoological nomenclature, it
has been published as DOCUMENT 1/14 in the section of the present volume
(pp. 21-22) concerned with the stability problem,

—_ eS:

Bulletin. of Zoological Nomenclature 189

DOCUMENT 3/13

Information furnished by LEONARD P. SCHULTZ
(Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.)

Attention is drawn to the paper enclosed by Dr. Leonard P. Schultz under
cover of a letter dated 26th September 1951 (which is reproduced in the Ordinal
Names series*), since, although it is concerned mainly with the problem of
Ordinal Names, it deals also with the problems involved in the naming of
Tribes and Superfamilies.

DOCUMENT 3/14

By P. C. SYLVESTER-BRADLEY, B.Sc.
(University of Sheffield, Department of Geology, Sheffield)

Statement dated 18th March 1952

The Terminations to be Adopted in the Formation of Super-
family Names

The terminations “-ACEHA” and “-ACEAKE”’ have been widely used in
the formation of superfamily names of some groups. In the Ostracoda the
former termination is in current use among palaeontologists and in the
Zoological Record, and to change it to “‘ -OIDEA ” would lead only to instability
of nomenclature. I would make the following proposals :—

(1) Certain cited alternative terminations should be regarded as per-
missible in the formation of superfamily names.

(2) It should be prescribed that all superfamilies of one Order must be
terminated in the same way.

(3) The choice of termination for the superfamilies of a particular Order
should be restricted by a ruling of priority.

*See Document 4/6,

190 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

DOCUMENT 3/15
By L. B. HOLTHUIS

(Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands)
Letter dated 15th April 1952

I agree with the larger part of the suggestions in your paper (1952, Bull.
zool. Nomencl. 7: 61-94) concerning the proposed clarification, amendment
and expansion of the provisions in the Reégles relating to the formation of
family names. On two points, however, I should like to make some remarks.

(1) Your paragraph 15, p. 74. I do not quite agree with your suggestion
put forward in this paragraph. To me it seems highly desirable that when
the name of the type genus of a family is found to be a subjective junior
synonym of an older generic name and thus has to be changed, the family
name should automatically be changed also. In the example given by you
the family name A-idae in my opinion should be automatically replaced by
the name “ D-IDAE.” In my opinion, it is extremely unpleasant that the
generic name on which a family name is based is not used for any genus in
that family. Furthermore it will be more easy for zoologists not to have
different rules in this case for objective and subjective synonyms. In the
very rare cases that the rejection of the invalid family name would cause
much confusion, a suspension by the Commission could be asked. As I have
already stated before, it seems to me of the highest importance to keep the
Réegles as simple as possible.

(2) Your paragraph 18, p. 77. I do not quite understand your clause that
the status of competing family names be determined by reference to the relative
dates on which the various type species concerned severally became the type
species of the type genera of the families in question. My problem is best
illustrated by the following example :—

(1) In 1830 a family “ A-IDAE” is erected with the type genus A-us.
(2) In 1850 the generic name A-us is found to be invalid and is replaced by
the subjective synonym B-us. (3) In 1880 the family name “ B-IDAE”
is proposed to replace “C-IDAE.” (4) In 1870, however, the genus C-us,
which generally is considered to belong in the family “ A-IDAE,” was made
- the type of the family “C-IDAE.” Your suggestion is, I believe, that the
generic family name “ B-IDAE,” though it actually is junior to “ C-IDAE,”
should take precedence over the latter name, since it has been proposed to
replace the family name “ A-IDAE,” which is older than “C-IDAE.” Or
in other words that family names are to be regarded to date from the moment
that their type genus (as fixed by its type species) became the type of a family,
regardless of the name of the family and the genus at that time. I cannot see
the importance of the date on which the type species of the type genus of the
family in question became the type species of that genus. Should this mean
that if the type species for the genus C-us was selected in 1870, while that of
A-us and B-us was not selected before 1875, that the family name ‘‘ C-IDAE ”
should take precedence over “ B-IDAE”? I know that this cannot be your
meaning and that I thus incorrectly interpret your words, but I am afraid
that many others, especially those who do not live in an English-speaking
country, might have the same trouble,

‘i i —~——-

Bulletin. of Zoological Nomenclature 191

Furthermore I wonder whether a strict application of the priority rule
here would not be more practical than the rather complicated method discussed
above, the more so since the Commission can use its plenary powers if the
changes will cause too much confusion.

DOCUMENT 3/16

By D. K. McE. KEVAN

(School of Agriculture, Zoology Section, University of Nottingham.
Sutton Bonington, Loughborough, England)

Enclosure to a letter dated 29th April 1952

Comments on the Problems Involved in the Regulation of the
Names of Families Discussed in Part 3 of Volume 7 of the
* Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature ”

Para. 7

It is my opinion that the formation of family names should be liable for
correction until such time as they actually appear on an Official List of Family
Names.

Para. 8

I am not especially keen on the stabilisation of incorrectly formed family
names merely because they have not been corrected prior to a given date.
The lack of correction may not be due to a lack of desire for such a correction
but solely to neglect of the group in question and the lack of a reviser. It is
possible that full family names may mostly have been used sufficiently fre-
quently to determine this, but the position in regard to groups below the
rank of family may be more obscure. I therefore repeat what I have said
in my comment on para. 7.

Para. 11

In my opinion, the author of a family name should be free to choose any
genus as the type of the family. The type genus should, however, have a

' designated type species (which could be designated there and then), unless

that genus was monotypic at the time of its description. It is suggested that
a family name should remain technically invalid until such time as the type
species of its type genus has been designated. When this has been done, the
family name would automatically be validated as from the date of its original
proposal. The reason for this suggestion is to safeguard against any ambiguity
arising in the event of the type genus being divided into two or more genera.
The provision would only come into force with the new Reégles, but specialists
should be urged to designate type species for genera wherever this has not
already been done, especially for the type genera of families, etc.

192 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

In choosing the type genus of a family, the oldest included generic name
should be selected unless there is good reason to avoid this. but this should
be in the form of a ‘* Recommendation ~ and not a Rule.

A family name should not be valid if the family concerned contains the
type genus of an earlier described family. If, however, the two type genera
are subsequently separated into different families, it should be possible to
use the junior name again for the new family, dating from its original usage.
If the junior generic name were transferred to another established family,
the family name to be used for that family would depend upon the relative
priority of the respective family names. Where a condition of instability
might arise, application could be made to the Commission.

Para. 12

A family name should date from the first use of the word “ family ” or
“subfamily ” or its equivalent (even if this word is not of Latin derivation)
or it should date from the first use of the suffix -id-, -in-, or -it- (whether
Latinized or not, e.g. -idae, -inae, -ini, -inos, -iden, -ites). The words “ tribe,”
“ sub-tribe,”’ etc., and in fact any other than those specified above, in the
absence of the suggested terminations, shall not be deemed valid in the desig-
nation of family names except by application to the Commission. I do not
favour an arbitrary date before which almost any word signifying a supra-
generic unit would be considered as a valid family name and on no account
would I support a mere nominative plural of a generic name as having any
status as a family name whatever.

Para. 14

I am in agreement with this. I would suggest that the name and date of
the author of the family in its initial form should be given in brackets as the
author of the family name in its new form and that the later author who changed
the name to its new form and the date should follow this without brackets—or
some similar device to indicate how it might be that a junior family name derived,
perhaps from a junior genus, may have priority over an apparently senior
family name derived from a senior generic name.

Para. 15

I may be against stability in nomenclature here but I am of the opinion
that family names must change with any change in the name of the type genus.
Family names can only be based on valid generic names. If for any reason, the
name of the type genus is shown to be invalid, the family name becomes auto-
matically invalid. With improved taxonomy (i.e. subjective treatment)
difficulties in the way of stability will gradually be eliminated. Where undue
confusion is likely to occur, there is always recourse to the Commission.

Paras. 16-19

The family name of united families should be that of the oldest valid family
name (as in 12 above). It should not be determined by the first reviser. The
reviser, however should be at liberty (as any other person) to apply to the
Commission if it would be confusing in the extreme to follow this course.

Bulletin. of Zoological Nomenclature 193

Paras. 21-24

In this instance a change is necessary in my opinion. I do not support any
idea that a family name should be allowed to stand for any reason whatever
unless it be based on the valid name of the type genus. Orderly nomenclature
has a comparatively short history and the fact that certain people do not wish
to subscribe to the Rules now because of a certain amount of confusion which
“may arise for a year or two is no reason for making exceptions which will
appear ludicrous in a century from now. I am wholeheartedly against the
suggestion put forward in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 2: 152. It is no more difficult
nor confusing to get used to Meigen’s 1800 names for the Diptera and to base the
family names upon these genera than it has been to get used to the current
usage of the family names ACRIDIDAE and TETTIGONIIDAE. Personally I am
now quite used to such names as MELUSINIDAE and ITONIIDAE for SIMULIIDAE
and CECIDOMYIIDAE. Why change it all back just as some at least are getting
familiar with the change ?
Para. 25—see Para. 14
Para. 26

I should prefer RIODINIDAE (Swainston, 1827) Grote, 1895 since this seems
nearer generic usage. When given in full this would be RIODINIDAE (ERYCINIDAR
Swainston, 1827), emend. Grote, 1895.

Para. 31-33—Fully agreed.
Para. 35

I can see no reason for the recognition of super-super-tribes, especially if
they are to be treated exactly as subfamilies. One can hair-split indefinitely
and this category is inconsistent.
Para. 36

Unless “ tribes ” etc. have a suffix of the form mentioned under para. 12 I
am very dubious about their being co-ordinated with families etc., at least in
respect of priority. It is my opinion that such names should have no priority
status and to gain this they should first be published with an appropriate
termination. They would then be valid as from that author and date.

It is my opinion that super-tribes, and sub-tribes should be given standar-
dised terminations analagous with the termination “—INI ” for tribes. They
should however, be distinctive, as for example “—IDI” and “—ITI”. Such
terminations would be purely arbitrary (if necessary) and not necessarily
correct etymologically since it has already been pointed out that there are
objections even to the accepted termination “‘—INAE ” for subfamilies.

Groups of genera such as “tribes”? named originally by merely using the
nominative plural of the type genus, or by similar means such as adding the
termination “—es” to the stem of the type genus, unless used with the word
“family ” (etc. —see Para. 12) should, irrespective of the status given by the
original author (or any subsequent author), be regarded as of sub-tribal status.
They would have to ‘“ work their way up ” by being published with the agreed
sub-tribal (or higher category) termination before they could ever be considered
in any question involving priority. They would date as from the first usage
with the approved termination. Sub-tribes not having the approved termination
would obey the rules of priority among themselves but would not take priority
over correctly formed tribal names.

194 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Para. 40

Agreed. Provision should also be made to reserve the termination
‘*—orpEa ” for superfamilies and to prevent its usage for higher categories. It
has been used (and still is in some cases) for sub-orders of “‘ Helminthes ” and
for super-orders of Insecta.

Paras. 41-42—Agreed.
Para. 43—I fully endorse the need for an Official List of Family Names.

Para. 45

The name of a family should under no circumstance be placed on an Official
List of Family Names unless the name of the type genus has previously been or
is simultaneously placed on the Official List of Generic Names. This will prevent
any likelihood of the name of a type genus being changed and leaving a family
name on the Official List which is derived from a stem differing from that of
the ‘‘ new ” name of the type genus.

Para. 46—Agreed in the main but see 36 above.

Para. 47
I should prefer to see the word “ Tribal ’’ also included in the title.

DOCUMENT 3/17
Suggestions furnished by Dr. FRANZ DANTEL
(Zoologische Sammlung des Bayerischen Staates, Miinchen, Germany)

Editorial Note.—Attention is drawn to the letter dated 30th April 1952
from Dr. Franz Daniel (Zoologische Sammlung des Bayerischen Staates,
Miinchen), which, being mainly concerned with the problem of promoting
stability in zoological nomenclature, has been included in the series of
papers which has been assembled in regard to that subject. It is there
included as Document 1/25.

In the letter referred to above, Dr. Daniel suggested that the stabilisation
of nomenclature should be sought by the establishment of committees of
interested specialists in particular groups at the family level, wide powers
being given to these committees to promote stability without being unduly
trammelled by the principle of priority. It was an important feature of this
plan that family names should be stabilised in harmony with established
practice,

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 195

DOCUMENT 3/18

By Th. HALTENORTH
(Museum, Miinchen, Germany)

_ Statement, dated 14th May 1952, communicated by Professor E. M. Hering
II. Einverstanden. Bei B.2 und B.8 ist Fassung (a) zu bevorzugen.

Explanatory Note

The foregoing comment was prepared by Dr. Haltenorth in response to
an invitation by Professor E. M. Hering who had prepared the following
synopsis of the problems at issue for consideration by German zoologists.
It is to this document that the numbers cited by Dr. Haltenorth refer.

II. Erweiterung der “ Regeln” Bezuglich der Familien und
Untergeordneter Kategorien Oberhalb der Gattung

A. Problem: Wie soil die Familien-pp-Benennung geregelt werden ? Der
Kongress von Graz (1910) anderte die Regeln dahin ab, dass nicht die
“ Wurzel,” sondern der “Stamm” der typischen Gattung durch Anhingung
von -idae etc. zum Familien-pp. Namen wird.-Paris 1948 entschied, dass unter
“Stamm ” der grammtikalische oder klassische Stamm des Wortes oder ein
Teil des Stammes zur Familien-pp. Bezeichnung verwendet wird. In beiden
Anderungen keine geniigende Prizision.

B. Vorschlage fiir Neufassung: Zu den “ Regeln”’ sollen “ Ratschlige ”
gegeben werden die zur richtigen Stammfindung griechischer oder lateinischer
Worter anleiten.

(2) Bet inkorrekten Bildungen: Prinzipiell keine Emendierungen :

(2) Wenn die Bildung inkorrekt, sollen Spezialisten Antrag bei
I.N.K. stellen, die nach Verdéffentlichung ete. Emendierung
vornimmt, weniger unter Beriicksichtigung philologischer
Gesichtspunkte als zweckmissiger Stabilitiat.

(6) Wo vor Neufassung der “‘ Regeln’? Emendierung erfolgt ist,
die z.T. eingebiirgert ist, soll die I.N.K. nach gebrauchlichm
Verfahren entscheiden, ob und welche Emendation anerkannt
wird.
(3) Bildung von Familien-pp. Namen nach Neufassung der Regeln :
Die im einzufiigenden ‘‘ Ratschlag ”’ gegebenen Richtlinien sollen

bindend sein. Wo trotzdem inkorrekte Bildung, erfolgt auto-
matische Emendierung.

(4) Welches Genus soll Typus der Familie sein ? 2 Méglichkeiten :
(a) Recht des orsten Auswihlenden (durch Opinion 141-Lissabon
1935 und Paris 1948 in die “ Regeln ”’ eingefiigt).
(6) Alteste Gattung der Familie (bedenklich, da durch Auffnidung
alterer hineingehériger Gattungen Familienname geandert
werden miisste !)

196

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

(5) Soll das Datum in Prioritétsfragen sein :
(a) Datum der ersten Familiennamenbildung ohne Riicksicht auf
Endung ? oder
(6) Erste Familiennamen-Bildung mit -idae? Bei anderen
Kategorien ahnlich. Vorschlag: bis etwa 1850 sollen
Bildungen auch ohne -idae pp. giiltig sein, spater nur mit
-idae pp.

(6) Prioritét, wenn der alteste Gattungsname ersetzt werden muss.
Vorschlag: Bei Anderung des Namens der typischen Gatung
Datum der Bildung durch diese Gattung, wenn sie von einem
Artnamen begleitet war.

(7) Familien-pp. Bezeichnung wird nicht gedndert, wenn ein Autor
subjektiv die typische Gattung als identisch mit einer anderen,
alteren ansieht. Wo aber Spezialisten den Antrag stellen, die
Anderung vorzunehmen, soll die INK. nach vorgeschriebenem
Verfahren eine Entscheidung herbeifiihren.

(8) Bei der Vereinigung zweier Familien Name der neuen Familie :

(a) Nach der Familie mit dem altesten typischen Genus zu wahlen ¢
oder

(6) Das Recht der Auswahl dem 1. Bearbeiterzu geben ?

(9) Im Interesse der Stabilitat ‘soll bei Vereinigung die neue Familie
den linger bekannten bezw. auf das am meisten verbreitete Genus
gestiitzten Namen tragen, gegebenenfalls auf Antrag bei der INK.

(10) Ausnahmen von der Regel, dass in jedem Fall die Familie pp. nach
dem typischen Gattungsnamen gebildet wird :

(a) Einige eingebiirgerte Familiennamen haben keine gleichnamige
typische Gattung.

(b) Es kann manchmal bei Anderung des Gattunganamens Beibe-
haltung des Familiennamens wiinschenswert sein (Chirono-
midae-Tendipedidae). In beiden Fallen Entscheidung durch
INK. auf Antrag der Spezialisten.

(11) Bei Einfiithrung der Prioritiat fiir Familiennamen sollen diese ent-
sprechend den Gattungsnamen Autor wnd Datum bei der Schreibung
erhalten.

(12) Bei Homonymie ist der jiingere Name zu verwerfen; geringfiigige
Unterschie de rechtfertigen Selbstandigkeit. Bei Homonymie
auf Grund verschiedener Gattungbezeichnungen (z.B. Cyprinidae
bei Pisc. von Cyprinus, bei Moll. von Cyprina) entscheidet auf
Antrag die INK.

(13) Die Regeln fiir die Familien gelten auch fiir Unterfamilien (-inae)
und Tribus (-ini), obgleich die Endung der Tribus sprachlich ein
Neutrum zugrunde legt.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 197

(14) Die nominotypische Untertamilie soll -abgesehen von der Kndung
-der Familie gleichen, gleiches entsprechend fiir Tribus.

(15) Die Kategorien Familie und die unterhalb von ihr stehenden iiber
der Gattung stehenden sollchen in gleicher Weise koordiniert
sein, wie es Gattung und Untergattung sind.

(16) Weitere zu schaffendende untergeordnete Kategorien sind in gleicher
Weise mit den vorgenannten koordiniert,

(17) Gleiche Regeln sollen auch fiir das Supergenus gelten, doch sollen
diese Prioritéit nur unter sich haben. Welche Endung wird
vorgeschlagen ?

(18) Fiir Superfamilien gelten gleiche Verfahrenvorschriften, doch auch
diese sollen Prioritét nur unter sich haben. Endung: -oidea,

(19) Vorschlag auf Schaffung einer “ Offiziellen Liste der Namen der

Familien und untergeordneter Kategorien ” (‘‘ Nomina conser-

vanda”’) und eines “ Offiziellen Index der verworfenen und

ungiiltigen Namen fiir Familien ete.” Beide Listen analog den
schon bestehenden fiir Gattungen und Arten, mit den gleichen

Verfahrensvorschriften fiir die INK.

(20) Fragen an= die Spezialisten :

(a) Besteht Ubereinstimmung mit den Vorschlagen ¢

(6) Wenn nicht, was soll geandert werden 2

(c) Welche Gesichtspunkte sind nicht beriicksichtigt, Vorschlige
fiir diese 2

DOCUMENT 3/19
By W. J. ARKELL, M.A., D.Sc., F.R.S. (Sedgwick Museum, Cambridge
University, Cambridge)

Letter dated 23rd May 1952, with enclosure

I have read with admiration your most thorough and clear papers in the
Bull. zool. Nomencel., vol. 7, Parts 1-6.

I enclose comments on Z.N (S.)357 (family names). I should be content to
see... everything . . . not covered by my comments go through as expounded

in your papers.
Enclosure to Dr. Arkell’s Letter of 23rd May 1952
P. 89, Para. 40

favour of private enterprise. I have always used “—acrar ” like most previous
workers on Cephalopods. The ending “‘—orpEa ”’ is hopeless for Cephalopods,
being that used for the Orders Ammonoidea, Nautiloidea, ete,

Para. 41

The last sentence (p. 90) seems to me essential,

198 bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
DOCUMENT 3/20

By LESLIE BAIRSTOW, M.A.
(British Museum (Natural History), Department of Geology, London)

(1) Letter dated 26th May 1952

After studymg your paper in Vol. 7 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomen-
clature on family names and related matters, I now send my comments on the
questions which you raise.

The proposals that you have put forward seem to me to constitute a well-
thought-out and coherent scheme, and I find myself in general agreement with
much of what you have written.

At first sight the number of different circumstances in which special applica-
tion to the International Commission may become necessary is a little disturbing.
However, these are, of course, problems that are not amenable to hard and
fast rules, and I suppose that it is well to state explicitly particular circum-
stances in which applications to the Commission are called for. As such
circumstances relating to family names are all exceptional, in practice the
combined burden from this source may prove after all not to be unduly heavy.

Paras. 4-10

As regards the problem, discussed in paragraph 4, of defining “ stem,”
I consider that the particular solution set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 246
involves an undesirably large subjective element. I am glad to note that this
view is shared.

From paragraphs 4 to 6, I conclude that throughout paragraphs 4 to 10
the intention is to deal solely with the problems peculiar to determination from
correctly-spelt generic name of its stem on which a family name is to be formed—
as distinct from the problems of orthography that concern equally the generic
name, its stem, and any family name formed from its stem. On this assumption
I agree that the original form of the stem of a family name published prior to
the coming into operation of the revised scheme should not be emended except
by the Commission, but that emendations already in common use should not
be discarded pending decision by the Commission ; I agree also that formation
of family names published after the coming into operation of the revised scheme
should be governed by the rules and Schedule suggested.

Paragraphs 8 and 9 seem however to be so worded that they might apply
not merely to emendations relating to the construction of a family name from
a correctly-formed generic name, but also to emendations of family names
that may arise from problems of orthography that concern equally the generic
name, its stem, and the family name formed from its stem. Thus it seems
that there might be some overlap between the provisions here suggested,
according to the present wording, and the general provisions for emendation
of zoological names that are suggested in 1952 Bull. zool. Nomencl. 7, Parts 1/2.
Perhaps this is inadvertent, for it seems to me that according to the proposals

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 199

as they are at present worded, certain automatic emendations of an incorrectly-
formed generic name are possible, but that if a family name had been formed
from the stem of the still-unemended generic name, the comparable emendation
of the family name could not be validly effected without reference to the Com-
mission: whereas an emendation of the family name in sympathy with an
emendation of the generic name should preferably be automatic.

Paras. 11 and 17

I strongly support continuation of the present rule that an author establish-
ing a new family should be free to select whatever genus he considers the most
appropriate to be type genus.

Paras. 12 and 13

I agree that the essence of the general rule should be * that a name is to
be treated as having been published as a family name only when the term used
for this purpose was formed with the termination ‘-IDAE’.” It should be
made clear whether, conversely, a name that was proposed with the termination
“ [DAE ” should be automatically available as a family name even if not
proposed as a family name, so long as originally of supra-generic rank. I agree
with Richter (1948, Hinfiihrung in die Zoologische Nomenklatur, 82-3) and
R. C. Moore (in the unpublished Treatise Circular 4, note 9) that such a name
should be automatically available; and certainly the use of such a name in
any other sense would be contrary to the Commission’s recommendation
(1950 Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 261).

In confining the above statement of the essence of the general rule to family
names and the termination “ -IDAE,” I assume, of course, that other categories
of the family group of categories, and their appropriate terminations, will be
brought under the rule by such provisions as may be accepted in relation to
paragraphs 30 to 42. It should be made clear, in addition, what is to be the
application of the general rule to a case such as that of the Family omMMASTRE-
PHINI Steenstrup, 1861, where the termination is a permissible termination
for a category of the family group of categories, and yet is not appropriate to
the particular category to which the name concerned was assigned by its
author. I think that, in this example Steenstrup should be considered to have
made potentially available, as from the date of his publication, OMMASTRE-
PHIDAE, OMMASTREPHINAE, OMMASTREPHINI, and so on—1.e. all forms of the
name appropriate to the various categories of the family group of categories.

I agree that the general rule should be supplemented by provision for
exceptions, to allow of retrospective attribution, at any rate in certain instances
in which the publication of some unorthodox form of a family name, at an
earlier date than its publication in orthodox form, may nevertheless be held
to constitute effective publication of the family name. I agree also that no
exception should be permissible in favour of any improperly-formed family
name published later than an agreed limiting date such as 1850.

As you will have gathered, I hoped at one time that it might be possible
to secure agreement on rules defining the limits of possible exceptions of various

Cc

200 Bulletin of Zoologwal Nomenclature

kinds in such detail that it would rarely be necessary to submit individual
exceptions to the Commission.

However, though I am one of those zoologists who are reluctant to accept
non-Latinized family names as having any status at all, there would evidently
be difficulty in securing agreement on a rigid rule even relating to this funda-
mental question, if it is indeed the case that in some groups family names are
commonly accepted as dating from original publication in non-Latinized form.
Exceptions in favour of non-Latinized names should certainly not be permissible
without the express sanction of the Commission in each individual instance ;
and if such exceptions are to be allowed, Articles 3 and 21 should be modified
in such a way as to make it clear that these Articles are not thereby infringed.

Probably there would be equal difficulty in securing agreement on a rule
that there should be no exception in favour of family names that are Latinized
but are not plural in form (Example : Family BELEMNosEPIA Buckland, 1836) ;
especially as it is not always clear whether a name is singular or plural in number.

It seems, moreover, a reasonable claim that no exception should be per-
missible unless it had secured acceptance, by workers on the group concerned,
before the coming into force of the new rule; and this is a policy to which it
would indeed be difficult to give effect without referring each proposed exception
to the Commission.

I am therefore ready to accept that there should be no exception to the
general rule, ‘‘ save that, in the case of families which prior to the introduction
of the revised scheme have been treated as having been established by the
publication before 1850 of a term not bearing the foregoing termination, it
shall be open to the International Commission ”’ . . . ** to direct that the family
is to be treated as having been established as from the date of the publication
of a term not bearing the termination *-I[DAE.’”

I agree that, as suggested, there should be provisions regarding public
notice and the criteria to be followed by the Commission, also a “ Recom-
mendation ” deprecating hasty name-changing.

Para. 14

I agree that a family under its changed uame should retain its original
priority when, though the name of its type genus is changed, the type species
of the type genus remains unchanged.

Para. 15

I agree that when the nominal genus upon which a family name is based is
subjectively identified with another nominal genus having an older available
name, the family name should not be subject to change except by the Com-
mission in response to consensus of specialist opinion.

Para. 16

L agree that, in deciding between competing names for a family, the criterion
should not be possession of the type genus having the oldest name of any of the
names of the type genera concerned..

EEO err

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 201

Para. 17
See paragraph 11.

Paras. 18-20

I favour basing decisions between competing names for a family on priority
as between the dates at which the various type species concerned severally
came to be the type species of the type genera of the families in question ;
subject to a proviso that, where specialists represent to the Commission that
difference of opinion is lable to lead to the sinking, as a subjective synonym,
of a well-known family name in favour of a little-known family name, it shall
be open to the Commission in response to consensus of specialist opinion to
direct which of the family names concerned is to take precedence over the other.

Paras. 22-24
The following are examples of family names that are not based on generic
names :—
(1) POLYTEUTHIDAE Stolley, 1919.
There is no genus Polyteuthis.

(2) HASTATIDAE Stolley, 1919.

There is no generic name with the same stem. The derivation is
presumably from Hastati (one of the sections into which the broad
genus Belemnites was formerly divided) and from the species
Hibolites hastatus, rather than from the genus Hastites Meyer-
Eymar, which in its restricted sense is quite outside the HASTATIDAE.

In other examples the family name is at any rate not formed simply by
the addition of ‘-IDAE ” to the stem of the generic name :—
(1) PROTOBELEMNITIDAE A. P. Pavlow, 1913.
There is no genus Protobelemnites.

(2) EUBELEMNITIDAE A. P. Pavlow, 1913.
There is no genus Hubelemnites.

(3) NEOBELEMNITIDAE A. P. Pavlow, 1913.
There is no genus Neobelemnites.

Presumably these three names are based in a sense, though | think not in a
relevant sense, on the old broad genus Belemnites.

LT agree that a family name not based directly upon the stem of the objectively
valid name of its type genus should not be validated by the Commission except
as a last resort, i.e. in the circumstances that the family name is an early one
and so well established as the name for a concept that is still currently required
that its preservation is considered essential, also that the end cannot be more
readily achieved by validating the generic name (if any) on which the family
name was based.

As regards availability for such validation, each of the family names that
LT have quoted above as examples would be disqualified two or three times over.

ge

202 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

I take it that the subsequent proposal of a generic name with the same stem,
even if explicitly based on that of the invalid family name, would not suffice
to validate the family name retrospectively.

I assume also that if a generic name is suppressed under the plenary powers,
any family name formed from the stem of this generic name falls with it unless
the Commission makes special provision for the exceptional retention of the
family names.

Para. 25

T agree that author and date of family name should relate to first publication
of the name in its accepted form, subject to certain exceptions. Exceptions
should not be restricted to the special case of a substitute family name discussed
in paragraph 14, but should include also, in particular, any special case arising
from paragraphs 12-13.

Para. 26

I agree that normally the author and date of a family name should be cited
after the same style as the author and date of a generic name.

There remains the question of style to be adopted in instances of retro-
spective attribution of family names. The suggested style exemplified by
‘“ RIODINIDAE (ERYCINIDAE emend. Grote, 1895) Swainson, 1827” may tend
to be a little misleading, for it seems to link unduly the author Grote with the
name ERYCINIDAE and the author Swainson with the name RIODINIDAE, a
reversal of the primitive relationship.

Richter (1948, Einfiihrung in die Zool. Nomenklatur, 88) suggested a different
style of citation. As applied to the same example, his system would yield
“ RIODINIDAE (Swainson, 1827) Grote, 1895.” which might be expanded as
“ RIODINIDAE ERYCINIDAE (Swainson, 1827) Grote, 1895.” This, however,
seems to me to give undue prominence to Grote, 1895, when for purposes of
priority of RIODINIDAE the significant date is 1827.

Naef (1922, Die fossilen Tintenfische, 297) employed ‘* LOLIGINIDAE Steen-
strup, 1861 (as LOLIGINEI),’ equivalent in our example to ‘‘ RIODINIDAE
Swainson, 1827 (as ERYCINIDAE).” I suggest the adoption of this style for
general use, and its expansion, when fuller history is required, to the style of
““ RIODINIDAE (Grote, 1895) Swainson, 1827 (as ERYCINIDAE).”

Whatever style is agreed on should be applicable whenever there is retro-
spective attribution, whether in the circumstances of paragraph 14 or of
paragraphs 12-13.

Paras. 27 and 28

I agree that there should be provision for eliminating homonymy that
arises when names of different families are based on generic names that are
different yet have the same stem. I agree, further, that, except when good
reason to the contrary is demonstrated, the homonym relating to the earlier-
established family should be regarded as the senior homonym to be retained
unchanged.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 203

It is apparent from Opinion 140 that it is possible for the Commission, at
any rate in some cases, to devise a small change sufficient to eliminate trouble
some homonymy without seriously disturbing the relationship between the
name of a family and that of its type genus. Moreover, in view of the importance
of preserving this relationship (as stressed in paragraphs 22-24) I assume that
any total rejection, rather than trifling emendation, of a homonymous family
name would involve changing not only to a different family name but also to
a different nominal genus as type genus. If the change to a different genus as
type genus were purely a nominal change, the generic name adopted still
relating to the same genus, the change would involve use of the Commission’s
plenary powers ; whilst a change to a genus considered different though con-
familial would commonly involve establishing a new family name—in which
event the non-availability, as type genus, of the genus whose name would lead
to homonymy at family level, would conflict to some extent with the desidera-
tum (paragraph 11) that an author establishing a new family should be free to
select whatever genus he considered the most appropriate to be the type genus.

Because of these considerations I doubt the desirability of including any
provision for automatic rejection of family names that are junior homonyms.
Especially as homonymy of family names is only of rare occurrence, I favour
endorsement of the interim decision that where the application of Article 4
led to the establishment of two or more families having the same name, the
case is to be referred to the Commission.

Para. 29

I agree that rules for determining whether generic names are to be treated
as homonyms should apply also to family names.

Para. 30

I agree that the revised scheme should contain an express provision that
except in so far as there is express provision to the contrary, the naming of sub-
families shall be subject to the same provisions as those governing the naming

of families.

Para. 31

It is unfortunate that the terminations “ -INAE ” and “ -INI”’ apparently
differ etymologically only in gender; and that the termination “-INAE ”
is claimed to be objectionable to French zoologists because of its feminine
gender.* But generic names are not all of masculine gender, nor are names of
higher categories !—and in any event the termination “-INAE”’ for sub-
families is so well established that I should prefer to accept its defects rather
than to invite the confusion that would be likely to result from attempting to
enforce a change.

*See Document D3/9.

24 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Para. 32

I agree that there should be explicit provision that the subfamily con
taining the type genus of the family should have the same genus as its type
genus and should be known as the nominotypical subfamily ; and that its
name should differ from that of the family only by the appropriate differences
of termination.

Para. 33

I strongly favour treating family and subfamily names as co-ordinate.

Paras. 35-38

Here it seems to be taken for granted that the expression “ tribe ”’ should
be used in the sense of a category between subfamily and genus. I do not
think that this should be assumed without discussion, for the expression
“tribe” has often been used in other senses, and especially for a category
between suborder and family.

According to W. T. Calman (1949, The Classifications of Animals, 18)
“intermediate groups with names like... Tribe . . . have been used indis-
criminately for categories of the most diverse values.”

Tribe has been used at a level between suborder and family by, for example.
Sedgwick (1898-1909, A Student’s Text-Book of Zoology) in Crustacea, Gastro-
poda, Pisces, Reptilia and Aves, by Biilow-Trummer (1920, in Fossiliwm
Catalogus) in Dibranchia, and by Grimpe (1922) in his important classification
of Cephalopoda.

As Calman made clear (loc. cit., pp. 21-22), the level at which optional
extra categories are needed varies in different parts of the Animal Kingdom.
In Dibranchia the need is for extra categories between suborder and family
rather than between subfamily and genus. If consensus of opinion indeed
favours restricting tribe to the main category between subfamily and genus,
some other term should be made available for the main category between
suborder and superfamily.

Para. 35

I see no objection to forming the name of a group that is at any taxonomic
level between subfamily and tribe (or whatever the main category between
subfamily and genus may be called) as though it were a subfamily.

Para. 36

My only objection to the use of the termination “-INI” for the main
category between subfamily and genus is that in speech it is not easy to dis-
tinguish from -INAE; and I do not think that this is a very serious objection.
If, however, any change in termination were to be made in view of Professor
Jeannel’s claim (Paragraph 31) that “-INAE ” is merely the feminine equiva-
lent of “-INI,” I consider that a change of the termination “ -INI”’ would
be less harmful than a change of the termination ‘‘ -[NAE ” which is so much
more firmly established,

|

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclatane OK
) ()

Whether or no the name tribe should be employed for the main category
between subfamily and genus need not affect employment of the termination

INI.” for this termination has not generally been associated with the fern
tribe when employed at other levels.

Whatever term is adopted for the main category between subfamily and
genus should be carefully defined ; and names at this level should be co-ordinate
with the names of families and subfamilies.

Para. 37 f

I agree that the optional category “ supergenus.”. when employed should
be regarded as a category of the “ family ” group.

Para. 38

I see no objection to prescribing that a name given to a supergenus should
be treated as co-ordinate with other categories of the family group; nor to the
proviso that supergeneric names should rank for priority inter se by reference
to the dates on which they were respectively published as such. Style for
double attribution sometimes necessitated will need to be specified ; the style
adopted for super-generic names should be comparable to that adopted for
superfamily names—see comment on paragraphs 39-42.

I agree that it would be well for those who employ the category supergenus
to put forward suggestions for a uniform termination.

Paras. 39-42

I am not satisfied that superfamily names should be “ based invariably
upon the stem of the name of a genus which is already the type genus of one of
the families included in the superfamily concerned.”” In Dibranchia, categories
are recognised at one or two levels between suborder and family, and most of
the names concerned are not based on the stem of the name of a genus which is
already the type genus of one of the families concerned ; only perhaps one of
these names has hitherto been explicitly claimed as a superfamily, but this
rank seems the obvious one for names that constitute the main category
hetween suborder and family.

Further, I am not convinced that it is desirable to include the category
superfamily in the family group rather than in the ordinal group of categories.
and that the names of superfamilies should be co-ordinate with the names of
families.

If, however, it is indeed decided that superfamilies are to be included in the
family group of categories, that their names are invariably to be based on the
names of genera that are type genera of included families, and that their names
are in general to be co-ordinate with the names of families, it will be more than
ever necessary to provide, between suborder and superfamily. additional
optional categories belonging to the ordinal group of categories,

206 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

In any event I agree that superfamily names should rank for priority
inter se by reference to the dates on which they were severally published as
such. Style for double attribution sometimes necessitated will need to be
specified. ‘‘ X-acea (X-idae author A, earlier date) author B, later date ”
would be an appropriate style if superfamilies were accepted as belonging to
the family group.

Para. 40

I agree that there should be a special termination for superfamily names
but should prefer, instead of ‘“‘-OIDEA,” the termination ‘‘-ACEA,” which
has been used for superfamilies in Ammonoidea, Lamellibranchia, Gastropoda
and Brachiopoda. Formerly “ -ACEA ” was used as a family name by Philippi,
1853, in his work on Mollusca ; now that ‘‘-ACEA ” is no longer required for
families, its use for superfamilies would seem very appropriate.

The termination ‘“‘ -OIDEA ”’ has, I think, been used more often for higher
categories (e.g. suborders or orders in Dibranchia, Brachiopoda, Carnivora ;
classes in Echinoderma) than for superfamilies. For superfamilies the termina-
tions ‘ -OIDAE ” and ‘“‘ -ACEA ”’ have also been used.

Paras. 43-45

I support the proposal that an Official List of Family Names in Zoology,
and a complementary Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family Names,
should be established with scope suggested. I agree also that the consequential
additions should be made to the regulations in relation to the Official List of
Generic Names.

Para. 46

I agree that names that belong to all the categories mentioned in this para-
graph (with the possible exception of superfamilies) should be regarded as
co-ordinate and eligible for inclusion in the proposed Official List of Family
Names ; and that they should be entered in the form suggested.

Paras. 47 and 48

I agree that the suggested titles of Last and Index are sufficient, and that
the arrangements to mark the official status of List and Index should be as
suggested.

(2) Letter dated 9th June 1952

Since I wrote on May 26th I have remembered another example of a family
name not based upon the name of a genus included in the family ; and as this
example differs somewhat in character from the examples that I noted in
commenting previously on your paragraph 22, it may perhaps be worth adding.

Bulletin of Zoolegical Nomenclature 207

The family name TEUTHTDAE Owen, 1836, was based explicitly on ~ the
term yev0os applied by Aristotle to the ten-armed Malakia with an internal
horny plate or gladius.” Even before 1836, use of the component “ -teuthis ~
as an element in compounding generic names in Dibranchia had already begun ;
and “‘ -teuthis ”’ or ‘‘ Teuth-’’ now forms part of a very great number of names
of genera and of higher categories in this subclass. However, Teuthis as a
valid generic name in zoological nomenclature relates, unfortunate though the
fact may appear as regards work on Dibranchia, to a quite different form that
belongs not to Dibranchia but to Pisces: Teuthis Linnaeus, 1766, with type
T. javus Linnaeus. This is in the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology—see
Opinion 93 (1926, Smithson. mise. Coll. 73 [No. 4]: 5, 10), where at any rate
in the published version Teuthis as a homonymous generic name in Dibranchia
was not even mentioned. Apart from ‘‘ Teuthis Schneider, 1784,” which as you
have pointed out is a cheironym possessing no status under the Rules, and
which is in the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names, the name
Teuthis as a formal generic name in Dibranchia apparently does not date from
earlier than J. EK. Gray, 1849.

It is clear, accordingly, that the family name TEUTHIDAE Owen, 1836, was
not based upon the name of a genus included in the family : for though there
was in existence a valid nominal genus Teuthis Linnaeus, 1766, TEUTHIDAE
Owen had nothing to do with that nominal genus; and though Teuthis Gray,
1849, was based, like TeEUTHIDAE Owen, 1836, on Aristotle’s teuthis, Teuthis
Gray, 1849, had not been proposed at the time when TEUTHIDAE Owen, 1836,
was proposed. In this instance, moreover, there can be no question of retro-
spective validation of the family name on subsequent proposal of the appro-
priate generic name, as in any event Teuthis Gray, 1849, is preoccupied by
Teuthis Linnaeus, 1766.

208 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclatas

DOCUMENT 3/21
By J. R. DYMOND
(University of Toronto, Department of Zoology, Toronto. Canada)

Statement received on 27th May 1952

I approve the suggestions contained in Volume 7, Part 3. of the Bulletin
of Zoological Nomenclature for the insertion in the Régles of provisions relating
to the naming of families and cognate groups in replacement of the provisions
in the existing Articles 4 and 5.

I am especially impressed by the suggestion for the creation of an Official
Last of the Names of Families, Superfamilies, Subfamilies, Tribes and Super-
genera.

I also favour references to the International Commission of problems
where leaving the decision to the subjective opinion of taxonomists might
result in an undesirable number of changes in names.

DOCUMENT 3/22

By JAMES A. SLATER and JEAN L. LAFFOON

(Department of Zoology and Entomology, Iowa State College of Agriculture and
Mechanic Arts, Ames, Iowa, U.S.A.)

Letter dated 28th May 1952

We believe that Articles 4 and 5 of the Rules have been misinterpreted in
the past, and that a more accurate interpretation would be a great aid in the
stabilisation of family names. Current practice is inconsistent with respect
to treatment of the type genera of families as compared with the type species
of genera. We feel that there are grounds in the Rules for removal of this
inconsistency, and at the same time for moving toward a more stable basis for
family names.

To illustrate our viewpoint we may first examine current practice as to
type species of genera :—

(1) The type species of a genus is the first species validly designated as
the type species, even though its name may be considered as a
synonym of another specific name.

(2) Thus if Jones, 1910 describes A-us, and designates A-us albus Jones.
1910, as the type species, A-us albus Jones, 1910, remains the
type species of A-ws even though it might later be considered to he
identical with, and therefore its name a synonym of B-us cinereus
Smith, 1900.

(3) This is the current general practice with regard to type species of
genera, and is supported by statements of the Commission. For
example, in Opinion 44, Leptocephalus morrisii Gmelin is considered
as the type species of Leptocephalus, even though its name is a
junior svnonym of Muraena conger L. This procedure is to be

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclatare 209

desired, as conceivably it might at some time be found that
morristi and conger are not identical with one another and not
even members of the same genus, in which case the genus uame
Leptocephalus would follow morrisii. On the other hand, if conger
became the type species of Leptocephalus when morrisii became a
synonym of conger, confusion would result if the two should later
he placed in separate genera.

We may now examine the current practice relating to the type genera of
families, and the portions of the Rules which are pertinent.

(1) Article 4 of the Rules states: “ The name of a family is formed by
adding the ending zdae, the name of a subfamily by adding inae,
to the stem of the name of its type genus.”

(2) Opinion 141 states, in part: “ The fact that a given generic name is
selected to form the name of a family constitutes ipso facto a
definite designation of that genus as the type genus of a family.”
The type genera of most families have been selected in this manner.

(3) Article 5 of the Rules states: “‘ The name of a family or subfamily
is to be changed when the name of its type genus is changed.”

(4) Thus if Jones, 1850 describes a family x-1paE, based on X-us Smith,
1810, the latter is automatically the type genus of family x-IDAE.

(5) According to present practice, supported by statements of the Com-
mission,* if it were later considered that X-uws Smith, 1810 is a
synonym of Y-us Doe, 1800, the family name is “ changed” to
Y-IDAE.

(6) It is our view that the reasoning in paragraph 5 is inconsistent with
Article 5 of the Rules and also with the current practice regarding
type species of genera, since we would regard X-ws as continuing
to be the type genus of the family, even though it had fallen into
synonymy. And, since the family name is formed by adding the
termination ‘‘-IDAE” to the stem of the type genus, the family
name would continue to be x-1paAE. X-us was the original type
genus of the family, and placing it in synonymy with Y-us on
subjective grounds does not constitute a change in the name of the
type genus in the sense of Article 5. Except when X-us and Y-us
have the same type species, X-ws is purely a subjective synonym
of Y-us, and the fact that some authors might consider it to be a
synonym is no reason why a later author might not remove it from
Y-us. In the latter case the family name would originally have
been X-idae, later Y-idae, and (when X-uws was removed from
Y-us) again X-IDAE, according to present practice. We hold that
for nomenclatorial purposes the type genus of a family should

*For example, in Opinion 139, p. 42, it is mentioned that since Astatus Jurine, 1801, had been
suppressed, ‘‘ It followed also that the name CEPHIDAE replaced the name asTaTIDAE.” In this
case Cephus was the first genus in the family to be made the basis of a name above genus—and
the obvious implication of the Commission was that if Cephus had been allowed to fall as a
synonym of Astatus, the family name would have to be changed to asTaTIpA®, since the name
of the type genus would have been “‘ changed.”

210 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

always remain the original nominal genus so designated, and not
follow the vagaries of name ‘“ changes” due to shifting ideas as
to svnonymy. (An especially horrible example of the latter is
the case in Diptera of the changing practice in citing a family name
for the family once known as RHYPHIDAE, later ANISOPODIDAE,
then PHRYNEIDAE and then SyYLVICOLIDAE—when, in our view,
the name should have remained RHYPHIDAE all the time, since
Rhypus is the type genus.)

(7) There remains to be explained what cases would be covered by
Article 5; 1.., if it is assumed that the name of the type genus
does not change for nomenclatorial purposes just because it falls
into synonymy—when is it changed in the sense of Article 5 ?
We believe that this would apply only to cases where the original
type genus (the X-ws Smith, 1810, of our example) is found to be a
junior homonym, or other grounds which would make it unavail-
able (such as being a nude name, or suppressive action by the
Commission). The above interpretation of the type genus would
be in accord with current practice in respect to type species.

(8) We agree that this interpretation of Articles 4 and 5 is possibly not
in accord with the intent of the writers of the Rules (judging from
some of the Opinions which indirectly treat on this matter), yet
we believe that a strict interpretation of the wording of these
Articles can lead only to the interpretations we have made. It is
interesting to note that several authors have advocated changes
in the Rules in order to allow the use of generic names in synonymy
as the basis for formation of family names in at least some cases
(e.g. Sabrosky, 1947, Amer. Nat. 81: 153-160; and Hemming,
1952, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 7: 74-75) but to our knowledge no
previous writers have noted that the basis for such action is already
present in the Rules. We have had correspondence with several
specialists who have indicated that they would like to be able to
use generic names in synonymy as the stems for family names.

We are of the opinion that this interpretation of Articles 4 and 5 would
be a great step forward in the stabilisation of family names. No doubt some
family names that have been changed in the past would have to be switched
back to an earlier usage (unless the Commission used its plenary powers where
the present family name has come into wide acceptance), but many future
changes could be avoided.

One case in point is the family names in Diptera revolving around the
acceptance as valid published names of Meigen’s 1800 genera. We believe that.
if what we consider to be the proper interpretation of type genera had been
made by past workers, that, for example, the family name MYCETOPHILIDAE
would be in current universal use even though Mycetophila must be considered
a synonym of Fungivora (in this case, both genera have the same type species).
It is highly probable that, if dipterists had realised that it was not necessary
to change the several family names involved even though the Meigen, 1800
generic names were accepted, that less opposition would have developed against
the generic names.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 211
DOCUMENT 3/23

By 8. G. KIRIAKOFF, L.SC.
(Zoological Museum, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium)

Enclosure to letter dated 5th June 1952

Commission’s Ref. Z.N.(S.)357. Formation of the Names of
Families and Subordinal Categories of Suprageneric Rank
(“ Bull. zool. Nomencl.,” 7 (pt. 3) : 61-94)

I agree with the suggestions contained in the above paper.

I submit the following suggestions to be considered by the Commission :—
(a) Terminations of superfamilies to be “ -OIDEA ” ;
(b) Terminations of subfamilies to remain “‘ -INAE ” ;

(Note.—Professor Jeannel’s objection* to the feminine form of * -INAK ”
does not stand, because the family termination ‘‘-IDAE ” is also feminine
and to the latter he does not object; moreover, the masculine termination
* INI ” for tribes has so far no legal status.)

(c) Terminations of supertribes to be “‘ -INES ” ;
(d) Terminations of tribes to be “ -INI”’ ;
(e) Terminations of subtribes to be “ -IDI.”

For my suggestion regarding the cohortal category, see separate sheet
enclosed herewith.

Supplementary Note

Editorial Note: Attention is drawn to a paper dealing jointly with the
problem of Family names and Ordinal names which forms an annexe to a
communication on the latter subject received from Dr. 8. G. Kinakoff
(Zoological Museum, Ghent University, Belgium), which appears in the
Ordinal names section of present Copenhagen series of papers.{ In this
paper Dr. Kiriakoff expresses the view that the proposed revision of the
rules relating to the naming of families and allied groups, which he supports,
should be supplemented by the inclusion therein of provisions relating
to the naming of the sub-category “‘ cohort ”’ and the divisions just above
and below it, namely the “supercohort”’ and the “subcohort,” there
being, in his experience, cases where “the use of Superfamilies alone
would have been quite inadequate to express the nearer relation between
the various phyletic stems and branches, each consisting of one or more
Superfamilies.”

*See Document 3/9.
{See the Supplementary Note annexed.
tSee Document 4/13.

212 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

DOCUMENT 3/24

By KRICH M. HERING
(Abteilungsleiter am Zoologischen Museum der Humboldt-Unwwersitdt zu Berlin)

Statement received on 7th June 1952

Stellungnahme zu den Vorschlagen zur Erklarung und
Erweiterung der “ Régles ” in Bezug auf die Bennungung der
Familien, etc.

Der Zoologen-Stab des Zoologischen Museum Berlin unterstiitzt mit 14
von 14 Stimmen die im Bull. Zool. Nom. vol. 7, Pt. 3, p. 61-94 ausgefiihrten
Vorschlige mit den folgenden besonderen Bemerkungen :

(1) Para. 11 (1. ¢. p. 70): Typisches Genus der Familie soll das vom
ersten Auswihlenden festgelegte Genus sein, das nicht das alteste
Genus der Familie zu sein braucht.

(2) Para. 12 (1. c. p. 71-73): Unterstiitzt wird der Vorschlag, dass fiir
das Priorititsdatum bis etwa 1850 auch Namensbildungen ohne
die Endung -idae, von diesem Zeitpunkt an nur solche mit der
Endung -idae Prioritat haben sollen.

(3) Para. 16 (p. 75): Bei Vereinigung von 2 und mehr Familien soll der
este auswihlende Autor das Recht haben. den Namen der neuen
Familie festzulegen.

(4) Para. 22 (p. 79-80): Fiir Zulassung von Ausnahmen von der Regel,
dass der Name der Familie vom Stamm der typischen Gattung
gebildet wird, sind nur 11 von 14 Stimmen abgegeben worden.

Annexe to Statement furnished by Professor Dr. Hering
Views of Dr. WALTER FORSTER
(Zoologische Sammlung des Bayerischen Staates, Miinchen, Germany)

Herr Dr. Walter Forster von der Zoologischen Sammlung des Bayerischen
Staates teilt als Ergebnis der Befragung von 12 Mitgliedern des zoologischen
Stabes des Museums Miinchen mit, dass die genannten Vorschlage mit 11 von
12 Stimmen unterstiitzt werden, mit den folgenden Bemerkungen :

(1) Para. 11: Das Recht der Festlegung des typischen Genus fiir die
Familie hat der erste auswihlende Autor.

(2) Para. 16: Bei Vereinigung von Familien soll der neue Familicnname
der Name der Familie mit dem dltesten Genus sein.

(3) Para. 22: Die Zulassung von Ausnahmen wird unterstiitzt.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 213
DOCUMENT 3/25

By RAYMOND C. MOORE
(University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas, U.S.A.)

Letter dated 22nd June 1953

You should receive by any day—perhaps already have—copy of a Circular
which I asked my secretary in Lawrence to mail you when she distributed
copies to TREATISE authors. This deals with the subject of nomenclature
of familial categories primarily and represents my considered judgments set
forth as basis for handling organisation of TREATISE taxonomic manuscripts.
You will see that reference is duly made to proposals published by you in the
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, a majority of your recommendations
intended for consideration of zoologists and attention by the Copenhagen
Congress being adopted. I dissent from the form of citation which you have
proposed for emended familial names in some particulars, chiefly because it
seems that your form constitutes in effect an attribution retrospectively to
original authors. This is objectionable, although the principle of ascribing
equivalence to date of original publication (based on choice of an indicated
type genus) for purposes of priority, seems very desirable and sound.

I should like especially to call to your attention the matter of recommended
terminations for various familial categories, as given in the Circular mentioned :

Superfamily, -icae Supertribe, -ices
Family, -idae Tribe, -ides
Subfamily, -inae Subtribe, -ines

This scheme, independently devised by some American zoologists, | learn,
has advantages of consistency and mnemonic nature. In paleontology, the
superfamily ending -acea (not noticed in your paper) has so far had widest
general adoption. I find that various TREATISE authors already approached
have readily agreed to use -icae for superfamily assemblages, and I think
that this will be adopted generally, if not exclusively, in the TREATISE. 1
have not undertaken to impose “law” in this regard, when none yet exists.

24 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

bo

Annexe to Professor Raymond C. Moore’s Letter of 22nd June
1952

TREATISE ON INVERTEBRATE PALEONTOLOGY
Directed and edited by Raymond C. Moore

CIRCULAR 6, SECTIONS 1-4, 10th JUNE 1952

Outline and Summary

. INTRODUCTION. Purpose of circular is mainly to outline Treatise

procedure in dealing with familial names. Brief notes are added concerning
preparation of illustrations, abbreviation of authors’ names, and progress
of the project (p. 4).

. HEMMING PROPOSALS ON NOMENCLATURAL PROCEDURE FOR

SUPRAGENERIC CATEGORIES. Revision of Rules suggested for
action by Copenhagen (1953) Congress; provides for recognition of six
categories between genus and suborder, all treated as nomenclatorially
co-ordinate, and suggests codification of nomenclature applied to divisions
higher than superfamily in rank (p. 4).

. NOMENCLATURAL PROCEDURE FOR FAMILIAL CATEGORIES IN

TREATISE.

3.1. Categories of familial names. Dependent on taxonomic requirements,

authors may recognise at their option assemblages of genera classed as: (a)
superfamily, (b) family, (c) subfamily, (d) supertribe, (e) tribe, and (f) subtribe
(p- 5).

3.2. Formation of familial names. To the stem of the name of a chosen

type genus endings which specify individual familial categories are to be added
(p- 5).

3.21. Recognition of generic stem. In names of classic origin, the stem
normally consists of the genitive form less the terminal vowel (or diphthong)
or terminal vowel followed by consonant. The stem of indeclinable names
comprises the whole name (p. 5).

3.22. Endings of familial names. Besides prescribed endings (marked *),
those recommended for adoption in the Treatise are :—

Superfamily, -icae Supertribe, -ices
*Family, -idae Tribe, -ides
*Subfamily, -inae Subtribe, -ines (p. 6)

3.23. Names not available for familial assemblages. These include :
(a) names not Latin or Latinized, (b) names not founded on generic names,
(c) names not originally of suprageneric rank, (d) junior homonyms and
synonyms, (e) names based on a type other than that having priority of
designation, and (f) names based on invalid emendations of generic names

(p- 7).

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 215

3.3. Inter-relationships of familial names. The various categories of familial
names are to be treated as nomenclatorially co-ordinate (p. 8).

3.31. Superfamily names. Except that authorship and priority are
based on original publication as proposed superfamily, this category is
subject to same rules as apply to other familial assemblages (p. 8).

3.32. Family and subfamily names. A name originally published with
ending -idae may be changed to -inae, or vice versa, author and date being
cited as of the original publication (p. 8).

3.33. Supertribe, tribe, and subtribe names. Names published for any
of these categories, consisting of the stem of the name of the chosen type
genus combined with a letter or letters to form a selected ending, may
be employed to designate a subfamily by substitution of -inae for the
ending of the name published, or to designate a family by substitution of
-idae for the ending of the name published. Likewise, changed assignment
of rank among supertribe, tribe, and subtride may be made at will, with
change of endings as desired. Author and date cited for the assemblage
revised in rank or in form of ending without change in rank are as in the
original publication (p. 9).

3.4. Priority as guide in selection of familial names. The first-published
name shall be accepted unless it is unavailable. An effect of recognising co-
ordinate status of familial names is that the stem of the generic name first
published in designating a subfamily or division of a subfamily must be used
also in designating the family to which it belongs (p. 9).

3.5. Emendation of familial names. Change from originally published
form of familial names is required (a) if the stem of the generic name is in-
correctly used, (b) if the name of the type genus has been altered, and (c) if
taxonomic rank assigned to the assemblage is changed as regards family and
subfamily categories ; in addition, (d) change in form of endings of superfamily,
supertribe, tribe, and subtribe categories is allowable and may be judged
desirable (p. 9). i

3.51. Correction of stem. This involves no change of stem but is necessary
to co-ordinate familial names with those of type genera (Belosepiidae Gill,
1871, based on Belosaepia, must be emended to Belosaepiidae) (p. 9).

3.52. Change of stem. If the name of the type genus of a familial
assemblage must be changed, as by reason of homonymy, the familial
name also must be altered correspondingly (Geoteuthidae, Naef, 1921,
based on Geoteuthis Naef, 1921 [non Miinster, 1843], altered to Geopeltidae
Altena, 1949, based on Geopeltis Altena, 1949, which replaced Geoteuthis
Naef) (p. 9).

3.53. Change of ending. When taxonomic reassignment of a familial
assemblage involves the categories of family or subfamily, change of ending
of the familial name is mandatory. For categories other than family and
subfamily, emendation in the form of endings of familial names is optional
(p. 10).

216 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

3.6. Citation of author and date of familial names. The Rules stipulate
that when the author of a zoological name is cited, no punctuation of any
sort should intervene between zoological name and author’s name, but the
date may be enclosed in parentheses or separated by comma. Citation of
some familial names offers problems, as follows (p. 10).

3.61. Names emended by correction of stem. Retrospective attribution
of such changes to the original author and date, although considered
allowable by some, is judged unacceptable, but because no change of type
genus is introduced, the emended familial name is assigned priority status
of the incorrect original name. Example of form of Treatise citation :
Belosaepiidae Bairstow, 1952 (=emend. Belosepiidae Gull, 1871) (p. 11).

3.62. Names emended by change of stem. Retrospective attribution of
such changes to the original author and date is agreed by almost everyone
to be unacceptable, but because no change in identity of the type genus
is introduced, the emended familial name is assigned priority status of the
nomenclatorially invalid original name. Example of form of Treatise
citation: Geopeltidae Altena, 1949 (=emend. Geoteuthidae Naef, 1921)

(p. 11).

3.63. Names emended only by change of ending. Citation should be to
original author and date. Recommended Treatise form: Aulacoceratidae
Mojsisovics, 1902 (as Aulacoceratinae) (p. 11).

3.64. Superfamily names. Author and date to be cited should refer to
earliest proposal of the superfamily name as such, but if ending is altered,
Treatise form recommended is: Fungiicae Vaughan & Wells, 1943 (as
Fungioidea) (p. 12).

3.65. Family names. Author and date to be cited should refer to
first-published proposal of family or suprageneric subdivision of family,
modified in manner given by 3.61, 3.62, or 3.63 if called for (p. 12).

3.66. Subfamily names. Author and date to be cited should refer to
oldest publication in which any genus assigned to the subfamily was
proposed as type of a familial assemblage. A nominotypical subfamily
has the same type genus as that belonging to the family, and citation
of such subfamily refers to the same author and date as for the family ;
whether the author of the family recognised subfamilies or not is immaterial.
Example: the family Astrocoeniidae Koby, 1890, contains the nomino-
typical subfamily Astrocoeniinae Koby, 1890 (not to be cited as Astro-
coeniinae Felix, 1898, although he first published such subfamily name)
(p. 12).

3.67. Supertribal, tribal, and subtribal names. Considerations stated in
3.66 apply in identical manner to each category of these names (p. 13).
3.7. Examples of procedure in nomenclature of familial assemblages (p. 13).

4. NOMENCLATURAL PROCEDURE FOR SUPRAFAMILIAL CATE-
GORIES IN TREATISE. Authors are to use own judgment ; no standard
endings or other features of nomenclature (p. 14).

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 217

1. Introduction

Preparation and distribution of this Circular has been delayed unavoidably
by- pressures on the Editor while absent from the University of Kansas.
Although nearly full-time work by his secretary, Mrs. Ruth Breazeal, has
been devoted to Treatise matters, difficulties are evident when one remembers
that she is in Lawrence and since July 1951 the Editor has been in Europe,
with only a portable typewriter and a supply of paper to aid him. The volume
of work done is measured only vaguely by statement that postage costs at
the Editor’s end of the line have averaged nearly 40 dollars per month, mostly
but not all on Treatise business. As much time as possible has been given to
various manuscripts. Questions brought to attention by some of this work, as
well as problems broached in correspondence, are treated in the present Circular.
Before decisions could be reached, however, many letters had to be written
for the purpose of consultations. Special effort has been made to avoid hasty
conclusions which might lead to unwise policies in shaping taxonomic sections
of Treatise manuscripts. Authors are asked to co-operate with the Editor
in achieving uniformity among the various divisions of the Treatise by adopting
procedures set forth in Circulars 5 and 6. Presumably, it is unnecessary to
add that this is a request, rather than a direction, for if an author dissents,
he may proceed otherwise, but in such case concise written statement of reasons
for the dissent should be submitted.

2. Hemming Proposals on Nomenclatural Procedure for
Suprageneric Categories

Many questions arise, especially in dealing with suprageneric taxonomic
categories, concerning which the Rules are virtually silent. The March 1952
issue of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (vol. 7, pt. 3, pp. 61-94) contains
proposed clarification, amendment, and expansion of the Rules relating to
names of families and subordinate categories of suprageneric rank, but these
proposals are simply suggestions offered as basis for advice sought from
zoologists on formulating provisions which may be adopted by the International
Congress of Zoology scheduled to meet in Copenhagen in 1953. The Treatise
cannot wait on adoptions made at this Congress, even though parts of the
Treatise will not yet be finished at that time. We must formulate our own
procedures as well as we can, at least for first-issued parts of our publication,
trusting that they are not greatly different from Rules which ultimately will
be introduced. The draft of proposals by Mr. Francis Hemming, Secretary
of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, includes super-
families in the bracket of categories treated in the reference just given, and
he recommends that name of superfamilies should be co-ordinate with names
published as family, subfamily, and smaller suprageneric groups (p. 89).

Through kindness of Mr. Hemming, galley proof of a paper drafted by
him for publication in B.Z.N. later in 1952 has been furnished to the Treatise
Editor. This deals with problems requiring consideration if naming of taxonomic
categories higher in rank than superfamilies is to be included among provisions
of the Rules. The contents of this discussion are of smaller concern to T'reatise
authors than that dealing with suprageneric categories ranging upward to

DF

218 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

superfamilies, because resolution of problems and formulation of acceptable
Rules for naming phyla, subphyla, classes, subclasses, orders, and suborders
are not likely to be achieved soon. Many paleontologists and other zoologists
judge that nomenclature of ordinal and higher categories should not be
subjected to stipulation imposed by Rules.

3. Nomenclatural Procedure for Familial Categories in Treatise
3.1. Categories of Familial Names

Families and subfamilies are recognised in the current Rules. Assemblages
of families designated as superfamilies have come to be recognised widely in
many divisions of the animal kingdom and provisions concerning their nomen-
clature undoubtedly will be incorporated ultimately in revised Rules. Also,
taxonomists working on many groups have found need to recognise groups
of genera within subfamilies, such groups being presumed to be somewhat
closely inter-related and having phylogenetic significance; commonly, the
groups judged to be intermediate in rank between genus and subfamily are
termed tribes. A few divisions of animals, chiefly arthropods and mollusks
among invertebrates, may call for still other categories below rank of subfamily
and above that of genus; these are appropriately termed swpertribe and
subtribe. The term supergenus, used by some zoologists, is considered to be
synonymous with subtribe, the latter being preferable. Although present
Rules do not recognise these tribal categories, it is very likely that they will
be incorporated in provisions of future Rules (B.Z.N., vol. 7, pt. 3, pp. 86-89).
Thus, listing of familial categories in descending order of rank may be given
as (a) superfamily, (b) family, (c) subfamily, (d) supertribe, (e) tribe, (f) subtribe.
The expression ‘familial names” will be used in this Circular to designate
all categories of names from subtribe (or supergenus) to superfamily, inclusive.

3.2. Formation of Familial Names

The Rules now provide for the manner of forming family and subfamily
names but not other familial names. The following suggestions accord with
regulations judged likely to be incorporated in revised Rules (except for un-
foreseeable stipulations as to terminations of various categories which may
be adopted) and to the extent that they are accepted by Treatise authors,
uniformity of procedure will appear in our publication. A general requirement
is that all categories of familial names shall be formed by addition of some
letter combination as ending, this combination being joined to the stem of
the name of a generic name which is (directly or indirectly) type of the
assemblage.

3.21. Recognition of generic stem. An essential feature in construction of
familial names is correct determination of the stem of the generic name, because
addition of -idae, -inae, or other adopted endings for familial categories to
differently conceived stems leads obviously to different familial names. For
example, published family names Streptelasmidae, Streptelasmaidae, Strep-
telasmatidae all employ the ending -idae joined to differently conceived stems
of the type genus Streptelasma. The problem of correct determination of the

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

219

generic stem is mostly a simple one, but unfortunately difficulties and errors

are numerous. In generic names consisting of classic words (Greek or Latin
compounds of such words, or modeled in form on such words (Latinized
rule for determination of the stem is to take what
terminal syllable (vowel or diphthong,
or consonants) from the genitive form of the word.
however, are indeclinable and the stem comprises all
names consisting of barbaric words or arbitrary combin
generally are indeclinable.
which the terminal syllable
and the stem of a family name based on it is printed in capitals ;
most common type are marked by an asterisk.

Name and gender

Abba (m)
*Abamita (f)
Ablegmina (n)
Acroama (n)
Abazea (n)
Acarnan (m)
Abas (m)
Abbas (m)
*Abantias (f)
*Absurditas (f)
Abraxas (f)
*A baa (m)
Abale (f)
*A bdomen (n)
*Acer (n)
Abandiades (m)
*Achaemenides (m)
Absyrtides (f)
Acies (f)
*Abies (n)
Abali (m)
Abarvs (m)
Abneptvs (f)
*A baesamis (f)
*Abdicatrix (f)
*Abactio (f)
*A bsumedo (f)
*Acheron (m)
*A bactor (m)
Abnepos (m)
Acanos (m)
Acinos (f)
*Abluviewn (n)
Acheruns (m)

Genitive form

Abbatis
Abamitae
Ablegminum
Acroamitis
Abazeorum
Acarnanis
Abantis
Abbatis
Abantiadis
Absurditatzs
Abraxae
Abacis
Abales
Abdominis
Aceris
Abandiadae
Achaemenidis
Absyrtidwm.
Acie
Abietis
Abalorum
Abaris
Abneptis
Abaesamidis
Abdicatricis
Abactionis
Absumedinis
Acherontis
Abactoris
Abnepotis
Acant

Acini
Abluvii
Acheruntis

),
), the
is left after dropping the

or terminal vowel followed by consonant

Various classical words,
of such words ; generic
ations of letters likewise

The following tabulation gives some examples in
of the name and its genitive form is underlined*

words of

Family name

ABBATidae
ABAMITidae
ABLEGMINidae
ACROAMITidae
ABAZEORidae
ACARNANidae
ABANTidae
ABBATidae
ABANTIADidae
ABSURDITATidae
ABRA Xidae
ABACidae

ABA Lidae
ABDOMINidae
ACERidae
ABANTIADidae
ACHAEMENIDidae
ABSYRTIDidae
ACIEidae
ABIETidae
ABALORidae
ABARidae
ABNEPTidae
ABAESAMIDidae
ABDICATRICidae
ABACTIONidae
ABSUMEDINidae
ACHERONTidae
ABACTORidae
ABNEPOTidae
ACANidae
ACINidae
ABLUVIidae
ACHERUNTidae

*Ed, Note,—In printing this document italics have been substituted for underlining —F.H,

220 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

*Abacus (m) Abacz ABACidae
Abnurus (f) Abnurus ABNURidae
Aclys (f) Aclidis ACLIDidae

*Klasma (n) Elasmatos ELASMATidae
Abadan (m) (Indeclinable) ABADANidae
Abacuc (m) a ABACUCidae
Abdenago (m) i ABDENAGOidae
Abarimon (m) ish ABARIMONidae
Abessalom (m) * ABESSALOMidae
Abner (m) - ABNERidae
Abraxares (m) $5 ABRAXARKESidae

3.22. Endings of familial names. Because the prescribed endings of names
for families and subfamilies are in form of feminine plurals (-idae, -inae), the
ending of names of superfamilies suggested for use in the Treatise has similar
form. For this category, -icae is chosen because it closely follows the form
of adopted family and subfamily endings, but does not resemble either of
them when pronounced (for example, -itae may not be distinguishable from
-idae when spoken). The endings -acea and -oidea, which have been used
considerably for superfamilies do not have terminal -ae, which seems desirable,
and the ending -aceae (suggested in Circ. 2 as modification of -acea) has been
little used as yet in zoological nomenclature, although well known as applied
to plants. The superfamily ending -oidae, used by some taxonomists, is
objectionable because it conduces confusion, especially when joined to the
stem of some generic names ending in -o (as ABEDNAGOidae, par. 3.21).
For names of tribal categories (supertribe, tribe, subtribe) no endings have
come into common use, although B.Z.N. (vol. 7, pt. 3, p. 87) refers to habitual
use of -ini as termination of the names of tribes. This seems objectionable
because it is indistinguishable from -inae when pronounced ; also, memory is
aided by employing comparable letter combinations to denote “ super,”
“main,” and “sub” categories. The schedule here suggested is shown in
the following tabulation, but attention is called to the point that adoption
by Treatise authors is voluntary.

Superfamily, -icae Supertribe, -ices
Family, -idae Tribe, -ides
Subfamily, -inae Subtribe, -ines

Examples: Superfamily Stauriicae; Family Stauriidae; Subfamily
Stauriinae (genus Stauria).

3.23. Names not available for familial assemblages. Although present
Rules do not offer clear guidance on questions of admissibility of various
names published for familial categories, the following statements of policy
are proposed for adoption by T'reatise authors.

3.231. Names not Latin or Latinized. According to Art. 3, the scientific
names of animals must be words that are Latin or Latinized. Thus,
designations like orthids (English), Pisokrinoiden (German), and Aula-
cocératidés (French) are not admissible as familial names ; likewise Famille
Syringoporiens Fromentel, 1861, cannot be accepted without emendation.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 221

When and if such non-Latin names are published in Latinized form, they
should not be attributed retrospectively to the author who used the non-
Latin name, but to the subsequent person who first published an acceptable
Latinized word.

3.232. Names not founded on generic names. The stipulation given in
Art. 4 of the Rules that names of families and subfamilies must be formed
by adding specified endings to the stem of a generic name serves to invalidate
familial names formed otherwise, and provision that names of all familial
categories shall be treated as co-ordinate (see paragraph 3) extends the
stipulations to superfamily and tribal names. Thus, Hastatidae Stolley,
1919, is not valid because there is no corresponding generic name (derivation
presumably based on a “ section” of broad genus Belemmites called Hastati,
after the species Hibolites hastatus).

3.233. Names not originally of swprageneric rank. Art. 4 implies that
names of generic or lower rank are ineligible as names of familial categories
(although the stem of a generic name is used in forming such familial names).
Thus, subdivisions of a genus called Clavati, Canaliculati, Hastati, etc.,
based on the trivial names of species, cannot be accepted as suprageneric
names,

3.234. Junior homonyms and synonyms. Familial names formed from
the stem of generic or subgeneric names which are themselves not accepted
as valid in zoological nomenclature are naturally inadmissible. Such
invalid generic and subgeneric names include junior homonyms and junior
objective synonyms. Not necessarily invalid are junior subjective synonyms,
but generic and subgeneric names in this category are not acceptable as
bases for familial names unless they are removed from synonymy.

3.235. Names based on a type other than that having priority of designation.
This does not mean necessary choice of the first-published generic or sub-
generic name among those included in a familial assemblage, but that
having priority of designation as type of such an assemblage.

3.236. Names based on invalid emendations of generic and subgeneric
names. So exceptional are circumstances which allow change of any sort
in form of a generic or subgeneric name as originally published that a safe,
general rule is to consider emendation invariably unallowable. This means
that the originally published name, whatever its faults, is the only valid
name (see Circ. 4, p. 9). A recent discussion by R. Richter (Senckenbergiana,
vol. 32, pp. 357-366, 1952), which contains numerous examples of adjudged
invalid emendations, develops the theme ‘‘ Quo modo impressum est nomen
maneat ’’—in whatever manner a name is printed, let it stand. This
extends in Richter’s view, even to incorrectly spelled dedication of names
to specified persons (for example, Zittelloceras Hyatt should retain this
spelling, even though origina] description indicates that the genus is named
for Karl von Zittel). Unless emendations are made by action of the Com-
mission on Zoological Nomenclature, stability of nomenclature is disturbed.
Attention may be called to the point that names derived from languages
using diacritical marks involve several special problems. some of which

222 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
are complicated by unavailability of type characters for diacritically
marked letters in many printing establishments. Whenever possible,
diacritical marks should be employed as enjoined by Art. 20 of the Rules,
but it is altogether permissible to substitute oe for 6 or 9, we for ti, and
aa for 4. As emphasised by Richter, such letters as 6, 9, ii, and a are wholly
different characters from o, vu, and a and cannot be transliterated or replaced
by these letters. (For example, Miilleria may be written as Muelleria,
but not as Mulleria; Westergdérdia may be written as Westergaardia, but
not as Westergardia.) The import of this subparagraph is that an invalid
emendation of Zittelloceras to Zitteloceras cannot be recognised in forming
a familial name (Zittelloceratidae being correct and Zitteloceratidae being
incorrect).

3.3. Inter-relationships of Familial Names

It is desirable to give attention next to inter-relationships for nomenclatural
purposes of familial names recognised.

3.31. Superfamily names. Like other familial names, a proper requirement
is that the name of a superfamily shall be formed by adding a termination
other than -inae and -idae to the stem of the generic name which constitutes
the type of the type family of the superfamily. It seems logical to propose
(as in B.Z.N., vol. 7, pt. 3, pp. 89, 90) that the names of superfamilies should
be treated as co-ordinate with family names and that except for qualification
of holding rank for priority by reference to their dates of publication as such
(not by reference to the dates of publication of their type families), rules applied
to names of superfamilies should be the same as for names of families. Pro-
cedure in this manner is suggested as Treatise policy.

3.32. Family and subfamily names. Although Art. 6 of the Rules prescribes
that generic and subgeneric names are co-ordinate with one another and
Art. 11 makes similar provision in respect to specific and subspecific trivial
names, no such stipulation is given for family and subfamily names. Logical
extension of existent Rules, however, strongly supports general practice in
regarding family and subfamily names as co-ordinate ; revised Rules almost
surely will establish formally such co-ordination. Thus, a name originally
published as a family name, ending in -idae, may subsequently be recognised
as a subfamily name by changing the termination to -inae, and a name originally
published as a subfamily name, ending in -inae, may subsequently be recognised
as a family name by changing the termination to -idae ; author and date of
establishing these units remain unchanged (see B.Z.N., vol. 7, pt. 3, pp. 85-86).

3.33. Supertribe, tribe, and subtribe names. Subject to the requirement
that names published for categories belonging between subfamily and genus
in rank (supertribe, tribe, and subtribe, or equivalent units) shall be formed
by addition of a selected termination to the stem of the name of a chosen
type genus (see paragraph 3.22), the names of these categories should be treated
as co-ordinate with those of families and subfamilies (B.Z.N., vol. 7, pt. 3,
pp. 87, 88). Thus, if the name Mesopleurides or some other based on the
stem of the generic name Mesoplewra were published by Jones, 1890, for an
assemblage of genera regarded by him as lower in rank than subfamily, a

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 223

later author might recognise this name as applicable to a subfamily called
Mesopleurinae or to a family called Mesopleuridae, with citation of author
and date as Jones, 1890.

3.4. Priority as Guide in Selection of Familial Names

The principle of priority may be accepted as most sound basis (other things
being equal) for stability in nomenclature at familial levels as at lower taxonomic
levels, provided by Arts. 25-30 of the present Rules. Priority of publication
as criterion for selection of familial names naturally must be restricted to
available names, that is, those which are judged on other grounds to be eligible.
As regards determination of priority of publication among names applicable
to any familial category, it is important to note that (excepting names of
superfamilies) a name originally published for any one of these categories is
available for others and may be recognised on grounds of priority. Changed
assignment of taxonomic rank simply requires alteration of the ending attached
to the stem of the name of the type genus, author and date remaining un-
changed. -The import of this is that (just as no generic name may embrace
subgeneric names having publication dates earlier than its own) no family
name can be recognised with included subfamily or tribal names having
publication dates earher than itself.

3.5. Emendation of Familial Names

Adoption of the principles of priority and co-ordination as applied to
familial names (except for separation of superfamily names as an independent
category) requires that some of these names must be emended from the form
of their original publication in order to conform to a changed taxonomic rank
of the familial name or to agree with change in writing the name of the type
genus. Thus, two sorts of alteration of familial names must be considered :
those involving the stem and those which change the ending.

3.51. Correction of stem. Some published familial names are invalid because
they are based on invalid emendation of the name of the type genus (for
example, Belosepiidae Gill, 1871, based on invalid change from Belosaepia
Volz, 1830, to Belosepia). Such familial names must be corrected to agree
with the stem of the name of the type genus.

3.52. Change of stem. Whenever the name of the type genus of a familial
assemblage is emended, as by reason of synonymy or homonymy, the name
of the familial group must be changed if the stem of the generic name is altered.
Art. 5 of the Rules stipulates this for families and subfamilies, but the provision
may be extended to lower-rank assemblages. Indirectly, names of super-
families are included also, because they are formed on the basis of the stem
of the generic name which serves as type of the type family. All changes
of familial names involving change of stem constitute introduction of new
names and, as in publication of new names in similar circumstances for genera
and species, these new familial names should be attributed to the author who
first publishes the changed name and bear date of such publication. This
procedure, however, obviously is opposed to stability in nomenclature because

224 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

priority held by the rejected name is sacrificed, despite the fact that the type
genus on which it and the emended familial name are based is unchanged.
A familial name which has been little used and is virtually unknown, based
on a different type genus, is likely to have priority over the emended name.
For example, Poteriocrinidae Roemer, 1843, has been emended to Poterio-
crinitidae Bassler, 1938, on the basis of generic names which are objective
synonyms (founded on the same type species), but Mollocrinidae Wanner,
1916, based on another genus included in the assemblage, is older than Bassler’s
emended name of the family, founded on the genus chosen by Roemer.
Accordingly, proposal has been made (B.Z.N., vol. 7, pt. 3, pp. 73, 74, 81, 82)
that for the purpose of fixing priority, an emended familial name should date
from the publication in which the type genus was originally indicated and
not from the date of published emendation. This seems to be a very sensible
and desirable provision—that priority in publishing the type genus of a familial
assemblage and fixation of such type should take precedence over ritualistic
application of a rule which commonly would require change in definition of
the type genus. Present rules make no provision for such procedure, but
proposal is made nevertheless to adopt it in the Treatise. Mode of* citation is
treated in paragraphs 3.61 and 3.62.

3.53. Change of ending. Whenever the assigned taxonomic rank of a
familial name is different from that indicated in the original publication, the
combination of terminal letters which is employed as sign of taxonomic rank
is to be changed. Also, if the taxonomic rank remains unchanged but the
originally published ending of the name differs from that now recognised as
applicable to such rank, the name is to be altered by substituting the adopted
different ending. Neither of these changes (except under certain conditions
in forming a superfamily name) is construed to affect authorship and date
of the familial name ; accordingly, the name in changed form is cited without
any indication that it differs from the original publication. Thus, a tribe
“Martiini Smith, 1922 (type, Martia Adams, 1901) may become the tribe
Martiides Smith, 1922 (same taxonomic rank but change in adopted ending),
or Martiinae Smith, 1922 (reclassifying an assemblage of genera containing
Martia as a subfamily), or Martiidae Smith, 1922 (reclassifying an assemblage
of genera contaming Martia as a family). Of course, modifications of the
content of the assemblage by additions or removals of genera, or both, do not
affect nomenclature of the group which includes the chosen type genus Martia
as name-giver. Because it is judged advisable to treat superfamilies separately
for purposes of determining authorship and priority, and because the type
of a superfamily is one of its contained families, the name of a superfamily
is not made by changing the ending -idae of its type family, for this latter
persists ; it is formed by introducing an ending chosen to indicate superfamily
rank. Priority and authorship of a superfamily are to be defined by first
publication as such, without reference to the letter combination used as ending
of the superfamily name in the original publication. A subsequent author
may change this ending, but in such instance the assemblage retains its original
author and date. Thus, the superfamily Fungioidea Vaughan & Wells, 1943.
(based on Fungiidae Dana, 1848) may be altered to Fungiicae Vaughan &
Wells, 1943 (as is actually done by Wells in his Treatise manuscript).

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 225

3.6. Citation of Author and Date of Familial Names

For scientific names of any category, the Rules provide for citation of
the author who first published the name, omitting punctuation between the
familial name and name of the author; the date of original publication may
be added enclosed in parentheses or separated from the author’s name by a
comma (Art. 22). This seems to be simple and clear. Citation of author and
date in accordance with Art. 22 should be given for first-published name.
Questions arise, however, in dealing with some familial categories, especially
in cases of emended names.

3.61. Names emended by correction of stem. Although some authors judge
that familial names which are incorrectly constructed (a) by reason by error
in recognising the stem of the name of the type genus or (b) because they are
based on an invalid “ minor” emendation of the name of the type genus,
may be corrected and cited under the author and date of the original publication,
such practice is deemed unacceptable in the Treatise. This retrospective
attribution is misleading and may involve undesirable subjective elements.
Recommended form of citation in the Treatise for emendations of (a) type:
Loliginidae Gill, 1871 (=emend. Loligoidea Lesueur, 1821); Octopodidae
d’Orbigny, 1838 (=emend. Octopoda Férussac, 1821). For emendations of
(b) type: Belosaepiidae Bairstow, 1952 (=emend. Belosepiidae Gill, 1871) ;
Cirroteuthidae Bairstow, 1952 (=emend. Cirrhoteuthidae Keferstein, 1865).
Originally published names Belosaepia and Cuirroteuthis were subsequently
incorrectly changed to Belosepia and Cirrhoteuthis. For purpose of priority
assignment, dates of these families are reckoned as: Loliginidae 1821, Octo-
podidae 1821, Belosaepiidae 1871, Cirroteuthidae 1865.

3.62. Names emended by change of stem. As stated in paragraph 3.52,
recognition (and hence citation) of the author and date of familial names
emended by change of stem seems necessary ; such names cannot advisedly
be attributed retrospectively to an earlier author and date as for names merely
changed in ending (paragraph 3.53). A rule for definition of priority which
provides that the emended name shall be ranked exactly equivalent to the
name it replaces may be judged advantageous, but a rule which calls for citing
the emended name as though published by the author of the name it replaces
and as though published on the date of the replaced name cannot be supported.
An example cited in B.Z.N., vol. 7, pt. 3, p. 73 is Erycinidae Swainson, 1827,
based on Erycina Fabricius, 1807, as type; later, when discovery was made
that this genus is a junior homonym of ELrycina Lamarck, 1805, the substitute
name Riodina Westwood, 1851, was introduced with the same type species
as for Erycina Fabricius; the family name Riodinidae Grote, 1895, still later
was published to replace the invalid Erycinidae Swainson. Because Riodinidae
is not the oldest available name for the family, if it ranks from 1895, Mr.
Hemming (B.Z.N., vol. 7, pt. 3, pp. 77, 82) proposes that priority should be
determined by the publication date of original designation of the family type
(i.e. Erycina Fabricius= Riodina Westwood), and he suggests as a desired
form of citation: Riodinidae (Erycinidae) Swainson, 1827; or alternatively :
Riodinidae (Erycinidae emend. Grote, 1895) Swainson, 1827. Neither of these
are acceptable because they actually comprise retrospective attribution of the

226 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

name Riodinidae to Swainson who never heard of the name, and less importantly
because the suggested form of citation contravenes Art. 22 of the Rules, which
provides that the author’s name should immediately follow the scientific
name without intervening punctuation, etc. Form of citation suggested for
adoption in the Treatise, usmg the example just considered, is: Riodinidae
Grote, 1895 (=emend. Erycinidae Swainson, 1827). As here used, “* =emend.”’
signifies equivalent (in having the same type genus and publication date for
designation of the type genus) to the nomenclatorially emended older family
name, and it means that the substitute name is ranked for priority purposes
as exactly equal to the emended name. The author of the invalid replaced
name is not (and should not be) cited as author of the new name.

3.63. Names emended only by change of ending. Such names are to be
cited using author and date of the original publication, exactly as if the familial
name had been then printed with the ending now adopted. Recommended
Treatise form of citation is: Aulacoceratidae Mojsisovics, 1902 (as Aulacocera-
tinae).

3.64. Superfamily names. The author and date to be cited in connection
with superfamily names are those referring to the oldest publication in which
the superfamily is proposed as such (see paragraph 3.31). Almost invariably,
the author of a superfamily assemblage differs from that of the type family
on which it is based, and the date of original publication are not the same.
Emendation of superfamily names considered in paragraph 3.53 does not
affect author and date, but if the stem of the generic name on which the type
family is based requires change, publication of a substitute family name
(paragraph 3.52) does not automatically extend to changing the superfamily
name ; procedure in citing the altered superfamily name should be exactly
analogous to that proposed in paragraph 3.62 for family names. Thus, if a
superfamily Erycinoidea Smith, 1848, should have been published and no
notice of it was taken by Grote when he introduced the new name Riodinidae
for the type family in 1895, another author (say Holmes, 1900) might introduce
an altered superfamily name, cited as: Riodinacea Holmes, 1900 (=emend.
Erycinoidea Smith, 1848). Subsequent modification of the ending of the
superfamily name would result in: Riodinicae Holmes, 1900 (=emend.
Erycinoidea Smith, 1848).

3.65. Family names. The author and date to be cited in connection with
family names are those referring to the oldest publication in which any genus
included in the family is proposed as type of a familial assemblage (family.
subfamily, or tribal category) and the stem of its name is used in forming
the name of the familial unit. Thus, Mesopleuridae Jones, 1890, may be
cited now on the basis of original publication as Mesopleurinae Jones, 1890.
ete. (See paragraph 3.32.)

3.66. Subfamily names. The author and date to be cited in connection
with subfamily names are those referring to the oldest publication in which
any genus included in the subfamily is proposed as type of a familial assemblage.
Two types of subfamily names call for notice.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 227

3.661. Nominotypical subfamily names. Kvery family which is divided
into subfamilies must have a nominotypical (sensu stricto) subfamily, which
has as its type genus the same one which serves as type of the family.
Because the name of the family is based on the generic name which among
all includedj in the assemblage was first published as type of a familial
category, this applies also to the nominotypical subfamily; also, the
author and date of the nominotypical subfamily are invariably identical
with those of the family, without reference to whether the author of the
family or some subsequent author introduced subfamily divisions. Thus,
the family Astrocoeniidae Koby, 1890, contains the subfamilies Astro-
coeniinae Koby, 1890, and Pinacophyllinae Vaughan & Wells, 1943 (not
Astrocoeniinae Felix, 1898). Not acceptable is the view held by some
authors that a nominotypical subfamily may have neither author nor
date, being cited simply as Astrocoeninae sensu stricto, on the ground
that this assemblage may comprise simply the residue of the family
(including the type genus) when one or more subfamilies based on genera
other than the type are set apart; every name recognised in zoological
nomenclature was first published by some author on some date. Also,
just as the nominotypical subgenus of a genus must be ascribed to the
author who erected the genus and must bear the same date, a nominotypical
subfamily cannot be attributed to an author other than the one who first
selected the genus which serves family and nominotypical subfamily as
type and it cannot bear a date subsequent to that of erecting the family.

3.662. Other subfamily names. Any genus included in a family, except
that which serves the family and nominotypical subfamily as type, may
constitute the type of another subfamily. The principle of priority demands,
however, that if any genus included in a subfamily has previously been
published as name-giver of a familial assemblage, the oldest available one
must be recognised as type of the subfamily.

3.67. Supertribal, tribal, and subtribal names. The author and date to be
cited in connection with supertribe, tribe, and subtribe names are those referring
to the oldest publication in which any genus included in the assemblage is
proposed as type of a familial category. The consideration affecting nomino-
typical subfamilies and other subfamilies apply in identical manner to tribal
names.

3.7. Examples of Procedure in Nomenclature of Familial Assemblages

Following are a few examples, mainly based on data supplied in a mem-
orandum by Mr. Leslie Bairstow on “ Authors and Dates of Family and Sub-
family Names.” Conclusions are those of the Treatise Editor, presumed to
accord with policy outlined in foregoing paragraphs.

3.71. Family names based on Sepia. Published initially as family names
are: Sepiidea Leach, 1817; Sepiedea Lesueur, 1821; Sepiadae Owen, 1836 ;
Sepidae d’Orbigny, 1837 ; Sepiidae Adams, 1858. Conclusion : citation should
be Sepiidae Leach, 1817.

228 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

3.72. Family names based on Octopus. Published initially as family names
are: Octopia Rafinesque, 1815; Octopoda Férussac, 1821; Octopidae
d’Orbigny, 1837; Octopodidae d’Orbigny, 1838. The name Order Octopoda
Leach, 1817, also was published. Conclusion: citation should be Octopodidae
Férussac, 1821 (for stem is Octopod-, not Octop-).

3.73. Family name based on Belosaepia. Original publication of the generic
name was Belosaepia Volz, 1830; the name Belosepia Volz, 1830 (published
later in the year) is invalid for it is an objective junior homonym of Belosaepra
(Art. 35 of Rules; see marginal note 82, Cire. 4, p. 18). The family name
Belosepiidae Gill, 1871, is invalid because no valid generic name Belosepia
exists for designation of the family type. No record is given by Bairstow
as to publication of the correct family name, Belosaepiidae. If it is yet un-
published, a proper entry in the Treatise would be Belosaeptidae Bairstow,
1953 (=emend. Belosepiidae Gill, 1871).

3.74. Family name based on Cirroteuthis. Just like the case cited in 3.73.
Cirroteuthis Eschricht, 1838, incorrectly changed to Cirrhoteuthis Moller, 1842
(objective junior synonym); family name published as Cirrhoteuthidae
Keferstein, 1865. Assuming no other equivalent family name published, this
might be recognised in T'’reatise as Cirroteuthidae Bairstow, 1952 (=emend.
Cirrhoteuthidae Keferstein, 1865).

3.75. Family name based on Loligo. Incorrect family names based on
Loligo are Loligoidea Lesueur, 1821, and Loligidae d’Orbigny, 1837; the
correct name Loliginidae was first published by Gill in 1871. Citation in the
Treatise: Loliginidae Gill, 1871 (~emend. Loligoidea Lesueur, 1821).

3.76. Familial names based on Cypridina. The genus Cypridina Milne
Edwards, 1840, was chosen as type of a family called Cypridinadae by Baird,
1850, and published first as Cypridinidae by Brady, 1868; Dana in 1852
made first reference to a subfamily named Cypridininae, and Skogsberg in
1920 defined a superfamily called Cypridiniformes. Procedure outlined in
this Circular leads to recognition of Superfamily Cypridinicae Skogsberg,
1920; Family Cypridinidae Baird, 1850; Subfamily Cypridininae Baird,
1850 (not Superfamily Cypridinicae Sylvester-Bradley, 1953; Family Cypri-
dinidae Brady, 1868 ; Subfamily Cypridininae Dana, 1852).

3.717. Family name based on Diplobelus. The generic name Dziplobelus
Naef, 1926, is an objective junior synonym of Diploconus Zittel, 1868 [non
Haeckel, 1860] but valid because of the unavailability of Zittel’s designation
of the genus. Therefore, Diploconidae Naef, 1922, must be replaced by
Diplobelidae Naef, 1926. The suggested form of citation in the Treatise is :
Diplobelidae Naef, 1926 (=emend. Diploconidae Naef, 1922).

3.78. Family name based on Geopeltis. The family name Geoteuthidae
Naef, 1921, based on Geoteuthis Naef, 1921 [non Minster, 1843] must be
replaced by Geopeltidae Altena, 1949, based on Geopeltis Altena, 1949, which
is an objective junior synonym of Geoteuthis Naef. Treatise citation: Geo-
peltidae Altena, 1949 (=emend. Geoteuthidae Naef, 1921).

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 229
4. Nomenclatural Procedure for Suprafamilial Categories in
Treatise

In choosing names for designation of suborders
categories, T'reatise authors are to use their own best judgment, no standard
endings for these ranks having been adopted. It is desired, however, that

the author and date of first publication of terms used shall be included in
manuscript.

and higher taxonomic

230 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

DOCUMENT 3/26
By JOSHUA L. BAILY, Jr.
(San Diego, California, U.S.A.)
Statement received on 24th June 1952

The name of a family should always be derived from that of its typical
genus. The proposal of a family name should always be construed as a designa-
tion of the genus from which the family name has been derived as the typical
genus of the family, and the designation of a genus as typical of a family should
be construed as a proposal of a family name derived from that of the genus.
Possibly some confusion may result temporarily from a strict application of
such a rule, but the final result will be beneficial.

I know of only three instances of family names not derived from the name of
their typical genera; in each instance the family name has been rejected in
favor of one formed from that of the typical genus and this step has met with
universal approval. The first of these is the stREPoMATIDAE. When Tryon
published his monograph of this family in the Smithsonian Miscellaneous
Collections in 1873 he used the name Plewocera instead of Strepoma because
Pleurocera was first published, but he called the family sTREPOMATIDAE.
However, by common consent this name has been abandoned in favor of
PLEUROCERIDAE. Incidentally, the last name is badly formed; the name of
the genus is not Latin but Greek, and the family name should be PLEURO-
CERATIDAE ; when it is decided to establish an Official List of Family Names and
a corresponding Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family Names, 1 shall
request that these two names be placed on the appropriate lists to validate
PLEUROCERATIDAE and reject PLEUIOCERIDAE.

The next family is the cypRINIDAE, from its typical genus Cyprina. The
rules require that the family name can be changed only when the name of the
typical genus is changed. In this case Cyprina dates from Lamarck 1822.
An earlier name for the same genus is Arctica Schumacher, 1817. In the
English translation of Zittel’s Textbook of Paleontology by Kastman this family
has been renamed PLEUROPHORIDAE, changing not only the family name but
also the genus from which the name is to be derived. I should think aRcTicrDAE
would have been a preferable name.

The third family is the TETHYMELIBIDAE, named for two of its genera,
Tethys and Melibe. At the time this family name was first devised, the name
Tethys was an illegal one for this genus, which was properly called Fimbria ;
recently the Commission has suppressed the name Fimbria and an earlier use
of Tethys—and has validated the name Tethys for this genus. But since the
family name TETHYMELIBIDAE goes back at least as far as the Cambridge
Natural History of 1895, long before the validation of Tethys, it would seem to
me that MELIBIDAE would be the preferable name for the family. I would
request that a rule be adopted to make the family name agree with the generic
name of the typical genus in every instance, and the designation of either a
family name or a typical genus of a family be construed to include the other,
and that the three families hereinabove discussed be known hereafter as
PLEUROCERATIDAE, ARCTICIDAE, and MELIBIDAE.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 231

Para. 16

The name to be given to a family in cases where that family is formed by
uniting two previously established families should be the older of the two
family names converned. Three alternatives are discussed in the Bulletin.
One is that the name of the composite family should be derived from that of
its oldest genus; another is that the name of the family used by the first
reviser should stand. These possibilities, after discussion, were rejected on
adequate grounds. I am in complete sympathy with this argument. But the
third possibility, which is recommended in the Bulletin, seems to me equally
objectionable, because it contains the modifying phrase ‘‘ each family for this
purpose being identified by the type species of its type genus.”’ I believe that
the older of the two family names be accorded priority irrespective of whether
a type species has ever designated for its type genus. I cannot recall any
instance of the union of two families except where originally there was but one,
subsequently divided, in which case the union of the two resultant families
simply restores the original single family. In such a case the original name
should be restored as well, but the ruling recommended in the Bulletin might
make it necessary to use a new name and discard the original one. It might
easily be that the younger of two family names might be derived from the
first genus to have a type species designated, we would then have to use the
younger of the two family names. This would unnecessarily complicate matters,
since there is no similar requirement for a family formed in any other way.

Para. 34

The use of the expression “ tribe’ for a group below the family level is to
be deprecated. In ordinary parlance, a tribe is a group of families, such as a
tribe of Indians, or the tribes of Israel. In zoological nomenclature the same
usage has been established, and a new meaning for the term is not desirable.
Also the statement that the termination “-INI” for tribes is commonly
accepted is probably not correct. I do not recall ever having encountered a
tribe having that termination. Some tribes take the ending ‘“ -GLOSSA,”
some ‘“‘-SIDA,” some “ -MORPHA,” and some “-GNATHA,” according as
to the anatomical feature upon which the tribe is based. I do not recommend
any change in the present practice.

Para. 40

The statement that the names of superfamilies generally have the termina-
tion ‘‘-OIDEA ” surprises me. The only work that I can now recall in which
this termination has been used is Hannibal’s work on the fresh water Mollusca
of California which he published in the Proceedings of the Malacological Society
of London. Every other writer, as far as I know, uses the termination “ -ACEA ”
for superfamilies. This is a practice which I would like to have perpetuated.

Para. 43

There seems to be no good reason for establishing Official Lists for names of
categories above the genus level. Species exist in nature ; rules governing the
names of such are necessary, and Official Lists are helpful. Specific names
include generic names, so that similar provisions are needed for them. Family
names are based upon generic names, and rules may be needed, but I am dubious

232 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

as to value of an Official List of Family Names. In any case, families do not
exist in nature and their names are not included in specific names. And names
of higher categories are merely names of mental conceptions. To compile lists
of official names of these conceptions is likely to get the commission into the
business of legislating on matters that are not exclusively nomenclatorial, by
perpetuating, not objects or names, but mental conceptions.

DOCUMENT 3/27

Statement of the views of the scientific staff of the
ROYAL ONTARIO MUSEUM OF ZOOLOGY AND PALAEONTOLOGY,
TORONTO, CANADA
Enclosure to a letter dated 26th June 1952, from Dr. F. A. Urquhart, Director
(For the text of the above letter, see Document 1/39)

Family Names (Commission’s Reference Z.N.(S.)357)
OUR PROPOSED SUGGESTION

One of the great difficulties facing systematic workers who are involved in
university lectures is to plan an adequate course which will give the students
some basic idea of the importance of Latin and Greek in the formation of our
scientific words. We realise that a short course is most inadequate’ and leads
to all sorts of difficulties. May we therefore make the following simple
suggestion ?

If such is possible (and we realise the difficulties that would be mvolved)
we would propose two alternatives :—

(a) that a set of rules be arranged by a committee, set up for this purpose,
which rules will apply to the formation of scientific names throughout
the field of systematic zoology. These rules would perhaps have a
part bearing upon Greek and Latin and in part on modern usage.
Perhaps a scheme similar to that proposed by Dr. Blackwelder
might be formulated ;

(b) that the ending of all names for genera, species and subspecies be
made constant. We realise that this would be a very drastic
change and perhaps an oversimplification. However, in view of
the fact that we now have uniform endings for the names for sub-
families, families and tribes, we feel justified in suggesting that we
go still further and have uniform endings for names for the genus,
species and subspecies. After considerable discussion, we came to
the conclusion that the ending of the name for a genus, species or
subspecies added nothing to the word itself except considerable
difficulties in ascertaining the gender of the word concerned. We
were also of the unanimous opinion that our major interest was in
the object and not in the word applied to the object. Whether
the word in its derivation is masculine or feminine we feel adds
absolutely nothing to whether the animal concerned is masculine
or feminine. In view of the fact that the vast majority of our
specific names, particularly in invertebrate zoology, end in either

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 233
“us,” “a” or “um” we proffer the following suggestion: that
all generic names might end in ‘“‘us,” that all specific names might
end in “‘ a”’ and subspecific names in “‘ um.”

This discussiou may have only a partial bearing upon the problem of family
names discussed under the Commission’s reference number Z.N.(8.)357. How-
ever, it is discussed at this point since it has a definite bearing on family and
subfamily names.

We unanimously agree with your conclusion given at the end of paragraph
11, on page 71 of volume 7, part 3.

We unanimously agree that the general rule would be that a name is to be
treated as having been published as a family name only when the term used
for this purpose was formed with the termination ‘‘ -IDAE.”

We unanimously agree that this scheme might make it clear that a family
name is not subject to change when the nominal genus upon which it is based
is subjectively identified with another nominal genus having an older available
name, and to make this subject to the proviso that, where specialists in the
group concerned desire that in such a case the name of the family concerned
should be changed, it shall be open to them to make application to the Com-
mission accordingly.

We unanimously agree that, of the two methods discussed by you for
determining which of two or more competing family names should be accepted
in preference to the others, we prefer the mechanism of the first reviser, as
described by you in paragraph 19, page 77 of volume 7, part 3.

We could not appreciate the force of the objections advanced by Professor
Jeannel.* It is our unanimous opinion that the ending of the word is not the
significant part of the word in so far as the particular object is concerned.
Whether the word is masculine or feminine is, in so far as we are concerned,
of very little importance.

We unanimously agree with your recommendation as given at the bottom
of paragraph 32, page 85 of volume 7, part 3.

We unanimously agree that the name of a tribe is to be formed by the
addition of the termination “ -INI” to the stem of the name of the type genus
of the tribe concerned and that the names of tribes are to be subject to the
same rules as, and are to be co-ordinate with, the names of families and sub-
families.

We unanimously agreed that we have not found it convenient to recognise
the category “ supergenus.’”’ However, we are well aware of its present usage
and the degree of variation in its application. We would however be agreeable
to any conclusions which may be presented to you from those who have con-
sistently used the supergenus and wish to have it included in the rules.

We unanimously agree that the revised scheme should contain a provision
prescribing that the name of a superfamily is to be formed by adding the term-
ination “-OIDEA ” to the stem of the name of the type genus of one of the
included families. Further, that the names of superfamilies shall be co-ordinate
with the names of families and that such names shall rank for priority by

*See Document 3/9.

234 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

reference to the dates on which they were severally published as such, and not
by reference to the relative priority of the names of the families comprised in
the superfamily concerned.

We unanimously agree that a strong recommendation should be submitted
for the establishment of an Official List of Family Names in Zoology and that
such should form a part of the revised scheme for the regulation of family
names.

F. A. Urquhart,

Director,

Royal Ontario Museum of
Zoology and Palaeontology,
University of Toronto.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 235

DOCUMENT 3/28

By HENNING LEMCHE
(Uniwersitetets Zoologisk Museum, Copenhagen)

“Enclosure to a letter dated 30th June 1953

Remarks to the Proposals Concerning Family Names in Zoology

(Z.N.(S.)359)

General Remarks.—The purpose of our Commission is to decide in
questions that cannot be regulated in the normal way by common agreement
among authors. Thus, we are to leave to the scientists themselves to run
their science as long as they are able to do it without controversies, and we
help them therein by giving them the general advice through the Reégles.
The point, however, is that we have no means by which we can force anybody
to do any special thing. We must never forget that we cannot make laws,
but that our Regles are in fact nothing but strong recommandations. If we
fail to make the Regles useful, there will come a day when the scientists will
lose their patience and break the Regles intentionally, and then we will have
that anarchy in nomenclature, which we all aim at escaping.

Therefore, it is constantly to be remembered that any single superfluous
word in the Régles is most harmful, as it adds to the difficulties involved in
their interpretation. The Régles must be clear, short and easy to handle. If
there is a topic where the free action of the scientists does not do any serious
harm, we should make no Regles that could be broken. This is the case in
the problem about a detailed ruling on the names of families, etc., as I will
try to show.

There ought to be a regulation of some kind that no commonly accepted
name is to be altered for nomenclatorial reasons except after special decision
by the Commission. This would place the burden of trouble on the shoulders
of the man who wants to change, and not on those people who want to work
with unchanged tools.

I would propose that, instead of all the detailed provisions in nearly every
paragraph that the Commission is to be asked for exceptions, there should
be incorporated in the Régles a very short sentence saying that: “In every
single case where it furthers the stability of nomenclature and is in the interest
of the zoological science to make exceptions from the Reégles, the Commission
has the power to make that decision.”

Probably, this sentence could be added to Article 1.

Special Notes

Para. 6.—It is a good idea to have a schedule explaining how to make
the Latinized names properly. Such a schedule should be no part of the
Régles themselves, but merely recommandations. Then, any failure to adhere
to this advice could be no source of trouble, and we can be sure that some
such failures will show up even in spite of the best schedule. However, the
schedule should not be too intricate in order to be complete. Better leave
the minor points out of consideration. Should some more important error

236 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

appear, the Commission could be asked to rule. This would give the Com-
mission much less trouble than if detailed Régles are established and—because
of their complexity—constantly broken inadvertently.

Paras. 7-10.—Is there any reason why incorrectly formed family names
should not be treated as the spelling mistakes they in fact are? The Regles
concerning spelling mistakes could easily be made to comprise these cases.
I am against any special ruling in this matter.

Instead of introducing “laws” it is better to make recommandations.
Then, people will have a “ guide ” as to what to do properly, without possibility
of endless debates arising out of minor failures. The difficulties in nomenclature
up till now have most often been that the Régles were too strict.

Para. 11.—The first thing to do is to find out whether or not it is at all
advisable to establish any Official List of Family Names.

(1) If we are to protect the family names in the same way as generic and
specific names, it is absolutely logical that we also make the proposed list.
The problem is, however, whether it will be useful to us to be logical. Logic
can be carried to such an extent that it hampers practical work and gives
birth to bureaucratism. We must avoid that.

(2) Till now, we know very little concerning the effects of the lists of generic
and specific (trivial) names arranged for earlier. So, it is a little early to judge
the usefulness of such lists and we are to be a little reluctant to establish new
ones if not absolutely necessary. Every complication is to be avoided.

(3) Regarding priority, there are the same problems about genera and
about families, but the weight of the arguments is different. Closely related
nominal genera may or may not be identical in practice, but, still, if we change
from one nominal genus to another with a different type species we also change
the concept of the genus a little, because it becomes a new “ centre.” We
cannot avoid this difficulty on the generic level if we want stability in the
generic names. So, we take a minor trouble to avoid a major one. It is,
however, no absolute consequence that the same reasoning is valid on the
family level. If we change from one nominal genus to another, we change
the name totally, and repeated changing will mean that names show up and
disappear totally all the time. This is the major trouble. On the family
level, however, it is the ending, only, that is new. The genus on which the
family name is based will be in the family all the time, and so it is much easier
to trace the meaning of a new family name. Therefore, the same problem
is a minor one, only, on the family level.

(4) Consequently, what is the basic problem in our case is to find out
whether the lack of uniformity in family names is such a trouble that it is
preferable to introduce a ruling similar to that concerning genera. Or, will
it be preferable to leave every author free to choose the centre of his family-
concepts around any genus he might prefer ?

I have not myself been working enough on the family-level in taxonomy
to be able to answer this question properly, but I find a most lucid discussion
thereof in the remarks of the Secretary in the paragraph discussed here. He

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 237

states that ‘“‘ there is no doubt that authors should be free to choose as the
type genus for a family whatever genus he may regard as the most represen-
tative... .”

Consequently, families established on different type genera cannot have
“ priority ’’ over each other. Then, there can be only historical reasons to
place authors’ names behind a given family name (see below) and an Official
Tast of Family Names becomes illogical as it would say only that a family based
on a certain type genus is to be called so and so—which is exactly what is
told us in the Article 4.

Para. 12.
Para. 13.—The problem disappears if no priority status is introduced.

Paras. 14-15.—The clear thing to do is to state that family names are
to be derived from their typical genus. As long as authors do not agree in
the taxonomic question of what is the better type genus to choose, stability
cannot be attained by any nomenclatorial means whatsoever. So, again the
problem disappears if no priority status is given to family names. Exceptional
cases can be handled by the Commission, but I think they will be very few.
They will not by far run to the number of cases that will arise if we introduce
the idea of priority here.

See the remarks to para. 25.

Paras. 16-20.—All these problems disappear if no priority status is intro-
duced.

Paras. 21-24.—Here, we better have to refer to a general rule that the
Commission has the power to regulate in every single case where stability
is threatened by strictly following the Regles. (See the General Remarks.)

Para. 25.—In the case of species or genera, the authors’ name and date
is necessary because we have to know whether the name in question applies
to some given species (genus) or a totally different one used for something
else by some other author at another time. The purpose is not to carry any
record on the history of zoology. It is absolutely necessary to remember that
nomenclature is a practical tool—to be used for working purposes. If nomen-
clature is made a museum exhibition for the history of zoology, it will become
a burden and not a help to taxonomy.

Turning now to the question of how to treat the family names, all that
is left of the reasons for citing authors’ names, etc., is the historical one. The
family is bound to be defined by its typical genus from which the family name
is derived. Later authors, if using the same type genus, are bound to use
the same family name, even if the width they give their family concept is very
different from that which the original author held. So the original author
will be credited for having established a family concept that is totally different
from what were his intentions when he actually made it. So the historical
record that is kept in citing the authors is a false record.

According to the discussion to para. 11 by the Secretary, authors using
other genera as types must be regarded as using other nominal family concepts.
Priority does not come in here at all. The arising practice of citing authors in
connection with family names is simply a needless taking over of something

238 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

useful in other cases (genera) to a sphere (families) where it is of no—or rather
negative—value. So, we will save ourselves from endless troubles if we do
not rule anything concerning priority in family names, and this is the reason
for my proposed parenthesis to the first sentence in Article 4.

Moreover, the citation of authors in families could even be made useful
if the meaning of it was changed so that if an author is cited, this would mean
“sensu author date.’ In order to avoid misunderstandings, however, it seems
preferable, then, always to use the word “sensu.’’ We should, at least, not
prevent a development along such a line by introducing a procedure that is
of no use.

Paras. 26-28.—-The problems disappear if no priority status is introduced.
(A single remark to para. 26: why should we make nomenclatorial rulings
about how to tell the history of zoology ?)

Para. 29.—I fail to see that any regulation is necessary on the family
level, as the problem is solved already through the rulings concerning generic
names. In the few cases where similarity in family names arises out of deriv-
ations from different generic names, the Commission would have the power
to decide from the general rule of the powers of the Commission in every single
case where confusion is threatening.

Paras. 30-32.—I agree.
Para. 33.—The problem disappears if no priority status is introduced.

Para. 34.—Although I agree that the category of “tribe” is sufficiently
well established to be regulated in some way, I disagree in the theoretical
considerations. Before Darwin, the animal system was regarded as something
formal. Then we have had a period where the theory of descendence has
been a governing factor in zoology. Modern experience, however, begins to
show that it may always be impossible to work out detailed “ true ”’ relation-
ships, because the tracks through which genes are inherited through the ages
are so extremely interwoven. So, in ruling as if the idea of phylogenetical
relationships were the only one possible in zoology, we might cause trouble
the day this idea is no more held.

Para. 35.—I fail to see the need of special names in such cases. Then,
we could continue endlessly. Authors wanting to indicate groups in between
our better recognised levels could easily do so by using symbols (Roman and
Arabic figures, capital letters, etc.). We do not want over-systematising in
nomenclature.

Para. 36.— People that do not know what is a tribe do not need any advice
through our Régles—they will have to ask their professor. We have no de-
finition, either, of the concept of a family, or a genus, or even a species. All
this is outside our scope. We must avoid superfluous matter in order to keep
our Régles clear and short.

Paras. 37-38.—I cannot find any necessity for ruling about supergenera.
It is not appropriate to introduce the practice that if some author invents a
new category, we will have to rule about it and give it a definite status in nomen-
clature (compare the remarks to para. 35).

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 239

Para. 39.

Para. 40.—Why not simply use the termination idea? The superfamily
is very close to a family, and the category is not very widely used ; why not,
therefore, use a termination similar to that of the family ? Then, we could
possibly spare the termination -oidea for—say—orders.

I agree.

(As discussed in detail elsewhere, I do not agree that we are to accept
as final the diversity of name endings in orders.)

Para. 41.—I fail to see the reason for ruling about superfamily names
in any other way than stating that they are to be co-ordinate with the name
of their type family. As in family names, the question of priority cannot
come up at all. Such rulings would be taxonomical not any of nomenclature.
Don’t paralyse taxonomy in order to avoid some few inco-ordinate jerks.

From all the above considerations, it seems to me that we could reduce
the number of necessary Regles to the few given below :—

Article 4
The name of a superfamily is formed by adding -idea (or -oidea), the name

of a family by adding the ending -idae, the name of a subfamily by adding
-inae, and that of a tribe by adding -ini to the stem of the name of its type genus.

(N.B.—Authors’ names are no part of family, etc., names.)

The name of the nominotypical family (subfamily, tribe) is to be derived
from the same generic name as that of the superfamily (family, subfamily).

No more than one family, etc., can bear the same name. In cases of
homonymy, one of the names is to be changed by the International Commission.

(Recommandation : Authors are urgently requested to choose their type
genera in such a way that homonymy will not appear.)

(Note: The family concept is the only one of those cited that is obligatory.)

Article 5

The name of a superfamily, family, subfamily or tribe is to be changed
whenever its typical genus is changed.

Incorrectly formed family, etc., names are to be treated according to the
general rulings concerning spelling mistakes.

(Recommandation: If the error is small and harmless and stability has
been attained, authors should not be too interested in changing, but better
wait until the fifty years’ limit has been reached and the name thus becomes
protected*.)

If the name of a nominal genus for some family, etc., is changed or—for
the reason that it is by some other author regarded as a junior homonym
to some other nominal genus—the name of the family, etc., is to be changed
accordingly except in every single case where the Commission decides that it
should be otherwise.

*This Recommendation is only to be added in the case that a law of prescription is introduced
making invalid all names that have not been used for fifty years.

240 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

DOCUMENT 3/29

By A. MYRA KEEN and SIEMON W. MULLER
(Stanford University, Stanford, California, U.S.A.)

Enclosure to a letter dated 1st July 1952

Comments on the Proposed Clarification, Amendment and
Expansion of the Provisions in the “ Régles” Relating to the
Formation of the Names of Families

So many complications arise when an attempt is made to extend the Regles
to cover categories higher than the genus that the task seems to us fruitless,
adding a burden of bibliographic research to the work of the systematist that
serves no really useful purpose. The concept of a family is a fluid one, changing
both with time and with the viewpoint of the worker. The labor involved in
establishing who in the past first used the currently acceptable combination of
letters, or even—if one broadens the base—of determining who first used the
word “family” in connection with a given group, seems to us a sterile and
pedantic waste of time. The only point we would see in using the name and
date of an author would be to indicate that the family as cited in a report
includes the genera grouped therein by that author.

As to the collateral question (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 7:89, paragraph 40)
concerning name endings for superfamilies: The termination “-ACEKA” is,
in Mollusca, more frequently used than “-OIDEA.” We feel that either of
these is preferable to the termination “ -ICAE ” favored by some workers.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 241
DOCUMENT 3/30

Statement of the views of the
COMMITTEE ON NOMENCLATURE OF THE AMERICAN MUSEUM OF
NATURAL HISTORY, NEW YORK

Enclosure to a letter dated 10th July 1952
(For an extract from the above letter, see Document 1/41 (p. 71))

Z.N.(S.)357. Rules for Naming Families and Suprageneric Categories
of Lower Rank: Family names are to be formed by adding “‘ -IDAE ”’ to the
stem of the name of the type genus. Names will date from the first author to use
the name (regardless of its ending) in a suprageneric sense, not merely as a
plural reference to the members of some particular genus. The type genus is
not to be changed and is not necessarily the oldest genus or generic name in the
family. Family names may be changed by the Commission in case of homonymy.
Family names are not to be changed if the name of the type genus is changed
(requiring repeal of Article 5); if necessary to avoid confusion, the Com-
mission should place the generic name on the Official List.

The proposed necessity for citing author and date for family names may be
questioned. In how many groups is this done ? The proposal that the priority
of family names should be established on the basis of the family name whose
type genus first had its type species elevated to that position is highly objection-
able. It should, as a rule, be on strict priority of family names, with all cases
to be decided by the Commission when undue confusion would be entailed by
change.

Subfamily names (“-INAE”’) and tribes (“-INI’’) are co-ordinate with
families as to formation of names, priorities, etc. Supergenera are of question-
able status and of doubtful value as standard groups requiring standard endings.
Rather, they are informal groupings of related genera and should not be
standardized. They would, in any case, be co-ordinate with genera. We fail
to see how this would occasion displacement of established generic names by
downgrading, as claimed, since their names would be based on the names of
the type genera.

Superfamilies shall be co-ordinate with families (oidea).

An Official List of Family Names is recommended with also an Official
Index of Rejected and Invalid Family Names.

A.M.N.H. Committee on Nomenclature,
(Signed) Edwin H. Colbert,
John T. Nichols,
Ernst Mayr,
George H. H. Tate,
John T, Zimmer (Chairman).

bo
rs
bo

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

DOCUMENT 3/31

Statement submitted on behalf of the
NOMENCLATURE DISCUSSION GROUP, WASHINGTON, D.C.

Enclosure to a letter dated 16th July 1952, from
Dr. R. E. BLACK WELDER, Secretary

Family Names (Z.N.(S.)357)

No attempt was made to cover all points under this subject, but after
considerable discussion at an open meeting, the membership was canvassed
on several particularly important and potentially controversial points. It
appears that interest in the subject is especially high in the field of entomology,
for twenty-one of the twenty-seven ballots received were from entomologists.

(1) The vote was unanimous (27 to 0) in disapproving the proposal to
date family names from the time of their first publication with an “ -IDAE ”
termination, and in approving instead the dating of names from their first
proposal as a supergeneric category based on an included genus.

(2) The vote was overwhelming (25 to 1, with one not voting) in disapproving
the dating of competing family names from the respective dates on which
the type species of their type genera were fixed, and preferring instead the
respective dates of proposal as supergeneric categories, as approved in the
first question above.

(3) With reference to the status of family names when the name of the
type genus of the family is found to be a synonym, opinion was much more
divided, although majorities were recorded in each case :—

(a) By a vote of 17 to 8 (two not voting), approval was registered for
not changing family names when the familiotype comes to be regarded
as a junior subjective synonym.

(b) By a vote of 16 to 9 (two not voting), disapproval was registered
on the proposal to change family names when the familiotype is found
to be a junior objective synonym.

With one exception, the majorities on these two questions were composed
of the same people. In other words, sixteen of the twenty-five voting taxo-
nomists approved basing a family name on a generic name even after it falls
into synonymy, whether subjective or objective. One would not change in
cases of subjective synonymy, but would for objective. Eight would change
the family name in both types of case,

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 243

DOCUMENT 3/32

By C. W. WRIGHT
(London)

Enclosure to a letter dated 18th July 1952

Comments on Questions Relating to the Regulation of Family
Names Raised in Part 3 of Volume 7 of the “ Bulletin of
Zoological Nomenclature ”

Para. 6

In the light of experience of authors who are otherwise good nomenclaturists,
I think that a Schedule is essential !

Para. 14

I agree that priority must date from the concept, the name following the
generic name.

Para. 15

I feel strongly that the name of a family is so closely involved with the
name of the type genus that the rule must be that it changes whenever the
name of the type genus is validly changed but that where specialists desire
the family name NOT to be changed application may be made to the Commission.
The principle should surely be that in the permanent rules logic should be
served, with provision for the meeting of expediency by the granting of
exceptions by the Commission. Otherwise the Rules will become a hotch potch.

Para. 18
I agree emphatically.

Para. 20

I feel strongly that exceptions should be granted only on the same basis
and to the same extent as in the case of generic names. After all in most
phyla the number of actual users of family names in any generation amount
to only a few dozens and, if the Official List policy works, the problem will be
rapidly reduced in size.

Paras. 21-24

The solution lies in (6) of para. 24. The desirability of retaining a family
name should be made explicitly one of the factors to be taken into account
when applications relating to generic names are considered. I am most averse
to any provision that would in any circumstances allow the retention of family
names with no nominotypical genus, as this is flatly contradictory to the
whole basis of familial nomenclature in the Rules.

Para. 26

I agree but suggest that the full method of citation should be : “ RIODINIDAE
(Grote, 1895: ERYCINIDAE) Swainson, 1827” which gives the chronology in
the right order.

244 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Para. 32

I agree but consider that provision should be made for method of citation
—in my view, and I believe yours, this is correctly ‘“‘ A-IDAE (A-INAE) ” with
NO author and date for the nominotypical subcategory.

Para. 40

I disagree with the suggestion of ‘‘-OIDEA”’—see Arkell’s comments
with which I agree. Surely if superfamilies go with families, one essential
is that they should end in “ -AE” ; Treatise of Invert. Pal. at one time favoured
‘“ ACEAE”’ but now apparently has gone over to ‘ -ICAK,”’ which has the
merit of corresponding well with “-IDAE” and “ -INAE.”

DOCUMENT 3/33

By E. RAYMOND HALL
(University of Kansas, Department of Zoology, Lawrence, Kansas, U.S.A.)

Enclosure to a letter dated 22nd July 1952

Use on basis of priority; probably we should not interpret priority to
depend on the ending “-IDAE ” for the family names.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 245

DOCUMENT 3/34

Statement submitted on behalf of the NOMENCLATURE COMMITTEE
OF THE SOCIETY OF SYSTEMATIC ZOOLOGY

Letter, dated 23rd July 1952, with enclosures, from
Dr. W. I. FOLLETT, Chairman

Families (Z.N.(S.)357)

The Nomenclature Committee of the Society of Systematic Zoology submits
the following recommendations on the naming of families, superfamilies, and
suprageneric categories of lower rank :—

(1) Any genus, not necessarily the oldest included, may be the familiotype.

(2) A family name should date from its first publication as a suprageneric
group name based on an included genus, regardless of the ending employed
and regardless of what the author called his suprageneric category (e.g. family,
stirps, etc.).

(3) The name of a superfamily should be formed by adding “-OIDEA ”
to the stem of the name of one of the included families.

On the remaining aspects of this subject concerning which you have
requested advice, the varying shades of opinion of the committee members
are expressed by the following (copies of which are enclosed in duplicate) :—

(1) Mr. Curtis W. Sabrosky’s summary, discussion, and recommendations
(Appendix 1).

(2) Dr. J. C. Bradley’s remarks upon Mr. Sabrosky’s paper. Dr. Bradley,
as you doubtless realise, is not a member of this committee (Appendix 2).

(3) Mr. Sabrosky’s comments upon Dr. Bradley’s remarks (Appendix 3).

(4) The comments received from each member of the committee who has
expressed his views. You will note that the comments of one member are
submitted on a copy of Mr. Sabrosky’s paper, and are distinguished thereon
by underlining* (Appendix 4).

*The comments which were distinguished in the typescript by underlining are here printed
in bold type.

246 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

APPENDIX1 TO DR. W. I. FOLLETT’S LETTER OF 23RD JULY 1952
Enclosure 1 to Appendix 1 to Dr. Follett’s letter noted above

SUMMARY BY MR. CURTIS W. SABROSKY OF THE SUGGESTIONS
PUT FORWARD BY MR. FRANCIS HEMMING IN VOL. 7 OF THE
“ BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE ” AND COMMENTS
ON THOSE SUGGESTIONS BY PROFESSOR ROBERT L. USINGER

(Note : In the typescript submitted to the International Commission, Professor
Usinger’s comments were distinguished by being underlined. In the
present version those comments are distinguished by being printed in
‘bold ”’ type.)

Z.N.(S.)357: Names of Families and Co-ordinate Categories
(“ Bull. zool. Nomencl.” 7 (pt. 3) : 61-94; March 15, 1952)

(Summary by Curtis W. Sabrosky)

Summary of Mr. Hemming’s Proposals (Arabic numerals below correspond
to paragraph numbers in the Bull. zool. Nomencl. For brevity, I use “* familio-
type” (type genus of a family). The expression “ etc., etc.” takes the place
of the details of application to the Comm., public notice, etc.)
(a) NAMES OF FAMILIES AND SUBFAMILIES
STEM :
4-6: The key feature of Article 4 (the “stem’’) “seems inevitable ”
and “‘ must be maintained.” It is proposed to add a Schedule of criteria
for determining the stem of Latin and Greek nouns. (A modification of
the Paris action (B.Z.N. 4: 246), back toward classicism.) O.K. a la
Grensted and Sabrosky.
8-9 : For family names published prior to the effective date of the Schedule
on stems :—

(x) Ifthey have never been emended “ on etymological or philological
grounds,” no emendation will be permitted after that date (whether
name is correctly or incorrectly formed).

(xx) If an emendation already exists, the Commission can direct,
upon application, etc., etc., that it be accepted.

O.K.
10: For new family names, after the effective date, the Schedule rules
will be mandatory, and incorrectly formed names will be “subject to
automatic emendation.” O.K.

TYPE:
11: Any genus, not necessarily the oldest included, may be the familotype
(Opinions 133 and 141 reaffirmed). O.K.

SUBFAMILY NAMES:
30-32 : To be governed by the same rules as family names, except that
they shall end in “-INAE,” and that the subfamily containing the type
genus of the family shall be formed on the same stem as the family name.

O.K.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 247

33: Family and subfamily names are co-ordinate in value (comparable
to provisions in Articles 6-7 and 11-12 of the Code). O.K.

DATE OF PUBLICATION :

12-13 : A family name is to be considered established only when published
with the termination “‘-IDAE,” except that for cases before 1850, the Com-
mission may direct otherwise, on application, etc., etc. (See also paragraphs
25 and 14.) Agree with Sabrosky.

AUTHOR:

25: The author of a family name is the one who first published it (pre-
sumably in line with 12-13), save that a substitute name (14) should be
attributed to the author and date of the original name which is replaced.

See Sabrosky.
CITATION :

26: Comparable to Article 22 of the Code, with special provision for
recording substitute names (14, 25). O.K.

CHANGE OF NAME OF FAMILIOTYPE :

14: In cases of generic homonymy, the resulting substitute family name
is to be based on the substitute generic name, and is to be back-dated
to the original proposal of the family. O.K. but dual author and date.

29: Rules for determining generic homonymy, being fundamental to
generic names and hence also pertinent to the question of family names,
should apply also to family names based on those generic names (cf. B.Z.N.
4: 130-131, 161-162, 243). O.K.

15: If the familiotype becomes a junior subjective synonym, the family
name should not be changed, unless specialists apply to the Comm., etc.,
etc. O.K.

21-24 : Two items are linked as being one nomenclatorial problem: (x)
Family names not based on an included genus, and (xx) the proposal by
some zoologists that family names should not be changed when the familio-
type is found to be a junior objective synonym. “In each of these cases
the only nomenclatorial issue is whether circumstances are ever so exceptional
that it is desirable to waive the requirement that a family name must be
based upon the oldest objectively available name for its type genus.”
(Italics mine.) Mr. Hemming believes that zoologists will wish a provision
for exceptions, but he also believes that the general feeling is that exceptions
should be made “only on very rare occasions, and where the need for
maintaining stability for the name of the family concerned is exceptionally
strong.” He believes it an “‘ extremely great ”’ gain to be able to see from
the family name what is the familiotype. He suggests, therefore, that
exceptions should be rare, and should be limited to family names established
“ prior to (say) 1850.” ? No.

FAMILY NAMES IN COMPETITION :

16-19 : In cases of the union of two or more families, the choice of name
for the combined family should be made by priority rather than by a
first-reviser method. Mr. Hemming prefers a rule that competing family

F

248 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

names ‘‘ take precedence as between one another as from the date on
which the type species of the type genera concerned were elevated to that
position.” He chooses this expression, rather than the dates of publication,
“in order to ensure that the concept of a given family should retain its
original priority, even if for nomenclatorial reasons the actual family
name had at some time (to) be changed, the family retaining its identity
however by keeping unchanged the type species of its type genus.”

Yes.

20 : The Commission may, on application, etc., etc., direct the use of a
junior family name over a senior where the former is best known and most
widely used. Of course.

27-28 : Homonymy in family names derived from distinctly different
generic names: If it occurs, the junior homonym is to be rejected; but
specialists may apply for a ruling on which names shall be used, as in the
case of Meropidae-Meropeidae (Opinion 140). O.K.

(6) NAMES OF UNITS BETWEEN SUBFAMILY AND GENUS

34-38 : The Rules should be extended to include (x) names between tribe
and subfamily (to be formed like subfamily names), (xx) names of tribes
(or equivalent units, whatever called) (to be formed with the ending “-INI”’),
and (xxx) names of supergenera (suggestions wanted on the termination
to be adopted). All names are to be co-ordinate with family and subfamily
names, save that supergeneric names “should rank for priority iter se
by reference to the dates on which they were respectively published as such.”’
O.K. but leave out “supergenera.” These belong in generic group—
if necessary.

(c) NAMES OF SUPERFAMILIES

39-42 : As in section (b) above, it is believed desirable to extend the Rules
to cover these names. It is proposed to form such a name by adding
‘“_OIDEA” to the stem of the name of one of the included families. The
names will be co-ordinate with those of families, save that they shall rank
for priority inter se from date of publication as superfamilies. O.K.

(d) OFFICIAL LIST AND OFFICIAL INDEX

43-48 : As has been done for generic names, it is proposed to add Schedules
to the Rules to contain an “ Official List of Family Names in Zoology ”
and an “‘ Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family Names in Zoology.”
The former is to include also subfamily and tribal names, and with provision
for special entry of superfamily and supergeneric names if the qualifications
noted above in (b) and (c) are accepted. O.K. with exception of
supergenera.

(ce) ADVICE SOUGHT

49 : Specialists are asked for their views on the problems, especially on
the suggestions made for solution, and also for any additional aspects
that should be covered. Statements are requested by not later than 31st
July 1952.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 249
Enclosure 2 to Appendix 1 to Dr. Follett’s letter of 23rd July 1952

MR. CURTIS W. SABROSKY’S DISCUSSIONS OF THE SUGGESTIONS

IN RELATION TO THE NAMING OF FAMILIES PUT FORWARD BY

MR. FRANCIS HEMMING IN VOL. 7 OF THE “BULLETIN OF

ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE,” WITH MR. SABROSKY’S RE-

COMMENDATIONS IN REGARD TO THE FOREGOING MATTERS

AND PROFESSOR ROBERT L. USINGER’S COMMENTS ON MR.
SABROSKY’S RECOMMENDATIONS

(Note: As in the case to Enclosure 1 to Appendix 1, Professor Usinger’s
underlined comments are distinguished by being printed in “ bold” type.)

FAMILIES; Z.N.(8.)357. DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
By Curtis W. Sabrosky

Mr. Hemming’s proposals have considerable merit. It is my opinion,
however, that if the final proposal should treat some parts of the problem
in the ways suggested, the solution as a whole will seem cumbersome, involved,
and too dependent on the Commission.

One general simplification which I recommend is to make a positive state-
ment of all provisions, and to eliminate the numerous explanations that
specialists can apply to the Commission if they wish exceptions to be made.
All of these can be taken care of by one final statement that unusual cases
can be presented to the Commission with full particulars. Good.

It should be realised that the establishment of rules for family names
based on the priority of their proposal, and even more important the extension
of such rules on a co-ordinate basis to all categories between supergenus and
superfamily, will impose grave problems and responsibilities for the future.
Very few, if any, groups are adequately catalogued in the matter of suprageneric
categories, and the larger the group, the more complex the problem. An
across-the-board application of any rule will cause upsets of some familar
names. I have often wondered if we might not be farther ahead to organise
international committees in the various phyla and orders, to review the
literature, to follow some rules in general, to agree on arbitrary solutions for
exceptional cases, and finally to produce a list of family names with their
familiotypes and type species. It was such a programme as this which our
Committee started some years ago, but which has been dormant for some
time. It is also comparable to the programme on “ The Generic Names of
British Insects ” being carried out in England, though that project is limited
along national lines. It is perhaps still not too late to recommend such a
programme on an international scale.

As a basis for discussion by our Committee, I wish to submit the following
recommendations, arranged in the order of my summary :—

(a) NAMES OF FAMILIES AND SUBFAMILIES
STEM :
4-6: Approve, but with two suggestions: (x) Recommend that the

F*

{
:
:

250 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Schedule of criteria follow the very reasonable conclusions of Grensted
(1948, Ent. mon. Mag. 84: 280-281) in interpreting certain nouns as
Latinized and thus with a Latin rather than a Greek stem (e.g. ACROCER-IDAE
rather than ACROCERAT-IDAE, based on Acrocera: nouns with Greek
endings, such as Rhinoceros, would continue to follow a Greek stem, thus
RHINOCEROT-IDAE. (xx) Recommend that the Schedule include a general
statement for nouns that are not Latin or Greek, based on a common-sense
use of what appears to be the natural or obvious stem, or the use in some
cases of the entire generic name as the stem. O.K. incl. suggestions.

8-9 : I recommend a vote to omit these sections entirely, as a contribution
to making the rules more simple and direct. Any changes that would
be required by general enforcement of the rules on stems will, as far as I
am aware, be of such minor nature that we should not bother about them.
Examples : Changing PIERIDAE and SEPSIDAE tO PIERIDIDAE and SEPSIDIDAE
is not very earth-shaking. In fact, if such cases are the raison detre of
8-9. I would prefer to see the Schedule of criteria in 4-6 rule arbitrarily
that all family names based on “-IS”’ nouns should be formed simply
and directly by dropping the “* -IS ” and adding “ -IDAE,” thus pieRipax,
EMPIDAE, etc. O.K.

10: If 8-9 is left in, this paragraph is all right, but in lne with my re-
commendation to omit 8-9, I recommend that the mandatory and automatic
emendation features be made applicable to all family names. O.K.

TYPE:
11: Approve, but I suggest that it would be appropriate to add here
the provision, which Mr. Hemming has elsewhere, that the originally
established familiotype is not subject to change, though its mame may
sometimes have to be changed. (Cf. my discussion of paragraphs 25 and

14.) O.K.
SUBFAMILY NAMES:
30-33 : Approve. O.K.
DATE OF PUBLICATION :

12-13 : Disapprove. Instead, | recommend supporting a rule that family
names date from their first publication as a suprageneric group name
based on an included genus, regardless of the ending employed and regardless
of what the author called his suprageneric category (family, stirps, or etc.).
This rule will avoid attempting to decide on a date before which some
names may be validated on other than ** -[DAE ” endings (1850 suggested
by Mr. Hemming), and will avoid the need for and the trouble with apph-
cations to save those old names. Actually, many of the old names which
used other endings, before the “‘-IDAE”’ ending was widely and quickly
accepted, are the old familiar families which everyone will wish to preserve
anyway; e.g. TIPULARIAE Latreille, cuLicrpEs Billberg, TABANII Latreille,
etc. Example of the difficulties that may arise by insistence on the
“ -IDAE ” form: The family name of the moth flies dates from PSyCHODITES
Newman 1834, or (if my present information is complete) from PSYCHODIDAE
Bigot 1854. But if one dates that only from the “-IDAE” ending in

na

~

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 251

1854, then the oldest name for the family is actually FLEBOTOMIDAE Rondani
1840 (emended pHLEBOTOMIDAR Walker 1851). ©O.K. I agree with

Sabrosky.

One small additional point: Mr. Hemming mentions vernacular names,
especially as used by French authors. I see no reason why these might
not be accepted for the older names, provided, however. that it is clear
that they are group names (suprageneric) and not merely a way of referring
in the plural to the species of one genus.

AUTHOR :

25 : Approved except for the “ saving clause.” On the latter. I see no
advantage to he gained by citing a substitute name by the author and
date of the name which is replaced, if the Rules somewhere make clear
(probably under TYPE, par. 11) that the first proposal established the
familiotype for all time, and that it does not change, though its name may
he changed. The proposed citation would be incorrect and confusing from
a bibliographical standpoint. (See also comment under par. 26, following.)
The final wording of the section should of course fit the action taken on
date of publication (12-13). O.K.

CITATION ;

26 : I recommend a proposal that authors and dates shall not be given
for suprageneric names, in the way that they are customarily given for
generic and trivial names. unless the person referring to the names needs
to distinguish between them, as in discussing the suprageneric nomenclature
of a group. I recommend this as a step toward minimising the personal
element as much as possible. Perhaps “ X— Y—” will not propose so
many tribes, sections, subsections, etc., if he knows that the name
“ X— Y—” will not appear every time one is cited.

Some remarks under Author (25) are pertinent here : For substitute names,
T should cite them (using Mr. Hemming’s example) as “ RroprNtDAr Grote,
1895,” or “ RIopINIDAE Grote, 1895 (ERYCINIDAE) Swainson,” or “ RI0-
DINIDAE Grote, 1895 (pro ERYCINIDAE Swainson. 1827) (=x-1DaE West-
wood, 1840), depending on the detail which is necessary or desired.
No. I think authors and dates should be cited.

CHANGE OF NAME OF FAMILIOTYPE:

14: Approve, except for the back-dating. I recommend opposing that
as discussed above under 25 and in part under 26. Back-dating is a method
that would indeed ensure what I have called the “ continuity of the type
concept,” i.e. that a family name should follow the nomenclatorial course
of its original familiotype. I oppose back-dating partly because it is
bibliographically incorrect and misleading, and partly because the rules
would be simplified that much more to eliminate it here and elsewhere.
The goal of continuity, in which I concur with Mr. Hemming, can be attained
more simply and directly by writing the provision into the section on

Type (par. 11). q.v. O.K.
29: Approve. O.K,

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

15 : Approve, but I should make it part of the general problem of synonymy
as I propose to treat it. (See next section, 21-24, under (xx).) O.K.

21-24: | should like first to dispose of my item(x) which is discussed
in paragraph 22 (“Situation arising when a family name is not based
upon the name of a genus included in the family’): I doubt that this
situation exists today, and I recommend that the section be omitted.

O.K. Omit.

It seems probable that this situation has been incorrectly raised to the
status of a current problem by Opinion 141, Summary (3), Note, which
refers to ‘‘ a few well-established family names proposed by early authors ”
but not based on included genera (italics mine, here and below). Actually,
however, in Opinion 133 (upon which 141 is based) Dr. Stiles appears only
to have been mentioning the existence of such names in early times, without
meaning to carry the problem to the present (Opin. 133, p. 42, last para-
graph: “‘ Since (with the exception of isolated instances by early authors)
family names are based .. .”’). Example, in Diptera: The family of the
small-headed flies was first called iInFLATA and then VESICULOSA (VESICU-
LEUX), both names referring to the swollen appearance of the body, and
not based on generic names. But these names were soon abandoned in
favour of such names as ACROCERIDAE, HENOPIDAE and CYRTIDAER, based
respectively on Acrocera, Henops and Cyrtus.

21-24, my item (xx): I recommend opposing Mr. Hemming’s view, and
instead supporting a proposal that family names should not be changed
when the familiotype is found to be a junior synonym, whether objective
or subjective. Mr. Hemming has directed the discussion to the “ excep-
tional” feature, but advocates of the proposal in (xx) above believe that
it should be a regular procedure to aid in future stability of family names,
as Mr. Hemming has agreed in part in paragraph 15. I see no great gain
or value in being able to recognise the current name of the familiotype
in the family name. Non-systematists have neither need nor care for
that, and systematists have no need, for any systematist worthy of his
salt in a group will necessarily know both the senior and junior synonyms.
One could make an equally strong case that it would be an “ extremely
great gain’’ to be able to recognise from the family name what is the
original familiotype. Agree with Sabrosky.

Numerous examples can be cited where such a rule would have avoided
changes of names and thus contributed to stability. The sixteen families
of Diptera that involve Meigen 1800 vs. 1803 names for their familotypes
are good examples: Chironomus 1803 could change to Tendipes 1800
and the family name could have remained cHIRONOMIDAE. French writers
who have used LARVAEVORIDAE (Larvaevora Meigen 1800) still call the
flies “les tachinides.”” One family of Diptera has had four names as a
result of synonymy (successively, RHYPHIDAE, ANISOPODIDAE, PHRYNEIDAE,
SYLVICOLIDAE), when one name RHYPHIDAE could have sufficed. With
all the changes that are bound to come when all five or ten million species
of insects are known, let us plan to avoid any more changes than absolutely
necessary.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 253

FAMILY NAMES IN COMPETITION :

16-19 : | agree with Mr. Hemming in wishing to base a decision on priority
of some sort, but I recommend that our Committee support the priority of
the oldest proposed family name, and not of the designation of the genotype.
His reason, as given above (‘‘to ensure,” etc.), will apply equally well
to my method: Determine the oldest proposed family name, in which
will appear the name of the familiotype, and the concept of that family
will follow the type species of that genus. It seems to me that this is more
simple and direct, and would also tend to preserve continuity and usage
in the older family names. Suppose for example that a family proposed
in 1820 was based on a large genus whose type was not fixed until 1880.
In 1920 another family was proposed for an aberrant genus known from a
single species since 1810. In 1930 an author who combined the two families
would be obliged under Mr. Hemming’s proposal to reject the century-old
family name and adopt the younger one, which happened to have the
oldest fixed genotype. The principle of oldest proposed family name also
enters into paragraphs 20 and 27-28. Agree with Sabrosky.
20: I recommend omitting this as a separate provision (see my second
paragraph of discussion). O.K.
27-28 : Approve, but the rule needs to say more than merely that the
junior homonym is to be rejected. What shall take its place ? Specialists
can, of course, apply as they did for Opinion 140, but will they always have
to? Are there any directions that can be given to apply to most: cases 2
On the other hand, perhaps homonymy in family names is so relatively
uncommon that all cases should be arbitrarily decided by the Commission
upon advice from specialists in the affected group. It will not always be
as easy to arrive at distinct family names as it was in the case of MEROPIDAE
and MEROPEIDAE. Incidentally, it occurs to me now that MEROPSIDAE
would have been a better name for the former, by carrying the full generic
name and thus being the more characteristically distinct from MEROPEIDAE.
O.K.

(6) NAMES OF UNITS BETWEEN SUBFAMILY AND GENUS

34-38 : Approve, except for the saving clause on the supergeneric names.
The argument of “ preventing displacement of an established” name by
downgrading of an older name from a higher level could as well be applied
to any category. Treating them thus would set up a special case within
a case. If they are to be based on generic names, by adding some appro-
priate ending to the stem of the supergenotype, it would seem to me best
to incorporate them completely into the system. O.K. but delete
“ Supergenus.”
(c) NAMES OF SUPERFAMILIES

39-42 : Approve, except for the saving clause on the priority inter se
of the names. It seems to me that these also may as well be co-ordinated
completely with the system. Their existence should never complicate the
priority of family names, for they will be formed from already existing
family names. If superfamilies are combined, of course, then one may
reasonably require, as with the union of two or more families (par. 16-19).
that one should select the first to be proposed as a superfamily. O.K.

254 Bulletin of Zoolcgical Nomenclature

(d) OFFICIAL LIST AND OFFICIAL INDEX

43-48 : Approve, though the book work of this kind is becoming a bit
deep. In a paper of mine submitted to the Commission on the subject of
family names in March 1946 (not published*) ; see also my article in Amer.
Nat. 81 : 153-160, 1947), I myself proposed an Official List of Family Names.
T envisioned, however, not a maintained list to which names would be added
periodically, but a planned undertaking to encompass the whole subject and
produce a solid and useful reference work (see last half of the third para-
graph of my discussion). O.K.

(e) ADVICE SOUGHT

A few points that should be covered in the proposal on family names, in
addition to several already mentioned, are as follows :—

(x) In paragraph 14 (cases of generic homonymy), what about those
cases in which the junior homonym is not renamed, but is
replaced by the next available synonym? If the junior
homonym and its synonym are isogenotypic, no harm is done,
for the type species is the same. If, however, they are not:
isogenotypic, there is a break in the continuity. (Example :
ORTALIDAE (Diptera), based on Ortalis, preoccupied in Aves ;
the name now commonly used is oTrTmak, based on Otites,
a different genus than Ortalis, though fortunately a very near
relative.) The junior homonym should be renamed and
this should become the valid name!

xx isidentife enotypes and their relation to the family name
Misidentified g yp d thei lati he f: ily
problem.

(xxx) The proposed endings for superfamily and tribe are widely used in
insects, but not so in other groups. Should consideration be
given to setting up different rules for different Phyla, where
uniformity may already have been reached on other endings
(such as “‘-IFORMES’’)? Optional upon appl. to Comm.
“~OIDEA” and “-INI” O.K.

*The paper here referred to is here published as Document 3/5 (pp. 171-176).

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 255
APPENDIX 2 TO DR. W. I. FOLLETT’S LETTER OF 23RD JULY 1952

DR. J. CHESTER BRADLEY’S COMMENTS ON THE SUGGESTIONS
MADE IN THE PAPER BY MR. CURTIS W. SABROSKY ANNEXED
TO DR. FOLLETT’S LETTER AS APPENDIX 1, ENCLOSURE 2

(For a separate statement furnished by Dr. J. Chester Bradley, see Document
3/37)

Family and Co-ordinate Names (Reference Z.N.(S.)357) :
Comments on Mr. Curtis W. Sabrosky’s Paper

By J. C. Bradley
Paras. 4-6

I suggest rewording Art. 4 to read: ‘‘ The name of a family is to he formed
by adding the suffix “ -IDAE,” the name of a subfamily by adding ‘“‘ -INAE ~
to the stem of the name of its type genus, “stem ”’ for this purpose being
interpreted by the two paragraphs that follow :—

(a) In case of a name which is not, or the terminal element of which
is not a classical noun, the “stem” within the meaning of this
Article shall be that portion of the name that shall be first selected
to receive the suffix “ -IDAE,” “ -INAE,” or any other patronymic
(or equivalent) suffix intended to convert that generic name into
the name of a group higher than genus.

(b) In case the name or the last element of the name consists of a classical
noun, the ‘stem’ as here used shall be understood to consist
of the genitive form of that noun without its case-ending.*

So far as barbarous words or arbitrary combinations of letters are concerned,
it is obvious that any result is arbitrary. A rule in a Schedule could be helpful,
but only advisory. The person who first establishes a plural group name
based on such a barbarous name should have the privilege of establishing
what that stem is to be.

Paras. 7-10

The rule above suggested is mandatory and can lead to but one result.
Anything else is a misspelling. A correction should be required whenever
such a mistake is found to exist. But, in his article on emendations, Mr.
Hemming has been at pains to differentiate such a change of incorrect spelling
from an emendation. From this point of view, a technical emendation of a
family name could result only from an emendation of the generic name on
which it is based.

*This will not always be the classical form of the stem, particularly in the case of vowel stems,
but it will be that part, form, or contraction of the stem that the ancients would themselves
have used in combination with a suffix commencing with a vowel, is entirely appropriate for
neo-Latin, and is in fact the usage of the most careful linguists among zoologists since the days
of Linnaeus. Although my suggestion was written before I had read Dr. Grensted’s paper
(1947, Ent. Mon. Mag. 83 : 137-141) it is precisely the objective part of the solution that he
proposed at the top of p. 141, 1. c. It seems to have been the first sentence of the same paragraph
that suggested the emendation of Art. 4 adopted at Paris; but that part is subjective and not
necessary, in fact may be looked upon more as an explanation of the result sought by the rule
laid down in the last sentence. The rare case (as perhaps cIsIDAk) not covered by the rule could
be handled as an exception by the Commission,

256 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature .

Para. 11

Concur with Sabrosky.

Paras. 30-33

Concur with Sabrosky but go further. All suprageneric groups based on a
generic name must be co-ordinate, even though called (as many old authors
have done) by some unrecognised name, such as legion.

Paras. 12-13

Strongly concur with Sabrosky. Am neutral on, but willing to accept,
French vernaculars if there is a general feeling that they should be accepted,

Para. 25

Concur with Sabrosky, but with the understanding that the author to be
cited is the author of the suprageneric name, regardless of rank or termination
assigned it. I should add

“Tf it is desired to cite the author who first assigned a particular rank
and limit to a suprageneric group, this may be done by adding in parentheses
‘(sense of so-and-so, such-and-such a data).’ ”

Paras, 21-24
Sabrosky’s item (X). Concur with Sabrosky.

Sabrosky’s item (XX). There are three classes of cases.
(a) The name of the type genus is a junior homonym.
(b) The name of the type genus is an objective junior synonym.

(c) The name of the type genus is subjectively considered to be a junior
synonym.
Once the type genus has been established, it would be contrary to all
principles of types to change it, and therefor not allowable.

In cases (a) and (b) there is no change in the type genus involved, it is
only a question of the name under which it is known.

In case (c) it is only a matter of opinion that the senior name applies to
the same group. We are confronted with two nominal genera, and to shift
from one to the other would be a change of type, therefore not theoretically
allowable.

In such a case it is clear that Sabrosky’s plan is correct ; the junior synonym
remains the name of the nominal type genus and must (by definition) be that
upon which the valid family name is based, even by authors who subjectively
reject it for the genus.

In case (b) it is theoretically possible to base the family name upon the
name of either objective synonym, for they are but two names for the same
type genus. I have somewhat reluctantly, in the interest of continuity, come
around to Sabrosky’s view here also. Nevertheless I strongly believe that in
such cases the better solution is for the Commission by plenary action to

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 257

conserve the junior synonym at the generic name level. I should favour such
a rule as

“In case the name of the type genus of a suprageneric group is found
to be a junior objective synonym, the Commission shall, under its plenary
power, conserve that name, unless there are strong reasons for doing other-

= 99
wise.

In case (a) we cannot use the junior homonym, because of conflict or possible
conflict with suprageneric names based on the senior homonym. There should
be a rule directing the Commission to suppress the senior homonym if it is
without possible utility in its Phylum. If this cannot be done, and there is
no objective synonym of the junior homonym, then there remains only one
legal recourse. This is to deliberately create an objective synonym to replace
the junior homonym, which then becomes available (a) for basis of the family
name, and (b) as a substitute for the junior homonym that is the unavailable
name of the type genus, for any one who rejects all subjective synonyms,
and then to use this objective synonym as basis for the family name. If the
result is objectionable, the Commission can suspend the rule in favour of
another name. It is not possible in any other way to select a new family
name based on some other nominal genus (as OTITIDAE instead of ORTALIDAE)
since to do so would be to change the type genus, which is illegal. This could
not be done even if the replacing name were a subjective synonym of the
junior homonym. |

Paras. 27-28

Agree with Sabrosky, but the case is a little worse than he points out.
Hemming’s suggestion “‘ to be rejected as a junior homonym”’ produces an
absolute impasse. The type-genus of the suprageneric name is that which
gives its stem to the homonymous suprageneric name ; but the genus is not a
homonym and its name is valid. To shift the type genus is impossible under
the rules, and would nullify the existence of any type. Yet there is only one
way to form a suprageneric name under the Reégles from that generic name.
The only escape is by suspension of the rules and plenary action.

The principle is the same throughout all suprageneric categories, and since
there are many cases of two or more genera with identical stems, I shudder to
think of the number of homonymous names that may exist at tribal level or
above that have never been noted.

Paras. 34-36
Agreed to.

Paras. 37-38

Supergenus. The name of a supergenus should be the name of the nomino-
typical genus and subgenus without changed ending. In citation it should be
distinguished from genus only by insertion of the word “ Supergenus ”’ before
it, but would not be included in the full specific name of an included species.
Such is my impression, but I may be wrong. Can any one cite instances where
supergenus is employed with a special termination ?

258 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Paras. 39-42
I support Sabrosky’s suggestion, but, as in the case of family name, it
is the first given suprageneric name that is the nominotypical genus of tribe.
subfamily, family and superfamily (not, at each level, the name first to be
accorded that particular rank).

We speak of the type-genus of tribe, of subfamily and of family. We
should do the same for superfamily. We do not speak of type-genus of tribe,
type-tribe of subfamily, type-subfamily of family, nor should we speak of
type-family of a superfamily. It is. however, perfectly permissible for des-
eriptive purposes to speak of the typical or nominotypical family, subfamily
or tribe.

Paras. 43-48
I agree to Hemming’s proposals, with three suggestions :—

(a) that each suprageneric name be entered in the form in which it was
first established, with author and date, followed by its first usage.
if any, with each of the authorised suffixes -ini, -inae, -idae, and
-oidea,

(b) that the list be entitled Official Inst Wiceenaneens Names in Zoology :

(c) that somewhere a suprageneric name be defined as any name of a
group higher than genus based on the stem (or its equivalent) of a
contained genus with a suffix added to indicate its rank.

Point (X)

See my discussion above under heading 21-24, case (a).
Point (XX)

The most serious difficulty in family names arises in the case of a name the
type-genus of which actually belongs to a taxonomic group far removed from
that to which that name was believed to belong. All such cases should be
brought to the attention of the Commission as rapidly as possible. A regulation
should instruct the Commission under its plenary power to set aside the type-

species of such genera, and to establish new type-species that will conserve
the accepted meanings of the generic names.

I think the above covers what Dr. Sabrosky has in mind. However, it
is not quite what he says. “ Misidentified genotypes ” actually means type-
species of a genus which is not the species that the describer of the genus or the
selector of the type-species actually meant when the species was designated
type. Such cases come up in any case for review by the Commission, which
can be relied upon (I hope) not to decide them in such a way as to upset a
family name.

Point (XXX)

I have no objection to other terminations for tribe and superfamily being
established for phyla where very strong demand exists among specialists.
I hope it will not be necessary and that specialists will change over. The
termination “‘-ACEA”’ has been quite universally employed in Mollusca for
superfamily, but recently some authors (or at least one) have been changing
over to “* -OIDEA.”

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 259

APPENDIX 3 TO DR. W. I. FOLLETT’S LETTER OF 23RD JULY 1952

OBSERVATIONS BY MR. CURTIS W. SABROSKY ON THE PROPOSALS
IN HIS PAPER RELATING TO FAMILY NAMES ANNEXED TO DR.
FOLLETT’S LETTER AS APPENDIX 1, ENCLOSURE 2, MADE BY
DR. J. CHESTER BRADLEY IN THE PAPER ANNEXED TO THE
FOREGOING LETTER AS APPENDIX 2.

Comments on Dr. Bradley’s Comments
By Curtis W. Sabrosky

4-6. The suggested rewording of Article 4 seems to cover the matter,
though I am not sure that it agrees with my views (which I still hold on the
stem of nouns like Acrocera and Leptocera). However, perhaps | have mis-
interpreted the comments.

30-33. I agree. The “going further” that Dr. Bradley suggests was
hinted at in my sections (b) and (c), but, if all are to be co-ordinate, this is
indeed the appropriate place to say so.

25. I agree. The “ understanding” should indeed be specified, if the
final decision on 12-13 follows our line of reasoning.

21-24, my item (XX). I am glad to note that Dr. Bradley agrees with
my view, albeit reluctantly with respect to his case (b). However, I do not
agree that it would be better to have the Commission do it by plenary action.
The best hope for the future in the mass of names and problems that will come
with another few million species is to refer fewer things to the Commission,
not more. Under case (a) I am interested to see that Dr. Bradley expresses a
view that I have often maintained: that in cases of homonymy we should
deliberately create an objective synonym to replace the junior homonym,”’
in order to avoid changing the type. I suppose the Commission could suppress
the senior homonym in cases where the latter is of no consequence in its group
(e.g., a junior synonym), but this again would make us dependent upon the
Commission. Can we not devise Rules that taxonomists can work in the great
bulk of cases, and leave the Commission free to resolve difficulties when (or if)
they arise ?

27-28. It is perhaps worse than I pointed out, but I hope not as bad as
Dr. Bradley fears. Whether such cases are common or uncommon, the only
solution does seem to be arbitrary action under the plenary powers, with the
advice of specialists concerned.

37-38. | would enthusiastically accept Dr. Bradley’s suggestion for
treating supergenus without employing any characteristic termination, and
accordingly (I presume he meant) without making it co-ordinate with other
suprageneric names.

(XX). There is a difference in wording but not in essentials. I have
no objection to the statement in the first paragraph. But, of course, in the
final analysis, the interpretation of the type genus of a family can only rest
on the identity of the type species of the genus. If the latter has been
erroneously interpreted (=“ misidentified genotypes’ of my brief reference),
the discovery of the fact causes the “‘ most serious difficulty in family names ”’
to arise.

260 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

(XXX). Uniformity would indeed be desirable. Probably I should not
have introduced the question, but left it for workers in other phyla where
practices have become stabilised in other endings (if there are any).

APPENDIX 4 TO DR. W. I. FOLLETT’S LETTER OF 23RD JULY 1952

COMMENTS RECEIVED BY DR. FOLLETT FROM MEMBERS OF THE

NOMENCLATURE COMMITTEE OF THE SOCIETY OF SYSTEMATIC

ZOOLOGY, OTHER THAN FROM MR. CURTIS W. SABROSKY, THE

COMMENTS RECEIVED FROM WHOM WERE ANNEXED TO DR.

FOLLETT’S LETTER AS APPENDIX 1, ENCLOSURE 2, AND
APPENDIX 3

Enclosure 1 to Appendix 4 to Dr. Follett’s letter
Communication furnished by Dr. W. I. FOLLETT

I adopt the discussion and recommendations by Mr. Curtis W. Sabrosky
on the subject of names of families and co-ordinate categories, and his com-
ments upon Dr. Bradley’s remarks, as setting forth my views more accurately
than I could have expressed them.

Enclosure 2 to Appendix 4 to Dr. Follett’s letter
Communication furnished by Professor CHARLES D. MICHENER

I agree with Bradley’s comments on Sabrosky’s paper.

Enclosure 3 to Appendix 4 to Dr. Follett’s letter
Communication furnished by Professor HENRY TOWNES
(Letter dated 20th May 1952)

I read over the material with interest and express the following opinions
on the questions of family and subfamily names :—

(2) The amount of discussion and the complications regarding family
names indicate confusion of ideas and a rather unworkable system.
I believe that family (also subfamily, tribe, and superfamily)
names should be based on the stem of the oldest available generic
name included. This method avoids all arguments about date of
publication, author, homonyms, synonyms, etc. It also is a method
that is workable with available bibliographic tools and results
in names at least as much in agreement with current usage as any
other. If family names were ever subject to rules, probably the
Stricklandian code had as much influence as any, as it was in force
at the time most family names were coming into use. That code,
I am told, recommended use of the name of the oldest included

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 261

genus as the stem of the family name. Why are we rejecting it
now ¢ Probably because so much of the talking and writing about
family names has been done by muddlers, and the basic ideas have
been lost in the furor about “ familiotypes.”’

The only place I have found difficulty in using the valid name of the oldest
included genus as the basis of the family name is where there are two or more
genera of the same age. Here, it seems best to use the principle of first reviser,
selecting the one first used as the basis of a supergeneric group name.

Enclosure 4 to Appendix 4 to Dr. F ollett’s letter

Communication furnished by Professor JOHN W. WELLS
(Letter dated 11th June 1952)
NAMES OF FAMILIES AND CO-ORDINATE CATEGORIES
(Summary, Comment and Recommendations by Sabrosky) :
Paras. 4-6, Approve as recommended by Sabrosky.

” 8-9. Omit ” 2 > 2
Para. 10. Approve ,, - 93 »
Ms 11 Approve = 99

Paras. 12-13. Approve as recommended by Hemming, not Sabrosky,
except that no exceptions of any sort should be allowed.
>> 30-33. Approve.
Para. 25. Disapprove the saving clause. The author of a family,
and date, can only be he who first used termination
“idae,” just as in case of substitute generic names.

mm . eB: Approve as recommended by Hemming, not Sabrosky.

3 =sd94 te Bess 5 »» Sabrosky.

> 29. ee Pa 6

eae i Disapprove as recommended by Hemming or Sabrosky.
Family names should be treated exactly as generic
names.

Paras. 27-28, 34-38, 39-42. Approve as recommended by Sabrosky.

» 43-48. Disapprove strongly of any kind of Official List or Official
Index, on grounds of too much work for Commission,
involves perpetuation of errors—a most unscientific
principle, and just plain lack of any sound reason for
such a thing.

Enclosure 5 to Appendix 4 to Dr. W. I. Follett’s letter

Communication furnished by Dr. JOHN T. ZIMMER
Family names should uniformly end in “-IDAE”: subfamily names

in “-INAE.” Names to date from the first use of the name, regardless of its
ending, in a true suprageneric sense. Family names should not be changed
when the name of the type genus is changed (=repeal of Article 5) which may
require placement of the name of the type genus on the Official List. In case
of homonymy, the Commission may change a family name.

262 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Value of citing author and date of family names is questionable. In any
case priority is not to be on the basis of the family name whose type genus
first had its type species elevated to that position! Should be on strict priority
of the names themselves or the appropriate stems with, perhaps, an ending
other than “ idae.”

Tribal names may end in “-INI” but Supergenera are hardly entitled to
consideration other than as conveniences, not true nomenclatural groups.

They should not be dignified by regular endings.
Superfamily names co-ordinate with family names, to end in “ oidea.”

An Official List of Family Names seems desirable ; also an Official Index
of Rejected and Invalid Names.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 263
DOCUMENT 3/35

Statement of the views of the
AMERICAN COMMITTEE ON ENTOMOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

Enclosure to a letter, dated 24th July 1952, from
Professor CHARLES D. MICHENER, Chairman

Family Names (Commission’s Reference Z.N.(S.)357)

In presenting the views of the American Committee on Entomological
Nomenclature, it has been found convenient to refer to the paragraphs of
Mr. Hemming’s proposal (1952, Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, T : 61-94).
The paragraphs below are therefore numbered to correspond to the paragraphs
of Mr. Hemming’s article. One general simplification which is recommended
is that instead of repeatedly stating that specialists can apply to the Com-
mission if they wish exceptions to the rules made, a final statement to this
effect would suffice.

(a) Names of Families and Subfamilies

STEM:
Paras. 4-6.

We recommend rewording Art. 4 to read: ‘‘ The name of a family is to be
formed by adding the suffix “-IDAK,” the name of a subfamily by adding
“ -INAE ” to the stem of the name of its type-genus, “‘ stem ”’ for this purpose
being interpreted by the two paragraphs that follow :—

(a) In case of a name which is not, or the terminal element of which is
not a classical noun, the “ stem ”’ within the meaning of this article
shall be that portion of the name that shall be first selected to
receive the suffix “‘-IDAE,” “-INAE,” or any other patronymic
(or equivalent) suffix intended to convert that generic name into
the name of a group higher than genus.

(b) In case the name or the last element of the name consists of a classical
noun, tne “stem” as here used shall be understood to consist
of the genitive form of that noun without its case-ending.*

So far as barbarous words or arbitrary combinations of letters are con-
cerned, it is obvious that any result is arbitrary. A rule in a Schedule could be
helpful, but should be only advisory. The person who first establishes a plural
group name based on such a barbarous name should have the privilege of
establishing what that stem is to be.

*This will not always be the classical] form of the stem, particularly in the case of vowel stems,
but it will be that part, form, or contraction of the stem that the ancients would themselves have
used in combination with a suffix commencing with a vowel, is entirely appropriate for neo-Latin,
and is in fact the usage of the most careful linguists among zoologists since the days of Linnaeus.

264 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Paras. 7-10

We recommend that these sections be omitted, as a contribution toward
making the rules more simple and direct. Any changes that would be required
as a result of general enforcement of the rules on stems will be of such minor
nature as to be unimportant. The above recommended rule on stems is
mandatory and can lead to but one result. Anything else is a misspelling.
A correction should be required whenever such a mistake is found to exist.
But, in his article on emendations, Mr. Hemming has been at pains to differ-
entiate such a change of incorrect spelling from an emendation. From this
point of view a technical emendation of a family name could result only from
an emendation of the generic name on which it is based.

TYPE
Para. 11

Approve, but suggest that it would be appropriate to add here the provision,
which Mr. Hemming has elsewhere, that the originally established familiotype
is not subject to change, though its name may sometimes have to be changed.
(Cf. discussion of paragraphs 25 and 14.)

SUBFAMILY NAMES
Paras. 30-33

We approve but would go farther and state that all suprageneric groups
based on a generic name must be co-ordinate, even though called (as many
old authors have done) by some unrecognised name, such as legion.

DATE OF PUBLICATION

Paras. 12-13

We recommend a rule that a family name dates from its first publication
as a suprageneric group name based on an included genus, regardless of the
ending employed and regardless of what the author called his suprageneric
category (family, stirps, etc.). This rule will avoid attempting to decide on a
date before which some names may be validated on other than “‘-IDAK”
endings (1850 suggested by Mr. Hemming), and will avoid the need for and
the trouble with applications to save those old names. Actually, many of
the old names which used other endings, before the “-IDAE” ending was
widely (and quickly) accepted, are the old familiar families which everyone
will wish to preserve anyway; e.g. TIPULARIAE Latreille, cuLicipEs Billberg,
TABANI Latreille, ete. Example of the difficulties that may arise by insistence
on the “-IDAE” form: The family name of the moth flies dates from
psycHopiTes Newman 1834, or from psycHoprpaAE Bigot 1854. But if one
dates that only from the “-IDAE” ending in 1854, then the oldest name
for the family is actually rLeBoromipar Rondani 1840 (emended PHLEBOTO-
MIDAE Walker 1851).

Mr. Hemming mentions vernacular names, especially as used by French
authors. We see no reason why these might not be accepted for the older
names (e.g. before 1850), provided, however, that it is clear that they are
growp names (suprageneric) and not merely a way of referring in the plural
to the species of one genus.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 265

AUTHOR
Para. 25

Approved, with the understanding that the author to be cited is the author
of the suprageneric name, regardless of rank or termination assigned it. We
should add, “ If it is desired to cite the author who first assigned a particular
rank and limit to a suprageneric group, this may be done by adding in paren-
thesis ‘ (sense of so-and-so, such-and-such a date).’ ”’

Also, we see no advantage to be gained by citing a substitute name by
the author and date of the name which is replaced, if the Rules somewhere
make clear (probably under TYPE, par. 11) that the first proposal establishes
the familiotype for all time, and that it does not change, though its name
may be changed. The proposed citation would be incorrect and confusing
from a bibliographical standpoint. (See also comment under para. 26, following.)
The final wording of the section should of course fit the action taken on date
of publication (12-13).

CITATION
Para. 26

We recommend that authors and dates shall not be given for suprageneric
names, in the way that they are customarily given for generic and trivial
names, unless the person referring to the names needs to distinguish between
them, as in discussing the suprageneric nomenclature of a group. We recom-
mend this as a step toward minimising the personal element as much as possible.
Perhaps a person will not propose so many tribes, sections, subsections, etc.,
if he knows that this name will not appear every time one is cited.

Some remarks under Author (25) are pertinent here. For substitute names,
we should cite them (using Mr. Hemming’s example) as ‘“‘ RIODINIDAE Grote,
1895,” or “‘ RIODINIDAE Grote, 1895 (ERYCINIDAE Swainson),” or “‘ RIODINIDAE
Grote, 1895 (pro ERYCINIDAE Swainson, 1827) (=x-IDAE Westwood, 1840,’’)
depending on the detail which is necessary or desired.

CHANGE OF NAME OF FAMILIOTYPE

Para. 14

Approve, except for the back-dating (see our comments on paragraph 25).
Back-dating is a method that would ensure the continuity of the type concept,
i.e. that a family name should follow the nomenclatorial course of its original
familiotype. We oppose back-dating partly because it is bibliographically
incorrect and misleading, and partly because the rules would be simplified
that much more to eliminate it here and elsewhere. The goal of continuity,
in which we concur with Mr. Hemming, can be attained more simply and
directly by writing the provision into the section on Type (par. 11), q.v.

Para. 29
Approved.

Para. 15
Approved, but we should make it part of the general problem of synonymy
(see notes on paragraphs 21-24, b).

H

266 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Paras. 21-24

We feel that there are two problems here. One (paragraph 22) has to do
with the “situation arising when a family name is not based upon the name
of a genus included in the family.” We doubt that this situation exists today,
and recommend that the section be omitted. It seems probable that this
situation has been incorrectly raised to the status of a current problem by
Opinion 141, Summary (3), Note, which refers to “‘ a few well-established family
names proposed by early authors’ but not based on included genera (italics
ours, here and below). Actually, however, in Opinion 133 (upon which 141
is based) Dr. Stiles appears only to have been mentioning the existence of
such names in early time, without meaning to carry the problem to the present
(Opinion 133, p. 42, last paragraph: ‘‘ Since with the exception of isolated
instances by early authors) family names are based .. .”). Example, in
Diptera: The family of the small-headed flies was first called inrLATA and
then VESICULOSA (VESICULEUX), both names referring to the swollen appearance
of the body, and not based on generic names. But these names were soon
abandoned in favor of such names aS ACROCERIDAE, HENOPIDAE and CYRTIDAE,
based respectively on Acrocera, Henops and Cyrtus.

The second problem has to do with the proposal that family names should
not be changed when the familiotype is found to be a junior synonym. We
recommend that family names should not be changed when the familiotype
is found to be a junior synonym, whether objective or subjective. Mr.
Hemming has directed the discussion to the “ exceptional” feature, but we
believe that this should be a regular procedure to aid in future stability of
family names, as Mr. Hemming has agreed in part in paragraph 15. We see
no great gain or value in being able to recognise the current name of the
familiotype in the family name. Non-systematists have neither need nor
care for that, and systematists have no need, for any systematist worthy in
a group will necessarily know both the senior and junior synonyms. One
could make an equally strong case that it would be an “extremely great
gain” to be able to recognise from the family name what is the original
familiotype.

Numerous examples can be cited where such a rule would have avoided
changes of names and thus contributed to stability. The sixteen families of
Diptera that involve Meigen 1800 vs. 1803 names for their familiotypes are
good examples: Chironomus 1803 could change to Tendipes 1800 and the
family name could have remained cHIRONOMIDAE. French writers who have
used LARVAEVORIDAE (Larvaevoira Meigen 1800) still call the flies ‘* les tach-
inides.”’” One family of Diptera has had four names as a result of synonymy
(successively, RHYPHIDAE, ANISOPODIDAE, PHRYNEIDAE, SYLVICOLIDAE), when
one name (RHYPHIDAE) could have sufficed. With all the changes that are
bound to come when all five or ten million species of insects are known, let
us plan to avoid any more changes than absolutely necessary.

A more detailed discussion of the matter follows: There are three classes
of cases in which the name of the familiotype may change.

(a) The name of the type genus is a junior homonym.
(b) The name of the type genus is an objective Junior synonym.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 267

(c) The name of the type genus is subjectively considered to be a junior
synonym.
Once the type genus has been established, it would be contrary to all
principles of types to change it, and therefore not allowable.

In cases (a) and (b) there is no change in the type genus involved, it is
only a question of the name under which it is known.

In case (c) it is only a matter of opinion that the senior name applies to
the same group. We are confronted with two nominal genera, and to shift
from one to the other would be a change of type, therefore not theoretically
allowable.

In such a case it is clear that the above recommended plan is correct ;
the junior synonym remains the name of the nominal: type genus and must
(by definition) be that upon which the valid family name is based, even by
authors who subjectively reject it for the genus.

In case (b) it is theoretically possible to base the family name upon the
name of either objective synonym, for they are but two names for the same
type genus. Another alternative in such cases is for the Commission by plenary
action to conserve the junior synonym at the generic name level. We might
have such a rule as :—

“Tn case the name of the type genus of a suprageneric group is found
to be a junior objective synonym, the Commission shall, under its plenary
power, conserve that name, unless there are strong reasons for doing other-
In case (a) we cannot use the junior homonym, because of conflict or possible

conflict with suprageneric names based on the senior homonym. There should
be a rule directing the Commission to suppress the senior homonym if it is
without possible utility in its phylum. If this cannot be done, and there is
no objective synonym of the junior homonym, then there remains only one
legal recourse. This is to deliberately create an objective synonym to replace
the junior homonym, which then becomes available (a) for basis of the family
name, and (b) as a substitute for the junior homonym that is the unavailable
name of the type genus, for any one who rejects all subjective synonyms,
and then to use this objective synonym as basis for the family name. If the
result is objectionable, the Commission can suspend the rule in favour of
another name. It is not possible in any other way to select a new family
name based on some other nominal genus (as OTITIDAE instead of ORTALIDAE)
since to do so would be to change the type genus, which is illegal. This could
not be done even if the replacing name were a subjective synonym of the
junior homonym.

FAMILY NAMES IN COMPETITION
Paras. 16-19

We agree with Mr. Hemming in wishing to base a decision on priority of
some sort, but recommend that it be the priority of the oldest proposed family
name, and not of the designation of the genotype. His reason (“ to ensure,”
etc.), will apply equally well to our method: Determine the oldest proposed
family name, in which will appear the name of the familiotype, and the concept

H*

268 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

of that family will follow the type species of that genus. It seems to us that
this is more simple and direct, and would also tend to preserve continuity
and usage in the older family names. Suppose for example that a family
proposed in 1820 was based on a large genus whose type was not fixed until
1880. In 1920 another family was proposed for an aberrant genus known
from a single species since 1810. In 1930 an author who combined the two
families would be obliged under Mr. Hemming’s proposal to reject the century-
old family name and adopt the younger one, which happened to have the
oldest fixed genotype. The principle of oldest proposed family name also
enters into paragraphs 20 and 27-28.

Para. 20
We recommend omitting this as a separate provision, as it would be covered
by a general statement (see first paragraph of this discussion of family names).

Paras. 27-28

Mr. Hemming’s suggestion “ to be rejected as a junior homonym ”’ produces
an impasse. The type genus of the suprageneric name is that which gives
its stem to the homonymous suprageneric name; but the genus is not a
homonym and its name is valid. To shift the type genus is impossible under
the rules, and would nullify the existence of any type. Yet there is only one
way to form a suprageneric name under the Régles from that generic name.
The only escape is by suspension of the rules and plenary action.

(b) Names of Units between Subfamily and Genus
Paras.. 34-36
Approved.

Paras. 37-38

Approve, except for the saving clause on the suprageneric names. The
argument of ‘‘ preventing displacement of an established’? name by down-
grading of an older name from a higher level could as well be applied to any
category. Treating them thus would set up a special case within a case. If
they are to be based on generic names, by adding some appropriate ending
to the stem of the supergenotype, it would seem to me best to incorporate
them completely into the system.

We believe, however, that the name of a supergenus should be the name
of the nominotypical genus, without changed ending. In citation it would
be distinguished by insertion of the word ‘‘ supergenus ” before it.

(c) Names of Superfamilies

Paras. 39-42

Approve, except for the saving clause on the priority inter se of the names.
It seems that these may as well be co-ordinated completely with the system.
Their existence should never complicate the priority of family names, for
they will be formed from already existing family names. If superfamilies
are combined, of course, then one may reasonably require, as with the union
of two or more families (para. 16-19), that one should select the first to be
proposed as a superfamily.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 269 :

We speak of the type genus of tribe, of subfamily and of family. We
should do the same for superfamily. We do not speak of type genus of tribe,
type-tribe of subfamily, type-subfamily of family, nor should we speak of
type-family of a superfamily. It is, however, perfectly permissible for descrip-
tive purposes to speak of the typical or nominotypical family, subfamily or
tribe.

(d) Official List and Official Index
Paras. 43-48

We approve of Mr. Hemming’s proposals, with these suggestions :—

(a) that each suprageneric name be entered in the form in which it was
first established, with author, date, followed by its first usage,
if any, with each of the authorised suffixes “-INI,” “-INAE,”
“ -TDAK,” and “ -OIDEA.”

(b) that the list be entitled Official Inst of Suprageneric Names in Zoology.

(c) that somewhere a suprageneric name be defined as any name of a
group higher than genus based on the stem (or its equivalent)
of a contained genus with a suffix added to indicate its rank.

(e) Additional Problems

The most serious difficulty in family names arises in the case of a name
the type genus of which actually belongs to a taxonomic group far removed
from that to which that name was believed to belong. All such cases should
be brought to the attention of the Commission as rapidly as possible. A
regulation should instruct the Commission under its plenary power to set
aside the type-species of such genera, and to establish new type-species that
will conserve the accepted meanings of the generic names. ;

American Committee on Entomological Nomenclature.
CHARLES D. MICHENER, Secretary.

270

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

DOCUMENT 3/36

Statement of the views of the ENTOMOLOGISCHE GESELLSCHAFT,

BASEL

Extract from a letter, dated 30th July 1952, from M. HENRY BEURET

(Note :—The numbers cited in the following statement are the numbers allotted
to the paragraphs in the paper on the subject of family names by the
Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
published in March 1952 in Part 3 of Volume 7 of the Bulletin of Zoological
Nomenclature.)

No.

No.

No.

. 1-10

. 12-14

. 16-22
. 23-24
. 25-30
. 31

. 32

33-36
37-38

. 39-40

41-48

Vol. 7. Part 3

Rien de special & remarquer; sommes d’accord avec vos pro-
positions.

A 2

Le probléme exposé sous ce numero 4 été longuement discuté ;
finalement nous avons décidé d’accepter vos propositions.

Rien de spécial a remarquer.

Le changement d’un nom de famille ne devrait, 4 notre avis,
pas ére exclu d’emblée : il nous parait necessaire de laisser une
porte ouverte. Nous votons donc pour l’alternative (2).

Rien de spécial 4 remarquer.

D’accord avec vos propositions.

Rien a remarquer.

Le remplacement de la syllabe “-INAE” par “-ITAE”
causerait sans doute des perturbations si graves que l’en devrait,
& notre avis, conserver “ -INAE ” comme vous le proposez.

Tout 4 fait d’accord avec vous.

Rien 4 objecter.

Nous ne veyons pas la nécessité d’introduire la catégorie de “ super-
genus.’ Néanmoins, nous ne voulons pas voter centre si d’autres
systématiciens la réclame.

D’accord.

Rien a objecter.

bo
-~I
—

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

DOCUMENT 3/37

By J. CHESTER BRADLEY
(Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.)

Statement received on 30th July 1952
Family Names
(Commission Reference Z.N.(S.)357 in Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 7)

Para. 4

It is entirely clear that the unfortunate use of the French word “ radical ”
(=English: ‘‘root’’) in place of “theme” (=English “stem’’?) was an un-
intentional misuse of terms that could not have been made by a person familiar
with the terminology of grammarians. Any serious attempt to literally apply
it would have been disastrous: Whole families of words have the same root.
The stem of stabilitas is stabilitat—and a family name based on the stem
of a generic name Stabilitas would be Stabilitatidae. The root of stabilitas,
in common with that of the whole group of words to which it belongs is “ sta.”
But this root also has a weak form ‘‘sta.’’ If the family ending were added
to the root there would result a proper contraction from sTa-IpAE. But the
same family name would result from all nouns in the same great word group.
The practical results would be so ridiculous that it is obvious that the framers’
of the Berlin Régles in writing “ radical’’ really meant “ théme”’; the Graz
Congress merely corrected the wording but did not change the intent of the
original framers.

I do not agree that it is ordinarily a difficult matter to find the stem of a
definite classical substantive. The lexicons show, just for this purpose, the
form of the genitive as well as the nominative and all one has to do is to drop
the case ending from the former and the stem remains. The only difficulty
comes in certain vowel stems, and these could probably be covered with the
guidance of a few simple rules in a Schedule. The real difficulty lies in deter-
mining the stem when there is no clear indication as to what classical word
was used to form the terminal element of the generic name, or in cases where
the generic name is avowedly based on a barbaric word, or is an arbitrary
collection of letters. In all these cases I believe that the author first using
the genus as the type of a group name of rank higher than genus, and therefore
forced to select a stem, or a combination of letters that is the equivalent of a
Latin stem for the barbaric or other word, in order to add a patronymic or
equivalent ending, should be allowed the privilege of selecting such part of the
generic name to be the stem as he sees fit, and that the regulations should
provide that once such a selection has been made, the part so selected shall
become the stem of that word, in the sense meant by the rule for forming
family and other similar names.

I quite agree that the solution adopted at Paris is inadequate and must
be revised. Further discussion will be from the viewpoint of Article 4 of the
Regles before it was amended,

272 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Para. 6

The addition of a schedule giving help in finding the actual stem of a classical
word, and giving suggestions as to how to proceed to select letters that should
serve as the equivalent of a stem in the case of a non-classical stem would be
desirable. It should contain instructions as to how to use a classical lexicon
for the former purpose.

Para. 8

Is it not incorrect to speak of the emendation of a family name in the
sense that emendation is applied to generic names ?

The directions of Article 4 are definite: Start with a generic name, find
its stem, add the ending “‘-IDAE” or “-INAE.” It can only come out one
way,* if it does not the rule has not been followed, and the family name 1s
misspelled. But the rule is mandatory; therefore a change of the incorrect
spelling—not an emendation—is required.

Suppose we were to reword Article 4 as follows :

The name of a family is to be formed by adding the suffix ‘“-IDAE,” the
name of a subfamily by adding “-INAE ”’ to the stem of the name of its type-
genus, “‘ stem ”’ for this purpose being interpreted by the two paragraphs that
follow :

(a) In case of a name which is not, or the terminal element of which is not a
definite classical word, the “‘ stem” within the meaning of this Article,
shall be that portion of the name that shall be first selected to receive the
suffix “-IDAE,” ‘-INAE,” or any other patronymic (or equivalent)
suffix intended to convert that generic name into the name of a group
higher than genus.

(b) In case the name or the last element of the name consists of a definite
classical noun, the ‘“‘ stem ’’ as here used shall be understood to consist
of the genitive form of that noun without its case ending.f

I believe that these misspellings should be weeded out as rapidly as dis-
covered, that they should not be looked upon as emendations, that no attention
should be paid as to whether they have been discovered in the past and corrected
or have yet to be, and that the suprageneric name should date from its original
introduction, even though misspelled.

Most of the difficulty has in the past arisen in the case of words with
increasing genitives, or more exactly, words in which the nominative is a
contracted form. It would be helpful to list a few of the most persistent trouble-
makers, so that authors could be on their guard. For example (by transliter-
ation to Latin) stoma, the stem of which is stomat-.

*Exception occurs in the case of some vowelstems. But this need occasion no difficulty, as the
insertion of a practical provision into Article 4 will take care of these cases and greatly simplify
the family name formation for non-classicists.

+This will not always be the classical form of the stem, particularly in the case of vowel stems,
but it will be that part, form, or contraction of the stem that the ancients would themselves
have used in combination with a suffix commencing with a vowel. It will therefore give, very
simply, the results originally sought by Article 4. It has the great advantage of simplicity, for
the form of the genitive of every classical noun is shown in the usual lexicons, and all that has
to be done is to drop the case-ending.

ee

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 273

Para. 11

I concur emphatically that the person who erects a group higher than
genus has the choice of the type genus. Any other course is contrary to all
principles and definition of “‘ type” for the latter must be stable and can
not be allowed to fluctuate.

Para. 12

A supra-generic group (below the rank of suborder) must be considered
to have been established, and, in consequence, its name to have been published
as from the date when a Latin (or Latinized) term was first applied to a given
group of genera, irrespective of the termination then employed for the term
so used provided that the term was based on the name of some one of the
contained genera with the addition of some suffix, irrespective of what suffix
was employed. The tribe, subfamily, family and all other categories (whether
officially recognised or not) based on a contained generic name with some added
suffix are and must be nomenclatorially co-ordinate. Therefore, when a
suprageneric group name is established, tribe, subfamily and family are all
potentially established, and it is solely a matter of subjective taxonomic
judgment which rank may best be assigned the suprageneric group, and this
rank may be expected to be subject to continual fluctuation.

I have always thought that some Latin suffix should be required in order
to consider a group established. However, if it will tend to create harmony
and the French are strongly of the opinion that vernacular terminations should
be recognised (for the purpose of establishing publication), I would agree,
but as a somewhat undesirable compromise.

Para. 13

As stated above, the rank accorded a suprageneric group is purely subjective.
Whenever one is established, a potential family, even superfamily (but see
later qualification) is founded. It should make no difference in principle
then what termination was applied or when. Nomenclatorially, the essential
act has been performed when the suprageneric group has been established,
just as a potential genus has been established when a subgenus has been founded.

I see no advantage and much disadvantage from dividing our practice
as before or after a given date, or as before or after its use of a particular suffix.

It is much more difficult to trace the bibliographical history of a family
name than of a generic name. Let us examine the following hypothetical case
as illustrative of one of the difficulties that the suggested course (adopting
suprageneric names prior to 1950 as having family equivalency, regardless
of termination but after that date not until they are established with the
suffix “ -IDAE.’’)

The group ACHILIDES was established in 1871, but not until 1903 was the
form ACHILIDAE used and (according to the Secretary’s plan) the family
established. Meanwhile it had won general recognition as a tribe, subfamily
or family under one or another termination. Let us now assume that in 1900
a small and little known group was split off as a family TROPIDUCHIDAE but
that this has since been placed by all authors as a tribe of AcHILIDAE. Never-
theless, we would now have to change ACHILIDAE to TROPIDUCHIDAE, the senior
subjective synonym.*

*This is a misunderstanding of my suggestion—F.H.

274 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Para. 14

I strongly concur with the Secretary’s recommendation which may be
expressed by the following general statement of principle: A suprageneric
group with a name based on the name of a contained genus is established
when its name is first published, regardless of whether the name employed
for its type genus is a valid name, or a junior homonym of another name,
or an objective junior synonym of an earlier name. In case for either of these
reasons the name of the type genus is changed, the name of the suprageneric
group must undergo corresponding change, but the type genus is only nominally,
not actually changed, since both the names applied to it are objective synonyms.

Para. 15

I think that we must recognise a name given to a tribe, subfamily, family
or any other category employed for a suprageneric group based on the name
of a contained genus as co-ordinate (later exception for superfamily), the
subjective question of rank having no nomenclatorial significance. With this
in view, I should prefer to see the principle established (just in reverse of
the Secretary’s proposal) that, if the name of the type genus is thought to
be a subjective junior synonym, the type genus of the suprageneric group
actually remains the same nominal genus, but that any one so holding shall
employ the senior subjective synonym for the valid name of the genus and
for the basis of the valid name of the suprageneric group. Then I should add
that, where specialists in the group concerned desire to retain the suprageneric
group name based on the junior subjective synonym, especially where names
frequently ranked as family are concerned, they may apply to the Commission
for decision. The only great difference is that it would make it normal to
have the group name follow along with a contained genus, and would probably
result in less applications for relief to the Commission.

Para. 16

In case two suprageneric groups of the same rank are united, I strongly
agree with the Secretary that the older synonym among the two suprageneric
names, subjective or objective, must prevail, and that the date of the founding
of the names of the type genera has no relevance.

Para. 17

The date of the founding of some genus within a suprageneric group has
no possible bearing upon the type genus of that group. despite widely held
misapprehension on that point formerly held.

Para. 18

Apparently I do not understand the purport of this paragraph, for it is
not apparent to me what relationship the date of the establishment of a type
species for a genus has to the date of establishment of a suprageneric group.
Let us consider an example with the results that would ensue: The great
family ICHNEUMONIDAE with more than a thousand genera and many contained
tribes, itself dating among the earliest of family names has as its type species
the genus Ichneumon. The type species of Ichnewmon was not finally determined
until 1935 when the Commission under its plenary powers set aside all prior
type designations and arbitrarily selected a type species to conserve the ancient

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 275

use of the name. If the suprageneric names ICHNEUMONINI, ICHNEUMONINAE,
ICHNEUMONIDAE and ICHNEUMONOIDEA are to date only from 1935, then
they must all be superseded by the names of other suprageneric groups based
on a genus the type species of which was settled earlier.

The family name BRACONIDAE was one of the earliest used in the Order
Hymenoptera, is large and very important. There are many subfamilies.
The type of the genus Bracon Fabricius, 1804, was not established until 1825
by designation of Curtis. Meanwhile the type species of the type genera of
other subfamilies, groups that came into use much later, had been established.
Under the suggested procedure we would have to set aside BRACONIDAE and
replace it with a family name based on the included subfamily the type genus
of which was the first to have a type species fixed, as perhaps ALYSIINAE as
based on Alysia Latreille 1804, the type species of which was established at
that date by reason of its being the only included species. (I have omitted
as immaterial the fact that the type species of Bracon was also set aside by
the Commission in 1935 and a new type species designated.)

Para. 19

I agree that the suggestion of first reviser. brought forward but: rejected
by the Secretary, is very objectionable.

As previously indicated, the plain and simple course seems to me to be
the following :—

(1) A suprageneric group was founded ‘when a group name was published,
based on one of the contained generic names, with whatever added
suffix. It makes no difference whether the position or form of
the name to which the suffix was added was the classically correct
stem, or not.

(2) The rank assigned the suprageneric name has no nomenclatorial
significance, nor does any change of rank affect the date of estab-
lishment of the name.

(3) In a manner similar to the case of all generic names, the suprageneric
name takes precedence over all junior synonyms, subjective or
objective. (An objective junior synonym is a suprageneric name
based on an objective junior synonym of its type genus. A sub-
jective junior synonym is a suprageneric name established later
with a type genus that is held subjectively to belong to the same
suprageneric group), and falls in the presence of senior synonyms,
objective or subjective.

I am confident that these principles, if adopted, will result in the least
possible changes, taking into consideration tribal, subfamily and family names,
because these are the principles that, although not formulated, have most
generally actuated authors in dealing with such names.

The Commission must be authorised and prepared to grant relief by making
exceptions in the cases (which I am confident will be relatively few) where
clearly generally accepted names are threatened.

276 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

By far the greatest difficulty has been arising in the case of names the
type genera of which are now known to have been misunderstood, the type
species actually belonging to a taxonomic group far removed from that to
which the name was believed to apply. All such cases should be brought to
the attention of the Commission as rapidly as possible and the Commission should
be instructed under its plenary power to set aside the type species of such genera,
and to establish type species that will conserve the accepted meaning of the
generic names. This was done at my request in the case of numerous families
and subfamilies of Hymenoptera in 1935, and a number of such cases are
now before the Commission.

Para. 20

Agreed.

Para. 22

Such rare cases can be specially handled under plenary powers, and the
Commission should be authorised to do so, when, in its judgment, the case
warrants. The authorisation already adopted at Paris seems adequate.

Para. 23

It would seem to me far better, where such a case arises, to conserve the
junior synonymous generic name, under the plenary powers, and thereby to
achieve the desired conservation of the family name. The very case brought
forward as an illustration emphasises this, for I am convinced that, whatever
action the Commission may or may not take, the majority of zoologists will
not abandon Chironomus in favour of Tendipes.

Para. 24

I see no objection to the course indicated, though I should personally be
doubtful that a case would ever arise where it would be really desirable to
conserve the family name and at the same time not to validate the generic
name on which it is based.

Para. 25

Author of a family name. I can only think of this in terms of author of a
suprageneric name, with no more regard to rank assigned it than we pay to
rank as between genus and subgenus.

It has been very customary to apply the author’s name after a tribal,
subfamily or family name to imply the author who gave the name a certain
rank and certain limits. This must be strictly prohibited in the future and
had better be provided for by some such provision as “ If it is desired to cite
the author who first assigned a particular rank and limit to the suprageneric
group, this may be done by adding in parentheses (sense of so-and-so. such-
and-such a date).”

Para. 26

Agreed, on the principle that it is the author of the suprageneric group
being cited, not necessarily of the valid name of that group. With this in
mind, might it not be simpler to provide that if the author of the suprageneric
group used a name for it based on a different generic name, his name be cited
but placed in parentheses ?

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 277

Paras. 27-28

Hemming’s suggestion “‘to be rejected as a junior homonym”’ produces
an absolute impasse. The type genus of the suprageneric name is that which
gives its stem to the homonymous suprageneric name ; but the genus is not
a homonym and its name is valid. To shift the type genus is impossible under
the rules, and would nullify the existence of any type. Yet there is only one
way to form a suprageneric name under the Reégles from that generic name.
The only escape is by suspension of the rules and plenary action.

The principle is the same throughout all suprageneric categories, and
since there are many cases of two or more genera with identical stems, I shudder
to think of the number of homonymous names that may exist at tribal level
or above that have never been noted.

Para. 29

Agreed, except that generic names that are not homonyms may produce
family names that are identical, ex. gr. Cyprinus and Cyprina. I think the
wording must be based on whether there is any difference in the stems, not
in the nominatives.

Para. 30

Agreed, except that (as I have previously stated) I think we must go further,
and provide that the regulations must apply to all suprageneric names based
on a contained generic name, without any regard whatsoever to the subjective
rank assigned to them.

Para. 31

Very strongly agree that the suffix “-INAE”’ must be retained for the
subfamily.

Para. 32

Strongly agreed to. The only exception in practice that I can think of
is that myrmecologists have for some reason customarily used Formica as
the type genus of FORMICIDAE, but placed it in the subfamily which they have
termed CAMPONOTINAE.

Para. 33

Strongly agreed to, as far as it goes.

Paras. 34 and 35
Agreed to.

Para. 37

Supergenus. I cannot recall where it is in practical use. 1 have thought
of its involving the generic name without suffix (just as does the subgenus)
and that while it would never be combined with the trivial name in citing a
species, that it would differ from genus only in degree of comprehensiveness,
that it would be an aggregate of genera. In citation it would be distinguished
from genus only by insertion of the word “ Supergenus ”’ in front of it. Would
it not be well to postpone rules for this category until demand appears? But
somewhere in the Régles should be a list of primary categories from Kingdom

278 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

to species, with a statement that it is always permissible to provide intermediate
categories by using the primary grades with the prefixes “‘SUPER-” or
ee SUB.-.”’

Para. 39

Agreed.

Para. 40

Malacologists have almost universally used the termination * -ACEA”
for superfamily. However, I have seen at least one instance of a recent author
who has adopted “-OIDEA.” I concur that ‘“-OIDEA” should be the
suffix. I do not like to see each category of this group of names defined in
terms of a type consisting of a name of the next inferior rank. Is it not better
to let the type genus stand as the type unit for all categories based on it ?

Para. 41

I agree that, for purpose of priority, a special case must be made of super-
family, apart from other suprageneric names.

Para. 42
Agreed.

Paras. 43-48

Agreed to, but with two suggestions :—

(1) that each suprageneric name be entered in the form in which it was
first established, with its author and date, followed by its first
usage, if any, with each of the authorised suffixes “ -INI,”
* TDAK,” and ‘‘ -OIDEA,” with the author and date of each.

(2) that it might be clearer to entitle the list “ Official List of Suprageneric
Names in Zoology.”

Should not suprageneric name be defined as any name of a group higher
than genus based on the stem (or its equivalent) of a contained genus with a
suffix added to indicate its rank? This definition would exclude subordinal
and higher names.

Would it not be well to provide that systematists requiring additional
levels of classification are at liberty to introduce such additional categories
as phalanx, cohort, stirps, legion, etc. at points between genus and suborder,
applying the same principles as for other suprageneric names, and to use any
suffixes other than those received for tribe, subfamily and superfamily, but
that it is not deemed necessary to make special provision for them in the rules.

Subtribe, however, is used so frequently that it should perhaps be included
along with tribe. The suffix “-INA ” is often employed.

i

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 279
DOCUMENT 3/38

By W. E. CHINA, M.A., D.Sc.
(British Museum (Natural History), London)

(1) Extract from a letter dated 20th August 1952
Ref. Z.N.(S.)357

1 have also read through Bull. zool. Nomencl. Vol. 7, Part 3, dealing with
the portion of the Regles relating to the formation of family names. Here,
although I am in general agreement I am not in favour of the methods of
determining the relative status of competing family names embodies in para-
graphs 18 and 19. The use of the date on which the type species of the type
genus was fixed to decide the priority of a family would completely upset
our family names, since many genera have had the type species fixed only
within recent years and thus the priorities afforded would be of a very low
standard. The first reviser principle of paragraph 19 would, in my opinion,
be impracticable. The first reviser is often the worst reviser and there has
usually been an alteration in the use of group names which does not finish
with the name selected by the first reviser. In my opinion, the Law of Priority
should be the guiding principle in the selection of family names. A family
name should be the first published group name based on the stem of a valid
generic name, irrespective of the type of plural ending used by the author.
The family name must date from the publication of this group name and
the type genus, of course, is automatically the genus on which the group name
is based. Considerable instability of family names has been due to the rule
stating that “‘ the name of a family must change when the name of its type
genus is found to be a synonym, the family name can be retained since the
its nominal type genus is found to be a homonym. When the nominal type
genus is found to be a synonym the family name can be retained since the
name of its type genus still remains within the family although as a synonym.
Unless this system is adopted, family names will be continually liable to change.
An Official List of Family Names, as proposed in paragraphs 45-48 could validate
names of families, whose type genera have become synonyms.

There is one point which I cannot find clarified in your report. That is,
to whom should a typical subfamily be attributed, the original author of the
family or to the author of the subfamily grouping? Since subfamilies are
co-ordinate with families, I presume that the date of a typical subfamily
would be the same as that of the family in which case the author would also
be the same. What about the other non-typical subfamilies ? Surely they
must be attributed to their respective initiators and given their dates of
initiation !

As regards paragraph 38 I suggest the ending ‘* -ARIA ” to the stem of the
type genus of a supergenus. This ending was used extensively by Distant
in his Fauna of India volumes for groups of genera below tribal rank.

280 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
(2) Extract from a letter dated 20th September 1952

Z.N.(S.)357. New family names based on a generic name substituted for the
original type genus which has become a homonym

I agree with you that for purposes of stability the new family name should
take the date of the old family name. Thus, RIODINIDAE should take the
date of the previously used ERYCINIDAE. I was previously confusing two
ideas, the need for a Law of Priority in family names and the need for a family
name once established to follow the vicissitudes of its type genus. There
is, of course, always the chance in such cases that a new family name based
on a substitute generic name may change again because the genus which had
priority and should have been selected as the substitute name had been over-
looked and some later name used as the substitute. I therefore think that
for the purposes of stability, no time should be lost in establishing an Official
List of all family names.

DOCUMENT 3/39

By K. H. L. KEY
(Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation,
Division of Entomology, Canberra, Australia)

Extract from a letter dated 4th September 1952

(Note :—The main portion of the above letter was concerned with the problem
of the emendation of names, on which a separate paper has been submitted
by Dr. Key and which constitutes Document 5/26 of the Copenhagen Series.)

I have studied your proposals in connection with the other six questions
referred to you by the Thirteenth Congress, and, in general, I find myself in
hearty agreement with them.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 281.
DOCUMENT 3/40

By D. LESTON
(London, England)

Enclosure to a letter dated 7th March 1953

Editorial Note: The following note is an extract from a paper by Mr. Leston
entitled “ The Suprageneric Nomenclature of the British Pentatomoidea
(Hemiptera), which was. published in January 1953 wm the serial publication
“ The Entomologist.”

In the hope of contributing to the stability of nomenclature in this present
period of taxonomic fluxion, the group names used in the classification of
the British Pentatomoidea have been investigated.

The principle of giving priority to the oldest Latin group name of supra-
generic rank has been used but, if the name of the original type-genus has
changed (in accordance with the International Rules or Opinions), then the
group name has been changed accordingly. Horvath (1911) followed the
oldest group-name method as opposed to Bergroth’s (e.g. 1926) use of the
oldest generic name as the root of a suprageneric unit, but Horvath refused
to alter a group-name when its type-genus had been relegated to synonymy.
Thus he retained PLATASPIDAE Dallas 1851 although Kirkaldy (1909) had shown
Plataspis Westwood 1837 to be a synonym of Brachyplatys Boisduval 1835.
(Bergroth’s remarks (1906) to the effect that Plataspis and Brachyplatys were
distinct were not based on a study of the genotypes.) Leston (1952) has there-
fore raised the name BRACHYPLATIDAE in place of PLATASPIDAE ; it 1s obvious
that the original type-genus of the first erector of this suprageneric group has
remained unchanged. The alternate name used by many authors, CoPTOSsO-
MATIDAE (or COPTOSMIDAE), was based on the cldest generic name.

3

Schouteden (1906c), on the question of “ Asopinae,”’ wrote “ Pour étre
rigoureusement exact il faudrait cependant changer le nom de la sousfamille
en Amyotinae, le nom du genre type Asopus ayant du étre remplacé par
Amyotea.”’ Therefore Schouteden placed AmyoTINAE on the title-page of his
~ monograph, but unfortunately in brackets after the disqualified name. It is
shown by Schouteden’s use of Asoparia on a later page that he did not intend
to replace ASOPINAE by AMYOTINAE and thus the latter name is proposed below.

The method used here is also used by China (1943) when, showing that
Stenodema Lap. must replace Miris Reuter nec F., the type genus of MIRINI
Reuter nec Hahn, he amends the tribal name to STENODEMINI China. (But
China retains BERYTIDAE although pointing out that the type genus, Berytus
F., is a synonym of Neides Latreille.) Similarly, Carvalho follows the same
practice throughout his recent revision of the MrRIDAE (1952).

Group names ending in -ides have been accepted as being Latin and both
Leach (1815) and Billberg (1820) intended such; unfortunately, the same
ending when used by Amyot and Serville (1843) is undoubtedly French and

282 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

their names thereby invalid. Such names used by them as Stiretrides (p. 74),
Phleides (p. 115) and Megymenides (p. 181) are obviously vernacular. Sailer
(1945) bases a subfamily name, EUCORIINAE, on a vernacular name, EKucoriens
Mulsant and Rey (1866) but, as pointed out by McAtee and Malloch (1945),
Eucoriens is invalid; Sailer’s action validates it as EUCORIINAE Sailer. Van
Duzee (1917) was inconsistent ; e.g. he accepted Sciocorides A. & S. but not

Sehirides A. & S.

To bring the work into line with current usage, the equivalent names
used by Van Duzee (1917), Stichel (1935) and Poisson (1951), as well as those
of China (1943), are given; the last-named classification has, for convenience,
been followed except for one change. Although no official ruling has been
given by the Commission it is anticipated that the original author of a group
shall be cited at no matter what level—tribal, subfamilial or familial—the group
is subsequently placed by taxonomists. Thus Pentatomoidea Leach, Penta-
tomidae Leach, Pentatomini Leach are considered here as correct. The old
method seems to have been arbitrary: e.g. Stichel (1935) cites Miridoidaria
Stichel, Miridae Dohrn 1859, Mirinae Reuter 1910, Mirini Reuter, 1875; the
oldest group name, Mirides Hahn (1831), not originally conceived as vernacular,
has been overlooked by Stichel and it would appear that Hahn should be
cited as the author of all these groups.

The advantages of the method used here are: (1) its simplicity; (2) the
retention of the original author’s name through all the later vicissitudes
splitting or lumping, upgrading or downgrading, of the group during the
subsequent development of taxonomic theory and practice; (3) the strict
parallel with the rules on generic nomenclature ; (4) its compliance with the
International Rules as far as they have been formulated on the subject of

group-names.

PURO it ae
21 JUL 1953

CONTENTS
(continued from front wrapper)

PROBLEMS INVOLVED IN THE REGULATION OF THE NAMING

OF FAMILIES AND LOWER SUPRAGENERIC GROUPS
Page

D.3/1
D.3/2
D.3/3
D.3/4
D.3/5
D.3/6

D.3/7

D.3/8
D.3/9
D.3/10

D.3/11

D.3/12
D.3/13

Origin of the present investigation

Reference to 1952 Survey by the Secret is

An individual problem raised by HAROLD W. MANTER
(Lincoln, Nebraska, U.S.A.) .

Examples of homonymous family names Farashed a H.
BOSCHMaA (Leiden)

The correct names for families in “gpology. By CURTIS W.
SABROSKY (Washington, D.C.) :

On the formation of family names. By sk W. "GRENSTED
(Oxford) ..

Notas sobre a Nomenclatura dos Grupos Superiores a Generos,
By Ph. JESUS MOURE (Parana, Brazil) and L. TRA-
VASSOS FILHO (Sao Paulo, Brazil)

Comment on Dr. Harold Manter’s application (Daceneue D. /3)
by the late LODOVICO DI CAPORIACCO (Parma, Italy)
Professor R. JEANNEL’s proposal for introducing a new

termination to denote tribes ..

Statement submitted in 1948 by ROBERT Es USINGER aud
E. GORTON LINSLEY ee a as U.S.A. )
Note by the Secretary

On the difficulties involved in the use oF the stems ae ers
names in forming family names. Letter from HOBART M.
SMITH (Urbana, Illinois, U.S.A.) ..

A proposal put forward by the late K. W. DAMMERMAN
(Leiden): Note by the Secretary .

Information furnished pane LEONARD P. SCHULTZ (Washing
ton, D.C.)

Statements furnished in response to the
Appeal in the Secretary’s 1952 Survey

P. C. SYLVESTER-BRADLEY (Sheffield)

L. B. HOLTHUIS (Leiden) oy

D. K. McE. KEVAN (Loughborough, England)

FRANZ DANIEL (Miinchen) ;

Th. HALTENORTH (Miinchen)

W. J. ARKELL (Cambridge) ‘

LESLIE BAIRSTOW (London) ..

J. R. DYMOND (Toronto) :

rte sc SLATER and en ie LAFFOON S (Ames, Towa,
U.S

S. G. KIRIAKOFF (Ghent)

ERICH M. HERING (Berlin) ..

RAYMOND C. MOORE (Lawrence, Kinin, U. S. A. ye

167
168

169
170
171

176

183
185

186

187

187
188

189

CONTENTS
(continued from overleaf)

PROBLEMS INVOLVED IN THE REGULATION OF THE NAMING
OF FAMILIES AND LOWER SUPRAGENERIC GROUPS

Statements furnished in response to the

Appeal in the Secretary’s 1952 Survey (continued) Page

D.3/26 JOSHUA L. BAILY, Jr. (San Diego, California, U.S.A.) .. 230
D.3/27 ROYAL ONTARIO MUSEUM OF ZOOLOGY AND

PALAEONTOLOGY .. : : 232
D.3/28 HENNING LEMCHE \Gavenkat) - 235
D.3/29 A. MYRA KEEN and SIEMON W. MULLER (Stanford

California, U.S.A.) 240
D.3/30 AMERICAN MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY, NEW

YORE i). é 241
D.3/31 NOMENCLATURE DISCUSSION GROUP, WASHING-

TON, D.C. aT 242
D.3/32 C. W. WRIGHT trodanaye af BS ees
D.3/33 E. RAYMOND HALL (Lawrence, Pa U. S. a yn ee
D.3/34. SOCIETY OF SYSTEMATIC ZOOLOGY (U.S.A.) :
D.3/35 AMERICAN COMMITTEE ON ENTOMOLOGICAL

NOMENCLATURE .. : 263
D.3/36 ENTOMOLOGISCHE GESELLSCHAFT, BASEL .
D.3/37 J. CHESTER BRADLEY (Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) .. 2 if eee
D.3/38 W.E. CHINA (London) .. 3 oe a, aH .. , 29 ae
D.3/39 K. H. L. KEY (Canberra, Austhalia) OS OR a
D.3/40 D.LESTON (London) .. ae oa oe th 25 59

Notices to Subscribers

(1) With the publication of the present Part (Parts 6/9), volume 8 is complete, —
except for one concluding Part, containing the Title-Page, Table of
Contents and the Index. It is hoped that this Part will be published
in the late summer of the present year.

(2) Owing to the need for concentrating upon the preparations for the Collo- ig
quium on Zoological Nomenclature to be held at Copenhagen at the Bae
end of July 1953 and for the meeting of the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature to be held immediately thereafter, it has
been necessary temporarily to stop work on the current volume of the
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. A considerable amount of ma

Parts (commencing with Part 6 of volume 9) will be published short
after the Copenhagen meetings.

(3) The index to volume 6 has now been completed and is in the press. | ‘eg
is hoped that it will be possible to publish this (with the Title Page a1 and

other Introductory matter) in a concluding Part (Part 12) within the n ext
few weeks. ee

Printed in Great Britain by MetcHim AND Son Ltp., Westminster, London

VOLUME 8. Double-Part 10/11 30th September 1954
pp. 283-318, T.P.—XXVIII _ A ACT 1954

PURCHASED
THE BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL
NOMENCLATURE

The Official Organ of

THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

Edited by

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

Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature

LONDON :

Printed by Order of the International Trust for

Zoological Nomenclature

and
Sold on behalf of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
by the International Trust
at its Publications Office,
41 Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7.

1954

Price One Pound, Ten Shillings
(All rights reserved)

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL
NOMENCLATURE

A. The Officers of the Commission

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

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

Vice-President : Senhor Dr. Afranio do Amaral (Sao Paulo, Brazil)
Secretary : Mr, Francis Hemming (London, England)

B. The Members of the Commission

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

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

Senor Dr. Angel Cabrera (Eva Peron, F.C.N.G.R., Argentina) (27th July 1948)

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

Dr. Joseph Pearson (Tasmanian Museum, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia) (27th
July 1948)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Professor Béla Hanké (Mezdgazdasdgi Muzeum, Budapest, Hungary) (12th
August 1953) ;

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

Mr. P. C. Sylvester-Bradley (Sheffield University, Sheffield, England) (12th
August 1953)

an)
J
ae
Bid
4
‘a

Dr. L. B. Holthuis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Nether- — 3

lands) (12th August 1953)

BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

Volume 8, Double-Part, 10/11 (pp. 283-318, T.P.—X XVIII) 30th September 1954

EDITORIAL NOTE

The present Part contains the four concluding papers in regard to the
Cases dealt with in the present volume which were considered by the
Colloquium on Zoological Nomenclature, Copenhagen, 1953, but which were
received too late for publication prior to the meeting of the Colloquium.
These documents were submitted to the Colloquium in mimeographed form.
They are now published, in order to complete the record of the documentation
submitted in regard to the foregoing Cases.

These documents are the Reports prepared by the Secretary to the
Commission in response to the invitation addressed to him by the Thirteenth

International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948.

ADDENDUM

REPORTS SUBMITTED TO THE COLLOQUIUM ON
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE, COPENHAGEN, 1953, BY
THE SECRETARY TO THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION
ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE ON THE THREE
MAJOR NOMENCLATORIAL PROBLEMS DISCUSSED IN

THE PRESENT VOLUME

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 287

CASE NO. 1

The problem of securing greater stability in zoological nomenclature
(continued from page 108)

DOCUMENT 1/59

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

Stabilisation of Zoological Nomenclature, Part 1:
The Suggested Law of Prescription

(Circulated to the Colloquium on Zoological Nomenclature on 29th July, 1953
as Paper Z.N.(C.) 16)

Origin of the present investigation: At the Paris (1948) Congress
two proposals were brought forward in favour of the introduction of a Law
of Prescription which would limit the operation of the Law of Priority in
certain respects in the interest of maintaining names currently in common use ;
the first of these proposals was brought forward by Lemche (Copenhagen),
the second by Bonnet (Toulouse). Both these proposals were published in
1950 in vol. 3 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. The preliminary
discussion of this problem at Paris both showed the complexity of the problem
and brought to light also considerable differences of opinion. It was
accordingly decided (1) to defer the consideration of this matter until the
Copenhagen (1953) Congress, (2) to broaden the issue by including in it all
other possible ways of promoting stability in nomenclature, and (3) to invite
me, as the Secretary to the International Commission, to undertake an
investigation, in conjunction with interested zoologists, and to submit a full
report to the Copenhagen Congress.?

2. Consultations made and advice sought: In March 1952 the Trust
published a paper (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 7: 148-188) in which I gave a survey
of the various suggestions which had been made and of the issues which
appeared to be involved and invited interested zoologists to furnish statements
setting out their views as to the action which it was desirable should be taken
at the Copenhagen Congress. The documents received in response to this
appeal, together with various documents previously received by the
Commission, have since been published in Parts 1/3 of vol. 8 of the Bulletin
of Zoological Nomenclature.*

1See 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 234.
*Pp. 5-108 of the present volume,

288 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

3. The present separate treatment of the proposal for the
recognition of a Law of Prescription: In my 1952 survey I was inclined
to take the view that the main issue in the field of stability was whether some
form of a Law of Prescription should be introduced or whether, in place of this
course, various other means there enumerated should be adopted to promote
stability in zoological nomenclature. Looking back, it appears to me that,
while from a practical point of view the foregoing might prove to represent
the broad choice confronting the Colloquium, it by no means follows logically
that this is the case, for, as pointed out in a number of the communications
received in response to the 1952 appeal, it would be possible both to adopt
some form of a Law of Prescription and, in addition, to adopt some or all of
the various other measures which have been suggested. In view of the novel
character of the proposal to recognise a Law of Prescription in the Régles
and of its intrinsic importance, I have come to the conclusion that it might
be convenient to the Colloquium to have before it a short Report summarising
the various forms in which this proposal, or something substantially equivalent
to it, have been put forward. In all there are ten of these proposals. The
authors of these schemes, arranged in the order in which they were received
by the Commission, are: (1) Bonnet; (2) Lemche’s 1948 proposal; (3) an
organised group of Austrian zoologists; (4) Ferriére; (5) Dammerman ;
(6) Daniel; (7) Blake; (8) Kiriakoff; (9) Mayr; (10) Bradley. Apart from
Bradley’s scheme which was received in 1952, all the schemes noted above
were received at various dates between 1948 and 1951. These schemes are
summarised in the following paragraphs.

4. The Bonnet proposal: The text of Professor Bonnet’s proposal was
published in 1950 (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 3: 177) and has been included in the
Agenda for the Colloquium as Document 1/3. His proposal, submitted early
in 1948, is that there should be inserted in the Régles a provision that a generic
name or a specific trivial name which has remained unused for a considerable
time (“durant des nombreuses années”’) shall not, on grounds of priority,
be substituted for a name which has been in use for a long time (“ depuis
longtemps utilisé”). Under this proposal difficult cases would be left to
specialists to settle among themselves.

5. The Lemche proposal of 1948: The proposal brought forward in
1948 by Dr. Henning Lemche (on his own behalf and on that of a large group
of Scandinavian zoologists) was published in the Bulletin in 1950 (Bull. zool.
Nomencl. 3 : 158-161) together with the names of the supporting zoologists ;
and the operative portion of this proposal has been included on the Agenda
for the Colloquium as Document 1/74. Under this proposal it was suggested
that there should be inserted in the Régles a provision that a generic name or
specific trivial name published before 1850 and not used in scientific literature
since lst January 1850 is not to be rejected in favour of such other name as has
been in general use for that genus or species since that date. A revision of
this proposal was submitted by Lemche in 1952. See paragraph 13 below.

3See page 5.
‘See page 8.

aga

ay il

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 289

6. The view put forward by the Austrian zoologists who have
submitted statements on this subject: The group of Austrian zoologists
who have submitted representations in support of the Principle of Prescription
favour the recognition of the principle that a name which has been consistently
applied to an animal should not be displaced in favour of an older name solely
on account of technical nomenclatorial considerations. This view was put
forward in a letter addressed to the Thirteenth International Congress of
Zoology at Paris in 1948 in a communication, the text of which has since been
published in the Bulletin (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 5: 77-78). See also
Document 1/9 in the Agenda for the Colloquium. ®

7. The Ferriére proposal: The proposal submitted to the Commission
by Dr. Ferriére (and placed also before the Ninth International Congress of
Entomology at Amsterdam in 1951) is reproduced as Document 1/13 in the
Agenda for the Colloquium.’ Under this proposal, where a species remains
unidentified for more than one hundred years, the name applied to that
species (1) would be suppressed altogether if the original type specimen was
no longer available, and (2), ‘f the type specimen were to be available, wculd
need to be redescribed in its appropriate modern genus before it could be
accepted as an available name. Ferriére recognised that the crux of his
proposal was the date to be assigned for purposes of priority to a hundred-
year-old species redescribed in this way. On this critical issue he was able
_ to suggest only that it should form the subject of discussion among specialists.

8. The Dammerman proposal: The proposal put forward by the late
Dr. Dammerman—for which see Document 1/14 on the Colloquium Agenda’—
is of a general character, although it was put forward specifically only in
relation to the names of insects. The idea was that a definite start should be
made towards preserving specific trivial names belonging to two important
classes, namely (a) names of species which are the type species of genera
which, in turn, are the type genera of families, and (b) names of species of
economic importance. The proposal was that, under a system of co-operation
to be established among leading specialists, a specified number of names of
the foregoing classes should be studied annually, that the results of those
studies should be published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature and that,
if after the expiry of a period of one year from the date of such publication,
a given name received a two-third vote, that name would thereupon become
fully protected against rejection on any ground.

9. The Daniel proposal: The proposal submitted to the Commission
by Dr. Franz Daniel is reproduced as Document 1/25 on the Colloquium
Agenda.’ Dr. Daniel’s scheme is similar genera]ly to the Dammerman proposal
in that it contemplates progress being achieved through proposals to be
submitted by relatively small groups of specialists in particular groups ot the
Animal Kingdom.

5See page 13.
*See page 20.
"See pages 21-22.
8See pages 46-47.

290 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

10. The Blake proposal: Blake (Document D 1/31 on the Colloquium
Agenda®) put forward a suggestion in favour of the insertion in the Reégles
of a Statute of Limitation. Under this proposal which, in his covering letter
Blake stated was, in part, derivative from ideas suggested by Mayr, the exclusive
and uncontested application of a given name to a particular species for a period
of fifty years or more would be deemed to constitute conclusive evidence that
the name was correctly so applied, provided that the name had been used at
least three times during that period. Similarly a name would be protected
where it had been applied for 70 years or more to a given species, even if on
not more than three occasions during the 70-year period the name in question
had not been so called.

11. The Kiriakoff proposal: Kiriakoff is opposed to the introduction
of a Law of Prescription ; he proposes, however, a much more drastic scheme
(see Document D. 1/32 on the Colloquium Agenda”), under which after a date
to be specified no further changes in the names of genera or species would be
permitted and any book published before that date which contained names
for genera or species at present known by later names would be treated as
non-existent for nomenclatorial purposes.

12. The Mayr proposal : In Document 1/45 on the Colloquium Agenda!
Mayr puts forward a proposal which resembles the Blake proposal
(paragraph 10 above), which latter (as already explained) is stated by its
author to be in part derived from ideas suggested by Mayr. Under this
proposal three new categories of status would be recognised for names:
(1) that of the ‘“‘ nomen conservatum,”’ to which would belong any name
expressly preserved by the Commission and placed on either of the Official
Lists ; (2) that of “ nomen conservandum,” to which would belong (i) all names
on the Official Lists other than “‘ nomina conservata,” and (i1) any name in current
use for the conservation of which a petition to the Commission is pending ;
(3) that of “presumptive ‘nomen conservandum’”’ to which would belong
(i) the name of any genus which is the type-genus of a suprageneric category ;
(ii) any name (otherwise available) which has been used exclusively or virtually
exclusively for a period of 50 years or more, provided that the name in question
has been used at least ten times in the literature, or for a period of 30 years
where the name in question has been used 100 times or more during the
period. Under this scheme the Law of Priority would not apply to “ nomina
conservanda’”’ or to “ presumptive nomina conservanda”’ in such a way as to
disturb usage without prior reference to the Commission. It would be the duty
of zoologists to bring such cases to the attention of the Commission.

13. The present Lemche proposal : Lemche’s present proposal is given
in Document 1/46 on the Colloquium Agenda.!2 This scheme differs in form
from any of the others that have been proposed in that, under it, the burden
of searching the literature for the purpose of finding cases where a practically

*See pages 56-57.
10See page 58.
USee pages 76-77.
13See page 78,

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 291

unknown name has been used, would be thrown upon the author who wished
on grounds of priority to use some name (name “ A”’) in preference to the
later name (name “ B’’) currently in use. Such an author would be required
not merely to show that the names “ A’”’ and “ B”’ belong to the same species
and that the name “°A”’ is older than the name “ B,”’ but also that the
name “ A’ has been used for the species concerned in preference to the name
“B” at least (—) times during a period of (—) years from the time at which
the author concerned desires to substitute the older name “A” for the
currently accepted name “B.’’ This scheme would base prescriptive right for
the name “ B”’ upon the non-usage of the name “ A ’”’—or the usage of that
name on not more than (—) occasions—in a specified recent period. The
length of the period to be selected and the number of occasions on which,
during that period usage of name “A” occurred, would be a matter for
separate discussion.

14. The Bradley proposal: In Document 1/50 on the Colloquium
Agenda!® Bradley, while expressly supporting the idea of a Law of Prescription,
puts forward a scheme which is in fact closely allied to that advocated by
Mayr (paragraph 12). Under this proposal] a name which has been “ virtually
exclusively in use” for a specified period, or has been so used in a specified
number of publications, shall be presumed to be a “‘ nomen conservandum ”’ ;
that is, it shall not be permissible for a zoologist who observes what he deems
to be a nomenclational defect in such a name to reject it under any provision
of the Reégles, it being his duty in such a situation to report the case to the
Commission. Such cases would be decided by the Commission under its
ordinary—that is, not under its Plenary—powers and, where the Commission
considered that the name qualified for conservation, would place it on the
appropriate Official List.

15. Support received for the idea of inserting in the “ Régles” a
provision embodying a Law of Prescription: It will be seen from the
foregoing particulars that the idea of inserting in the Régles a provision
embodying a Law of Prescription in one form or another has attracted a
substantial measure of support. In addition to the authors of the actual
schemes put forward this idea is supported also, though with qualifications, by :
(1) The Nomenciature Committee of the American Museum of Natural History,
New York (Document D.1/41 on the Colloquium Agenda#*) pointed out that
a Law of Prescription would involve an exhaustive search into the entire
literature, a search which the committee regarded as “ probably an impossible
task.”’ The Committee did not however rule out the possibility of devising a
scheme under which a name might acquire a prescriptive right where it had
been used with moderate consistency in comprehensive treatments of the
group concerned, by calling in aid some Statute of Limitations. The
Committee added that Mayr (one of its members) had suggested that the
period for acquiring a prescriptive right might be reduced from 100 to 50 years
and that usage in synonymies should be disregarded. (2) China (Document

13See pages 86-87.
14See pages 71-72.

292 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

D. 1/52)'5 considers that a properly worked-out Law of Prescription would
be a great help in stabilising nomenclature, but that (a) the period for acquiring
a prescriptive right should be set at 40 years, and (6) that the new provision
should not be retrospective to the period lying behind the date on which it
was adopted ; in other words, the new rule would apply only to cases where
for 40 years after its introduction the name in question had been applied
in a uniform manner.

16. Opposition to the recognition in the “ Régles” of the principle
of Prescription: While, as noted in the preceding paragraph, considerable
support has been expressed for the proposed incorporation in the Régles of
provisions embodying a Law of Prescription or its equivalent, it must here be
noted that this proposal has excited also considerable opposition. It is rather
difficult to analyse the grounds upon which various authors have based their
objection, but it is clear that some hold that such a scheme would be
impracticable, while others regard it as unsound in principle, infringing the
Law of Priority without securing a sufficient countervailing advantage. Some
who have expressed opposition to the idea of a Law of Prescription have taken
the stand that the promotion of stability in nomenclature could be achieved
more satisfactorily by the adoption of the other measures suggested in my
1952 paper and, perhaps because of the form in which the questions at the
end of that paper were drafted, have not made it clear whether they would
in all circumstances be opposed to the adoption also of a Law of Prescription.
Those who have expressed themselves as being opposed, for one reason or
another, to such a provision include : (1) di Caporiacco (D. 1/51®) ; (2) Holthuis
(D. 1/23"); (3) Hopkins (D. 1/2418); (4) Arkell (D. 1/29) ; ©) Dymond
(D. 1/30): (6) Kiriakoff (D. 1/3221); (7) Cabrera (D. 1/362); (8) Keen &
Muller (D. 1/4023); (9) Wright (D.1/43%); (10) Lochhead (D. 1/4725) ;
(11) Hall (D. 1/486); (12) Townes (D. 1/49, Annexe 1*’). To the foregoing
must certainly be added the Nomenclature Discussion Group, Washington, D.C.
(D. 1/88 and D. 1/42°), for, although in neither of the statements furnished
by the Group is opposition to the recognition of the Principles of Prescription
expressly stated, the purpose of both statements is to circumscribe and limit
the use of the Commission’s Plenary Powers, an object which wou!'d be wholly
inconsistent with support for the relaxation of the Priority Principle through
the incorporation into the Régles of a provision recognising Prescription.

(Signed) FRANCIS HEMMING,
Secretary of the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature.
Temporary Secretariat of the Commission,
Hotel Excelsior,

Copenhagen,
Denmark.

29th July, 1953.
15See pages 97-98. 23See page 70.
16See page 7. 24See page 75.
l’See page 44. 25See pages 79-80.
18See page 45. 26See page 80.
18See page 55. *7See page 81.
20See page 55. *8See pages 9-12.
21See page 58. = also paragraph 11 of the present Report. *°See pages 73-75.

See pages 66-6

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 293

DOCUMENT 1/60

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

Stabilisation of Zoological Nomenclature, Part 2: Possible
measures other than the adoption of the Principle of
Prescription

(Circulated to the Colloquium on Zoological Nomenclature as Paper
ZN<(C.)17 on 29th July, 1953, simultaneously with the Secretary’s First
Report (Document D.1/59))

In my immediately preceding Report (Paper Z.N.(C.)16) I have given a
summary of the suggestions which have been made in favour of the incorpora-
tion into the Régles of provisions recognising the Principle of Prescription.
I dealt with this subject separately in the foregoing Report, mainly because
the documentation relating to it was much more voluminous than that relating
to any other matter in the group of proposals expressly concerned with the
promotion of stability in nomenclature. The purpose of the present Report is
to give a list of the proposals which have been received in regard relating to
the promotion of nomenclatorial stability, other than the suggested recognition
of the Principle of Prescription :—

(1) Proposed addition of a Preamble to the Régles making it clear that
their object is to promote uniformity and stability in zoological
nomenclature.

(2) Proposed rewording of the Plenary Powers provisions to make it
clear that the object of the grant of those Powers is to promote
uniformity and stability in zoological nomenclature.

(3) Proposed establishment of an Official Index of Rejected and Invalid
Zoological Publications.

(4) Proposed suppression of unrecognisable (and unrecognised) “ nomina
dubia.”

(5) Proposed introduction of means for determining the locality to be
accepted for nomenclatorial purposes as the original locality of the
nominotypical (nominate) subspecies of a polytypic species in cases
where the information contained in the original description was
insufficiently precise or was incorrect or where no information on
this question was given by the original author.

(6) Question whether provisions similar to those suggested in (5) above
are desirable for the purpose of determining for nomenclatorial

294 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

purposes the situation in which the type material of fossil species
was obtained when the original description contains no, or
inadequate, information on this subject.

(7) Question in relation to the determination for nomenclatorial purposes
of the host species of a parasitic species in situations similar to those
indicated in (6) above.

(8) The development of the use of the Commission’s Plenary Powers.

(9) Development of the “ Official Inst”’ system as an agency for the
promotion of stability and uniformity in zoological nomenclature.

2. In connection with the matters enumerated above, it should be noted
that no proposals have been brought forward for the extension of the
Commission’s Plenary Powers, it being considered that the existing provisions
are adequate for the purpose of promoting stability and uniformity in nomen-
clature. It must be noted, however, that among the papers submitted there
is a proposed (Document 1/42%°) submitted by the Nomenclature Discussion
Group, Washington, for restricting the Plenary Powers within a narrower field
than at present.

(signed) FRANCIS HEMMING,
Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature.
Temporary Secretariat of the Commission,
Hotel Excelsior,

Copenhagen,
Denmark.

29th July, 1953.

3°See pages 73-75 — also“pages 9-12,

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 295

CASE NO. 2

The question whether “ neotypes ” should be recognised in the
* Régles ” as a category of type specimen

(Continued from page 166)
DOCUMENT 2/38

REPORT ON THE QUESTION OF THE RECOGNITION OF
NEOTYPES AS A CATEGORY OF TYPE SPECIMEN

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

(Circulated to the Colloquium on Zoological Nomenclature on
27th July, 1953, as Paper Z.N.(C.)15)

Origin of the present investigation: The present investigation was
undertaken in response to a request made at the Paris (1948) Congress (see
1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 192-193).

2. Consultations undertaken: In March 1952 the Trust published
(Bull. zool. Nomencl. 7: 131-147) a paper in which, as Secretary to the
Commission, I reviewed the problems which, as it seemed to me, were involved
in the proposal that ‘‘ neotypes ” should be recognised as a category of type
specimen and appealed to specialists for advice. The documents received in
response to this appeal, together with certain others previously submitted to
the Commission, have been included in the Colloquium Agenda as Documents
D.2/1 to D.2/37 (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 8 : 109-168).

3. The main issues involved: There are two main issues involved,
namely: (1) Is it desirable in any circumstances that ‘“‘ neotypes ”’ should be
recognised as a category of type specimen ? Ifthe answers to the above question
is “ yes,” the second and equally important question is: (2) Shall the creation
of definitive and authoritative neotypes be limited to cases where specialists
in the group concerned are of the opinion that a neotype (or some equivalent
mechanism) is necessary to put an end to doubts as to the taxonomic species
to which a given name is applicable by definitely attaching the name in
question to a specimen which corresponds as closely as possible both with the
original description and with the current interpretation of that description ?
Or alternatively, is the creation of neotypes to be permitted wherever the
holotype or lectotype is missing and, in the latter case, where there are no
syntypes available for selection as the lectotype ? Clearly, if the answer to
the first of these questions is in the negative, the whole problem disappears.

296 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

If, however, this question is answered in the affirmative, the choice between
the second pair of alternatives becomes one of prime importance, for on the
decision taken on this question will turn the whole of the provisions to be
adopted. On the one hand, if the creation of large numbers of neotypes is
to be permitted, the provisions to be inserted in the Reégles can be of only the
most general character and can be little more than recommendations to
authors as to the principles which they should follow in creating neotypes.
If on the other hand, the decision is in favour of the adoption of provisions
permitting the establishment of neotypes only in exceptional circumstances
in relation to well-known names in common use where specialists feel that
this is necessary for the purposes of their taxonomic work (i.e., to prevent
confusion and to promote uniformity), the provisions to be inserted in the
Régles could be given a precise character and could be accompanied by
safeguards on such matters as publicity, consultation, preservation and
location of, and access to, neotypes, which would be impracticable if the
number of neotypes to be created was large and if it were to be possible for
any worker to create neotypes at his sole discretion.

4. Answers received (documents published in volume 8 of the
“ Bulletin”): Ina consultation undertaken by correspondence—as contrasted
with a round-table discussion—it is often difficult, if not impossible, to tabulate
the replies received in cases, such as the present, where overlapping
possibilities are involved. In the present case there is a minority which is
opposed to the grant of any official recognition of neotypes and a majority
which is in favour of such recognition. It is clear, however, that some part of
the body of workers who make up this majority would join the opponents of
neotypes, unless the scheme were one which provided for the creation of only
small numbers of neotypes under rigorous safeguards. In a considerable
number of cases, however, the comments submitted are based upon the
assumption that basically the scheme should be one under which it would be
open to any worker to create neotypes without resort to any external authority.
Inevitably, therefore, the safeguards suggested are in many cases of very
meagre description.

5. Questions relating to safeguards and other matters on which
decisions will be needed (1) if a decision in favour of neotypes is taken
and (2) as soon as it has been decided whether the scheme is to be one
under which neotypes were to be created only in small numbers and
under rigorous safeguards or one under which individual workers
would be free to create unlimited numbers of neotypes at their own
discretion : For the reasons explained above, it seems to me to be best to leave
the various comments which have been received (and which have been published
in Volume 8 of the Bulletin) to speak for themselves, and here to do no more than
list the questions which have been raised, while noting that the answers to
be given to those questions will inevitably differ greatly according to whether
neotype-creation is to be left in the hands of individual specialists or is to be
placed under the authority of the International Commission :

EE eT

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 297

(A) Scope of the Scheme :—
(1) Shall the creation of neotypes be limited to cases where the holotype

and/or lectotype or, if there never were such, the syntypes of a
species are known to have been lost or destroyed ?

(2) Shall the creation of neotypes be permissible also where the holotype
or lectotype is so damaged or incomplete as, in the opinion of
specialists, to render unrecognisable the taxonomic species repre-
sented by the nominal species concerned ?

(3) Shall the creation of neotypes be extended to cover also those nominal
species which were named from figures or descriptions published
by previous authors and thus never possessed any type specimens ?
(This is the suggestion made by Kevan in Document D.2/11 (: 119) ;
it is also discussed in Document D.2/29 (: 155) by Bradley who
considers neotypes necessary in such cases.)

(B) Relation of neotypes to surviving type material :—

(4) If neotypes are to be permitted only where the type material is
believed to have been lost or destroyed, what is to be the status of
the neotype if later the type material or some of it is rediscovered ?
In such circumstances shall :

(a) the neotype prevail (in the interests of continuity and stability)
: or the rediscovered type material ?

» or

(6) the neotype at once lose its status as the unique standard of
reference for the identification of the nominal species concerned ?
; (If so, what is the advantage of establishing neotypes ?)

(C) The problem of safeguards against the abuse of the neotype system :—

(5) Shall the rules provide that no specimen is eligible for selection as a
neotype unless it is (or, prior to being so selected, becomes) the
property of a museum or other scientific institution or be placed on
permanent loan in the collections of such a museum or institution ?

(6) Is it desirable that there should be rules which would prevent the
development of a scramble by museums to accumulate neotypes for
their institutions, without regard to the moral claims of other
institutions ? For example, where types have been destroyed
through an outbreak of fire at some museum, should that museum
have a prior right to neotypes to be created in replacement of its
destroyed types—in cases where that museum possesses material
suitable for designation as neotypes? By what means are such
problems to be resolved ?

(7) Whatever value neotypes may possess would, it is suggested, be lost
if the scheme were so loose that it would be possible for two or more
workers to set up neotypes independently in different parts of the

298 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

world. How is this to be avoided (see (15) below)? Or is this
anomaly to be tolerated by introducing a rule that the principle
of priority shall be applied for determining the relative status of
competing neotypes ?

(8) Should it be made an essential condition for the creation of a neotype
that the institution in which it is deposited (see (5) above) is one
which can be reasonably relied upon to take proper care of neotypes
confided to its care and to grant reasonable access to those neotypes
to serious students ?

(9) Should it be made an essential condition to the establishment of a
neotype that either the author establishing the neotype should
publish a full description and/or figures of the specimen which he
selects as such or should give a reference to a paper containing
such a description and/or figure? If, for example, an author was
required, when establishing a neotype, to do no more than give
an “indication” of the meagre kind accepted under Proviso (a)
to Article 25 for the description of a new species, what would be

the value of the neotype so created ?

(10) It is assumed that everyone will agree that, if neotypes are to be
given official recognition, the specimen selected to be the neotype
should normally agree as closely as possible with the original
description of the species concerned, e.g., in regard to such matters
as sex, size, colouring, etc., though there may be cases where
the difficulty of establishing the species to which a name in
common use applies arises not only from the fact that the types
are lost, but also from the fact that the description appears to
have been based upon an aberrant, immature, or otherwise
unrecognisable form. If the above represents the general view,
what safeguards are desirable and necessary in order to ensure
that a specimen selected as a neotype conforms with the above
requirements ?

(11) Should a neotype nermally be a specimen obtained from the original
locality and/or, in the case of fossil species, the same horizon,
as that from which the original material was described if this is
known, provided that there is no reasonable doubt as to the
accuracy of the type locality and/or type horizon cited in the
original description ? Would the actual locality and/or horizon
from which the neotype was obtained automatically become the
type locality of the species? This is a question of importance in
polytypic species where it is necessary to consider the relationship
of the nominotypical (or nominate) subspecies to other nominal
subspecies established for the nominal species concerned.

(12) It is assumed that the selection of neotypes by an author without
adequate consultation with fellow workers would be regarded as
reprehensible and not calculated to promote stability in the
nomenclature of the group concerned. What measures should be

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 299

taken to ensure that adequate notice should be given to fellow
workers before a neotype is established and that, before the
establishment of a neotype, adequate regard has been paid to
comments received from fellow workers during the period of
notice ?

(13) If it is granted that a definite period of notice should be given by
an author proposing to establish a neotype, what should be the
length of the period and by what means should this notice be
given ?

(14) Should it be made an essential requirement that, where the descrip-
tion of a species or its type locality has been more closely defined
through restrictions by subsequent authors, an author proposing
to establish a neotype for that species should be at liberty only
to select as the neotype a specimen which conforms with those
restrictions ?

(15) Is it possible to provide adequate safeguards for dealing with the
matters enumerated in (5) to (14) above if the establishment of
neotypes is to be left entirely to the discretion of individual
workers or can those safeguards be provided only if a neotype
selection requires the final approval of the International Com-
mission before it becomes effective ?

6. Language in which the establishment of neotypes should be
published: Colonel R. Meinertzhagen, who attaches importance to the
institution of adequate safeguards if neotypes are to be officially recognised,
has added a suggestion (in Document D. 2/18 (: 129)) not previously made
by any author, namely that it should be part of the scheme that no valid
description of a neotype could be made in any language other than English,
French, or German.

7. Relation of nominal species for which neotypes are established
to other “ nomina dubia”: The basis of the argument in favour of the
recognition of neotypes is that, until this is done, it is not possible to recognise
with certainty the taxonomic species represented by a given nominal species.
In other words, the name of the nominal species for which a neotype is suggested
is nomen dubium, though of a special kind. It belongs to that group of nomena
dubia currently accepted, but which, in the absence of a mechanism not at
present provided in the Régles, cannot be regarded as free from challenge.
Further, within this group of nomina dubia there is a special sub-group where
it is represented that some mechanism such as a neotype is required in order
to provide for the further refinement needed when, with the advance of
taxonomic knowledge, it is found that what for a hundred years or more was
universally considered to be one species is actually a mixture of two or more
species and where, as matters now stand, there is no means—owing to the
lack of type material—of determining to which of the species concerned the
name should apply. Two points arise here for consideration :—

(1) Is it not essential that the rules to be adopted if neotypes are to

300 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

be officially recognised should provide explicitly that neotypes may
be established only for the purpose of removing instability and
confusion arising from doubts as to the taxonomic species repre-
sented by a given nominal species in cases where the name of that
nominal species is in wide use and that in no circumstances may
a neotype be established for the purpose of interpreting a name
not in such use ? (Then would follow the further rules, e.g., those
relating to the loss, etc., of type material governing the creation
of neotypes.) It is recognised that occasionally the mere existence
of a nomen dubium may constitute a serious threat to the stability
of the nomenclature of a given group, but it is suggested that the
best way to remove a danger of this kind is to ask the Commission
to suppress the name concerned.

(2) Would it be possible to meet the object sought by those who advocate
the establishment of neotypes by a different method and one
perhaps more in harmony with the principles embodied in the
Régles as they now stand and one which might be less open to
objection from the point of view of those who dislike the whole
idea of recognising neotypes as an official category of type specimen ?
This possibility is discussed further in paragraph 8 below.

8. A possible alternative to the recognition of neotypes as an official
category of type specimen: As the Reégles stand, the provisions
in Article 25 (Proviso (a)), which confer availability upon generic and specific
names, are quite unqualified and there is nothing in that Article which authorises
later authors to act as revisers refining the definition of a nominal species
afforded by the indication, definition or description published by the original
author of the name. Nevertheless, the literature is full of examples where
nominal species established by old authors are currently interpreted in accor-
dance with decisions taken by authors who, acting as first revisers, have, in
effect, said: ‘“‘ I interpret X-ws a-us Martin, 1809, as being the species figured
by Jones in 1850 as figure 1 on plate 14 of his work. (Here tollows the [title
of Jones’s book]).”” Not infrequently still later authors, having access to the
specimen represented as fig. 1 on Jones’s plate 14, have either stated: “ This
specimen is the neotype of the nominal species X-ws a-us Martin” or “ In
view of Jones’s action in 1850 I here select this specimen, which bears the
number so-and-so and is in the collection of the so-and-so Museum to be the
neotype of this species.”” It is evident from the papers submitted to the
International Commission by, for example, Stubblefield and Muir-Wood that
a “restriction”? of the foregoing kind without the selection of a.neotype
provides the information required by the taxonomist for his work. The first
point which seems to me to energe here is that, if neotypes are to be permitted
to become an official category, restrictions of the foregoing kind, unaccompanied
by the selection of a neotype, ought expressly to be banned. The second
point®! which seems to me to emerge just as strongly as the first is the question
whether the establishment officially of a neotype is necessary at all in those

ee i Se rie ee eee
318ee Muir-Wood (H. M.) and Stubblefield (C. J.), 1951, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 6: 7-17; id.,
1951, ibid. 6 : 18-30.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 301

cases, which appear to be numerous, where restrictions of what I here term
the Stubblefield/Muir-Wood kind are found to be sufficient for taxonomic
purposes. Accordingly, it seems to me to be a matter for consideration whether
it would not be advantageous—and likely also to bridge the considerable
differences which at present exist as to the conditions in which neotypes, if
permitted at all, should be established—to have a twofold scheme under
which when types were lost, etc. :—

(1) The Régles would provide for (that is, give authority for) an author
to define more closely the concept represented by a given nominal
species by acting expressly as a first reviser (as in the imaginary
case of the reviser Jones mentioned above), action so taken being
binding upon subsequent workers; this would not preclude the
subsequent intervention of a later author (let us say, Smith) acting
as a second reviser if through the advance of taxonomic technique
this were considered necessary. The kind of case that I have
in mind where a second reviser might be required would be where
the first reviser defined the meaning to be attached to a given
nominal species by fixing the name of that species to a given
published figure and where later the existence of a third species
was discovered and it was not clear to which of two possible
taxonomic species the figure selected by the first reviser was
referable.

(2) The Régles would provide further that, where workers in any given
group were of the opinion that the action by a reviser acting under
the powers specified in (1) above was calculated to create instability
and confusion, the case should be referred to the International
Commission which, after complying with rigorous provisions
regarding consultation, the giving of public notice and the like
should be empowered to reverse or modify the meaning attaching
to a given name through the action of the reviser concerned, the
power so conferred upon the Commission to include the power,
where the Commission thought it desirable in the light of the views
submitted to it by specialists, to specify a given specimen in some
institution to constitute the unique standard of reference for the
interpretation of the name of the nominal species concerned.

Tt will be observed that under a system of the kind described above :—

(a) the maximum free play would be given to individual workers, provided
that their action did not, in the opinion of their fellow workers,
lead to confusion and instability in the nomenclature of the group
concerned ;

(6) neotypes as such would not be granted an official status under the
Régles and in consequence the strong objections felt by many to
the grant to individuals (as contrasted with the Commission) of
the virtually unfettered right to create “ neotypes ” in conditions
which would be binding on other authors would be met, while
the main point of those who advocate such a system (namely

302 | Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

their objection to the intervention by the Commission in this
field) would also be met.

(signed) FRANCIS HEMMING,
Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature.

Temporary Secretariat of the Commission,
Hotel Excelsior,
Copenhagen,
Denmark.

27th July, 1953.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 303

CASE NO. 3

The question of the reform of the provisions in the “ Régles ”
relating to the naming of families and lower suprageneric
groups

(continued from page 282)

DOCUMENT 3/41

REPORT ON THE PROBLEMS INVOLVED IN THE REGULATION
OF THE NAMING OF FAMILIES AND OTHER SUPRAGENERIC
CATEGORIES BELOW THAT OF SUB-ORDER

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

(circulated to the Colloquium on Zoological Nomenclature on 23rd July, 1953
as Paper Z.N.(C.)11)

Material available: The Paris Congress (1948)? asked that an inves-
tigation into the problems involved in the regulation of the naming of Families
and other suprageneric Categories below the rank of Sub-Order should be
undertaken, in conjunction with interested specialists, and a Report submitted
for consideration at Copenhagen in 1953. In March 1952 the International
Trust for Zoological Nomenclature published a paper (Bull. zool. Nomencel.
7 : 61-94), in which I made a survey of the problems which appeared to call
for decision and appealed to specialists to furnish statements setting out their
views as to the action which it was desirable should be taken. The Trust
has published the forty documents received on this subject in Part 6/9 of
volume 10 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (: 167-282).

2. Questions calling for decision: The questions which call for decision
are set out briefly below.

(1) Shall the names of families and associated categories be
subject to regulation at all? The replies received show that there is
unanimity in favour of including in the Régles some provisions for the regulation
of the naming of families, etc., with the exception of Keen and Muller (Document
3/29).

(2) Shall the principle of priority be recognised in some form in the
regulation of the naming of families, etc.? If it is granted that

32See 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4: 138.
33See page 240.

304 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

there should be some provisions in the Régles governing the naming of families
and associated groups, the next question to be considered is whether the
principle of priority in some form or another is to be included in the rules.
The whole nature of these rules turns upon the answer to be given to this
question. For, if the principle of priority is not to be recognised, the rules
would be confined to a few points only (e.g., adoption of a type genus as base
of name; the termination to be adopted, etc.), there being no provision for
determining which of a number of already published family names should be
used when the type genera of those nominal families are regarded by taxono-
mists as belonging to the same nominal family. If however the principle
of priority is to be recognised in any form—for the purpose of securing that
in any given set of circumstances one family name shall be the nomenclatorially
correct name to the exclusion of all others—the scheme will have to contain
provisions for determining the date when a family, etc., name has been
established, for dealing with synonymy of family names, for preventing
homonymy in family names and kindred matters. In all the documents
submitted, with the exception of that by Lemche (Document 3/28)** the
recognition of the principle of priority is advocated.

(3) Categories to be recognised: Two questions are involved in the
matters of the categories belonging to the family group to be recognised in the
Régles: (a) For what categories shall special terminations be provided ?
(b) shall any recognition be given to terms proposed for intermediate
categories? As regards the first of these questions, of the specialists who
have furnished statements : (i) All favour the recognition of, and the adoption
of prescribed endings for superfamilies, families, subfamilies and tribes, though
there is not agreement as to the endings which it is desirable should be
prescribed for the first and last of these categories. (ii) Some favour
the recognition of supertribes and subtribes. (ii) Bradley suggests
(Documents 3/37)*° that provision should be made for other intermediate
categories such as the cohort, a course which is strongly urged also by
Kiriakoff (Document 3/23)**. (iv) There is fauly general agreement that it
is not desirable to recognise the category supergenus. (v) Bradley (Document
3/37)3? and others suggest that it would be sufficient if those authors who wish
to make use of this category were to use for it the name of the genus concerned
applying to it some descriptive epithet such as “‘ supergenus.” The first of
the main questions referred to above (terminations to be used for the categories
recognised) is discussed in paragraph (11) below.

(4) Co-ordinate character of names for families and associated
categories: There is virtual unanimity that the names for families and
supregeneric categories below the sub-ordinal level should be co-ordinate
with one another, that is, that, when a name based upon the name of a
contained genus (the type genus) is published with some termination to denote
that it is intended to be the name of one of the foregoing categories, the same
name is to be deemed to have been published also for all the other categories

*4See pages 236-237.

%See apge 278.

%See page 211.
37See pages 277-278.

- Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 305

concerned. There seems to be general agreement also that in every case the
type unit of every category should be the type genus, that is, that it should
not be the next lower category below the category concerned (i.e., that the
type unit of a family should be a type genus and not a type-subfamily).

(5) Suggested definition of the familial category: If (see (4) above)
names published for all the foregoing categories are to be co-ordinate with one
another, they will all be subject to the same rules. For this purpose, as
observed by Bradley, it will be convenient to devise some agreed omnibus
expression which, by definition, applies to them all. A possible formula is
suggested by Bradley (Document D.3/34)%.

(6) Formation of names of units belonging to the familial group
of categories: There is complete agreement that names of units belonging
to the familial category should (1) be based upon the name of the type genus,
to which should be added a distinctive termination. The question for decision
is in what form should the name of the type genus be incorporated. That the
old rule that its “root” (French “ radical”) should be so taken is clearly
unworkable, while even to take the “stem” (French: ‘théme”’) is not
always easy. Bradley makes a suggestion (Document D.3/34)%®, which is
supported by the American Committee on Entomological Nomenclature
(Document D.3/35)*° which is designed to overcome these difficulties.

(7) Question whether any exceptions should be granted to the rule
_ that a family name must be based upon the name of a contained genus
which thus becomes the type genus: There is general agreement
that the loophole providing for the exceptional recognition of a family name
not based upon the name of a contained genus recognised in Opinion 141*! is
unnecessary because obsolete and should be withdrawn.

(8) Question whether, in order to secure availability, a family name,
when first published, must be in a Latinised form: In my 1952
Survey*? I drew attention to the fact in the early part of the last century
groupings now accepted as of familial rank had been established with
vernacular names based upon the names of included genera, and I suggested
that, if well-known names were not to be displaced, provision would need to
be made to provide such names with availability. (I had in mind especially
names with French endings published—notably in entomology—at the
beginning of the XIXth century). The general view seems to be that the rule
should provide that, in order to be accepted, the expressions should be in
Latin or in Latinised form. The view is expressed also—though in some cases
reluctantly—that some special provision should be made to meet the type of
case referred to above.

(9) Question whether the new rules for the formation of family,
etc., names should be the same for names to be published in the future

38See page 258 (suggestion (c) on paragraphs 43-48 of Mr. Hemming’s 1952 Survey).
3°See page 255 (comment on paragraphs 4-6 of Mr. Hemming’s 1952 Survey).

49See page 263.

41See 1943, Ops. Decls. int. Comm. zool. Nomencl. 2 : 55-66.

*2See Hemming, 1952, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 7 : 71-72.

306 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

as for names published in the past: In my 1952 survey I suggested* that
it might be found desirable to select some date—I tentatively suggested 1850—
as the date up to which a name should be regarded as having been validly
published, even if it was not then published with one of the prescribed endings.
The general view seems to be against a date-line of this type. The papers
which have been received do not deal with the further question whether, if the
past is not to be divided into sections, the future should in addition be placed
on the same footing as the past. Nevertheless, this is a question which,
I suggest, merits consideration, especially if, as suggested in (8) above, a
concession is to be made in favour of group terms for units of the family-name
complex when published not in Latin or in Latinised form (e.g., in the case
cited, in French) but as vernacular words.

(10) Proposed insertion of a Schedule containing provisions relating
to the method to be adopted in forming family names from Latin
and Greek words: I suggested in my 1952 Survey** the addition
to the Régles of a Schedule of the above kind. The need for a provision of this
sort has been recognised by all those who have commented on this point.

(11) Terminations for names of categories of the familial group:
The views expressed as to the terminations which it is desired should be added
to names of units belonging to the various categories of the familial group may
be summarised as follows :—

‘

(a) Superfamily: The termination ‘“‘-oidea”’ is recommended by:
(i) Kiriakoff (Document D.3/23)** ; (ii) the Royal Ontario Museum
of Zoology and Palaeontology (Document D.3/27)* ; (iii) Sabrosky
and (iv) Usinger (Document D.3/34, Appendix 1)*”; (v) Zimmer
(Document D.3/34, Appendix 4, Enclosure 5)*. On the other
hand, it is poimted out that ‘“‘-acea” is commonly used in
Mollusca. See Baily (Document D.3/26)* and Keen & Muller
(Document D.3/29). The termination “-icae” is recommended
by Moore (Document D.3/25)5! for the Treatise on Invertebrate
Paleontology. Some authors discuss the possibility of permitting
different endings in different groups.

(b) Family and Subfamily: There is unanimity in favour of the
terminations “-idae” and ‘“-inae” tor family and subfamily
names respectively. Jeannel’s suggestion (Document D.3/9)* of
“itae’”’ for subfamilies is discussed by some authors but is
rejected.

48See Hemming, 1952, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 7 : 72.
44See Hemming, 1952, ibid. 7 : 66-67.

45See page 211.

‘See page 233.

47See page 248.

48See page 262.

49See page 231.

50See page 240.

51See pages 216 and 220.

53See page 186.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 307

(c) Tribe: All the authors who discuss this subject recommend the
termination “-ini”, except Moore (Document D.3/25)5%, who
advocates “ -ides ”

(d) Supertribe: Kiriakoff (Document D.3/23)* advocates “‘ -ines.”’

©

Moore (Document D.3/25)** advocates “ -ices.”

(e) Subtribe : Kiriakoff (Document D. 3/2 3) advocates “ -idi.”’ Moore
(Document D.3/25)>? advocates “ -ines.’

(12) Date of publication of name: There is difference of opinion as
to the date as from which a name for a unit of the familial group should be
accepted as having been published. The majority view is that in the interest
of stability the date should be the date on which such a name was so published,
irrespective of whether the termination then used was one of the present
prescribed terminations. The family, etc., name would be attributed to the
original author (see (22) below).

(13) Selection of family names: Everyone (Townes excepted)
considers that an author should be free to select any genus to be the type
genus of a family and that he should not be bound to select whichever of the
genera placed by him in the family happens to have the oldest generic name.
Similarly, there is no support for the changing of family names when, owing
to subjective (taxonomic) judgments a genus is placed in an existing family
which is based upon a generic name junior to its own.

(14) Situation where a family name has been based upon a generic
name which is not objectively the oldest available name for the genus
concerned: It has been suggested that in a case of this kind the family name
might be allowed to stand or alternatively that the Commission might in
suitable cases conserve it under its Plenary Powers. It is to be understood
that in this case no change in the type genus of the family would be involved,
the only issue being the name for the genus to be used as the basis of the
family name.

(15) Situation where a family name has been based upon a genus,
the type species of which is subjectively identified with a species which
is the type species of another genus: Two views have been expressed :
(1) that in such a case there should be no change in the family name, since
the generic name is objectively an available name ; (2) that the family name
should be changed in order that it may be based upon the name of the genus
which is subjectively regarded as having the oldest name available for the
taxonomic unit concerned.

(16) Situation arising where two or more families have been estab-
lished and later their type genera are regarded on taxonomic grounds
as being confamilial with one another: The question here for decision

53See page 220.

54See page 211.
55S8ee page 260 (Document D. 3/34, Appendix 4, Enclosure 3).

308 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

is what family name shall be used when two (or more) genera—each forming
the basis of an available family name—are treated on taxonomic grounds
as belonging to a single taxonomic family. This 1s a straight case of subjective
synonomy, it being agreed that the species which are the type species of the
type genera of the families concerned are quite distinct from one another.
The general view appears to be that cases of this sort should be settled by the
application of the principle of priority, the relative priority of the family
names concerned being determined in the manner suggested in (12) above.

(17) Situation arising when one of two or more competing family
names is based upon a genus of marginal affinity and in consequence
the name of a collective family is liable to constant change owing to
differences of opinion on the taxonomic issue involved: The suggestion
made in my 1952 Survey®® was that means should be secured to protect a
family name trom constant change where there is (and is likely to continue
to be) difference of opinion as to whether the genus which is the type genus
of a family which happens to have been established before one or more other
families is or is not confamilial with the genus (or genera) which is (or are)
the type genus (or type genera) of the other families concerned. The prospect of
constant instability in such cases appears to be insoluble without resort to the
Plenary Powers of the Commission.

(18) Situation arising when it is necessary to change the name of
the type genus of a family owing to the name of that genus being found
to be a junior homonym of another generic name: This is the case
presented by the family names ERYCINIDAE and RIODINIDAE discussed in my
1952 Survey®’. Everyone agrees that, as in this case the generic name
Erycina is an invalid junior homonym, the name of the family must be changed
to RIODINIDAE, as the name Rodina is the name which objectively replaces
the invalid name Erycina. There is disagreement however, as to the priority
to be assigned to the name RIODINIDAE. Shall it be back-dated to the priority
enjoyed by the (invalid) name ERYCINIDAE or shall it rank only from the date
on which it was actually published? In the latter event it is liable to be
displaced on grounds of priority by any name of the familial group of names
published between the date on which the name ERYCINIDAE was published and
that on which it (RIODINIDAE) was itself published.

(19) Homonymy in family names: There is agreement that homonymy
as between family names should be prevented. The general view seems to be
that, other things being equal, the senior homonym should prevail over the
junior one, but that, where the invalidation of the senior homonym would not
cause serious disturbance in practice but the disappearance of the junior one
would cause such disturbance, the Commission should validate the junior
name by suppressing the senior one. It is pointed out that merely to provide
that in cases of homonymy the junior family name shall become invalid would
create a vacuum, for there would be no means available for providing the

56See Hemming, 1952, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 7 : 78-79.
57See Hemming, 1952, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 7 : 73-74.

ee e, ae

a

:

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 309

family in question with a name, since the generic name on which that family
name is based is not a homonym, even though the family names based upon
the two generic names in question are homonyms of one another. The
suggestion has been put forward that in all such cases the Commission should
take action under the Plenary Powers to provide a suitably modified name for
the family without change in its type genus.

(20) Rules for determining whether a condition of homonymy
exists between any given pair of names in the familial group: In my
1952 Survey ® I drew attention to the need for a rule on the above subject
as part of the machinery for preventing homonymy in family names. This
proposal has been supported by all who have expressly commented on it.

(21) Instability in family names arising from changes in the species
accepted as the type species of their type genera: It is pointed out
by Sabrosky (Document D.3/34, Appendix 1)** and Bradley (Document D.3/34,
Appendix 2)® that serious disturbance at the family-name level arises when
it is found that the type species of the type genus of a family is not the species
thought to be such at the time when the family was founded and which has
been accepted as such by Jater workers. The case specially referred to is that
where a genus is found to have been based on a misidentified type species ;
it arises however in exactly the same way when it is found that the species
currently accepted as the type species of a genus is not the first to have been
so selected. It is suggested by the American Committee of Entomological
Nomenclature (Document D.3/35)* that instability at the family-name level
in such cases should be prevented through an instruction to the Commission
to use its Plenary Powers to vary the type species of the genus in such a way
as to prevent violent disturbance in the meaning attaching to given family
names. In the Hymenoptera and Lepidoptera disturbances of this kind were
prevented by the Commission in 1935 on applications submitted by Bradley
and myself respectively®.

(22) Citation of the names of authors of family names: In view of
the extensive and growing practice of citing the names of the authors of family
names, I suggested in my 1952 Survey® that a provision should be inserted
in the scheme in regard to this subject, analogous to that already provided in
the case of generic names. Opinion on this subject is divided. The foregoing
suggestion has won considerable support, but on the other hand the view has
been expressed in a number of papers that the citation of authors’ names is
unnecessary and undesirable in the case of family names (as providing
conditions for the spread of the disease “‘ Mihi-itis’’). Clearly, however, the
mere omission of a provision dealing with this subject would do nothing to

58See Hemming, 1952, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 7 : 83-84.

59See page 254.

"See page 258.

81See page 269.

See the Official Record of the Proceedings of the International Commission on Zoologica
Nomenclature, Lisbon Session, 1935, published in 1943, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 1: 20-22, 23
(Lepidoptera cases), 27-30 (Hymenoptera cases).

63See Hemming, 1952, ibid. 7 : 82.

310 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

stem the growing tide and would lead merely to lack of uniformity. It is
suggested, as a middle course, that there might be adopted a provision stating
that, although it is not normally necessary to cite the name of the author of
a family (ete.) name, the form of citation to be adopted where it is considered
desirable to include a reference of this kind, should be as follows: ... .

(22A) In my 1952 Survey®™ I raised also the question of the form of
citation to be adopted in cases of the ERYCINIDAE/RIODINIDAE type (see (18)
above) and I suggested a formula for this purpose. Various alternative
formulae have since been suggested by various authors, but clearly no final
view as to the form of citation required can be formed until after a decision
has been taken on the critical question of back-dating (see (18) above).

(23) Emendation of family names: It has been pointed out by various
authors that no question should be held to arise in regard to the emendation
of family names, in so far as concerns the portion of the name which consists
of part of the name of the type genus. The spelling of this portion of the
name of a family should, it is suggested, follow the generic name itself.

(24) Correction of misformed family names: The scheme advocated
by Bradley and others (see (6) above) contemplates an arbitrary solution
for the formation of family names when consisting of barbarous words
(i.e., of any word other than a Latin or Greek word). As regards family names
based on Latin or Greek words the solution there recommended consists of a
mandatory provision, any infringement of which would be followed by
automatic correction.

(25) Question whether safeguards should be inserted in the interests
of stability to prevent name-changing in the case of family-names
published before the introduction of the new scheme in cases where
such names consist of Latin or Greek words and are incorrectly formed :
In my 1952 Survey® I suggested that in the interests of stability at the
family-name level safeguards of this kind were desirable and indeed essential.
The actual proposal there submitted is given at the top of page 69 of my Survey.
Opinion on this subject is divided on rather unusual lines. There is
considerable support for the idea embodied in my suggestion but some authors,
without denying that the omission of safeguards will lead to name-changing
at the family-name level, nevertheless recommend that no safeguards should
be adopted, the authors concerned basing their view upon the desirability of
keeping the rules short.

(26) Name of the subfamily, tribe, etc., which contains the genus
which is the type genus of the family concerned: On this subject
(which was raised in my 1952 Survey**) there is complete agreement that the
sub-family, tribe, etc. which contain the type genus of a family should not

See Hemming, 1:52, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 7 : 82
®See Hemming, 1952, ibid. 7 : 67-70.
"See Hemming, 1952, ibid. 7: 85.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 311

be given a separate name but should bear the same name as the family
differing from it only in termination. Several authors point out that, in view
of the proposed co-ordinate character of names for all categories in the
familial group, a name is potentially published for every category within a
family immediately a name is published for any one of these categories.
It is suggested (e.g., by Wright in Document D.3/32°) that in these cases no
question of authorship arises and that no author’s name should be cited.

(27) Proposed establishment of an “‘ Official List ” of Family Names
and of an “ Official Index” of Rejected and Invalid Family Names:
In my 1952 Survey* I suggested that the above “ Official List ” and ‘“ Official
Index ” should be established and put forward various supplementary proposals
in regard thereto. These proposals have secured very wide support (and also
a very small amount of opposition). Bradley (Document 3/34)® made a
suggestion as to the form of entry to be made and suggested also a change
in the title, suggestions which were supported by the American Committee
on Entomological Nomenclature (Document 3/35)’.

(signed) FRANCIS HEMMING,
Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature.

28, Park Village East,
Regents Park,
London, N.W.1,
England.
23rd July, 1953.

8"See page 244.
See Hemming, 1952, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 7 : 90-93.
See page 258.
See page 269.

312 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Corrigenda

page 59. Heading: substitute “ERICH” for “ERICK”
page 60. Heading: substitute “NOMENCLATURE” for “NOMEMCLATURK”
page 235. Heading: substitute “1952” for “1953”

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 313
AUTHORS’ INDEX

Page Page
Adams, P. A. .. 116-117 Brinck, P. “2 e pad
American Committee on En- Brown, W. L. Jnr. .. 116-117

tomological Nomenclature
148-150, 263-269
Cabrera, A. .. 66-67, 129-130

American Museum of Natural :
History, New York Caporiacco, L.de —_7, 113, 185-186

71-72, 76, 99, 132-133, 241

Carpenter, F. M. .. ARGSMI7
American Society of Parasito-
logists oa ret hs 100, 165 Cheng, ey a's ar 116-117
Arkell, W. J. 20 5b, 127. 197 China, W. EK. 97-98, 160, 279-280
Clay, Theresa .. .. 163-164
Baily, J. L. Jr.
68, 101, 130, 230-232 Colbert, E. H. .. .. 71-12, 241
Bairstow,L. .. .. 198-207 Curran,C.H. .. .. = 76, 99
Baker, A.C... .. 178 (ref.) Dinmentan Ke We
Baker. H. H 113 21-22, 34 (ref.), 188
Daniel, F. .. 46-47, 120, 194
Balfour-Browne, J. .. 162-163 oe
Barber. H.§ Hoa Darlington, P. J. Jnr... 116-117
acer. §.. -.. Pe -
Dehm, R. ee ae 60-64
Bequaert, J... i RIGSLET Ton
Berio. E 30-40 Dymond, J. R. .. 55, 128, 208
erio, EK. oe i
Beuret, H. 94-96, 159-160, 270 Elliot, Right Hon. W. .. rea |
Blackwelder, R. E. Engel, H. af ne .. 44

12, 27-28, 73-75, 133-135, 242
Entomologische Gesellschaft,

Blake,C.H. .. of 56-57 Basel .. 94-96, 159-160, 270
Bonnet, P. ne ‘i Dafne Ferriére, C. * o. 44/20
Boschma, H. 20, 21-22, 170-171 Forrie Gah) =... .. 145, 146
Bradley, J.C. .. 86-93, 151-159, Follett, W. I... 65-66, 81,

255-258, 259 (ref.), 271-278 84-85, 136, 140, 245, 260

314

Forster, W.
Franz, E.

Frizzell, D. L.

Bulletin of Zoological. Nomenclature

Page

-- 212 Keen, Myra

60-64 = Kevan, D. K. McE.
118-120, 191-194

~-111, 121 (ref.)

Page
. -70, 132, 240

Key, K. H. L. 100, 161, 280
Gahan, A. B. 24 (ref.)
Kiriakoff, 8. G. .. 58, 211
Garth, J. 8. . 146
Knight, J. B. 27-28
Gorges, J. 60-64
Koehler, O. 60-64
Grensted, L. W... 176-182
Kiihlhorn, F. 48-53
Gross, W. . 60-64 .
Kiihn, O. 60-64
Giinther, K. 60-64
Laffoon, J. L. 208-210
Hall, E. R. . .80, 147, 244
i Lang, W. D. 19-20
Haltenorth, T. .. 53, 127, 195-197
Laubenfels, M. W. de .. ee
Hemming, F. fo ooh visas
“9-5; 24 (ref.), 74, 82, 96, Lemche, H. { it saad
Ny FL (ref.), 124-125 8, 73 (ref.), 78, 135, 235-239
~ (ref.); 137-138 (ref.), 145- D awrertt Ff,
146 (ref.), 217 (ref.), 246—- Leston, D. 281-282
253 (ref.), 264-265 (ref.), .
274-275 (ref.), 287-292, Lochhead, J. H. a 79-80
293-294, 295-302, 303-311
Hering, E. M. é Manter, H.W. .. _—_169, 185 (ref.)
47 (ref.), 49-50, 59, 128-129, 212
Mayr, E. . sha
Hiltermann, H. .. re 60-64 71-72, 76-78, 99, 132-133, 241
Hincks, W. D. 24 (ref.) McIntosh, A. 100, 165
Holthuis, L. B. .. 44, 116, 190-191 Medler, J.T. .. at 23-26
Hopkins, G. H. E. . .45, 114-115 Meinertzhagen, R. . . 26, 129-130
Mertens, R. wh cd 60-64
Jeannel, R. 186 (ref.)
Michener, C. D. .. . 42, 65-66,
Jordan, K. 176 (ref.) 140, 148, 260, 263-269

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 315

Page Page
Miller, R.R. .. .. 141-142 Sabrosky, C. W. 9-12, 25, 142-143,
171-176, 246-254, 259-260

Moore, R.C. .. .. 213-229
Sailer, R. I. a sy ae Ol

Moure, J. =f .. 183-185
Schafer, W. x A 60-64

Muller, S. 8. a . .70, 132, 240
Schindewolf, O. H. 4: 60-64

Museum of Comparative Zoology

and the Biological Labora- Schmidt, E. a .« 25 (ref.)

tories, Harvard University,

U.S.A. ae oe DUG=SU7 Schmidt, Hermann ts 60-64

Schmidt, Herta .. <i 60-64
Naturhistorisches Museums,

Wien .. .° .* - 1 Schultz, LP... oe 189
Nichols, J.T. 71-72, 132-133, 241 Sheljuzhko, L. .. rs bates.
Nomenclature Commiteee of the Shenefelt, D. .. oe 23.96

Deutsche Zoologische Gesell-

schaft, the Palaontologische Slater, J. A. .. _. 208-210

Gesellschaft and the Sencken-

bergirsche Naturforschende Smith, H. M. 27-28, 41-42, 187-188

Gesellschaft .. Ae 60-66

Smithsonian Institution Com-

Nomenclature Discussion Group, mittee on Nomenclature 9-12

Washington, D.C.

73-15, 1383-185, 242 Society of Systematic Zoology

(U.S.A) 65-66, 81-85, 136, 245

Nordenskjold, T.R. .. 16-18
; Stammer, H. J... oe 60-64
Norris-Elye, L. T. 8... 14-15
Steinbacher, J. .. 48 60-64
Parr, A. E. oe e .. 166 Stresemann, E. 4 60-64
Passos, C. F. dos. . .. 102-108 Struve, W. 60-64
121-127, 149 (ref.), 158 (ref.)
Sylvester-Bradley, P. C. 189
Reisser, H. ae 7 a LOE
Tate,G.H.H. 71-72, 76, 99, 132-
Richter, R. —-23, 60-64, 221 (ref.) 133, 241
Royal Ontario Museum of Taylor, E.H. .. 34 Ae

Zoology and Palaeontology
68-69, 131-132, 232-234 Travassos Filho, L. .. 183-185

316 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Page
Triebel, E. 60-64
Townes, H. 81, 143-144, 260-261

Urquhart, F. A.
68-69, 131-132, 232-234

Usinger, R. L.
137-140, 145, 146, 187 (ref.),
246-254
Wells, J. W. 144, 261
Wenrich, D. H. .. 100, 165
Wharton, G. W. 100, 165
Wheeler, H. E. 111, 121 (ref.)

Whittington, H. B. ... ~ « LG

Page

Wiener Pate Gesell-
schaft : meee | 1
Wilson, E. O. 116-117
Wilson, R. W. 43-44
Wright, C. W. ..75, 243-244
Zilch, A. .. 60-64

Zimmer, J. T.
71-72, 76, 81-82, 83, 99,
132-133, 144, 145, 241,
261-262

Zoologisch-Botanische Gesell-
shaft .. id = el

Zoologisches Institut der Uni-
versitat Wien ape Meiete >

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 317

PARTICULARS OF DATES OF PUBLICATION OF THE SEVERAL
PARTS IN WHICH THE PRESENT VOLUME WAS PUBLISHED

Part No. Contents of Part Date of Publication
(pages)
1/3 1-108 25th June 1953
4/5 109-166 30th June 1953
6/9 167-282 9th July 1953
10/11 283-318 30th September 1954

T.P.-XXVIII

318 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

~4 OCT 1954
PURCHASED

INSTRUCTIONS TO BINDERS

The present Volume should be bound up as follows :—
T.P-X XVIII, 1-318

Note :--The wrappers (covers) of the four units in which this Volume was

published should be bound up at the end of,the Volume.

CONTENTS OF THE PRESENT PART

Papers relating to the cases dealt with in the present volume sub-
mitted to the Colloquium on Zoological Nomenclature during
its meeting at Copenhagen, 1953: Reports prepared by Francis
Hemming, Secretary to the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature, in response to an invitation addressed
to him by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology,
Paris, 1948 :—

(a) The problem of securing greater stability in zoological
nomenclature :—

(i) Stabilisation of Zoological Nomenclature, Part 1:
The Suggested Law of ee nani
D. 1/59) in ; ots ys

(ii) Stabilisation of Zoological Nomenclature, Part 2:
_ Possible measures other ‘than the adoption of the
Principle of Prescription (Document D. 1/60)

(6) The question whether “‘ neotypes ” should be recognised
in the Régles as a epee of nad a ae (Document
D. 2/38) me on Pe

(c) The question of the reform of the provisions in the Régles
relating to the naming of families and lower suprageneric
groups (Document D. 3/41) ; ye ke

Corrigenda Ris ne Me s Bs BP wm
Authors’ Index

Particulars of dates of publication of the several Parts in which the
present volume was published : 43 aie as

Instructions to binders ..

Title Page: Acknowledgment to I.U.B.S. and U.N.E.S.C.O.:
Foreword by the Secretary to the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature: Table of Contents ..

Printed by Metchim & Son Limited, 8 Storey’s Gate, London, S.W.1.

Page

287

293

295

303

312
313

317
318

. T.P.-xxvill

{
;
d

maity

ry
vie
tie

ton oF
pss metilate bee