* THE BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE The Official Organ of THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE VOLUME 15, SECTION A Edited by FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E. 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. 1957—1958 (All rights reserved) an a : : as bie . « a Sniaipuinieems or TART, ta LIeAMGES, THANKS TO U.N.E.S.C.O. The International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature on behalf of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature has great pleasure in expressing its grateful thanks to the UNITED NATIONS EDUCATIONAL, SCIENTIFIC AND CULTURAL ORGANISATION UNESCO. = for the financial assistance afforded towards the cost of producing the present volume ’ ar | Lenigntond at taut?” f he -* * gh Sy Pie STILE F Hips barren A ys ¥ he WA PE FOREWORD by The Lord Hurcomb, Chairman of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature The present is the second of the two volumes of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature which in the autumn of last year were allocated by the Inter- national Trust for Zoological Nomenclature for the publication of documents submitted for inclusion in the Zoological Nomenclature Agenda Paper for the Fifteenth International Congress of Zoology at its Meeting to be held in London in July 1958. The documents reserved for publication in this volume were of two kinds :—(1) documents containing suggestions for the further amend- ment of the Régles as approved by the Paris and Copenhagen Congresses of 1948 and 1953 respectively ; (2) proposals for the amendment of the Draft of the Régles as approved by the above Congresses prepared by Professor J. Chester Bradley, President of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. The number of documents falling in the above classes greatly exceeded expectations with the result that instead of containing between 500 and 600 pages the volume contains about 1300 pages. When bound, a volume of this size would be unmanageably large and it has therefore been decided to divide it into two Sections of approximately equal size and to provide a title page for each. The concluding Parts (Parts 41 and 42) have been kindly prepared on the invitation of the Trust by Mr. Francis Hemming as having been Secretary to the Commission and Editor of the Bulletin during the period in which the earlier Parts of this volume were published. (Signed) HURCOMB Office of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, 41, Queen’s Gate, Lonpon, S.W.7. 4th September 1958. a oe ma mt uftely: pacts tard misresettlei’ na hy ale ah = Prien otf ae sean ; ane Sin bE eet a beky ratory me 43 ree W jakboed wha 3 ¥ whoo’ 1 ape if eobtnndiebecct wily inion she a a a ee si yQket ni LAD AQ) ee Mise rel og Etaa by a jas Sabre 8 Ba ec zt ’ es i aed Betenvag econo. at X25 tori Vaaoive TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Report on the work carried out by the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature in the five-year period 1953-1957 Report dated 25th June 1958 prepared by the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature for consideration by the International Union for Biological Sciences at its General Assembly, London, July, 1958. Papers circulated to the Colloquium on Zoological Nomenclature for information Document A :—Report dated 20th June 1958 submitted by the Interim Committee on Zoological Nomenclature in respect of the period 1953-1958 addressed to Professor J. Chester Bradley, President of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (Communicated to the Colloquium for information by direction of the President of the Fifteenth International Congress of Zoology) Document B :—Comment on the Report of the Interim Committee on Zoological Nomenclature on the subject of the future organisation of the work of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature: Statement dated 8th July 1958 Prepared i the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature ae ‘ The Agenda Paper for the discussions on zoological nomenclature to be held at, and in connection with, the Fifteenth International Congress of Zoology, London, July 1958: Explanatory Note. By FRANCIS HEMMING, Secretary to the Commission he Mi oy CASE No. 1 Suggested New Article: proposed recognition of the concept ** parataxon ’? and the provision of Rules for the nomenclature of units of this category Document 1/1.—Proposed insertion in the Régles of a provision recognis- ing “parataxa”’ as a special category for the classification and nomenclature of discrete fragments or of life-stages of animals which are inadequate for identification of whole-animal taxa, with proposals of procedure for the nomenclature of “ parataxa”. By RAYMOND C. MOORE (University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas, U.S.A.) and P. C. SYLVESTER-BRADLEY (University of Sheffield, England) . ix Nip.o-0-ai1 VII Document 1/2.—First supplemental application: Application for a Ruling of the International Commission directing that the classifica- tion and nomenclature of discrete conodonts be in terms of “ para- taxa” Pe RAYMOND C. MOORE and P. C. SYLVESTER- BRADLEY . ‘ bi oe Ae 8 Document 1/3.—Second supplemental application: Application for a Ruling by the International Commission directing that the classifica- tion and nomenclature of ammonoid aptychi (Class Cephalopoda) be in terms of “ parataxa”. By RAYMOND C. MOORE and P. C. SYLVESTER- BRADLEY tit ie se ie Document 1/4.—Proposed adoption of a Declaration that a generic or specific name based solely upon the “‘ aptychus”’ of an ammonite (Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea) be excluded from availability under Article 27 of the Régles and proposed suppression of certain such names under the Plenary Powers. By W. J. ARKELL ae University, Sedgwick Museum, Cambridge) ; Document 1/5.—Comments received in 1954 on the proposal by Dr. W. J. Arkell depriving names based solely upon the aptychi of ammonites of the status of availability for the purposes of zoological nomen- clature (i.e. of whole-animal nomenclature in the terminology of the “ Parataxa Plan”). By FRANCIS HEMMING, Secretary to the Commission . . : ee oe si - ~ on af Annexe 1: Comment by JOSHUA L. BAILY, Jr. ae ew California, U.S.A.) . e Annexe 2 : Comment by C. W. WRIGHT (London) Document 1/6.—The Moore/Sylvester-Bradley ‘“‘ Parataxa ’’ Proposals. By W. J. ARKELL seal oe 3 co inne Museum, Cambridge) . ate kits Document 1/7.—The Moore/Sylvester-Bradley “ Parataxa ”’ Proposals. By DON L. FRIZZELL and HARRIET FRIZZELL ine Missouri, U.S.A.) Document 1/8.—The Moore/Sylvester-Bradley ‘“‘ Parataxa ”’ Proposals. By ELIANE BASSE (Laboratoire de Géologie, Sorbonne, Paris) Document 1/9.—The Moore/Sylvester-Bradley “ Parataxa ”’ Proposals. By J. BROOKES KNIGHT (Smithsonian Institution, United States National Museum, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.) Page 14 35 71 76 Vi. 77 78 79 80 81 Document 1/10.—The Moore/Sylvester-Bradley “ Parataxa ” Proposals. By H. SCHMIDT ( Geologisch-Palaeontologisches Institut der Georg August-Universitét, Gottingen, Germany). . ie “ ae oh Document 1/11.—The Moore/Sylvester-Bradley “ Parataxa ” Proposals. By CURT TEICHERT (Petroleum Geology Laboratory, United States Geological Survey, Denver, Colorado, U 9: By Me te Document 1/12.—The Moore/Sylvester-Bradley “ Parataxa ” Proposals. Copy of a letter dated 18th July 1956 from RAYMOND C. MOORE (University of Kansas) to H. SCHMIDT (Gottingen, Germany) com- menting on suggestions submitted by J. Brookes Knight (Document 1/9), H. Schmidt (Document 1 /10) and Curt Teichert (Document 1 /11) Document 1/13.—The Moore/Sylvester-Bradley “ Parataxa ” Proposals, By D. T. DONOVAN (U: niversity of Bristol) ce tie at Document 1/14.—Note on the provision in the Moore/Sylvester-Bradley “Parataxa Plan” for the possible application of the “ parataxa system ” to the naming of collective groups of certain stages in the life-histories of parasites. By FRANCIS HEMMING, Secretary to the Commission .. ae ¥; i < oF a Annexe 1: Resolution by the American Society of Parasitologists .. Annexe 2: Copy of a letter dated 10th October 1956 from FRANCIS HEMMING (London) to A. C. WALTON (American Society of Parasitologists) eh as a ay nu ae a Annexe 3 : Copy of a letter dated 22nd October 1956 from ALLEN McINTOSH (Chairman, Committee on Nomenclature, American Society of Parasitologists) to FRANCIS HEMMING (London) Annexe 4: Copy of a letter dated 27th November 1956 from RAY- MOND C. MOORE (U: niversity of Kansas) to FRANCIS HEMMING (London) .. as 3 & i xy i ee we Annexe 5 : Copy of a letter dated 5th December 1956 from FRANCIS HEMMING (London) to RAYMOND C. MOORE (University of Kansas) .. Ate a aie a ie a ee ip Annexe 6 : Copy of a letter dated 8th January 1957 from RAY- MOND C. MOORE (U: niversity of Kansas) to FRANCIS HEMMING (London) .. ~ oe ah Pe 7" a bs fe Page 85 86 87 88 89 89 90 90 91 91 x Annexe 7: Copy of a letter dated 13th August 1956 from ALLEN McINTOSH (Chairman, Committee on Nomenclature, American Society of Parasitologists) to NORMAN R. STOLL ai nis Institute for Medical Research, New York) Annexe 8: Copy of a letter dated 30th November 1956 from J. CHESTER BRADLEY (Cornell University, Ithaca, New York) to A. C. WALTON (American Society of Parasitologists) 23 Annexe 9 : Copy of a letter dated 10th December 1956 from ALLEN McINTOSH (Chairman, Committee on Nomenclature, American Society of Parasitologists) to J. CHESTER BRADLEY Caenen University, Ithaca, New York) - ai ; ay Document 1/15.—Arrangements made between the Office of the Com- mission and Professor Raymond C. Moore for making an organised attempt to obtain comments on the “ Parataxa Plan” from repre- sentative palaeontological institutions and individual specialists. By FRANCIS HEMMING, Secretary to the Commission Annexe : Letter dated 8th July 1957 issued by the Office of the Com- mission to certain palaeontological and other zoological institutions and to certain specialists inviting comments on the “‘ Parataxa Plan”’ Enclosure to letter 8th July 1957 reproduced above. . Document 1/16.—Parataxa nomenclature in relation to whole-animal nomenclature: Correspondence between FRANCIS HEMMING, RAYMOND C. MOORE and P. C. SYLVESTER-BRADLEY Annexe 1: Copy of a letter dated 5th July 1957 from FRANCIS HEMMING (London) to RAYMOND C. MOORE (University of Kansas) and P. C. SYLVESTER-BRADLEY (University of Sheffield) Annexe 2: Copy of a letter dated 9th July 1957 from P. C. SYLVES- TER-BRADLEY bam. ih ita to FRANCIS HEMMING (London) . ; Annexe 3: Copy of a letter dated 13th July 1957 from RAYMOND C. MOORE ea ct of are tres to FRANCIS HEMMING (London) . Document 1/17.—Comment on the Moore/Sylvester-Bradley “ Parataxa Plan”. By DON L. FRIZZELL and HARRIET FRIZZELL (Rollo, ‘Missiate: U.S.A.) . ar j a Document 1/18.—Comment on the Moore/Sylvester-Bradley “ Parataxa Plan”. By SAMUEL P. ELLISON, Jr. + es Page 92 95 96 99 99 100 107 107 lll 116 118 120 CASE No. 2 Article 5 : proposed cancellation of Decision 54(1)(a) of the Copenhagen Congress under which a family-group name is to be retained when based upon a generic name which has been rejected either as a junior objective, or as a junior subjective, synonym of another generic name Page Document 2/1.—Proposal for the withdrawal of Copenhagen Decision 54(1)(a). By W. J. ARKELL Coie eee ee renie Museum, Cambridge) aft é 121 Document 2/2.—Proposal for the withdrawal of Copenhagen Decision 54(1)(a). By Sir JOHN ELLERMAN (London) Be 5 123 Document 2/3.—Support for Dr. W. J. Arkell’s proposal for the with- drawal of Copenhagen Decision 54(1)(a). By C. J. STUBBLEFIELD (Geological Survey and Museum, London) ve 2h a4 .. 124 Document 2/4.—Support for Dr. W. J. Arkell’s proposal for the with- drawal of Copenhagen Decision 54(1)(a). By L. R. COX (British Museum (Natural History), London) Mp e ast 4% au) Ghee Document 2/5.—Support for Dr. W. J. Arkell’s proposal for the with- drawal of Copenhagen Decision 54(1)(a). By JAMES D. BUMP, MORTON GREEN, JOHN PAUL GRIES and J. R. MACDONALD (South Dakota School of Mines and ee ri ee oe South Dakota, U.S.A.) .. ¥ ual £26 Document 2/6.—Proposal for the withdrawal of Copenhagen Decision 54(1)(a). W. H. EASTON A sheenceirt > eae Los San California) 127 Document 2/7.—Support for Dr. W. J. Arkell’s proposal for the with- drawal of Copenhagen Decision 54(1)(a) Copy of a letter dated 12th May 1954 from JOSEPH J. GRAHAM, MYRA KEEN, SIEMON MULLER and HANS E. THALMANN (Stanford University, Stanford, California) .. ¥. 5: wdfn koe Copy of a supplementary letter dated 29th July 1954 from MYRA™ KEEN and SIEMON MULLER .. ‘i : 129 XII Document 2/8.—Support for Dr. W. J. Arkell’s proposal for the with- drawal of Copenhagen Decision pega Ayes F. E. EAMES (Woking, Surrey, England) 5 ee Ia wa Document 2/9.—Comment on Dr. W. J. Arkell’s proposal for the with- drawal of Copenhagen Decision 54(1)(a). By CURTIS W. SABROSKY (United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Entomology Research Branch, Washington, D.C.) a Ee Document 2/10.—Support for Dr. W. J. Arkell’s Le pe for the with- drawal of Copenhagen Decision 54(1)(a). By R. M. STAINFORTH (International Petroleum Company, Talara, Peru) ea Document 2/11.—Support for Dr. W. J. Arkell’s proposal for the with- drawal of Copenhagen Decision 54(1)(a). By C. A. FLEMING and N. DE B. HORNIBROOK rte co ica ass New Zealand) : Document 2/12.—Proposed maintenance of Copenhagen Decision 54(1)(a). Statement setting out the views of the Members of the Committee on Entomological Nomenclature of the Entomological Society of America : communicated oe ROBERT L. USINGER on behalf of the Committee es y ie she Document 2/13.—Views of the Nomenclature Committee of the Society of Systematic Zoology : communicated pt W. I. FOLLETT (Chair- man of the Committee) Me : : : me rs Annexe 1 : Circular letter dated 7th August 1954, issued by W. I. FOLLETT, Chairman, to the Members of the Nomenclature Com- mittee of the Society of Systematic Zoology “5 oy Annexe 2: Comments by CURTIS W. SABROSKY Annexe 3: Comment by CYRIL F. dos PASSOS Annexe 4: Comments by MYRA KEEN Annexe 5 : Comment by ERNST MAYR Annexe 6 : Comment by CARL L. HUBBS Document 2/14.—Report on the action taken by the International Commission under its Plenary Powers to prevent the application of Copenhagen Decision 54(1)(a) (retention in certain cases of family- group names based upon invalid generic names) in cases where it had been represented by specialists in the groups concerned that otherwise confusion and name-changing would result. By FRANCIS HEMMING, Secretary to the Commission Be ae oy as Page 130 131 136 137 138 139 139 140 142 142 143 145 146 XII Page Appendix 1 : Objection to Copenhagen Decision 54(1)(a). By W. J. ARKELL (Cambridge University, Sedgwick Museum, Cambridge)... 151 Appendix 2: Objection to Copenhagen Decision 54(1)(a). By ROBERT MERTENS (Natur-Museum u Forschungs-Institut Senckenberg, Frankfurt a. Main) Ri a0 152 Appendix 3: Objection to Copenhagen Decision 54(1)(a). By TADEUSZ JACZEWSKI (Institut of Zoology. Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw) é oy oe et bis avs oe > Lee Document 2/15.—Proposed withdrawal of Copenhagen Decision 54(1)(a). By W. F. WHITTARD (University of Bristol) . . 154 CASE No. 3 Article 5 : proposed amendment and/or clarification of Decision 54(1)(b) of the Copenhagen Congress regarding the date and authorship to be attributed to the name of a family-group taxon published as a substitute for a family-group name rejected by reason of the name of its type genus being a junior homonym of an older generic name Document 3/1.—Request for a clarification of Copenhagen Decision 54(1)(b). By A. K. MILLER and W. M. FURNISH (State University of Iowa, Iowa City). . 5 ate 3 155 COMMENTS ON PREVIOUSLY PUBLISHED CASES Comments on Case No. 1 (The Moore/Sylvester-Bradley “ Parataxa ” Proposals) Document 1/19 : Comment by H. SCHMIDT (Geologisch Palaeonto- logisches Institut der Georg August-Universitat, Gottingen) .. * ve ‘es oe va 66 Document 1/20: Comment by JOHN W. KOENIG (Missouri Geo- logical Survey & Water Resources, Rolla, Missouri; U.S.A.) pues aks 158 XIV Document 1/21 : Document 1/22 : Document 1/23 : Document 1/24 : Document 1/25 : Document 1/26 : Document 1/27 : Document 1/28 : Document 1/29 : Document 1/30 : Document 1/31 : Document 1/32 : Document 1/33 : Document 1/34 : Views of the SCIENTIFIC STAFF OF THE AUS- TRALIAN MUSEUM (Sydney, Australia) : state- ment communicated by J. W. EVANS Comment by R. 8. BASSLER paises i Institu- tion, Washington, D.C.) : Comment by R. V. MELVILLE ssccinaaeie pick and Museum, London) Fa Comment by J. CHESTER BRADLEY act University, Ithaca, New York) ‘ Comment by CARL C. BRANSON (Oklahoma Gieo- logical Survey, Norman, Oklahoma, U.S.A.) Comment by ROBERT O. FAY (Oklahoma Geo- logical Survey, Norman, Oklahoma, U.S.A.) Comment by J. ROGER sag uséum National d’ Histoire Naturelle, Paris) Comment by M. F. GLAESSNER ne aig a Adelaide, Australia) Comment by O. M. B. BULMAN (Department of Geology, University of ee reer Museum, Cambridge) ; Comment by FREDERICK M. SWAIN eta of Minnesota, Minneapolis, U.S.A.) Comment by O. H. SCHINDEWOLF (Institut und Museum fiir Geologie und ee der Uni- versitat Tribingen) Comment by A. K. MILLER and W. M. FURNISH (State University of Iowa, Iowa City) Comment by G. UBAGHS (Université de Inege) Comment by E. M. HERING (Zoologisches Museum der Humboldt-Universitat zu Berlin) Page 160 162 164 167 169 170 172 175 176 177 178 182 183 184 CASE No. 4 Article 4: Proposed addition to Copenhagen Decision 54(1)(b) of a provision relating to the method to be followed in citing the date and authorship to be attributed to a substitute family-group name published when the name of the type genus of an older nominal family-group taxon is rejected as a junior synonym or as a junior homonym of another generic name Document 4/1.—Submission of a Draft Text of a provision relating to the method to be followed in citing the date and authorship to be attributed to a substitute family-group name. By G. H. E. HOP- KINS (British Museum asi ae The deine Museum, Tring) CASE No. 5 Application of the priority principle to family-group names Document 5/1.—Experience gained since the Copenhagen Congress of 1953 in applying the priority principle to family-group names, with recommendations designed to facilitate the application of that principle in this field. Pe FRANCIS HEMMING, Wd to the Commission . Document 5/2.—Support for the priority principle in family-group names. Views of the members of the Committee on Zoological Nomenclature of the Entomological Society of America (statement communicated by ROBERT L. USINGER) CASE No. 6 Article 19 (Copenhagen Decision 75) relating to the question of the conditions in which a spelling not subject to emendation under Copenhagen Decision 71 may be rejected in place of a spelling in general use Document 6/1.—Proposed adoption of provisions in substitution for Copenhagen Decision 75. By J. CHESTER BRADLEY ie ; University, Ithaca, New York) XV Page 185 187 194 196 XVI CASE No. 7 Article 4 (Copenhagen Decision 50(1)(a) and (b)) relating to the formation of family-group names Document 7/1.—Proposed substitution of revised provisions in place of Copenhagen Decision 50(1)(a) and (b). ra J. CHESTER BRADLEY (Cornell University, Ithaca, New York) . : bg CASE No. 8 Article 4 (Copenhagen Decision 45) (family-group names) : relative merits of continuity and priority respectively Document 8/1.—Continuity of usage in the case of names of the family- group. By J. CHESTER BRADLEY Sag Si od Ithaca, New York) : oa Document 8/2.—On the importance of maintaining continuity of usage at the family-group-name level. By FRANCIS HEMMING, Secretary to the Commission .% a as > — af CASE No. 9 Proposed adoption of provisions regulating the citation of a name which has been either emended or corrected under the “* Régles ”’ Document 9/1.—Citation of the author of a corrected name. By J. CHESTER BRADLEY (Cornell University, Ithaca, New York) Document 9/2.—Method to be followed in citing a name after its spelling has been emended or corrected. pis FRANCIS HEMMING, Secretary to the Commission a . Page 199 201 203 205 207 CASE No. 10 The question of the language or languages to be adopted by the Fifteenth International Congress of Zoology, London, 1958, as the substantive language or languages for the revised edition of the ‘“‘ Régles Internationales de la Nomen- clature Zoologique ’’ (International Code of Zoological Nomenclature) Document 10/1.—Proposal relating to the Substantive Text of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature. By CURTIS W. SABROSKY (United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Branch, Entomology Research Division) oe ais Document 10/2.—Historical Survey of the question of the language to be accepted for the Substantive Text of the Régles Internationales (International Code). By FRANCIS HEMMING, tte: to the International Commission ; COMMENTS ON PREVIOUSLY PUBLISHED CASES Comments on Case No. 1 (The Moore/Sylvester-Bradley ‘“‘ Parataxa ’’ Proposals) Document 1/35: Objection lodged by the Nomenclature Discussion Group, Washington, D.C.: Statement furnished by CURTIS W. SABROSKY, Chairman, and ELLIS L. YOCHELSON, eee?” 13th gies ember 1957 Annexe 1: Minutes of a Meeting of the Nomen- clature Discussion one held on 7th ake, 1957.. ms , : : Annexe 2: Particulars of Voting Papers enclosed with the Joint Letter of 13th September 1957. . Document 1/36: Comment by E. VOIGT (Hamburg, Germany) Document 1/37: Comment by LEIF STORMER igs ee ia Institutt, Oslo, Norway) XVII Page 210 212 216 216 218 220 221 Document 1/38: Comment by WILBERT H. HAAS (United States ° National Museum, Washington, D.C.) 222 XVII Document 1/39 : Document 1/40 : Document 1/41 : Document 1/42 : Document 1/43 : Comment by VLADIMIR POKORNY ee University, Prague, Czechoslovakia) Rejoinder to the objections to the “ Parataxa Plan” advanced by the Nomenclature Discussion Group, Washington, D.C. By P. C. SYLVESTER- BRADLEY (University of Sheffield) Comment by FRIEDRICH TRAUTH (Vienna) A Supplementary Proposal arising in connection with the “ Parataxa Plan”. By J. CHESTER BRADLEY (Cornell University, Ithaca, New York) Comment by JOHN S. HAMPTON (Bromley, Kent) Comments on Case No. 2 (proposed cancellation of Copenhagen Decision 54(1)(a)) Document 2/16 : Document 2/17 : Submission of a Draft Text embodying the reversal of Copenhagen Decision 54(1)(a) and the amal- gamation of the provisions so amended with Decision 54(1)(b). By G. H. E. HOPKINS (British Museum (Natural H ey, The rch Museum, Tring, Herts.) Submission of a Draft Text embodying a partial reversal of Copenhagen Decision 54(1)(a). By J. CHESTER BRADLEY Sie ee Ithaca, New York) Comment on Case No. 3 (proposed amendment of Copenhagen Decision 54(1)(b)) Document 3/2 : Submission of a Draft Text providing for the reversal of the provisions in Copenhagen Decision 54(b)(1)(b) in relation to the date and authorship to be attributed to a substitute family-group name. By G. H. E. HOPKINS (British Museum (Natural History), The Zoological Museum, Tring, Herts.) .. Page 223 228 230 247 249 255 CASE No. 11 Draft “ Régles ’’, Article 18, Section 2, and Article 13, Section 4(a) : The nature of the type of a taxon of the family-group category Document 11/1.—Proposed verbal amendment to Article 18, Section 2, of the Revised Draft of the Régles and proposed addition of an Explanatory Note to Article 13, Section 4(a) of the above Draft. By J. CHESTER BRADLEY (Cornell University, Ithaca, New York) CASE No. 12 Draft “ Régles ’’, Article 11, Section 1 : emendation of generic and specific names Document 12/1.—Proposed clarification of the expression “ evidence in the original publication ”’ as used in relation to the emendation of generic and specific names in Article 11, Section 1, of the Draft of the Revised ae a FRANCIS HEMMING, aes to the Commission . ; CASE No. 138 Draft ‘ Régles ’’, Article 28, Section 13: specific names in adjectival form consisting of partially Latinised words : proposal that such names should be treated as ** barbarous ”’ words and therefore as being exempt from change in gender Document 13/1.—Question of the treatment in the matter of liability to gender changes to be accorded to adjectival specific names consisting of partially Latinised words. nef FRANCIS HEMMING, ber to the Commission : : : Appendix : On the application of the Rule of Gender Agreement in the case of specific names which are adjectival but have not been Latinised. By L. W. GRENSTED conten Classical Adviser to the Commission) Sa ‘ at x gh ; Document 13/2.—Correspondence as to the applicability of the Gender Rules to adjectival specific names consisting of partly Latinised words between FRANCIS HEMMING ab sila to the lager a and’ ERNST MAYR Page 257 260 263 267 270 XxX Extract from a letter dated 17th September 1957 from ERNST MAYR Extract from a letter dated 21st November 1957 from FRANCIS HEMMING F ’ ae 3 ae Extract from a letter dated 27th November 1957 from ERNST MAYR Extract from a supplementary letter dated 17th December 1957 from ERNST MAYR a : B a ea :s Document 13/3.—Support for the proposed adoption of a Declaration to treat barbarous words as exempt from change in gender. By LEO SHELJUZHKO peg pagrne des Sis as ae Miinchen) : : + : CASE No. 14 Draft ‘‘ Régles ’’, suggested new Article between Articles 25 and 26 (the Code of Ethics) : proposed clarification and extension of provisions in Document 14/1.—The “Code of Ethics’’: proposals for clarification and extension in certain respects. By FRANCIS HEMMING, Secretary to the Commission a - a a age Document 14/2.—Revised proposal for the clarification and amplification of the “ Code of Ethics ” and a proposal regarding the place in which the ‘Code of Ethics”’ so revised should be incorporated in the Régles. By FRANCIS HEMMING, Secretary to the Commission CASE No. 15 Draft “ Régles ’’, Article 8, Section 2 (Copenhagen Decisions 123-124) : proposed re-instatement of the ‘“‘ Page Prece- dence Principle ’’ in place of the “ First Reviser Principle ’’ restored by the Copenhagen Congress Document 15/1.—Proposal for the amendment of Article 28 of the existing Régles as amended at Copenhagen (1953) so as to give preference to the principle of page priority in the selection of generic and specific names and for other purposes. By CYRIL F. dos PASSOS (American Museum of Natural History, New York) and ALEXANDER B. KLOTS (College of the City of New York).. : Page 270 270 270 271 272 273 281 285 Document 15/2.—Proposed retention of the “ First Reviser ” Principle for the purpose of determining the precedence to be accorded to any one of two or more names published in the same work and on the same date. By FRANCIS HEMMING, Secretary to the Commission COMMENTS ON PREVIOUSLY PUBLISHED CASES Comments on Case No. 1 (The Moore/Sylvester-Bradley “‘ Parataxa ’’ Proposals) Document 1/44: Comment by KLAUS J. MULLER Paani Universitat, Berlin) . : Document 1/45: Remarks on the value of parataxonomy in the case of the Phylum Porifera. By R. E. H. REID (Queen’s University, Belfast) S a Document 1/46: Comment by ARTHUR N. DUSENBURY, Jr. (Creole Petroleum Corporation, Jusepin, Monegas, Venezuela) an ; =F : Document 1/47: Comment by F. H. T. RHODES ee tis Swansea) Document 1/48: Comment ‘i ELLIS L. YOCHELSON Far De) Comments on Case No. 3 (proposed amendment of Copenhagen Decision 54(1)(b)) Document 3/3: Proposed repeal of Copenhagen Decision 54(1)(b) (family-group names based on homonyms). By J. CHESTER BRADLEY wat ley ind Ithaca, N.Y.) ‘ : CASE No. 16 Draft “ Régles ’’, Article 6, Section 6(b) : proposals relating to the form of generic names intended for palaeontology Document 16/1.—Proposed deletion of Article 6, Section 6(b), of the Draft Regles. By CURTIS W. SABROSKY (United States Depart- ment of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Entomology Research Division, Washington, D.C.) ae XXI Page 293 296 298 303 305 313 315 " $21 XXII Document 16/2.—The form of generic names intended for palaeontology : a word of caution on Dr. Sabrosky’s proposal. By FRANCIS HEMMING, Secretary to the Commission a wi Bs ie CASE No. 17 Article 22, Recommendation 10( 8) of the Draft ‘“‘ Régles ’’ (citation of dates in bibliographical references) Document 17/1.—Proposed deletion of Article 22, Recommendation 10( 8) relating to citation of dates in a particular situation. By CURTIS W. SABROSKY (United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Entomology Research Division, Washington, D.C.).. Document 17/2.—Proposed retention of the Paris Congress at present embodied in Recommendation 10( 8) of Article 22 of the Draft Régles. By FRANCIS HEMMING, Secretary to the Commission ety CASE No. 18 Draft ‘* Régles ’’, Article 24, Section 15(e) : replacement of junior homonyms possessing only subjective synonyms Document 18/1.—Proposed redraft of Section 15(e) of Article 24 of the Draft Régles. By CURTIS W. SABROSKY (United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Entomology Research Division, Washington, D.C.) cy +e Document 18/2.—Points for consideration on Dr. Sabrosky’s proposal relating to the replacement of junior homonyms ated only subjective synonyms : i i CASE No. 19 Draft “‘ Régles ’’, Article 26 : banning of the use of intemperate language in discussions on zoological nomenclature Document 19/1.—Proposed deletion of Article 26 of the Draft Reégles. By CURTIS W. SABROSKY (United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Entomology Research Division, Washington, D.C.) - ae ba vs “3 wa Page 322 323 324 325 326 328 XXIII Page Document 19/2.—Proposed retention of the provision banning the use of intemperate language in discussions on zoological nomenclature. By FRANCIS HEMMING, Secretary to the Commission 329 CASE No. 20 Draft “‘ Régles ’’, Article 28, Section 9(a) and Appendix : grammatical formation of family-group names Document 20/1.—The grammatical formation of names for taxa belonging to the family-group category. eee CHESTER BRADLEY (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y.) 331 CASE No. 21 Draft ‘“ Régles ’’, Article 22, Section 11: gender of generic names Document 21/1.—Report on the Rules for the determination of the gender attributable to generic names of various classes adopted by the Copenhagen Congress of 1953 in its Decision 84. By L. W. GRENSTED, Consulting Classical Adviser to the Commission. . 334 CASE No. 22 Draft ‘“‘ Régles ’’, Article 24, Section 11(c) : provision for challenging the rejection of secondary homonyms Document 22/1.—Proposal to eliminate the provision for Challenge of the Rejection of Secondary Homonyms. By CURTIS W. SABROSKY (United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Entomology Research Division, Washington, D.C.) 337 Document 22/2.—Support for Dr. Sabrosky’s proposal for the repeal of the provision agreed upon by the Copenhagen Congress for the application of the “ Notification and Challenge ” procedure in relation to secondary ee cage et FRANCIS HEMMING, Salted to the Commission . 339 XXIV CASE No. 23 Draft “ Régles ’’, Article 6, Section 1(d) ; Article 10, Section 2(a) ; Article 23, Section 1(a)(i) : banning of names calculated to give political, religious or personal offence Document 23/1.—Deletion from the Régles of the provision relating to the rejection of names calculated to give political, religious or personal offence. By CURTIS W. SABROSKY (United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Entomology Research Division, Washington, D.C.) a Document 23/2.—Support for the retention in the Régles of the provi- sions banning the use of offensive words as zoological names. By FRANCIS HEMMING, Secretary to the Commission .. COMMENTS ON PREVIOUSLY PUBLISHED CASES Comments on Case No. 1 (The Moore/Sylvester-Bradley “‘ Parataxa ’’ Proposals) Document 1/49: Comment by C. W. WRIGHT (London) Document 1/50: Comment by M. K. HOWARTH (British Museum (Natural History), London) aS + * Comments on Case No. 2 (proposed cancellation of Copenhagen Decision 54(1)(a)) Document 2/18: Comment by R. I. SAILER (United States Depart- ment of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Entomology Research Branch, Beltsville, i oa U.S.A.) 3 Document 2/19: Comment by JAMES A. SLATER ae ae a Connecticut, Storrs, Connecticut, U.S.A.) . Comments on Case No. 13 (gender change and specific names consisting of barbarous words) Document 13/4: Comment by CYRIL F. dos PASSOS as iar New Jersey, U.S.A.) . Page 341 343 345 349 351 352 353 Document 13/5: Comment by G. van SON (Transvaal Museum, Pretoria, South Africa) ‘ ee ; Comments on Case No. 14 (proposed amplification of the ‘“‘ Code of Ethics ”’) Document 14/3: Comment by CYRIL F. dos PASSOS seas New Jersey, U.S.A.) ar Document 14/4: Comment by G. van SON (Transvaal Museum, Pretoria, South Africa) Se A CASE No. 24 Provisions in Professor Chester Bradley’s Draft of the “‘ Régles ” not covered by Congress Decisions or by “ Declarations ”’ subsequently adopted by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature Document 24/1.—Provisions included in Professor J. Chester Bradley’s Draft of the English Text of the Régles which are not covered by existing Congress Decisions or are at variance with Congress Decisions : Report by the Régles Section, Office of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature. _ (Report prepared a Mrs. ANN WILSON, Research Assistant in Charge, Régles) .. ' CASE No. 25 Draft “ Régles ’’, Article 12, Section 1 (names for taxa of the Order/Class and Higher Categories) Document 25/1.—Problems involved in the stabilisation of the names for Orders, Classes and Taxa of Higher Rank. ae FRANCIS HEMMING, Secretary to the Commission , si Document 25/2.—Questions relating to Order/Class-Group Nomen- clature in the Class Echinoidea. By R. V. MELVILLE (Geological Survey and Museum, London) and J. WYATT DURHAM Sete of California, Berkeley, California, U.S.A.) XXV Page 354 355 356 360 489 497 XXVI Document 25/3.—Proposed type genera for higher taxa within the Sub-Phylum Ciliophora (Phylum Protozoa). By JOHN CORLISS (Department of ene an se a I ei Urbana, Illinois, U.S.A.) a as Document 25/4.—Questions arising in connection with the naming of Orders and taxa of higher- rank. By ELLSWORTH C. DOUGHERTY (University of ee pe at He) Hs beer: Berkeley, California, U.S.A.) Document 25/5.—The relative merits of the Class Names “ Polyzoa” and “Bryozoa”. By D. A. BROWN (Senior Lecturer in Big University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand) Be : Document 25/6.—Question of the name to be used for the Class typified by the genus Chiton Linnaeus, 1758. tis L. R. COX (British Museum (Natural History), London) a a “i Document 25/7.—Order/Class-Group Names in Zoology with special reference to the name to be used for the Order of Insects comprising the Fleas. By G.H. E. HOPKINS cate Museum sith = eee). The Zoological Museum, Tring, Herts.) . ‘ Document 25/8.—Question of the Rules for the naming of Orders and taxa of higher rank. By HENNING LEMCHE (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen). . : a =e ri Document 25/9.—Petition requesting clarification of the date and authorship of the Order/Class name ‘‘ Monoplacophora”’. By J. BROOKES KNIGHT (Honorary Research Associate, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.), HENNING LEMCHE (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen) and ELLIS L. YOCHELSON (United States Geological Survey, Washington, D.C.) : CASE No. 26 Draft “‘ Régles ’’ : proposed Schedule giving guidance as to the transliteration of words from the Cyrillic alphabets to the Latin alphabet when such words are used as zoological names Document 26/1.—On the problems involved in giving effect to the decision by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948, for the addition to the Régles of a Schedule giving guidance as to the transliteration into the Latin alphabet of words normally written in Cyrillic characters when such words are used as zoological names. By FRANCIS HEMMING, Secretary to the Commission Page 520 523 543 547 553 555 557 XXVIT Appendix : Copy of a letter despatched by the Office of the Com- mission on 2nd February 1955 to certain Institutions in the U.S.S.R. and in other countries using Slav languages ' List of Institutions in the U.S.S.R. and other countries - using Slav languages to which the Almasov/Boltovskoy Plan [Document 26/2 below] was communicated for observations on 2nd February 1955 Document 26/2.—A Plan for the treatment of words written in Cyrillic characters for the purpose of zoological nomenclature published in 1955 as a basis for discussion in relation to the Schedule giving guidance in the above matter, the addition of which to the Régles was agreed upon, in principle, by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948. By ALEXEY ALMASOV and ESTEBAN BOLTOVSKOY (Buenos Aires, Argentina) Document 26/3.—Comment on the Almasov/Boltovskoy Plan. By ERICH M. HERING ACR Museum der Humboldt- Universitat zu Berlin) ae : ah Document 26/4.—Comment on the Almasov/Boltovskoy Plan. By G. WITENBERG elie of Fe ee The Hebrew ieee Jerusalem, Israel) Document 26/5.—Comment on the Almasov/Boltovskoy Plan. By CURTIS W. SABROSKY (United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Entomology Research Division, Washington, D.C.).. Document 26/6.—Comment on the Almasov/Boltovskoy Plan. By TADEUSZ JACZEWSKI Wier ve of See Polish cece a Sciences, Warsaw) Document .26/7.—Comment on the Almasov/Boltovskoy Plan. By JOSHUA L. BAILY, Jr. (San Diego, California, U.S.A.) YF. Document 26/8.—Views of the Academy of Sciences of the U.S.S.R. on the Almasov/Boltovskoy Plan : letter dated 5th September 1955 from D. M. STEINBERG, Vice-President of the ere Institute of the Academy ‘ . Document 26/9.—Comment on the Almasov/Boltovskoy Plan. By LEO SHELJUZHKO ci olaies sig ‘pretmety des ak chai aang: Miinchen) Page 563 564 571 582 585 587 588 590 593 597 XXVIII Document 26/10.—Comment on the Almasov/Boltovskoy Plan. By H. S. BUSHELL (Commonwealth Institute of Entomology, London) .. Document 26/11.—Comment on the ee see Plan. By P. H. M. GEELAN (London).. i ‘ ot Document 26/12.—The System for the Transliteration of Cyrillic characters recommended by the Royal Society in its publication entitled “‘ The Transliteration of Russian, Serbian and Bulgarian for Bibliographical Purposes ” Document 26/13.—Letter dated 25th shicbciabi 1958 from the at ss Society me ' , Document 26/14.—Transliteration System for Russian and Bulgarian geographical names prepared by the “ Permanent Committee on Geographical Names for British Official Use” (communicated by the Permanent Committee) : Ke a BS -_ COMMENT ON A PREVIOUSLY PUBLISHED CASE Comment on Case No. 1 (The Moore/Sylvester-Bradley ‘‘ Parataxa ”’ Proposals) Document 1/51: Comment by JOHN 8. HAMPTON (Bromley, Kent) [For the remainder of the Agenda Paper of the Colloquium on Zoological Nomenclature, London, 1958, see Section B of the present volume.] CONCLUDING ITEMS Index to authors of communications included in the First Section (Section A) of the Agenda Paper for the Recent: on eee Nomenclature, London, 1958 = Volume 15, Section A : Particulars of dates of publication of the several Parts in which the present Section (Section A) of Volume 15 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature was published Instructions to Binders Page 606 610 612 615 617 619 620a 620e 620f VOLUME 15. Part 39 7th July 1958 pp. i-viii THE BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE The Official Organ of THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON bane crises NOMENCLATURE yr vu 4 sul st Edited by FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E. Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature CONTENTS Report on the-work carried out by the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature in the five-year period 1953-1957 LONDON : Printed by Order of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature and Sold on behalf of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature by the International Trust at its Publications Office, 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7 1958 Price Five Shillings (All rights reserved) INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE A. The Officers of the Commission Honorary Life President: Dr. Karl Joxpan (British Museum (Natural History), Zoological Museum, Tring, Herts, England) “ri : President: Professor James Chester Brapiey (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) Vice-President : Senhor Dr. Afranio do AMARAL (Sao Paulo, Brazil) (12th August 1953) Secretary : Mr. Francis Hemmine (London, England) (27th July 1948) B. The Members of the Commission (Arranged in order of precedence by reference to date of election or of most recent re-election, as prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology) Professor H. Boscuma (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) (1st January 1947) Senor Dr. Angel Casrera (La Plata, Argentina) (27th July 1948) Mr. Francis Hemmine (London, England) (27th July 1948) (Secretary) Dr. Henning Lemcus (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark) (27th July 1948) Professor Pierre Bonnet (Université de Toulouse, France) (9th June 1950) Mr. Norman Denbigh Rey (British Museum (Natural History), London) (9th June 1950) Professor Dr. Tadeusz JaczEwsx1 (Institute of Zoology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland) (15th June 1950) Professor Dr. Robert Mrrrens (Natur-Musewm u. Forschungs-Institut Senckenberg, Frankfurt a. M., Germany) (5th July 1950) Professor Dr. Erich Martin Hurre (Zoologisches Museum der Humboldt-Universitét zu Berlin, Germany) (5th July 1950) Senhor Dr. Afranio do Amarat (S. Paulo, Brazil) (12th August 1953) (Vice-President) Professor J. R. Dymonp (University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada) (12th August 1953) Professor J. Chester BRapLEY (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) (President) Professor Harold E. Voxes (University of Tulane, Department of Geology, New Orleans, Louisiana, U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) Professor Béla Hanx6 (Mez6gazdasdégi Muzeum, Budapest, Hungary) (12th August 1953) Dr. Norman R. Stoxx (Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, New York, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) Mr. P, C. SytvesTER-BRADLEY (Sheffield University, Sheffield, England) (12th August 1953) Dr. L. B. Hournuis (Rijksmuseum van Natwurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) (12th August 1953) Dr. K. H. L. Key (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Canberra, A.C.T., Australia) (15th October 1954) Dr. Alden H. Miter (Musewm of Vertebrate Zoology, University of California, Berkeley, California, U.S.A.) (29th October 1954) es Dr. Ferdinand Pranti (Ndrodni Museum v Praze, Prague, Czechoslovakia) (30th October 54) Professor Dr. Wilhelm Kinet (Zoologisches Institut der Universitat, Vienna, Austria) (6th November 1954) Professor F, 8. Bopennrrmer (The Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Israel) (11th November 1954) Professor Ernst Mayr (Musewm of Comparative Zoology at Harvard College, Cambridge, Massa- chusetts, U.S.A.) (4th December 1954) Professor Enrico Tortonese (Museo di Storia Naturale “‘G. Doria”, Genova, Italy) (16th December 1954) Dr. Per Brrxcx (Lunds Universitets, Zoologiska Institution, Lund, Sweden) (19th May 1958) BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Volume 15, Part 39 (pp. i—viii) 7th July 1958 REPORT ON THE WORK CARRIED OUT BY THE INTERNATIONAL TRUST FOR ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE IN THE FIVE-YEAR PURLCT ASE: PERIOD 1953-1957 Report prepared by the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature for consideration by the International Union for Biological Sciences at its General Assembly to be held in London in July 1958 In the present Report the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature has pleasure in placing before the International Union for Biological Sciences a Report on the work carried out by it on behalf of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature in the five-year period 1953-1957. As will be seen, the period was one of great achievement, both scientific and financial. 2. At the time of the submission of its last general Report in 1953 the International Trust had just carried through with great success a Colloquium on Zoological Nomenclature which with the assistance of grants from the International Union for Biological Sciences and from U.N.E.S.C.O. it had organised in connection with the meeting at Copenhagen of the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology. The purpose of that Colloquium was to provide an internationally agreed basis for the completion of the revision of the Régles Internationales de la Nomenclature Zoologique (International Code of Zoological Nomenclature). In this the Colloquium proved highly successful, for the whole of its recommendations were ultimately approved by the Congress. This satisfactory result was largely due to the careful preparation of the ground by the Trust and to the allocation for this purpose of three volumes (Volumes 7, 8 and 10) of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 3. The time and effort devoted to the preparations for the Copenhagen Colloquium were well justified by the results secured, but inevitably involved some sacrifice in the normal work of the Commission and the Trust. The first task after the close of the Colloquium was the preparation and piloting through the press of the volume containing the Official Record of the decisions taken by the Copenhagen Congress on the basis of the recommendations of the Colloquium. This volume which was published under the title Copenhagen Decisions on Zoological Nomenclature was issued on 3lst December 1953. ii Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 4, The fact that it was possible during the summer of 1953 to carry through the preparations for the Copenhagen Colloquium on the scale and with the speed achieved was due mainly to the fact that in April of that year Mr. Francis Hemming, Secretary to the Commission, had retired from the British Civil Service and had started to work on a whole-time (though unpaid) basis instead of only in his spare time which alone previously he had been able to give to this work. It was evident that once the work arising out of the Colloquium was completed, the Office of the Commission would on the above account be in possession of resources far greater than had ever previously been at its disposal. Careful consideration was given by the Trust in the autumn of 1953 to the administrative problems involved for the purpose of devising the arrangements best calculated to take full advantage of the opportunity so offered. Clearly, the Secretary by working on a full-time (unpaid) basis would be able to increase the level of output far above that ever previously achieved. Thus, by the maintenance of the Trust’s established price-policy it would be reasonable to look for a small profit on the sale of each of the increased number of units which it would be possible for the Trust to publish. The Trust took the view that the fullest possible advantage should be secured from having a whole-time Secretary and formed the conclusion therefore that the proper course would be to appoint a salaried Administrative Officer to relieve Mr. Hemming of as much as possible of the routine or semi-routine duties which he would otherwise have had to perform, thereby freeing him to concentrate as far as possible upon the purely scientific side of the work. It was hoped that by this means the number of publications issued annually would be increased to an extent which would not only cover the salary of the proposed Administrative Officer and the consequent increase in general office expenses but would in addition, through the increase in the number of units published annually, actually lead to an increased net profit. As a contribution towards the success of this plan, Mr. Hemming offered to provide office accommodation for the reinforced staff of the Commission in his own private house without any charge in respect of rent. The plan described above obviously involved certain risks but on the other hand it alone offered a possibility of enabling the Office of the Commission to make substantial inroads into the arrears of applications which had inevitably accumulated when the Secretary had been able to work only on a spare-time basis in the evenings and at week-ends. 5. The new plan was brought into operation in November 1953 and the first of the new series of documents was published at the end of January 1954. It very quickly became apparent that the rate of production and publication could be still further increased by the appointment of additional staff accom- panied by a further devolution of duties by the Secretary. A number of such appointments were made in the course of 1954 and these still further swelled the volume of current output. In the period preceding the Copenhagen Congress the major part of the work of the Office of the Commission—other than that concerned with the preparations for the Copenhagen Colloquium—had been con- cerned with the production of units of the Trust’s serial, the Bulletin of Zoological Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature ili Nomenclature, containing applications on individual problems submitted to the Commission for decision. A large number of decisions had been taken by the Commission on such cases largely by postal vote but the decisions so taken had not been promulgated as Opinions. The Trust accordingly decided that its new programme should consist of two branches, namely the preparation and publication of Opinions on individual cases on which decisions had already been taken, and, second, the preparation of further cases for consideration by the Commission through publication in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature and later through the issue of Voting Papers on the questions raised in those cases. The success of the new policy described above was both immediate and complete. The number of publications issued rose rapidly, a small profit was made on each item sold and the income so obtained proved to be more than sufficient to cover the cost of employing salaried staff to assist the unpaid whole-time Secretary. 6. The first units published—in 1954—under the new Publications Programme were units of the Opinions and Declarations Series. In the above year no less than 139 Parts (including three index Parts) of this Series were published at a printing cost of £5,110. Income from sales of Parts of this Series (including the sale of back-parts) amounted to £5,704, thus providing a net profit of about £600 during the year. Similar results were obtained in each of the three following years. Throughout that period the conditions obtaining were strictly comparable and it is therefore very gratifying to note that, while expenditure on printing was at a somewhat lower level, income from sales showed a steady increase, as the result partly of increases in the number of subscriptions and partly of sales of complete back-sets, the cost of which increased rapidly during the period under review. As the result of these favourable factors sales of units of the “‘ Opinions and Declarations ’’ Series exceeded the cost of printing by about £2,000 in 1955, by £3,000 in 1956 and by over £3,500 in 1957. The total output published during the five-year period 1953-1957 amounted to 432 Parts (including 15 index Parts) and contained over 8,000 pages. 7. The publication of units of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature under the new programme during the period 1954-1957 produced results very similar to those described for the Opinions and Declarations Series. In 1954, for example, printing costs amounted to £1,200, while sales (current sales and sales of back Parts) amounted to £2,200, thus providing a contribution of about £1,000 towards the general overhead costs of the work of the Commission. In the following year (1955) printing costs amounted to £1,030 and income from sales £1,980, while for 1956 the figures were £1,950 and £3,700. For 1957 about one half of the expenditure incurred was on “ normal ”’ Bulletin, the remainder being on Parts of the London Congress Agenda Volumes (Volumes 14 and 15). The total expenditure so incurred amounted to £3,140 and income to £6,040. Thus, the total expenditure incurred on printing the Bulletin in the period 1954-1957 amounted to approximately £7,300 and income from sales (including iv Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature back sales) to £13,900, the net contribution to the general income of the Commission amounting on the average to £1,650 per annum during the period under review. The total number of Parts (including six index Parts) published during the four-year period amounted to 85 (3,250 pages). 8. The adoption in 1953 of the plan described above for launching a greatly enlarged Publications Programme was, as has been seen, fully justified in the event but at the time when it was initiated, it necessarily involved considerable risks, as at that time it was impossible to be certain that the increased output to be looked for would provide a volume of sales sufficient to cover the cost to the Trust of the salaried staff required for their production. Up to that time (i.e. up to the end of the year 1953) administrative expenses chargeable to the Income and Expenditure Account had amounted to about £500 per annum. In 1954 the new Publications Programme led to an increase of about £800 in this item which amounted in that year to about £1,300; in 1955 this figure was increased to about £1,500. Further developments in the. work of the Office raised expenditure under this head to about £2,500 in each of the years 1956 and 1957. As in previous periods the expenditure shown under this head throughout the period under review was substantially less than that which would have been involved if the Office of the Trust had been organised on ordinary business lines. For in these years the Offices of the Trust and the Commission were accommodated rent-free in Mr. Hemming’s private residence, while Mr. Hemming discharged the duties of Secretary on a whole-time basis without remuneration. 9. During the period under review the Trust—and through the Trust the Commission also—was extremely fortunate in the matter of gifts received. First, it is necessary to record that in 1953 at the time of the launching of the new Publications Programme Mr. Hemming presented a gift of £1,760, the largest single benefaction ever received by the Trust. During the same period also the International Union for Biological Sciences continued to mark its interest and that of U.N.E.S.C.O. in the work of the Trust and the Commission by making financial contributions within the limitations imposed by its own budgetary position. During the four-year period 1954-1957 the amount so presented to the Trust amounted to £857. In addition, gifts of small amounts from various institutions and individuals amounted in the aggregate to the sum of £106 during the four years in question. To all those from whom gifts were received during the period under review the grateful thanks of the Trust are offered. 10. Reference must be made at this point to the exceptional arrangements made by the Trust in 1953 to secure the widest possible publicity in the scientific world for the decisions on nomenclature taken by the Copenhagen Congress in 1953. Two considerations were judged to be of special importance, namely speed of publication and a low price for the volume to be published. The work itself was issued under the title Copenhagen Decisions on Zoological Nomenclature Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature v at the end of December 1953—that is, little more than four months after the close of the Congress. In order to ensure that this vital work should be obtainable at a price so low as to be within the reach of any institution or individual the Trust decided to grant a substantial subsidy to its production and thus to render it possible to place it on sale at the nominal price of five shillings a copy. The total number of copies sold of this first impression amounted to about 900. At the time when the stock was exhausted there remained only a small unsatisfied demand. In view, however, of the importance of this work it was decided by the Trust to issue a Second Impression. By the end of 1957 about 100 copies of this new impression had been sold. The total sales achieved thus amounted only to about 1,000 copies, in spite of the fact that the work itself was one of much more general interest than are most works dealing with zoological nomenclature and that the price charged for the principal edition was fixed at an artificially low level. The experience gained from the publication of this book is, in the view of the Trust, very instructive, for it shows that the potential field for the sale of books and serials dealing with zoological nomenclature is extremely limited, not because of lack of interest in the subject but because under modern conditions the private purchaser has almost disappeared, his place having been taken by institutional libraries serving large numbers of individuals. 11. During the period under review great attention has been devoted by the Trust to two special projects of great importance, each of which has now been brought virtually to its conclusion. The first of these was concerned with the publication in book-form of the Official Lists of valid names and of the Official Indexes of rejected and invalid names; the second was concerned with the preparations for the publication of the Draft of the text of the Régles Internationales de la Nomenclature Zoologique (International Code of Zoological Nomenclature) as revised by the International Congresses of Zoology held in Paris in 1948 and at Copenhagen in 1953. Brief particulars of the action taken by the Trust under each of these heads are given below. 12. The plan for the establishment of an Official List of Generic Names in Zoology was approved by the International Congress of Zoology held at Monaco in 1913, the purpose of the List being to promote stability in the names for important genera. Owing first to the First World War and later to the spirit of defeatism in matters of nomenclature which marked the greater part of the inter-war period the List grew very slowly, the number of names inscribed on it by the end of 1936 amounting only to 563. By this time it had become apparent that the value of the Official List was severely prejudiced by the fact that the decisions placing names on it were scattered over a large number of separate issues of serial publications and that what was required was a consolidated edition of the Official List published in book-form. It was then found that the earlier entries on the Official List had been made in so condensed (and often incomplete) a form that a considerable amount of further work would be required before publication in book-form would be practicable. For vi Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature this work it was decided to set up a special ‘‘ Official List Section ” in the Office of the Trust and to engage a qualified zoologist to take charge of this Section on a whole-time basis. These arrangements were brought into operation in September 1954. Concurrently with the examination of the entries on the foregoing Official List made in the period up to the end of 1936 work was started also on the preparations for the publication in book-form of the Official Lists for valid specific names established by the Paris Congress in 1948 and for valid family-group and Order/Class names and for valid zoological works established by the Copenhagen Congress in 1953. At the same time work was started on the corresponding Official Indexes of rejected and invalid names and works. Almost all the problems outstanding in connection with generic names placed on the Official List in the period up to the end of 1936 had been cleared up by the summer of 1957. It was thereupon decided that arrangements should be put in hand forthwith for the publication in book-form of the First Instalments of all the Official Lists and Official Indexes, even though in the case of generic names this might involve a few temporary omissions from the List so published. These volumes have now in some cases been published and it is hoped that the publication of the remainder will be completed in time for the Fifteenth International Congress of Zoology when it meets in London next month (July). The total expenditure incurred on this important project during the four-year period 1954-1957 amounted to the modest figure of £1,950. The prices charged for the volumes now being published are very moderate but from the advance orders already received it seems likely that the actual cost of printing—though not the cost of preparation—will be recovered in 1959. 13. The second of the two important projects which have engaged the attention of the Trust during the period under review has been the arrangements to be made for securing the approval of the Fifteenth International Congress of Zoology, London, 1958, for a text of the Régles Internationales (International Code) based upon the decisions taken by the Paris and Copenhagen Congresses in 1948 and 1953 respectively. In this connection it will be recalled that, while the actual preparation of the first Draft of the revised text of the Régles was confided to Professor J. Chester Bradley (Ithaca, N.Y.), the publication of that Draft and all the subsequent arrangements necessary for its due considera- tion were entrusted to the International Trust. The compilation of the proposed document would, it was apparent, be a highly complex task, having regard to the very large number of separate points to be covered. Accordingly, in agreement with Professor Bradley, the Trust established a special ‘‘ Régles Section ” to advise on all problems arising in connection with the Draft of the Régles. Somewhat later, arrangements were put in hand by the Trust for summoning a Colloquium on Zoological Nomenclature for the purpose of considering the Draft of the Regles and of proposals for the further amendment of the Régles or for the correction of the Draft prepared by Professor Bradley received either from the members of the Colloquium or from others. At the same time the Trust earmarked two volumes of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature to serve as Agenda Volumes for the London Congress. The first of these volumes (Volume 14) was reserved for Professor Bradley’s Draft of the English Text Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature vii and for the Draft of the corresponding French text ; the second (Volume 15) was made available for the publication of comments of any kind on Professor Bradley’s Draft. The total expenditure incurred in connection with the above matter during the three-year period 1955-1957 (including the expenditure incurred on the publication in 1957 of the first instalments of each of the above volumes) amounted to £2,570. 14. Having now examined both the Trust’s sources of income during the four-year period 1954-1957 and the expenditure incurred during those years both on the normal services of the Trust and on the two special projects (Official Lists ; Régles) on which expenditure was incurred during that period, it is at length possible to determine the overall financial position of the Trust, as measured in terms of the difference annually between total income and total expenditure. In 1954, the first of the four years under review, the Trust had to bear the whole of the additional expenditure on salaries involved in its new Publications Plan, while it could not be hoped that in that year it would be able to build up the support from subscribers needed to make that programme a financial success. In these circumstances it was very gratifying that in that year a net excess of income over expenditure amounting to £660 should have been obtained. In each of the succeeding years the favourable results so obtained were not only maintained but greatly enhanced. In 1955 income exceeded expenditure by £1,780 ; in 1956 by £2,631 ; in 1957 by £5,802. These figures do not take account of the transfers made to the subsidiary accounts from which the “ Official Lists” and “ Régles (Preparation) ’’ projects were financed. The buoyant state of the finances of the Trust may best be judged by reference to its Revenue Reserves.. These reserves at the end of 1957 amounted to £9,669, an increase of £6,300 over the level at which they had stood at the end of 1953. 15. In the conduct of operations such as thus for which the Trust is responsible considerable liquid assets are required both as an insurance against adverse contingencies and in order also to provide the substantial amount of working capital needed to finance the printing of publications before the actual receipt of funds arising from the sale of units of the immediately preceding instalments. Subject to the fulfilment of these conditions, the accumulation of reserves has never been more than a secondary purpose of the Trust’s financial policy, its prime object having been to build up its income to a level which would make it possible to support the cost involved whenever, on a change taking place in the Secretaryship of the Commission, the subsidies represented by the whole-time unpaid service provided by Mr. Hemming as Secretary and by the provision of rent-free office accommodation in Mr. Hemming’s private house were no longer available. For it was apparent that, whenever such a change were to take place, it would be necessary’ to engage at the full market rate a senior zoologist to take charge of the Office of the Commission. Such an official, being in a receipt of a salary from the Trust, could not be a member of the Commission and could not therefore be appointed to the Office of Secretary as hitherto constituted. On the other viii Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature hand, once a senior zoologist had been appointed to take charge of the Office on a whole-time salaried basis, there would clearly be no room for a spare-time Honorary Secretary drawn from the membership of the Commission, for there would be no effective functions for such an honorary officer to perform and the existence of such a post could at the best lead only to duplication of effort and delay—through the need for otherwise unnecessary correspondence between the salaried head of the Office and the Honorary Secretary who almost certainly would be a person resident in some other country. The Trust has accordingly always considered that, when Mr. Hemming gave up his present honorary post, it would be necessary not only that his whole-time salaried successor should be a specialist whose personal achievements should command respect from the Commission’s correspondents but also that he should be a man of considerable seniority and thus qualified to take full charge of the Office of the Commission, to which body he should be directly responsible. As will be appreciated, the nature of the salaried post so to be created is a matter of direct concern to the Trust in view of its responsibilities for providing the financial and technical resources required for the continuance of the work of the Commission. 16. It is a matter of great satisfaction to the Trust that when suddenly some months ago Mr. Hemming found it necessary on the advice of his doctors to ask to be relieved of his duties as Secretary to the Commission, the financial position which had been built up in recent years made it possible for the Trust at once to create the required post at the current market rate of salary—a minimum of £2,500 per annum—and to rent at a moderate figure (£225 per annum) office accommodation for the Commission which, though very modest and small, is nevertheless just sufficient to meet essential requirements at the present time. Finally, with the active assistance of Sir Gavin de Beer, President of the Fifteenth International Congress of Zoology, and with the friendly co-operation of the British Government Departments concerned, the Trust was able to appoint Mr. R. V. Melville, a senior palaeontologist on the staff of the Geological Survey of the United Kingdom, to the new post of Assistant Secretary to the Commission and Director of its Office, for a period initially of one year. At the same time Mr. Melville was appointed to be an Assistant Man- ager to the Trust, the post of Managing Director being retained for the time being by Mr. Hemming. The Trust is confident that the arrangements described above are the best that in the circumstances could have been devised and will ensure that the work of the Office is continued without interruption or disturbance. Mr. Melville will, however, need to be given all possible support by interested zoologists and the Trust does not doubt that this support will be forthcoming. OFFICES OF THE INTERNATIONAL TRUST FOR ZooLogicaL NOMENCLATURE, 41 QuEEN’s GaTE, Lonpon, 8.W.7. 25th June 1958 nO HASED OH wou ee pe Oca s Bet ee ee ee SS © 1958. THe INTERNATIONAL TRUST FOR ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Printed in England by METCALFE & Cooper LiMiTED, 10-24 Scrutton St., London EC2 VOLUME 15. Part 40 14th July 1958 pp. iX-Xxxvi 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 Papers circulated to Members of the Colloquium for information HASED 21 JUL 1958 2 LONDON : be Printed by Order of the International Trust LY Zoological Nomenclature and Sold on behalf of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature by the International Trust at its Publications Office, 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7 1958 Price Seventeen Shillings and Sixpence (All rights reserved) INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE A. The Officers of the Commission Honorary Life President: Dr. Karl Jorpan (British Museum (Natural History), Zoological Museum, Tring, Herts, England) President: Professor James Chester BrapLEy (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) Vice-President : Senhor Dr. Afranio do AMARrat (Sao Paulo, Brazil) (12th August 1953) Secretary: Mr. Francis Hemmine (London, England) (27th July 1948) B. The Members of the Commission (Arranged in order of precedence by reference to date of election or of most recent re-election, as prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology) Professor H. Boscuma (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) (1st January 1947) Senor Dr. Angel Casrera (La Plata, Argentina) (27th July 1948) Mr. Francis Hemurne (London, England) (27th July 1948) (Secretary) Dr. Henning Lemons (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark) (27th July 1948) Professor Pierre Bonnet (Université de Toulouse, France) (9th June 1950) Mr. Norman Denbigh Riey (British Museum (Natural History), London) (9th June 1950) Professor Dr. Tadeusz JaczEwsk1 (Institute of Zoology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw. Poland) (15th June 1950) Professor Dr. Robert Mertens (Natur Museum u. Forschungs-Institut Senckenberg, Frankfurt a. M., Germany) (5th July 1950) Professor Dr. Erich Martin Hrrine (Zoologisches Museum der Humboldt-Universitat zu Berlin, Germany) (5th July 1950) Senhor Dr. Afranio do Amarat (S. Paulo, Brazil) (12th August 1953) (Vice-President) Professor J. R. Dymonp (University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada) (12th August 1953) Professor J. Chester BrapLEey (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) (President) Professor Harold E. Voxrs (University of Tulane, Department of Geology, New Orleans, Louisiana, U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) Professor Béla Hanxé (Mezégazdasdgi Muzeum, Budapest, Hungary) (12th August 1953) Dr. Norman R. Sroxt (Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, New York, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) Mr. P. C. Syivester-Brapuey (Sheffield University, Sheffield, England) (12th August 1953) Dr. L. B. Horruuis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) (12th August 1953) Dr. K. H. L. Key (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Canberra, A.C.T., Australia) (15th October 1954) Dr. Alden H. MiiiEr (Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, University of California, Berkeley, California, U.S.A.) (29th October 1954) a Dr. Ferdinand Prantu (Ndrodni Museum v Praze, Prague, Czechoslovakia) (30th October 54) Professor Dr. William Ktunett (Zoologisches Institut der Universitdét, Vienna, Austria) (6th November 1954) Professor F. 8S. Bopennemer (The Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Israel) (11th November 1954) Professor Ernst Mayr (Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard College, Cambridge, Massa- chusetts, U.S.A.) (4th December 1954) Professor Enrico TortonesE (Museo di Storia Naturale “‘G. Doria”, Genova, Italy) (16th December 1954) Dr. Per Brrycx (Lunds Universitets, Zoologiska Institution, Lund, Sweden) (19th May 1958) BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Volume 15. Part 40 (pp. ix—xxxvi) 14th July 1958 PAPERS CIRCULATED TO THE COLLOQUIUM FOR INFORMATION PURCHASED AER ? 7 Ju i958 DOCUMENT A* REPORT DATED 20TH JUNE 1958 SUBMITTED BY THE INTERIM Xe COMMITTEE ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE IN RESPECT OF THE PERIOD 1953-1958 ADDRESSED TO PROFESSOR J. CHESTER BRADLEY, PRESIDENT OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE [Communicated to the Colloquium for information by direction of the President of the Congress] Leiden, 20th June 1958 Dear Mr. President, We have the honour to submit with this letter the Report of the Committee appointed at the Final Concilium Plenum of XIVth International Congress of Zoology. This Committee was charged with the duty of “implementing” the administrative and financial plan drawn up at Copenhagen by a Committee presided over by Professor Sparck, President of the XIVth Congress for the support of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature and the reorganisation of that Commission’s Secretariat. The Committee was instructed to put the Copenhagen Plan into effect immediately upon the resignation of Mr. Francis Hemming as Honorary Secretary of the Commission. As explained in the Report, Mr. Hemming expressed his intention, at Copenhagen, of retiring from the office of Honorary Secretary some time during the inter-Congress period. In fact, his resignation has been delayed until the close of the London Congress. Under these circumstances, the Committee are also submitting, for the consideration of the *For Document B see page xxxiii. x Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, and of the XVth Congress of Zoology, their Recommendations for the implementation of the Copenhagen Plan. These Recommendations would already have been put into force had the delay in Mr. Hemming’s resignation not taken place. Respectfully yours : H. Boschma, Chairman ; L. B. Holthuis, P. C. Sylvester-Bradley, R. L. Usinger. Interim Committee. To: Professor J. Chester Bradley, President, International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Copies transmitted, on the instructions of Professor J. Chester Bradley, to :— Sir Gavin de Beer, F.R.S., President, XVth International Congress of Zoology. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature xi ENCLOSURE TO LETTER FROM THE INTERIM COMMITTEE DATED 20TH JUNE 1958 International Congress of Zoology Interim Committee on Zoological Nomenclature Report : 1953-1958 1. Terms of Reference The Interim Committee was established at the Final Concilium Plenum of the XIVth International Congress of Zoology at Copenhagen in August, 1953, on the proposal of the Permanent Committee of the Congress and of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. It was charged with the implementation of a Plan, adopted by the Congress in Plenary Session, for the transfer of the Secretariat of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, and the reorganisation of the arrangements for the financial support of the Commission. This Plan has been formulated in response to the intimation of Mr. Francis Hemming, Secretary to the Commission, of his intention of resigning during the forthcoming inter-congress period. The Plan provided for :— 1. the organisation of a new financial structure on the basis of an International Association formed for the study of zoological nomenclature in general and for support of the International Commission in particular ; 2. the re-allocation of the arduous duties which were then carried on at great personal sacrifice by the Honorary Secretary. Some of these duties, including financial matters, were to be handled by the Association through its officers and members. General matters relating to publications were to be placed in the hands of an Honorary Editor. 2. Composition of the Interim Committee The following four gentlemen were elected to the Interim Committee :— Dr. H. Boschma, Chairman ; Mr. P. C. Sylvester-Bradley, Secretary, and Interim-Secretary- Designate ; Dr. L. B. Holthuis, Interim-Editor-Designate ; Dr. Robert L. Usinger. xii Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 3. Text of the Reports adopted at Copenhagen The terms of reference and constitution of the Interim Committee, as summarised above, were embodied in two Reports which were presented to the Final Concilium Plenum of the Congress, and were there approved and adopted. The circumstances attending the preparation of these Reports and their subsequent history is briefly indicated in footnote No. 94, on p. 94, of the Copenhagen Decisions (1953). The Plan embodied in these Reports (for convenience, referred to as the ‘“ Copenhagen Plan’’) was drafted by a Committee of which Professor Spirck, President of the Congress, acted as Rapporteur, and by a meeting of the International Commission convened to consider Professor Spirck’s Report. The footnote concludes with the statement: ‘‘ The two Reports will be published shortly in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature ’’. Up to the present they have not been so published, however, and their text is therefore appended as Annexes 1 and 2 to the present Report. 4, Financial Support of the Interim Committee No arrangements were made at Copenhagen for the financial support of the Interim Commission. It is therefore a pleasure to record that the Entomological Society of America and the Society of Systematic Zoology each voted the Committee fifty dollars from their funds. These funds have enabled the Committee to meet the costs of stationery, postage and administration, and an account of the expenditure occurred is attached to this Report as Annexe 3. 5. Arrangements for the transfer of the Secretariat to Sheffield The date fixed at Copenhagen for the introduction of the Plan there formulated was to be the date upon which the new Rules, as revised at the Paris and Copenhagen Congresses, were published by the International Trust. In order to render possible this arrangement, Mr. Hemming formally notified the Commission that the date of his resignation of the Office of Secretary should be timed to coincide with this event. At that time it was supposed that this would take place some time in 1955, and Mr. P. C. Sylvester-Bradley was instructed (in terms adopted by the Congress in plenary session) to take up office at that date as Interim Secretary and Dr. L. B. Holthuis was similarly instructed to take up duties as Interim Editor. The Interim Committee therefore put in hand arrangements for the transfer of the Secretariat to Sheffield, England, where Mr. Sylvester-Bradley is employed as a member of the University. The authorities of the Sheffield City Museum offered to put at the disposal of the Commission rent-free accommodation for the offices of the Secretariat. 6. Mr. Hemming’s decision to postpone the date of his retirement Mr. Hemming, on 15th May 1954, wrote to the Secretary of the Committee intimating that various changes in the situation since August 1953, had forced Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature xiii him to the conclusion that it was no longer desirable to promulgate the new Rules in the form that had been proposed at Copenhagen, but rather that the text should be published in Draft form only, for consideration by a Colloquium which he suggested should be summoned to meet in London during 1958, just before the Congress. As a result of this conclusion, Mr. Hemming also indicated that he proposed to delay the date of his retirement until some time after the London Congress. 7. Arrangements for the Presentation of the Interim Committee’s Report and Recommendations Mr. Hemming also included in his letter of the 15th May, 1954, the following statement :— “ The fact that the Revised Code will not be ready as soon as was hoped for at Copenhagen means . . . that the Copenhagen Committee will have more time to examine the administrative and financial issues with which they are concerned than was originally expected ”’. After due consideration the Committee, on 12th October 1954 in a reply to Mr. Hemming, agreed that the new timetable would have certain advantages, and indicated that they proposed to lay their plans before the London Congress, so that, if approved, the new International Association for Zoological Nomenclature could be inaugurated at the final Plenary Session. 8. Mr. Sylvester-Bradley’s visit to California At the request and by the generosity of various departments in the University of California, Stanford University, and the California Academy of Sciences, Mr. Sylvester-Bradley spent a week in California during May 1956, discussing the plans of the Interim Committee at a series of meetings. The audiences addressed expressed enthusiastic and unanimous support at the prospect of the foundation of a new International Association for Zoological Nomenclature, with its promise of wider and less expensive circulation of publications relating to Zoological nomenclature. 9. Public Notification of Mr. Hemming’s Retirement On 29th April 1958, Mr. Hemming gave public notification of his impending retirement, and announced that, on the grounds of ill-health, he would not, on the completion of his present term of service in that office, allow himself to be nominated for a further term of service. The Interim Committee took the view that the plan they had prepared - for the consideration of the coming Congress gained, as a result of Mr. Hemming’s announcement, a further degree of urgency, and resolved as a xiv Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature consequence to call a special session of the Committee in Leiden on 19th and 20th June 1958, at which the Recommendations they had earlier drawn up could be revised, where necessary, to cater for recent developments. At the same time the Committee informed Professor J. Chester Bradley, President of the International Commission of their plans and present arrangements, and Professor Bradley graciously consented to act as a consultant to the Committee, and offered any help that he could give. 10. The Committee’s Recommendations The Committee adopted and approved the Recommendations which they present currently with this Report and which, in accord with the instructions given them in Copenhagen, outline a Plan for the inauguration of an International Association for Zoological Nomenclature, and set out a detailed programme for the re-organisation and financial support of the Secretariat of the International Commission which, they suggest, should come into operation immediately Mr. Hemming’s retirement becomes effective—i.e. from the close of the London Congress on Wednesday, 23rd July 1958. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature xv Appendix to the enclosure to the letter of the Interim Committee dated 20th June 1958 RECOMMENDATIONS of the INTERIM COMMITTEE for the implementation of the COPENHAGEN PLAN for the financial support and administrative organisation of the INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Introduction 1. The authority of the Interim Committee and its terms of reference are as set out in the Report of the Committee submitted concurrently with the present Recommendations. 2. The Recommendations that follow are divided into five sections :— (a) General Financial Policy ; (b) The International Association for Zoological Nomenclature ; (c) Publication ; (d) Reorganisation of the Secretariat ; (e) Budget. Section A. GENERAL FINANCIAL POLICY 3. During all but the last few weeks of the period from the close of the Copenhagen Congress until the opening of the London Congress, the Secretariat of the Commission has occupied rent-free accommodation by courtesy of the Honorary Secretary, Mr. Francis Hemming. On 10th June 1958, the Secretariat moved to rented accommodation at 119, Parkway, London, N.W.1. The amount of rent on this accommodation has not yet been divulged. 4. During the whole of the same period, Mr. Hemming has acted as Secretary to the Commission in a purely honorary capacity. A gradually increasing staff of clerical and technical assistants has been employed in the xvi Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Secretariat, however, and in the last Report issued (for 1956) the total salary expended on such assistance was given as £1,262. This compares with £117 for 1954. Since lst May 1958 Mr. R. V. Melville has been appointed as a full- time salaried Assistant Secretary. 5. The amount debited during this period to office expenses has risen from £498 (1954) to £1,282 (1956). 6. The cost of printing the Bulletin and the Opinions has been as follows :— 1954 £6,321 1955 £4,694 1956 £6,184 7. The total annual cost of running the Secretariat in its present form including printing costs amounted to £8,670 in 1956. The developments which have taken place since 1956 suggest that at least an additional £3,000 will be needed. £12,000 must be regarded as a conservative estimate of the annual income needed to support the Secretariat and its publications as at present organised. 8. The financial support of the Secretariat has been derived in a small part from donations. The much larger remaining part (£10,939 in 1956) has been derived from the sale of publications. 9. The greatly increasing costs of running the Secretariat have been more than met by increased profits from the sale of publications. This increased profit has been achieved not by any great increase in circulation, but rather by an increased output, with a consequent increase in the cost to individual subscribers. Every page added to the Bulletin results in more profit. The cost to those who have subscribed to both the Bulletin and the Opinions during the years since the Copenhagen Congress is as set out below :— Bulletin Opinions Total 1954 £10 £50 £60 1955 £8 £46 £54 1956 £19 £62 £81 1957 £33 £74 £107 The amount of the annual subscriptions places the publications of the Commission beyond the reach of any individual zoologist, and, indeed, beyond the reach of a great many institutions. Only those zoologists who have access to the libraries of the greater or more wealthy institutions can have recourse Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature xvii to the publications and it can be calculated that the total number of institutions who subscribed to both series of publications must have been fewer than 135 in 1956. The Committee regard such a restricted circulation with the greatest misgiving and fear that the further reduction in circulation, of which there are already signs, can only result in the complete negation of the Commission’s authority. 10. At Copenhagen, President Sparck’s Committee were conscious of the strong feelings that had been expressed in opposition to a publication policy such as that outlined above. It was indeed in consideration of the disadvantages attendant on a financial policy based on high-priced publications that the Copenhagen Plan was formulated. The object is as set out in Decision 184 of the Copenhagen Decisions (p. 95) : “It is therefore of the highest importance that a new financial basis should be devised as soon as possible for supporting the work of the Commission which will be sufficiently strong and assured to make it possible to place the Bulletin and the Opinions of the Commission on sale at prices which will put these publications within the reach of all zoologists ”’. 11. The financial situation has greatly worsened (from the point of view of the zoological public) since Copenhagen, and the Interim Committee have been aghast at the ever-increasing burden that has been laid on subscribers to the publications. The Recommendations here put forward envisage a drastic economy of expenditure, and the creation of an entirely new souree of income, designed to render the expenses of the Secretariat gradually less dependent on profits made from the sale of publications. 12. The Committee recognise the undesirability of terminating the present source of income in favour of an untried and still hypothetical alternative. They recommend that the change should be controlled in such a way that the profit on sale of publications should be reduced gradually and only as the introduction of economies and the new source of income become effective. 13. The economies that the Committee have in mind include :— (a) a drastic reduction in the number of salaried staff employed by the Secretariat ; the Committee believe the employment of a salaried Secretary to be both unjustified and undesirable ; the details of the Committee’s recommendations are included in Section D below. (b) the abandonment of rented accommodation ; many institutions are proud of their record in support of such scientific activities as those of the Secretariat and the Committee has secured the promise of accommodation which would be provided free of rent if the xviii Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Committee’s Recommendations are adopted by Congress; details are again given in Section D below. (c) a drastic reduction in the length and number of the publications, and their re-organisation to avoid the present duplication between the Bulletin and the Opinions ; details are in Section C. 14. The new source of income envisaged by the Committee is that which would be derived from the various classes of subscription to an International Association for Zoological Nomenclature. It is recommended that this Association be inaugurated by the present Congress. Details are set out in Section B. Section B. THE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 15. The most important task entrusted to the Interim Committee was the organisation of the International Association for Zoological Nomenclature. 16. This Association is intended to attract a large individual membership of zoological taxonomists. Its first purpose will be to provide a regular income for the support of the Secretariat of the Commission. Its second and no less important purpose will be to promote a wide distribution of the publications of the Commission, and thus aid the important new procedures laid down at Copenhagen whereby regular reference to the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature will be an essential part of the work of all zoologists aiming towards a stable and universally accepted nomenclature. 17. The Interim Committee has realised that it is important to the success of the Copenhagen Plan that the subscription rates to the new Association should be low enough to attract a very wide support from individuals. The annual subscription rate recommended is that of £1 1s. If the Association is, with this low subscription rate, to fulfil its financial obligations, it will be necessary to ensure that in fact such a wide support is achieved. It is with this in mind that the Committee recommends that the Association should issue free to every member on joining a copy of the new Rules. 18. It is proposed that the Association should be composed of the following classes of members : (a) Individual Members : (i) Ordinary: Entrance fee 7s. ($1.00) Annual subscription £1 1s. ($3.00) (ii) Sustaining : Entrance fee 7s. ($1.00) Annual subscription £5 5s. ($15.00) (iii) Patrons: Single donation of £100 ($300) or more. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature xix (b) Institutional Members : (i) Ordinary: Annual subscription £1 15s. ($5.00) (ii) Sustaining : Annual subscription £15 ($45.00) (iii) Patrons: Single donation of £100 ($300) or more. All members would receive the following privileges :— (i) a free copy of the RULES on joining ; (ii) the JOURNAL free of charge ; (iii) all other publications at a reduced price ; (iv) the right to vote at General Meetings and at Colloquia arranged from time to time to discuss nomenclatorial matters. Institutional members are to have the right to send representatives to General Meetings and Colloquia. Individual patrons to receive the privileges of ordinary membership for life. Institutional patrons to receive the privileges of Institutional members for ten years. 19. It is recommended that the Honorary Officers of the Association should be three: the President (who will be, ex officio, the President of the Commission) ; Secretary ; and General Treasurer. There should also be local Treasurers established in all countries where there is any considerable local body of support. 20. The Council of the Association should consist of :— (i) the honorary officers of the Association (President, General Treasurer, Secretary) ; (ii) the honorary officers of the Commission (Vice-president, Joint Secretaries) ; (iii) five other members to be elected at a general meeting. 21. In certain countries it is hoped that it may be possible to appoint Sponsoring Societies, who will undertake through their own officers the organisation of the affairs of the Association within the country concerned. In such cases the Sponsoring Society would nominate from amongst its members a Local Treasurer of the Association. It is recommended that the Society of Systematic Zoology (which has over a thousand members) be invited to become a Sponsoring Society for the U.S.A. 22. The Association should be responsible for the organisation from time ’ to time of both national and international meetings for the discussion of matters of nomenclatorial interest. xXx Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 23. It is recommended that the Congress consider inaugurating the new International Association at the Final Concilium Plenum, planned to take place on the morning of Wednesday, July 23rd. It is suggested that members of the Congress should be invited to subscribe as founder members and that the subscriptions of all institutions and individuals who register for membership at the annual rate during 1958 should be deemed to secure membership from the time of registration until December 31st 1959. 24. It is recommended that the panel of Honorary Officers and Council of the Association should be nominated at a meeting of the Section on Nomenclature, and that this Section be empowered to elect such a panel as Council Designate of the Association, the said Council to assume full powers on authorisation of the Congress in Plenary Session. 25. It is recommended that the first Council, thus elected, be instructed to draw up the draft of a Constitution for the Association, and that this draft should be published or otherwise made available to all members of the Association before 30th June 1959, and that the adoption of the said Constitution shall be by a postal referendum to all members, closing on 31st December 1959. Section C. PUBLICATIONS 26. The present official publications are issued for the Commission by the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, and consist of the Bulletin, the Opinions, and occasional volumes, such as the Copenhagen Decisions and the Official Lists and Indexes of Zoological Names. 27. Apart from financial considerations, the particular advantage of the present scheme is that all applications presented to the Commission, and most documents relating to them, are transmitted to the Commission and the public simultaneously by publication in the Bulletin. Comments on previous pub- lished applications are issued serially in the Bulletin as received, and are not, therefore, in immediate juxtaposition to the cases to which they refer. Both the applications themselves, and also comments relating to them, are, however, brought together after submission to the Commission, and are republished, either in full or in part, in the Opinions. Also included are any other documents that have been issued to the Commission in mimeographed form, the Opinion as finally rendered by the Commission, and the state of votes recorded by the Commissioners. 28. The disadvantage of the existing scheme as outlined in the previous paragraph is that most of the documents in question are printed twice, first in the Bulletin, then in the Opinions. A secondary disadvantage is that the rather full documentation considered necessary for submission to the Com- mission frequently obscures, by its comprehensiveness, the fundamental nomenclatural point at issue. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature xxi 29. The Interim Committee, conscious as they are of both the advantages and disadvantages of the present scheme, and taking into consideration also the financial issues involved, make the following recommendations. It is suggested that the regular publications should remain two in number, but that the duplication, in verbatim form, of lengthy passages in both Bulletin and Opinion should cease. The full documentation necessary for submission to the Commission should, according to these recommendations, in future be published in a form which will introduce separate pagination for each Applica- tion. Each application will be allotted a Case Number, and subsequent documents referring to this case will be published seriatim as received, and will conclude with the official Opinion rendered by the Commission, and a report on the voting recorded. The original application, all documents referring to it, and the final Opinion rendered will thus be paginated consecutively and bound up together. The Opinions thus rendered, and the documents on which they were based, will be gathered together in volumes of convenient size as are the Opinions at the moment. The price of the Opinions and sup- porting documents thus issued will be regulated by the cost of printing and distribution. 30. The second regular publication recommended by the Committee will be a journal, issued free to all members of the International Association, whose prime purposes will be : (a) summaries of all applications and comments published in the Opinions series ; (b) notices of cases pending under the Plenary Powers ; (c) notices of nomenclatural proposals in accord with automatic pro- cedures subject to challenge ; (d) summaries of decisions rendered by the Commission ; (e) general articles on nomenclature as space permits ; (f) a list of all current issues of the Opinions series, together with their individual price. In this way any zoologist interested in a case summarised in the journal will be able to apply for the fuller documentation available in the Opinions series. The title of this journal will be a matter of consultation between the Association, and the International Trust. 31. The fact that the Committee recommend a summarised treatment of each case, as well as a more fully documented treatment, does not mean that they believe the present full documentation could not, if appropriately edited, be considerably shortened, with a consequent gain in clarity of exposition. It is with this in mind that the Committee recommend below the appointment of an officer charged with the duties of editor. xxii Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 32. The Committee realise that, as at present so in the future, it will be necessary to arrange for the publication of special volumes, the most important of which will be the Code itself. It is recommended that one copy of the Code should be issued free to each member of the International Association on receipt of entrance fee and first subscription. Other special volumes will usually be issued at a price fixed to cover cost of publication and distribution. 33. The Committee has investigated with some care the possibility of reducing printing costs by adopting other techniques of printing than letter- press (“ varityper ” composition, offset lithography, photoscopic stencils, etc.). The Committee are able to report that there would be no significant saving in cost of these methods over letterpress if the total printing can be kept under £2,000 per annum. There would be a progressively greater saving if printing costs rose above this sum, but the work of supervising the various composition and printing processes would be considerable, and the quality of the finished article would be somewhat less attractive than if printed by letterpress. The Committee is therefore unable to recommend any method of printing other than letterpress. Comparative estimates have, however, been sought from printers in different countries. The Committee is pleased to report that the well-known firm of Brill of Leiden have offered terms somewhat below all others. It is, therefore, proposed that this firm should be accepted for the present as Printers to the Commission. The choice seems a particularly happy one in that one of the Committee’s nominees for the post of Joint Secretary to the Commission, Dr. L. B. Holthuis, is also of Leiden. 34. All Commissioners should continue to receive the publications of both Trust and Association free of charge. Section D. RE-ORGANISATION OF THE SECRETARIAT 35. The Copenhagen Plan calls for the re-allocation of the duties hitherto undertaken by the Honorary Secretary so that they should be spread, some to be carried out by an additional honorary officer (Editor) others (including financial matters) to be handled by the International Association through its officers and members. The Interim Committee have had the recommendations of the Copenhagen Plan constantly in mind throughout the inter-Congress period, and have surveyed the various possibilities presented by the changing circumstances. They stand firmly by the basic principle as accepted at Copen- hagen, namely that the senior officers of the Secretariat should serve in an honorary capacity. Furthermore, they are of the opinion that a suitable choice of such officers will lead to the offer of rent-free accommodation. 36. They recommend one modification in the Plan as conceived at Copenhagen. They recommend that the two honorary executive officers, which the Copenhagen Plan suggested should carry the titles of Honorary Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature xxiii Secretary and Honorary Editor respectively, should rather be entitled Joint Honorary Secretaries. This change in title will give to the Secretariat, it is suggested, a greater flexibility. 37. The Committee has also spent some time and effort in evaluating the effect that various changes in the location of the Secretariat might have in general policy. They are of the opinion that it is essential that the main expenses (i.e., those of printing and publication) should be incurred in a “ soft currency ” area, and it is partly for this reason that they have recommended the Dutch firm of Brill as printers. But they are also sensible of the fact that a majority of authors on Systematic Zoology are situate in North America, and that the language most frequently adopted for articles and applications concerned with zoological nomenclature is English. 38. For these reasons, the Committee recommends that one of the Joint Secretaries should be a continental European, and that the other should be a native of an English-speaking country, preferably on the North American continent. 39. It is with pleasure that they announce that the following two gentle- men have agreed to accept nomination as Joint Honorary Secretaries to the Commission :— Dr. L. B. Holthuis, of the Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands ; Mr. Curtis W. Sabrosky, of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C., U.S.A. 40. They are further able to announce that both of these nominees have approached the institutions of which they are members, and that these insti- tutions have agreed, if the nominees are elected to office, to make available the necessary accommodation free of charge and to permit the officers in question to spend some part of their official time on the business of the Commission. 41. It is considered essential that funds should be made available to allow the employment of paid clerical help additional to whatever may be forthcoming as a result of the generosity of the institutions concerned, and this is duly budgetted for in the following section of these Recommendations. Section E. BUDGET 42. The International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature was incorporated in 1947 for the conduct of financial affairs on behalf of the Commission. There xxiv Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature were initially seven members of the Trust. The Trust is managed by a Committee, who may confer any or all of their powers on an officer termed the Managing Director. There were initially four members of the Committee, and Mr. Francis Hemming was appointed Managing Director. New members of the Trust ‘‘ being members of the Commission or persons approved by the Commission ’’ may be admitted by the Committee. 43. The conduct of the Trust is controlled in some detail under English law according to the “ Memorandum of Association’ and the “ Articles of Association”. There is provision in the Memorandum for collaboration between the Trust and such an organisation as the proposed International Association of Zoological Nomenclature. The following is an extract from the list of ‘‘ objects for which the Trust is established ” as noted in the Memorandum of Association: ‘‘ To collaborate with similar societies, bodies and persons in the United Kingdom and in other countries with the object of securing the comparative study, upon lines and by methods similar to those of the Trust, of problems relating to zoological nomenclature common to the Trust, and to such other societies, bodies and persons and the Commission ”’. 44. The Interim Committee is of the opinion that the most happy and effective arrangement for the future would result from the close collaboration of Trust and Association. Such a collaboration could more easily be effected should the Trust decide to recruit to its membership some of those who were also Council-members of the Association. 45. If the Committee of the Trust supported such collaboration, the future income of the International Commission would primarily be derived from two sources : (a) sale of publications issued by the Trust ; (b) subscriptions to the International Association. 46. The income of the Trust in 1956 was mainly derived from two sources : (a) the sale of Opinions (£7,235) ; (b) the sale of the Bulletin (£3,703). 47. According to the publication policy recommended above in Section C, the material previously published in the Bulletin would in the future appear in the Opinions series. All new applications and all applications outstanding would be destined to appear once only in the Opinions series, and it is, therefore, anticipated that this source of income would continue as in the past, and would indeed probably increase if the output of the Commission increases as forecast by Mr. Hemming. . Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature XXV 48. The Income derived from the sale of the Bulletin would be replaced by the collection of subscriptions by the International Association. In estimating the support likely to be given to such an Association, the Interim Committee has been guided by the support given to two organisations of a somewhat similar nature. The first is the International Association for Plant Taxonomy. The second is the Society of Systematic Zoology (of the United States of America). 49. The International Association for Plant Taxonomy was inaugurated on 10th July 1950, during the VIIth International Botanical Congress at Stockholm. 130 foundation members were enrolled and headquarters established in the Netherlands. On February Ist, 1952, membership had increased to 435, coming from 38 countries. By 1952 this had increased to 600 members from 50 countries, and by 1954 to 700 members from 58 countries. The I.A.P.T. recognises the following classes of membership : Individual : Annual Subscription Regular £1 1s. ($3.00) Associate 7s. ($1.00) Institutional : Supporting £17 10s. ($50.00) Regular £8 15s. ($25.00) Associate £3 10s. ($10.00) The Association publishes a Journal entitled “ Taxon”, which all regular members receive free. Nine numbers, totalling 280 pp., were issued in 1957. It also publishes occasional volumes in a series known as Regnum Vegetabile, some of which are issued free to regular members, others made available at reduced prices. The 1952 edition of the International Code of Botanical Nomen- clature was issued in this form free to regular members. The Committee has been informed that the subscription charged for Associate membership does not cover the cost of the publications issued. 50. The Society of Systematic Zoology is an American society with a membership of 1,200. The annual dues are $2.00 for membership, $4.00 additional for those members desiring to subscribe to the journal “ Systematic Zoology ”’. 51. The Committee is encouraged to believe that the proposed International Association for Zoological Nomenclature will not receive less support than the similar International Association for Plant Taxonomy. The number of zoologists employed in systematic work is greater than the number of botanists ' similarly employed, and some idea of those potentially interested in zoological nomenclature can be gained by the membership of the Society of Systematic Xxvi Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Zoology in America. The Committee believe that this is an indication that it would not be unduly optimistic to forecast that the membership of the Association might reach 1,000 during the first three years, as many as 500 from America, and an additional 500 from the rest of the world. 52. In an attempt to estimate how many institutions would be prepared to support the Association as Institutional Members, members of the Committee have privately approached the librarians of certain institutions who at present subscribe to the Bulletin. As a result of these investigations the Committee believes that within the first three years the number of Institutional Members enrolled in the Association would exceed the present number of subscribers to the Bulletin. It is expected that some of those institutions that subscribe at present to the Bulletin but not to the Opinions will in future also subscribe to the Opinions series, as duplication is to cease. 53. From these considerations, the Committee forecasts that the income collected by the International Association should reach at least £1,400 by 1961. 54. Expenses of the new Secretariat will, if the recommendations are approved, be divided into three categories : office expenses ; printing expenses ; salaries. 55. Office expenses will include stationery and postage, and it is not anti- cipated that they will be less than £1,000, which is the approximate cost noted in the expenses of the Secretariat in 1956, less the amount expended on rented accommodation for storage of back-numbers of publications. This sum will be split between the Netherlands and America. 56. It is recommended that all printing be executed in the Netherlands. It is difficult to budget any exact figure without specifying the size of the journal to be issued. Purely for the purposes of this calculation, and without recommending any particular size of publication as appropriate, a monthly printing of 2,000 copies of a journal, each part consisting of 32 pp., would have cost about £875 in 1954. To this must be added £5,000 for the printing of the Opinions series (which cost £4,234 according to the figures given for 1956). 57. The printing of the Code would have to be subsidised to a certain extent. It is understood that considerable donations have already been subscribed for this purpose, and are held by the International Trust. The Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature XXVii entrance fee of 7s. payable to the International Association would help offset the free issue of the Code to new members. It is recommended that the Code should be offered to the public at £1 15s. ($5.00). 58. The salaries envisaged under the recommended scheme are confined to the purposes of providing clerical assistance for the two Joint Secretaries. The wages thus proposed amount to £715 ($2,000) for the United States and £480 for the Netherlands. 59. Summarising the expenses envisaged for 1959 are as follows :— Office expenses £1,000 Printing expenses £5,875 Salaries £1,200 Total £8,075 60. The income expected during the first year (1959) can be estimated as :— Sale of Opinions series (including back-stocks of Opinions and Bulletins) £7,000 Subscriptions to the Association £1,075 Total £8,075 61. That part of the expenses expected to be incurred in the United States must be met from income collected in the United States. It will, therefore, be necessary to appoint a Regional Treasurer for the United States, which officer could most conveniently act on behalf of both the International Association and the International Trust. 62. The appointment by the Trust of Mr. R. V. Melville as Assistant Secretary to the Commission for one year, from lst May 1958 to lst May 1959, should facilitate the smooth transfer of the Secretariat from its present offices to the new offices that are now recommended for Leiden and Washington. 63. The Trust as constituted must have its Registered Office situate in England. Ifthe Secretariat were to move out of England, it might be advisable for the Trust to move also. Although this is not possible in the terms thus quoted owing to legal regulations, the Committee has been given to understand by Mr. Hemming that the Trust could hand over all its assets and responsibilities to a similar organisation in another country, providing the Trust was satisfied that such another organisation had legal safeguards comparable to those imposed on the Trust itself. XXviii Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature ANNEXE I TO THE APPENDIX TO THE INTERIM COMMITTEE'S REPORT Report of the Committee appointed under the Chairmanship of Professor Sparek to consider ways and means of improving the financial position of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature Copenhagen, 10th August 1953 In view of the announced intention of the Honorary Secretary to retire from his position before the next Congress, the Committee considers it absolutely essential to face up to the difficult task of finding a replacement and also to explore the possibilities of placing the entire Secretariat of the Commission on a sound financial basis which will require less personal sacrifice on the part of the Secretary. This the Committee understands to be the problem referred to it by the Rt. Hon. Walter Elliot, Chairman of the International Trust, by Mr. Francis Hemming, Honorary Secretary and Managing Director of the Trust, and by Prof. Dr. R. Sparck, President of the International Congress of Zoology. In approaching the problem, the Committee recognizes that it is extremely unlikely that a new secretary can be found who possesses the remarkable combination of characteristics which have made the present secretary’s regime so productive and successful. Even if a new man of this calibre were found, it would be undesirable, as it is even now unfair, to impose such an enormous load on one person. The Committee therefore believes that it is essential to realize that in the future the new Secretariat must inevitably operate on quite a different scale and in quite a different manner than at present. With these considerations in mind, the Committee respectfully offers a plan for consideration by the Permanent Committee of the Congress. The plan is set up in three stages, recognizing that a suitable transition period would be an essential feature in any scheme. FIRST STAGE: The first stage must clearly be to appoint the necessary new officers, preferably before the end of the present Congress. These, the Committee feels, should be two in number, an INTERIM SECRETARY- DESIGNATE and an EDITOR-DESIGNATE. The Permanent Committee will perhaps desire that such officers should be elected to the International Commission if not already members, and, if they concur, they will no doubt approach the International Commission with a view to securing their election forthwith. If the right men can be found and appointed at this time and if, in addition, they have participated in the Colloquium at Copenhagen, the Committee feels that important advantages would result, as follows: (a) the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature xxix Permanent Committee of the Congress and the International Commission would have ensured continuity of the Secretariat during the next inter-congress period ; (b) the Interim Secretary-Designate would have the official authority and blessing of the Congress ; and (c) the Interim Secretary-Designate would have the enormous advantage of advice and consultation with the present Honorary Secretary during the remaining period of service of the latter. The first of the duties of the Interim Secretary-Designate would be to plan and organize the future of the Secretariat along the lines suggested below. SECOND STAGE : The second stage would commence immediately at the close of the Congress and would be terminated as soon as the resignation of the present Honorary Secretary becomes effective. Mr. Hemming has requested that arrangements be made to permit him to devote his attention to completing the proceedings of the Copenhagen Colloquium, to assembling the materials to be used as a basis for President Bradley’s consolidation of the new Rules, and to finishing the individual cases which are now before the Commission. The Committee feels that this stage will perhaps be the most important in the entire history of the Commission. Therefore every effort should be made to facilitate the important work of the Honorary Secretary. To this end it is proposed that funds be solicited for the immediate employment of additional clerical assistance for the present Secretariat. THIRD STAGE: The Committee believes it essential that the inauguration of the new plan coincide with the publication of the new Rules. This is all- important because of the opportunity presented at that time to capitalize upon the increased interest in nomenclature which will surely occur. Steps should be taken to see if such a timetable would be acceptable to Mr. Hemming, and, if so, the third stage would start with the assumption of full responsibility by the Interim Secretary and the Editor. It is suggested that, in view of the necessity of putting into operation a new and as yet untried plan, this third stage be regarded as terminated at the next Congress, when the whole arrangement will be subject to review, The plan that the Committee proposes should be put into force during this period is as follows :— 1. A new financial structure shall be organized on the basis of an international society which would be organized for the study of zoological nomenclature in general and for support of the International Commission in particular. The detailed organization and promotion of the new society would be a primary duty of the new Secretary—working in co-operation with an interim sub-committee of the Congress (see below), with existing scientific Societies and institutions, and with individual zoologists throughout the world. It is suggested that the new society consist of subscribing members, and various categories of contributors including private and public institutions and perhaps also governments. All subscribers would receive the Bulletin of Zoological ‘Nomenclature at no extra cost and other publications of the Commission at a reduced rate. XXX Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature The new Revised Rules would also be issued free to all members during the first year. The possibility of affiliation with other societies which already have a large membership is considered advantageous and desirable. 2. It is clear that during the Second Stage, pending the adoption of the full plan, it will be essential that the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature and the policy and structure of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature remain unchanged. Since a substantial increase in income from publications cannot be anti- cipated in the immediate future, a grant-in-aid will be necessary for one or two years after the new scheme comes into operation. It is expected, however, that funds will become adequate as the new plan gathers way. 3. In the view of the Committee, it is absolutely essential to make realloca- tion of the arduous duties which are now carried out at great personal sacrifice by the present Honorary Secretary. Under the proposed scheme some of these duties, including financial matters, would be handled by the Society through its officers and members. It will be a matter for detailed consideration whether such a procedure will fit in with the present structure of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature. If not, alternative arrange- ments will have to be inaugurated during the Second Stage. The Committee inclines to the view that in any case the Interim Secretary-Designate should not hold conjointly the post of Honorary Managing Director of the Trust. If it were found desirable to dissolve the Trust, it would of course be necessary for the financial duties of the Managing Director to be delegated to some other appointment. 4. It is further proposed that general matters relating to publications be delegated to a publication committee of the Society, of which, of course, both the Interim Secretary and the Editor would be ex officio members. Although the Editor and Interim Secretary would always have to maintain closest co-operation, all routine matters in connection with publications would be handled by the Editor. In this way the secretariat would be relieved of an enormous amount of routine work. ACTIVATION OF THE PLAN: Specifically, the Committee proposes that before the conclusion of the Copenhagen Congress (1) both a Secretary-Designate and an Editor-Designate be appointed ; (2) an Interim Committee of the Congress be appointed to carry out the wishes of the Permanent Committee during this period of transition (it is suggested that a member of the Permanent Committee of the Congress be designated as chairman of this Interim Committee and that the Secretary-Designate be made Secretary of the Committee. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Xxxi Other members should be selected with a view to the international character of the project, but the Interim Committee need not be large) ; (3) the Interim Committee be authorised to approve such a plan as out- lined above when the details have been worked out by the Interim- Secretary-Designate and the time has come for inauguration of the plan. (4) If this scheme is approved by the Committee, it will of course be necessary to ensure that the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature be formally notified of the fact. (5) It is further recommended that either the Permanent Committee or the International Commission should solicit whatever authorities may be desirable to secure for the two persons appointed release from such part of their present duties as might be necessary. ANNEXE 2 TO THE APPENDIX TO THE INTERIM COMMITTEE’S REPORT Action taken by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature and communicated to Professor Sparck on 10th August 1953 The Commission agreed : 1) at once to create the following additional Offices, namely :-— g y. (a) the Office of Interim Secretary-Designate ; (b) the Office of Interim Editor-Designate ; (2) to allot to the foregoing Offices the duties specified in the Report of the Committee established by the Colloquium on Zoological Nomen- clature on the recommendation of the Right Hon. Walter Elliot, Chairman of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature ; (3) to elect forthwith to be members of the International Commission Mr. P. C. Sylvester-Bradley (Sheffield University) and Dr. L. B. Holthuis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden) ; (4) to appoint Mr. Sylvester-Bradley to the Office of Interim Secretary- Designate and Dr. Holthuis to the Office of Interim Editor-Designate ; (5) to appoint the foregoing Officers to be Interim Secretary and Interim Editor respectively as from the date on which Mr. Francis Hemming relinquishes the Office of Secretary to the Commission ; (6) to enlarge forthwith the membership of the Executive Committee of the Commission by the addition thereto of the Interim Secretary- Designate and the Interim Editor-Designate. ———_— | SCL. rer 2 tess cuca. oeUR 0 8 I rm) oe ee oe oe puey ul ysep S isk fee x a sqsoo Suryeordng 3 ee ee eas y gosuodxo Surjoavsy s,A1By9199§ oe e- ee sonbe & 0 &I * a: ++ gonbeyo pue sesreyo qu es fp pes aD Pee =e ope: =: = ei ++ goog ,systGAy, 0 -IP9t..* # ‘+ yueq uvowouy Aq porsc] 8 jae oT oe aie ais ate I3qLIMe dif, x0 aaa sosreyo Sse] ‘eotlouly Ul oly Ue BIA PoLlof s ; os -sueay pure ‘ABopoo7, o1yeuteyshg Jo Ayo100g Ss 8.<6t- ek = sa “: = <3 AIOUOTIEYS wos peatooer QO'OS$ 1OF enbeys jo spes001g 2 0 € euoyas[ay, 0 SE LE2° eouraury jo Aqarog [eo Bopou0 yg 3S 7) fe Aa dara a s oe oe ve sose4sog WOIF POALIL 00'0S$ 10F enbeyo jo spes001g BS ‘ps 5 ‘p's 5 aungupuada iT IULOOUT go}}IUIUIOD WIIe}UT et} JO einypuedxg pue sul0du] qiodoy S,c0}jfOIU0D UIIIE}UT Of} OF xtpueddy oy} 0} ¢ exeudy Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature xxxiii DOCUMENT B COMMENT ON THE REPORT OF THE INTERIM COMMITTEE ON THE SUBJECT OF THE FUTURE ORGANISATION OF THE WORK OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Statement dated 8th July 1958 prepared by the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature [Communicated to the Colloquium for information by direction of the President of the Congress] The International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature has been invited by the President of the Congress to give some preliminary comments on the Report of the Interim Committee set up by Professor Sparck’s Committee after the Copenhagen Congress, for consideration by the Comité Permanent, to whom the Report has been referred by the President. 2. The Trust, as the body in whom are vested the assets on which the work of the Commission depends, has a special responsibility to the Congress in regard to the financial and administrative support of the continuing activities of the Commission. The Trust has considered the Interim Committee’s Report in the light of its knowledge of the problems of the work of the Commission and its experience over the last ten years. 3. The Trust recognises that the Interim Committee has been bound to work out details of the plan of organisation contemplated at Copenhagen. At the same time, the Trust must draw attention to the very considerable change in circumstances that has taken place since the Copenhagen Congress. At that time the position of the Secretariat of the International Commission was extremely precarious, being entirely dependent on the free services provided by the Honorary Secretary to the Commission. The work required from the Secretariat as the result of the growing activity of the International Commission was clearly more than an Honorary Secretary, however able and energetic, could provide unaided, and there seemed no prospect of securing the finance needed to obtain assistance. There seemed every prospect that, when Mr. Hemming was forced on any grounds to give up his duties as Secretary, the work of the Commission which had so greatly increased in activity under his regime would come to a standstill, and that it might be extremely difficult, especially in an inter-Congress period, to make any workable arrangements for its future conduct. It was for this reason that Mr. Hemming brought this ' matter up at the Copenhagen Congress—he was already 60 at the time—by announcing his intention to retire before the next Congress. XXxiV Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 4. As it turned out, Mr. Hemming was able to continue his work on a whole-time but unpaid basis for nearly five more years, during which a complete transformation has been brought about both in the scale of operations and in the financial position of the Commission. This development made it both necessary and possible to engage a small qualified salaried staff, and resulted in an entirely unprecedented flow of decisions, the benefits of which to zoology and palaeontology are already obvious. 5. In place of the precarious financial situation reported by the Chairman _ of the Trust at Copenhagen, the Trust became possessed of an income and reserves sufficient to provide a reasonable secure financial backing for the operations of the Commission. When therefore the contingency of Mr. Hemming’s retirement actually matured in April last, it was possible to avoid any interruption by engaging a whole-time salaried scientist and to ensure a smooth transfer of the work of the Secretariat to new accommodation. 6. The basis of the financial policy consisted in placing on sale the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature and the Opinions which are the tools by which the Commission carries out its work. A sufficient number of important institutions in different parts of the world have become regular subscribers to these publications to provide the resources needed for financing the Secretariat and for building up resources for the future. 7. The Trust appreciates that at first sight it would appear economical to rely on honorary staff, but it wishes to place on record its considered view that in modern conditions the volume of work which is at present undertaken and the rate at which decisions are promulgated could not possibly be main- tained on such a basis. Still less could that be done if the responsibility were divided between two or more persons and if it were attempted to carry on the work in two or more places in different countries. It has indeed become obvious that efficient service to zoologists and palaeontologists in what are mixed judicial and scientific questions depends on the maintenance of a whole-time staff, limited in number but well qualified, and working with adequate office and library facilities. On a point of detail the Trust suggests that the necessity or otherwise for renting the modest accommodation should not be regarded as an important factor in the decision of principle. It feels bound to warn the Commission that the disruption of the present organisation and its replacement by a system of the kind discussed at Copenhagen could only result in the rapid return to the precarious situation of the past, when only a trickle of decisions could be obtained and then only after a long delay. Even under present conditions there are about 300 cases in various stages of progress in the Office of the Commission. 8. In brief, the Trust suggests that the situation has developed in an unexpectedly favourable way since the Copenhagen meeting, that the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature XXXV contingency which the Plan there discussed was designed to meet has been successfully met, and that it is unnecessary and would be unwise to make fundamental changes at the present time. 9. On the other hand, the Trust recognises the importance of many of the points raised in the Interim Committee’s Report and agrees that they require careful consideration. While the primary object of its publications is to provide the Commission with the full documentation of all relevant aspects of the problems on which it has to reach decisions, it recognises that there may be some possibility of simplification in these publications and is fully prepared to study the problem of achieving this. If such a simplification can be achieved consistently with meeting the Commission’s needs, this might result in some reduction in the cost of these publications. 10. The Trust also feels that its work might be helped if there were associated with it a small number of zoologists from various countries with whom it could consult from time to time on various matters and would gladly consider any arrangements to this end that may be proposed. In the actual composition of the staff, there is of course no reason why qualified individuals from any country should not be eligible for appointment if they wish to be considered. HURCOMB Chairman, International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature 8th July 1958 : eee * wie a Ae aut . re 5 © 1958. THe INTERNATIONAL TRUST FOR ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Printed in England by MsrcaLre & Cooper LIMITED, 10-24 Scrutton St., London E C2 VOLUME 15. Quadruple-Part 1/4 11th September 1957 pp. 1-120. THE BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE The Official Organ of THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON -~ ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE AO yaorinoe , 195! - a Edited by FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E. Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature CONTENTS Page The Agenda Paper for the discussions on zoological nomenclature to be held in London in July 1958: arrangements made by the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature .. hh re 1 (continued inside back wrapper) 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 Publication Office, 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7 1957 Price Four Pounds (All rights reserved) INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE A. The Officers of the Commission Honorary Life President: Dr. Karl Jorpan (British Museum (Natural History), Zoological Museum, Tring, Herts, England) President: Professor James Chester BrapLey (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) Vice-President: Senhor Dr. Afranio do Amara (Sao Paulo, Brazil) (12th August 1953) Secretary: Mr. Francis Hemmine (London, England) (27th July 1948) B. The Members of the Commission (Arranged in order of precedence by reference to date of election or of most recent re-election, as prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology) Professor H. Boscuma (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijgke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) (1st January 1947) Senor Dr. Angel Caprera (La Plata, Argentina) (27th July 1948) Mr. Francis Hemmrne (London, England) (27th July 1948) (Secretary) Dr. Henning Lemons (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 Ritny (British Museum (Natural History), London) (9th June 1950) Professor Dr. Tadeusz Jacznwsxi (Institute of Zoology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland) (15th June 1950) Professor Dr. Robert Mertens (Natur Musewm u. Forschungs-Institut Senckenberg, Frankfurt a. M., Germany) (5th July 1950) Professor Dr. Erich Martin Hertne (Zoologisches Museum der Humboldt-Universitat zu Berlin, Germany) (5th July 1950) Senhor Dr. Afranio do AMarat (S. Paulo, Brazil) (12th August 1953) (Vice-President) Professor J. R. Dymonp (University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada) (12th August 1953) Professor J. Chester BrapiEy (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) (President) Professor Harold E. Voxss (University of Tulane, Department of Geology, New Orleans, Louisiana, U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) Professor Béla Hanxé (Mezdgazdasdgi Museum, Budapest, Hungary) (12th August 1953) Dr. Norman R. Stout (Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, New York, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) Mr. P. C. Sytvuster-Bravey (Sheffield University, Sheffield, England) (12th August 1953) Dr. L. B. Hotrsuis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) (12th August 1953) Dr. K. H. L. Key (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Canberra, A.C.T., Australia) (15th October 1954) Dr. Alden H. Minter (Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, University of California, Berkeley, California, U.S.A.) (29th October 1954) Doc. Dr. Ferdinand Pranri (Ndrodni Museum v Praze, Prague, Czechoslovakia) (30th October 1954) Professor Dr. William Kiianetr (Zoologisches Institut der Universitat, Vienna, Austria) (6th November 1954) Professor F. S. Bopenaumer (The Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Israel) (11th November 1954) Professor Ernst Mayr (Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard College, Cambridge, Massa- chusetts, U.S.A.) (4th December 1954) Professor Enrico Tortonrse (Museo di Storia Naturale “ @. Doria”, Genova, Italy) (16th December 1954) ~ © SS BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE \ Volume 15, Quadruple-Part 1/4 (pp. 1—120) 11th September 1957 THE AGENDA PAPER FOR THE DISCUSSIONS ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE TO BE HELD AT, AND IN CONNECTION WITH, THE FIFTEENTH INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS OF ZOOLOGY, LONDON, JULY 1958 (Note by the Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) By an arrangement made with Sir Gavin de Beer, the President of the Fifteenth International Congress of Zoology to be held in London in July 1958, the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature has allotted two volumes of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature to serve as Agenda Volumes for the Section on Nomenclature of the foregoing Congress. These Volumes will in addition constitute the Agenda Volumes for the discussions to be held in connection with the above Congress both by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature and by the Colloquium on Zoological Nomenclature which is being organised by the International Trust and which will hold its First Meeting on Wednesday, 9th July 1958, i.e. one week before the actual opening of the Congress. The two Agenda Volumes so to be provided are Volumes 14 and 15. 2. The first of the London Agenda Volumes (Volume 14) is being devoted to the draft of the English text of the Régles Internationales de la Nomenclature Zoologique, as amended by the Paris (1948) and Copenhagen (1953) Congresses, which has been prepared by Professor J. Chester Bradley. 3. In the present volume, which constitutes the second of the two London Agenda Volumes, there will be published (a) any comments which may be received on Professor Bradley’s draft and (b) any proposals for the further improvement of the Régles which may be received. The International Trust has been notified by the President of the London Congress that it is his view that the harvesting of the reforms of the Régles decided upon by the Paris and Copenhagen Congresses should be treated by the Section on Nomenclature as having the first priority and should be dealt with by it in advance of any other item on the Agenda. The work of the Colloquium is accordingly being organised on this basis. A 2 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 4. The method to be followed in the present volume for publishing docu- ments included in the London Zoological Nomenclature Agenda Paper will follow generally that adopted by the Trust when in 1953 it published (in Volumes 8 and 10 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature) the corresponding Agenda Paper for the Copenhagen Congress. As on that occasion each subject will be allotted a Case Number and papers relating to that Case will be allotted consecutive Document Numbers. Thus for Case Number 1 the first of the papers submitted will be allotted the Document 1/1, the second, Document 1/2 and so on. 5. All the subjects on which communications have already been received have been allotted Case Numbers and the individual communications have been allotted Document Numbers in the appropriate series. Under this arrangement the first instalment of papers to be published in regard to any given Case will bear consecutive Document Numbers. Thereafter, documents relating to the Case in question will be published as and when they are received. 6. The method of publication described above, for which there is no alterna- tive if documents are to be published as rapidly as possible, inevitably means that in the later stages it will not be possible to group Documents by reference to the Cases to which they belong. In order to overcome this difficulty, it is the intention of the Trust to issue on the eve of the meetings of the Colloquium and the Congress a consolidated statement in which the comments and suggested amendments published in the present volume up to that time will be grouped by reference to the Articles of the Régles to which they respectively refer. FRANCIS HEMMING Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature Managing Director and Secretary to the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature 19th July 1957 SECOND VOLUME OF DOCUMENTS PREPARED AS AGENDA DOCUMENTS FOR USE BY THE COLLOQUIUM ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE, THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE, AND THE FIFTEENTH INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS OF ZOOLOGY AT THE MEETINGS OF THOSE BODIES TO BE HELD IN LONDON IN JULY 1958 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 5 CASE No. 1 SUGGESTED NEW ARTICLE: PROPOSED RECOGNITION OF THE CON- CEPT “ PARATAXON ” AND THE PROVISION OF RULES FOR THE NOMENCLATURE OF UNITS OF THIS CATEGORY (Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 1056) DOCUMENT 1/1 Note on procedure: The document reproduced below as Document 1/1 was originally submitted by Professor Moore and Mr. Sylvester-Bradley in the form of a request that the Commission should render a Declaration introducing and defining the expression ‘“‘ parataxon”’ and providing for the regulation of the nomenclature of units belonging to the category so recognised. As Secretary, I then took the view that owing to the novelty and complexity of the proposals submitted, procedure by way of a Declaration would be inappropriate and that the proper course would be (a) for a decision to be deferred until the meeting of the Fifteenth International Congress of Zoology in London in 1958, (b) for the paper submitted to be placed on the London Agenda Paper, and (c) that, prior to the Congress, all possible steps should be taken to canvass opinion among interested specialists. This view was accepted by the applicants. It is under the foregoing agreement that the following paper is here placed on the London Agenda Paper. [intl’d F.H. 11th July 1957.] Proposed insertion in the ‘‘ Régles ’’ of provisions recognizing ‘* Parataxa as a special category for the classification and nomenclature of discrete fragments or of life-stages of animals which are inadequate for identification of whole-animal taxa, with proposals of procedure for the nomenclature of “ Parataxa”’ By RAYMOND C. MOORE (University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas, U.S.A.) and P. C. SYLVESTER-BRADLEY (University of Sheffield, England) The purpose of the present application is to draw to the attention of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature the serious confusion Bull. zool. Nomencl. Vol. 15, Quadruple-Part 1/4. September 1957. 6 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature of nomenclature that exists as a result of the naming of certain fragmentary fossils which have been classified without regard to the whole-animals of which they form part. A previous decision of the Commission made at Paris which relates to the problems here presented recommended that names applied to fragments* should be treated as technical terms rather than as zoological names. Authors are now preparing manuscripts for the Treatise on Inverte- brate Paleontology dealing with the taxonomy of fragmentary fossils comprised in groups assigned to the holothurians, crinoids, conodonts, coccoliths, ammo- noids, scolecodonts and others. Some of the manuscripts already submitted employ divergent methods of dealing with the nomenclature of fragments, and need revision if they are to comply with the Régles. If they follow the recommendations made at Paris (1948),’ they have to employ a terminology that falls outside the scope of zoological nomenclature altogether. Thus they are deprived of the protection, regulation, uniformity and stability that the Régles afford to the taxonomy of whole-animals. This leads to uncertainty in the application of the Law of Homonymy which affects every branch of the Animal Kingdom, and we regard it as a matter of prime importance that the nomenclatural position of these groups should be regularized. Editorial policy as it concerns the Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology is loath to allow important sections of the text to employ nomenclature which clearly conflicts with provisions of the Régles, or which falls outside the scope of the Régles. We accordingly submit that the problems raised are of urgency and warrant immediate attention. 2. We have consulted Professor J. Chester Bradley on the preparation of this application, and he informs us that there is a possibility that the recognition of parataxa might benefit other branches of taxonomy than the paleontology of fragments. For example, the scheme might be of use in the special problems concerned with the recognition of collective groups of certain stages, of great medical importance, in the life-histories of parasites. Our application is therefore worded so that the establishment of parataxa can be varied to suit diverse circumstances. At the same time a procedure is recommended which limits the application of the provisions relating to parataxa to rigidly defined groups of animals specifically approved for the purpose by the Commission. 3. Special category of zoological entities comprising discrete fragments : Discrete parts of various kinds of animals, chiefly skeletal parts, occur commonly * As used throughout this application, ‘“‘ fragment” is understood to refer to part (or according to the suggestion stated in para. 2 below, to a life stage) of an animal when such part is deemed wholly inadequate for identification of a whole-animal taxon. 1 The decision here referred to was taken by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature at a meeting held on 26th July 1948 (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 293—294), that Meeting being the Eleventh Meeting of its Session held in Paris concurrently with the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, 1948. Owing to the complexity of the issues involved it was later decided to defer the preparation of a Declaration giving effect to the foregoing decision until there had been an opportunity to consider in greater detail the problems at stake. eo i he te le, tl i - Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 7 in nature ; more especially they are represented by abundant fossils in sedi- mentary strata of all geological ages from Cambrian to Recent. Examples are isolated coccoliths ; spicules of sponges, octocorals, and holothurians ; ossicles of crinoids, cystoids, blastoids, echinoids, and asterozoans ; annelid jaws (scolecodonts) ; radular elements and opercula of gastropods and cephalo- pods (aptychi) ; and the abundant fossils of unknown zoological affinities called conodonts. A large majority, if not all, of these bodies are usefully classifiable within the groups to which they belong, even though the genera and species of animals from which they were derived is almost universally unknown. Such discrete fragments of animals constitute a special category of zoological entities which, though classifiable in varying degrees of detail and precision, offers critical problems in nomenclature. 4. Importance of nomenclature for animal parts : There is little need for the classification and nomenclature of fragments when whole specimens of animals are available for study. This applies to virtually all work by neo- zoologists on living animals and may be accepted also for most work by paleozoologists on extinct animals because the fossils on which many thousand taxa have been recognized and named are judged adequate for discrimination of various genera and species of whole animals. In addition, there are multi- tudinous dissociated fragments of animals which are far from sufficient for identification of the whole animals that produced them and yet these are so distinctive in themselves as to have great usefulness for identifying the sedi- mentary strata containing them. These fragmentary paleontological materials are indispensable for correlations of many rock formations in the earth’s crust and for aid in establishing a trustworthy geochronology of the post-Precambrian part of geological time. However, in order to make use of such fragments, they must be classified, named, described, figured, and recorded as to occurrence. When this is done, many prove to be invaluable. For example, the dissociated fossils called conodonts have been demonstrated to constitute the only reliable means for determining correlations and relative geological age of various strata containing these fragments. Other highly fragmental remains of animals, especially echinoderms are similarly useful, but so far have been little studied because no satisfactory means of naming them in accordance with zoological rules has been available. When suitable procedure is provided for applying names to discrete animal fragments without reference to the whole-animal species which they represent, this will encourage greatly the study of such fragments, making them useful in stratigraphical palaeontology. 5. Systems of dual nomenclature : The taxonomic arrangement adopted in by far the greater majority of fossils studied is exactly comparable to that which would have been proposed if whole animals had been available for study. _ In many cases, if a fragmental specimen is at first inadequate for the identifica- tion of the whole animal from which it was derived, evidence may accumulate later which will establish its identity. In these cases the normal operation 8 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature of Art. 27 of the Régles (which states that the Law of Priority applies when any part of an animal is named before the animal itself) takes care of the nomenclatural situation. In a certain number of cases, however, the strati- graphical importance of the fragments far transcends their importance as biological entities. In these cases a dual nomenclature has grown up, one providing names for the fragments, the other for the whole animals. Such dual systems are contrary to the present provisions of the Régles, but they have great utilitarian value and are currently employed in the taxonomy of conodonts (see First Supplemental Application submitted herewith”), ammonoid aptychi (see Second Supplemental Application submitted herewith*), holo- thurian spicules (see Frizzell and Exline, 1955, Bull. Univ. Missouri School Mines & Metallurgy, No. 89) and, to a somewhat lesser extent, in a number of other groups. This application seeks to regularize the establishment of certain of these dual systems by the establishment of parataxa as a special category for the classification and nomenclature of the specified fragments. In a sense a parataxon is a taxonomic category, but, as Professor Chester Bradley has pointed out to us, in a zoologically more important sense it is outside of taxonomy. The study of parataxa might even be termed “ para- taxonomy’. Zoological taxonomy is a single system based on natural rela- tionships into which, with varying degree of success, all animals can be fitted. It is just because fragments of the type here described cannot be fitted into that system that parataxa are called for. It might be argued that if these names cannot be applied in ordinary taxonomy, then they are better ignored ; to this there is the very forceful counter argument that it would be most con- fusing to have the same name applied to both ordinary taxa and to parataxa. Such homonymy must be avoided. The regulations we here recommend therefore suggest that for all purposes except those of the Law of Homonymy, parataxa should be regarded as not coordinate with corresponding whole animal taxa. To this extent they may be ignored by the taxonomist who is only concerned with zoological taxonomy. 6. Divergent methods of naming animal fragments : Scientific names which have been published for discrete animal parts of the sort defined in the - preceding paragraphs comprise more than 2,000 binomina which consist of Latin or Latinized words with the initial letter of the first word capitalized and that of the second word not capitalized. They form binomina which follow exactly the prescribed pattern of zoological nomenclature applied to species. Some authors have sought to treat such isolated fragments of more or less undetermined taxonomic placement as if they were actual whole-animal taxa, construing nomenclature of them as strictly subject to the Régles, whereas others have sought to treat them apart from taxa recognized by the Régles. 2 The Document here referred to is reproduced as Document 1/2 Case No. 1 (pp. 14—34 of the present volume). 3 The Document here referred to is reproduced as Document 1/3 of Case No. 1 (pp. 35—71 of the present volume). Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 9 At least three divergent methods of nomenclature as regards assumed status of the fragments are discernible, as follows : _ (a) Binomina may be treated as names for whole-animals, even though based on one or another kind of individual parts, and accordingly, these are conceived to be strictly subject to all procedures and rules of zoological nomenclature. This is the method universally applied to conodonts up to the discovery of distinctively organized associa- tions of conodonts called “‘ assemblages ” in 1934, and is the method still adopted by all those specialists who have not considered the nomenclature of assemblages. Over 1,500 specific binomina have : currently been proposed for the discrete conodonts. (b) Binomina may be classed as “ technical terms ” (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4: 294) and not as zoological names, thus being excluded by definition from application of any zoological rules. Efforts to employ nomenclature of this sort have been published for discrete fragments of crinoids (Moore, 1938, Denison Univ. Bull., Jour. Sci. Lab. 33), holothuroids (M. Deflandre-Rigaud, 1953, Classe des Holothurides. Traité de Paléontologie, ed. Piveteau ; Paris. 3: 948-957), coccoliths (G. Deflandre, 1952, Sous-embranchement des Flagelles. Traité de Paléontologie, ed. Piveteau ; Paris. 1 : 99-130; E. Kamptner, 1948 (Coccolithen aus dem Torton des Inneralpinen) Wiener Beckens. SitzBer. Abt. I. Oester. 157 (No. 1—5) : 1-16, 2 pl.) and ammonoid aptychi (see Second Supplemental Application submitted herewith‘), (c) Binomina may be treated as “ form” taxa, consisting of “ form- genera” and “ form-species ”. This is the method in current use when classifying discrete conodonts by those authors who also differentiate “ assemblages ”’ (see First Supplemental Application submitted heréwith'), 7. Objections to using the same procedure for the nomenclature of frag- Ments as for whole-animals : It is evident that if scientific nomenclature are represented by abundant fragments. Among other provisions, the Law of Priority stipulates that “the oldest available name is retained when any part of the animal is named before the animal itself’ (Art. 27a), and accordingly, . * See Footnote 3. 5 See Footnote 2. 10 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature fragment is found to belong, important disturbance of nomenclature may ensue. Unless the Plenary Powers of the Commission are invoked and exercised, not only must the name of the whole-animal taxon yield to that of the fragment, but the nomenclature of all other fragments associated generically with the concerned fragment becomes unsettled. It would be untrue to suggest that “generic ” grouping of fragments is ever exactly equivalent to generic grouping of whole-animal species. Examples of the nomenclatural confusion resulting from this situation are cited in the immediate succeeding supplementary applications dealing with conodonts and ammonoid aptychi. 8. Objections to nomenclature of fragments by use of technical terms : If parts of animals are given binominal or other sorts of names which expressly are rejected from the domain of zoological nomenclature and application of the Régles, the purposes of orderly classification and description of fragmentary remains of animals are almost certain to be defeated. Absence of coordination and regulation in this area can only lead to chaos. Rules of homonymy and synonymy no longer apply ; priority of publication has no significance and no author needs to take account of work done by others. Such a method of dealing with fragmentary remains of animals does not merit serious con- sideration unless some sort of mechanism for regulation outside of the zoological rules can be devised, and even then, it seems to us, more would be lost than gained. Also, it is pertinent to emphasize the point that in the realm of palaeozoology all specimens representing kinds of animal life are varyingly incomplete, so that in fact, discrimination between fossils considered adequate for classification and nomenclature under the Régles and those which must be excluded from the application of the Régles on the ground of fragmentary nature, is entirely subjective. It is on this account that we recommend that the provisions concerning parataxa should be limited to special groups of animals specifically defined for the purpose by the Commission. 9. Objections to the nomenclature of fragments as “ form ’’-taxa : It has been suggested by one of us (Sylvester-Bradley, 1954, J. Paleont. 28 : 333-336) that “‘form’”’-taxa, analogous to the ‘‘form-genera”’ or ‘‘ organ-genera ” of the Botanical Code, could with advantage be used for the nomenclature and taxonomy of fragmentary fossils, and in fact this method is already in current use in the classification of conodonts (see succeeding supplemental applica- tion A for the recognition of conodonts as parataxa). The procedure, however, contravenes the Régles as they at present exist. Moreover, we feel that the terms ‘“ form-genera”’ and “ organ-genera’”’ would be ambiguous if applied to animal fragments, as concepts of ‘“‘ form” and “‘ organ” are not precisely equivalent in botany and zoology. Therefore, we recommend that the Commission considers the introduction of a new term for taxonomic units composed exclusively of fragments of animals, and the term we propose is parataxon (“‘ associate taxon ’’). Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 11 10. Procedure for nomenclature of parts of plants and whole plants in paleobotany : The problem of classifying and naming fossil plants is not different in kind from that encountered by paleozoologists in studying fossil remains of animals or by students of some Protista. Commonly, the various parts of a plant, such as leaves, impressions of bark, fruits, and roots, occur separately, but enough associated parts of some plants are found preserved as fossils to show characters of the whole plants. Paleobotanical rules take account of this situation by providing for separate categories of names, those for parts of plants being termed “ form-species” and “ form-genera”’ or “ organ- species ’’ and “ organ-genera””. Names belonging to these categories are not applicable to those given to whole plants. The “ form-species ”, “‘ form- genera ”’, “ organ-species”’, and “ organ-genera” of paleobotanists are thus exactly equivalent to parataxa as here proposed for recognition by zoologists. 11. Procedure for nomenclature of animal fragments : The classification and nomenclature of animal fragments within the scope of the Régles are to be recommended, both because at present any exclusion is subjective and therefore ambiguous and because scientific studies of fragments need the guidance and protection furnished by universally accepted zoological rules. How can nomenclature of fragments under the Régles be provided without meeting insuperable difficulties ?. The need is to provide a means of preventing (a) the invalidation of names applied to taxa of whole animals which are junior synonyms of parataxa ; and (b) the invalidation of parataxa as synonyms by the discovery that more than one parataxon belongs to a single whole-animal. The chief requisite is the recognition and segregation of parataxa, and their rigid exclusion from the category of commonly used taxa for whole-animals. Then, the rules governing all aspects of the nomenclature of taxa may be applied without any difference in mode or force to the category of parataxa, except that for the purposes of the Law of Priority, a wall should be conceived to separate nomenclature of whole-animal taxa from nomenclature of fragments defined as parataxa. Thus, without explicit sanction of the International Commission, a parataxon of fragments could not be transferred to the other side of the wall so as to be classed as a taxon of whole-animals, and the valid name of a whole animal never could be treated as a parataxon. Then nomen- clature in the two realms would not be subject to instability by interference of one with the other. For the purposes of the Law of Homonymy, taxa and parataxa would be coordinate. 12. Procedure for determining which animal groups should be classified by reference to parataxa : The governing principle which alone can determine whether a part of an animal should be classified and named in terms of whole- animal taxa, or alternatively, in terms of part-animal parataxa, is the degree . of adequacy of available specimens for determining what are judged to be diagnostic characters of a whole-animal taxon. Several sorts of animal parts present no problem when tested by this principle, for obviously they are fitted 12 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature only for parataxa. Here belong all isolated skeletal elements of coccoliths, sponges, annelids, several classes of echinoderms, conodonts, and some parts of mollusks such as opercula and elements of the radulas of gastropods and aptychi of ammonoid cephalopods. Decision as to whether a particular group of animal fragments should be classified in taxa or parataxa must clearly, however, be removed from the realms of subjective judgment. It is therefore recommended :— (1) that the parataxa system should only be recognized as validly applied to those animal-groups specifically authorized for that purpose by the Commission ; and (2) that special procedures should be provided for disposing of questioned determination of the status as taxa or parataxa of certain names applied to animal fragments. It will be necessary then for any taxonomist desirious of employing the parataxa system in cases not previously recognized to make application to the Com- mission for authorization called for in point (1) of the present paragraph. Decisions of the Commission given in such cases would not necessitate use of the Plenary Powers, but we consider that it would nevertheless be desirable to stipulate that voting on such application should not take place until a period of six months had elapsed after its publication in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature*®. This would allow time for the Commission to receive and con- sider any objections that might arise from other specialists in the same field. Referring to subpara. (2), it may happen that some groups classifiable in terms of parataxa contain fragments which by their unusually distinctive nature are considered certainly referable to a whole-animal species; it may then be sought to admit the nomenclature of that part as the name of a whole-animal taxon. If such action seems desirable as concerns previously published names, it is suggested that the Plenary Powers be invoked. Also, if such action seems desirable to an author on introducing a new name, then the “ challenge pro- cedure ’’ outlined at Copenhagen could be invoked, whereby the author would submit his proposal to the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature ; if no objections were raised to such a proposal during a two-year period following publication, the name would automatically be regarded as applicable to a whole-animal taxon ; if objections were received, the case would be decided by the Commission. Recommendations : 13. In view of the facts and considerations which have been stated above, we now formally submit the following request :— (1) that Article 27, subsection (a) should be modified by excluding para- taxa by the addition of the phrase “‘ except for parataxa ” ; 6 This is already the normal Rule in the case of applications of all types published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 1 — . . —- eu Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 13 (2) that a new Article should be incorporated (a) defining the expression “ parataxon”’ in the following terms: “a parataxon is a taxonomic category comprising discrete fragments or life-stages of animals which, by decision of the Commission, are deemed unidentifiable in terms of the whole animals from which they were derived ”’ ; (b) stipulating the following conditions for the institution of para- taxa :— (i) “any zoologist desiring that classification and nomen- clature of a particular group of animal fragments should be made in terms of parataxa must submit formal application therefor to the Secretary of the Commission ; the Commission will proceed to vote on such applications only after a period of at least six months has elapsed after publication in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomen- clature’ ”’ ; (ii) “‘ once the Commission has ruled that the classification of any group of animal fragments shall be in terms of parataxa, that ruling shall apply retroactively, as well as to future publication, irrespective of whether the > 99 author in question uses the term ‘ parataxa’”’ ; (c) stipulating that nomenclature applied to taxa and parataxa should be mutually exclusive and independent for the purposes of the Law of Priority, but coordinate for the purposes of the Law of Homonymy, names belonging to one category not being transferable to the other. 7 See Footnote 6. 14 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature DOCUMENT 1/2 Note on procedure : The paper reproduced below as Document 1/2 was originally submitted to the Office of the Commission at a time (as explained in the Note on Procedure prefixed to Document 1/1 (page 5 above) the applicants contemplated the possibility of approval for their plan for the recognition of the category “ parataxon ” being given by the International Commission by way of a Declaration. The paper given below was prepared as the first of a series of applications for the issue by the International Commission as soon as the “ para- taxa’’ scheme had been approved, of directions applying that scheme to particular groups. The decision to postpone the *“‘ parataxa ’” scheme until the London Congress in 1958 made it impossible to achieve any progress with the proposals submitted in the present paper. That paper is, however, placed on the London Agenda Paper for the purpose of illustrating the type of application which might be expected to be received by the Commission if the principal “‘ parataxa”’ scheme were to be approved. [Under the established procedure of the Commission proposals relating to individual names are not considered by it at meetings held during Congresses, it having been found more satisfactory that such cases should be studied in detail by the full Commission under the normal Three-Month Rule. Accordingly, it is not proposed that the detailed recommendations in regard to individual names contained in this paper shall be considered at the London Meeting. The papers will, however, be placed before the Commission for decision under the normal procedure as soon as possible after the close of that Meeting. {intl’d F.H. 11th July 1957.] First supplemental application : application for a ruling of the International Commission directing that the classification and nomenclature of discrete conodonts be in terms of “ parataxa ”’ By RAYMOND C. MOORE (University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas, U.S.A.) and P. C. SYLVESTER-BRADLEY (University of Sheffield, England) (Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 1056) The purpose of this application is to remove existing instability and confusion of nomenclature relating to the fossils of unknown affinity termed conodonts and to promote continuity and universality of nomenclature as applied to natural assemblages of these fossils representing whole-animal Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 15 taxa on the one hand, and as applied to discrete conodonts not identifiable in terms of whole-animal taxa on the other. Supplemental to a preceding application of general scope? which calls for recognition of nomenclatural units termed parataxa, a Ruling of the Commission is sought directing that the classification and nomenclature of discrete conodonts are to be in terms of parataxa, including both already described forms and those which may be described in future. 2. Need for recognition of conodont parataxa : The fragmentary fossils consisting of toothlike structures called conodonts are widely distributed remains of animals which have been demonstrated to possess high value in stratigraphical paleontology. Prevailingly they occur in isolated manner, different kinds (more than 1,800) being described and named as genera and species. However, at least 250 natural assemblages have been claimed to indicate associations belonging to individual animals of unknown affinity, and these too have been described as different genera and species and given names distinct from those attached to their discrete parts. The elements of such assemblages not only are found to be constant in composition (except for adventitious incompleteness of some specimens) but many show the parts preserved in oriented relationship to one another. As is made evident in the following paragraphs, the system of nomenclature currently adopted runs counter to the present Régles ; it is thus illegal and as a consequence unstable. This may be avoided in a manner which would advance continuity with mainten- ance of the present system of nomenclature by defining. genera and species of discrete conodonts as parataxa, while recognizing certain assemblages of them as whole-animal taxa. 3. Subjective nature of recognition of “‘ assemblages ’’ : The recognition of an assemblage of discrete conodont parts as representative of a single animal is subjective. The evidence presented for many of those described is regarded as conclusive by a majority of authors, but a few of the assemblages described are now thought to be random segregations, perhaps of faecal nature. It is clearly desirable to remove subjective elements from application of the Régles, and it is suggested that this be achieved by adopting wording which will make it clear that names applied to assemblages of conodonts, presumed by the author to be representative of single animals, are not available as names for parataxa. _ 4 Nomenclature of described assemblages: Eight generic names have been proposed to designate assemblages of conodonts presumed by their authors to represent single animals. Each of these assemblages is composed 1 The application here referred has been placed on the London Agenda Paper as Document 1/1 (pp. 5—13 of the present volume). 16 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature of discrete parts, some assemblages being identified with genera and some with species established previously on the basis of discrete parts. The nomen- clatural position of the type species of each nominal genus of assemblages is set out in Table 1 and further discussed in the following paragraphs.? Each assemblage contains parts assigned to more than one genus of discrete conodonts. On the other hand, several genera of discrete conodonts contain species assigned to more than one genus of assemblages. 5. The generic name Duboisella Rhodes (1952b), with type species D. typica, was proposed for 13 assemblages of conodonts of Pennsylvanian age from Illinois. The components of the assemblages were identified by Rhodes with five previously named discrete conodont species, each referred to a different previously named genus. By the application of Article 27, these five species should be placed in synonymy with D. typica, and the assemblage should be known by the earliest name applicable. (a) The generic names in question are : Prioniodus Pander, 1856; Hibbardella Bassler, 1925 ; Lonchodina Bassler, 1925 ; Idioprioniodus Gunnell, 1933 ; Metalonchodina Branson and Mehl, 1941 ; Duboisella Rhodes, 1952. The type species of Prioniodus is known only from the Lower Ordovician of Europe, and is most unlikely to represent a whole animal congeneric with Duboisella, which is from the Pennsylvanian of North America. Similarly, the type species of Hibbardella and Lonchodina are both of late Devonian age, and unlikely to be congeneric with Duboisella. The type species of Idioprioniodus (I. typus), however, is identified by Rhodes* as a member of the assemblage named Duboisella typica, and on this basis the name takes priority over Duboisella. The type species of Metalonchodina is also identified by Rhodes with a member of Duboisella typica. Metalonchondina must therefore be regarded as another junior subjective synonym of Idioprioniodus. (b) By Article 27, the specific name typica, as used by Rhodes in the combination Duboisella typica, must be replaced by its earliest synonym. The six specific names in question are : bidentata Gunnell, 1931 (Metalonchodina) ; clarki Gunnell, 1931 (Lonchodina) ; 2 See page 29. * Rhodes regards Idioprioniodus, when used for designation of discrete conodonts, as synonymous with the genus Ligonodina Bassler (1925), whose type species is Devonian, although this synonymization would not be likely to apply to the genus when used to design assemblage . we =a Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 17 conjunctus Gunnell, 1931 (Prioniodus) ; subacoda Gunnell, 1931 (Hibbardella) ; typus Gunnell, 1933 (Idioprioniodus) ; typica Rhodes, 1952 (Duboisella). Of the four names proposed by Gunnell in 1931, subacoda is only conditionally recognized by Rhodes as part of the assemblage in question (“ Hibbardella cf. sub acoda”’), but any one of the other three should, by application of the present Régles, be chosen as the senior name to designate the assemblage, which should therefore be known either as Idioprioniodus bidentata, I. clarki, or I. conjunctus, but not (according to the present Régles) as Duboisella typica. (c) In addition to the type species, four other species based on discrete conodonts have been assigned to Metalonchodina as follows : acutirostris Mehl and Thomas, 1947, Miss., N.Am. ; alternata Mehl and Thomas, 1947, Miss., N.Am. ; deflecta Youngquist and Heezen, 1948, Penn., N.Am. ; tenora Ellison, 1941, Penn., N. Am. Possibly some of these species may belong to whole-animals congeneric with Duboisella typica ; probably others do not. It is impossible to place a discrete conodont in such a whole-animal taxon unless it is recognizable as specifically identical with a form found in a natural assemblage. These natural assemblages are rare, only about 250 having been so far described, compared to the hundreds of thousands of discrete conodont fragments known. It is not very likely, therefore, that it will ever be possible to identify the four named species of Metalonchodina with whole-animal taxa. What name should be used to designate them meanwhile ? The most convenient and the most logical method is to continue referring them to Metalonchodina, but this would only be possible, according to the Régles, if that name were declared to be a parataxon. REES (d) Two nominal species in addition to the type species have been assigned to Idioprioniodus. These are not necessarily derived from an assemblage congeneric with Duboisella typica, but could be referred to the discrete genus Ligonodina with which Idioprioniodus has been previously identified. 6. Another case which raises problems of the same kind as Duboisella is that of the genus Scottognathus Rhodes (1953), also named for a species based on conodont assemblages. The type species is Scottella typica Rhodes (1952) which is type species of Scottella Rhodes (1952) (non Enderlein, 1910). and is based on 132 assemblages from Pennsylvanian strata of Illinois and Kentucky. Rhodes recognizes four ‘‘ components ”, each consisting of one or more pairs of conodonts, and each previously named as discrete conodonts. Actually Rhodes lists, as synonyms, a very large number of species of discrete conodont under each “ component”, but the only names that need concern us here are the generic and specific names listed below. , 18 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (a) The six generic names in question in this case are : Hindeodella Bassler, 1925 ; Synprioniodina Bassler, 1925: Idiognathodus Gunnell, 1931 ; Streptognathodus Stauffer and Plummer, 1932 ; Ozarkodina Branson and Mehl, 1933 ; Scottognathus Rhodes, 1953. As in the case of Duboisella, it is only possible to maintain that generic identity exists between a genus based on discrete parts and a genus based on an assemblage if the type species of the discrete genus can be identified in an assemblage referred to the assemblage-genus. Neither the type species of Hindeodella nor that of Synprioniodina have been identified in assemblages. In any case, as species of each are known in more than one genus of assemblages, neither name is suitable as a replacement name for Scottognathus. Rhodes, on the other hand, identified the type species of both Idiognathodus and Streptognathodus as members of assemblages of Scottognathus typica. By application of Article 27, the genus should therefore be known as Idiognathodus ; Streptognathodus and Scottognathus become synonyms. Ozarkodina has a type species not yet identified in an assemblage, and remains, therefore, in the same position as Hindeodella and Synprioniodina. (b) The six genera in question are :— claviformis Gunnell, 1931 (Idiognathodus) ; excelsus Stauffer and Plummer, 1932 (Streptognathodus) ; delicatula Stauffer and Plummer, 1932 (Ozarkodina) ; microdenta Ellison, 1941 (Synprioniodina) ; delicatula Stauffer and Plummer, 1932 (Hindeodella) ; typica Rhodes, 1952 (Scottognathus). Thus, in this case, the prior name for the assemblage described by Rhodes as Scottognathus typica is Idiognathodus_claviformis Gunnell, 1931. Fay (1952) records 64 nominal species of Idiognathodus and 43 of Streptognathodus. Of these 107 species, all but 31 have been listed by Rhodes as synonyms of forms found in such association with Scottognathus typica as to suggest that they have been derived from animals conspecific with this species. It is possible, but not certain, that these remaining 31 species represent animals congeneric with Scottognathus typica. Until such time as evidence indicates to which assemblage they belong it is difficult to see by what generic name they should be described under the present Régles. All doubt would be removed if they were classed as parataxa. 7. The case of the assemblage named JIlinella typica Rhodes (1952) presents rather different problems. This species, based on 21 Pennsylvanian assemblages, contains components identified by Rhodes with three genera of discrete conodonts. The three genera are :— Lonchodus Pander, 1856 ; Lonchodina Bassler, 1925 ; Gondolella Stauffer and Plummer, 1932. Of these three genera, only one contains individuals which have been identified with previously named species, and no type species of a previously Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 19 named genus has been recognized in the assemblage. The species recognized is of Gondolella, and contains five synonyms, G. curvata, G. magna, G. bella, and G. minuta, all of Stauffer and Plummer (1932), and G. neolobata Ellison (1941). The proper name for Jilinella typica, according to Article 27 could therefore be Jllinella curvaia, I. magna, I. bella or I. minuta. It does not seem likely that the type species of either Lonchodus or Lonchodina is congeneric with JIlinella typica, for the type species of both are Devonian and other species of these genera have already been identified as members of assemblages ascribed to genera other than Iilinella (see Table 1). On the other hand, it is possible that the type species of Gondolella (which is G. elegantula Stauffer and Plummer, 1932) is congeneric with Jllinella typica, in which case, according to the present rules, it would have to take priority over Illinelia. These uncertainties in nomenclature would be removed by the recognition of parataxa. 8. Each of the conodont assemblages described under the names Lochriea Scott (1942) and Lewistownella Scott (1942) consists of four groups of components which have been identified generically by Scott with names previously applied to discrete conodonts, but not specifically. The genera concerned are as follows : (a) Lochriea montanaensis Scott, 1942 Prioniodus Pander, 1856 ; Hindeodella Bassler, 1925 ; Prioniodella Bassler, 1925 ; Spathognathodus Branson and Mehl, 1941. (b) Lewistownella agnewi Scott, 1942 Prioniodus Pander, 1856 ; Hindeodella Bassler, 1925 ; Cavusgnathus Harris and Hollingsworth, 1933 ; Subbryantodus Branson and Mehl, 1934. Both these assemblages were described from the Heath formation of Montana (which is late Mississippian or early Pennsylvanian in age). It is extremely unlikely that either is congeneric with the whole animal represented by the discrete fragment from the Ordovician which is type species of Prioniodus ; nor is it very likely that the Upper Devonian-Lower Mississippian type species of the genus Hindeodella represents an animal congeneric with either of these assemblages. Prioniodella also has a Devonian type species and Spathognathodus a Silurian type species, so that these two genera can likewise be regarded as unlikely to be senior synonyms of Lochriea. ; Cavusgnathus and Subbryantodus, on the other hand, both have Mississippian - type species which might possibly be congeneric with Lewistownella. As Fa Scott states of Lochriea, then: ‘‘ This Carboniferous animal most probably ii is not generic with the genotype on which the oldest form genus was originally % based, and to call it by that generic name, and to reduce the other names to ‘. synonyms, as would be required by the International Rules, not only would be f improper but would result in utter confusion”. Under operation of the present Régles, with present knowledge it is not possible to suggest which name is the most “‘ proper ” for either assemblage. The consequent ambiguity is solved in current practice by ignoring the application of the Law of Priority in these cases. By the recognition of parataxa all ambiguities would be removed and the current use of names sustained. 20 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 9. Attention now may be directed to assemblages which have been assigned generic names coinciding with those introduced for discrete conodonts. Two cases can be cited. These are described in paragraphs 10 and 11 below. 10. An assemblage described by Eichenberg (1930, 177-182) under the name “‘ Prioniodus hercynicus n. sp.” from the Carboniferous of Germany was based on 30 figured discrete fragments. (a) Eichenberg compared his figures with many named species of discrete fragments, referred to the following genera, but none positively identified with any particular species : Prioniodus Pander, 1856 ; Lonchodus Pander, 1856 ; Polygnathus Hinde, 1879 ; Hindeodella Bassler, 1925 ; Bryantodus Bassler, 1925 ; Ancyrodella Ulrich and Bassler, 1926. The genus Prioniodus Pander was based on discrete conodonts of Ordovician age, with P. elegans as type species. As a genus of discrete conodonts it is considered to range from Lower Ordovician to Lower Permian (Fay, 1952), and 171 nominal species have been assigned to it. Table 1 shows that species assigned to discrete fragments of this genus occur in more than one genus of assemblages, species of Priontodus having been identified in fact, in four of the eight assemblages tabulated. (b) Branson and Mehl (1941) identified some of the elements figured by Eichenberg with the following additional genera : Gnathodus Pander, 1856 ; Scaliognathus Branson and Mehl, 1941. (c) Fay (1952) selected one of Eichenberg’s 30 figures as “ holotype ” of Prioniodus hercynicus, and further synonymized this species with Prioniodus undosus Ulrich and Bassler, 1926. If Eichenberg’s specimens all truly belong to one animal, it is doubtful if Fay’s action, in the light of Article 27, is valid. (d) Eichenberg’s contention is subjective, and in this particular case the evidence that the assemblage has been derived from a single animal is not considered conclusive by all authors. However, if the present. application concerning parataxa is accepted, the specific name hercynicus as published in the combination Prioniodus hercynicus (being stated by the author to be the name of an assemblage) would not be available for a parataxon, despite its having been published in combination with a generic name which we are recommending should be added to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 21 as a parataxon. In such case, should any author wish to substantiate the identity of the single animal named by Eichenberg, it would be necessary for him to refer to a genus not based on discrete fragments. 11. A case closely similar to that of Hichenberg’s assemblage named “ Prioniodus”’ is that of a group of nine assemblages described by Schmidt (1934) under the name Gnathodus integer n. sp. The generic name G@nathodus was proposed by Pander in 1856 for discrete conodonts from Carboniferous rocks of Russia. The type species (by monotypy) is G. mosquensis. It is possible that G. mosquensis and G. integer represent whole animals that are congeneric and Schmidt was therefore following the provisions of Article 27 in placing his assemblages in this genus. (a) Schmidt recognized in his assemblages discrete fragments representing the following genera : Gnathodus Pander, 1856 ; Lonchodus Pander, 1856 ; Hindeodella Bassler, 1925 ; Bryantodus Bassler, 1925. (b) Rhodes (1952), from a study of Schmidt’s figures, concluded that most of the discrete components had been misidentified. According to Rhodes the following genera of discrete conodonts were represented in the assemblages : Hindeodella Bassler, 1925 ; Synprioniodina Bassler, 1925 ; Idiognathodus Gunnell, 1931, or Streptognathodus Stauffer and Plummer, 1932 ; Ozarkodina Branson and Mehl, 1933. On this basis he believed that Schmidt’s species should be referred to the genus he was then introducing with an assemblage as type species, Scotella Rhodes, 1952 (=Scottognathus Rhodes, 1953; see para. 5(2) above). However, a little later Rhodes (1953 : 612) changed his opinions, stating that he believed Schmidt had correctly identified the polygnathid elements as Gnathodus, and that as a consequence he did not believe the assemblage named G. integer to be congeneric with Scottognathus typica. (c) If the name Gnathodus is, by a ruling of the Commission, to be restricted in use as the name of a paratoxon, a new generic name will be required for the assemblage which has Gnathodus integer Schmidt as type. We have communicated with Dr. Schmidt on this matter, and he recommends that in this case the name Westfalicus should be used for the genus of assemblages with Gnathodus integer as type. (Westfalicus Schmidt, gen. nov.; type-species Gnathodus integer Schmidt, 1934; diagnosis as given for Gnathodus Schmidt, 1934, 22 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature pp. 79-84 ; gender, masculine ; derivation of name, from Westfalia, the province of Germany in which the type species was found ; distinction from Scottognathus Rhodes, 1953, the possession of a different polygnathid component.) 12. Nomenclatural confusion relating to Polygnathus : The earliest descrip- tion of a presumed natural assemblage of conodonts was published by Hinde (1879, pp. 351-369), based on fossils obtained from Devonian rocks of New York, and to this assemblage he gave the new name Polygnathus dubius (recte dubia). Hinde’s description and illustrations, however, partly were based on isolated conodonts which he considered to be equivalent to component elements of the assemblage. The same paper includes 19 other species referred to Polygnathus, all based on discrete conodonts, of which several now are considered by specialists to belong elsewhere. Miller (1889 : 520) designated P. dubia as the type species of Polygnathus and Bryant (1921 : 10-24) defined as lecto- type of P. dubia one of the discrete conodonts figured by Hinde. This is an application of Article 27 of the Régles in reverse, for (as in the case of the a.atriction of the types of Prioniodus hercynicus Eichenberg and Gnathodus integer Schmidt mentioned above in paragraph 11 (c)), instead of the oldest name of a part applying to the whole, here the name of the whole (as intended by Hinde) is fixed to a part. In addition to Polygnathus as thus restricted, Branson and Mehl (1933 : 136-166) have identified among the constituents of P. dubia representatives of conodont genera named Lonchodina, Hindeodella, Bryantodus (all Bassler, 1925) and Spathognathodus (Branson and Mehl, 1941). Other authors have made other identifications as indicated in Table I. Shall the restriction in application of Polygnathus from the name for an assemblage to the name for a component be denied ? If so, the discrete conodonts which have come to be known as Polygnathus, including 179 described species, are left without a generic name. Also, because Lonchodina (59 species), Hindeodella (85 species), Bryantodus (154 species) and Spathognathodus (64 species) are names published long after 1879, these genera and their 362 contained species are threatened because as parts of the Polygnathus assemblage they might be classed as junior synonyms. It has been maintained that the assemblage described by Hinde is a fortuitious mechanical or faecal concentration. Under these circumstances it seems wise to request the Commission to regard the case of Polygnathus as an exception to the general provisions proposed here for the establishment of parataxa. We would recommend that the Commission should : (a) reject (under the Plenary Powers if necessary) the name Polygnathus dubia Hinde, 1879, as an available name for an assemblage of conodonts presumed to represent a single animal ; (b) issue a Ruling confirming the restriction of the lectotype of Polygnathus dubia to a specified component as discussed in the next subparagraph ; a ee ee eee er Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 23 (c) issue a Ruling that the generic name Polygnathus and the specific name dubia as used in combination with Polygnathus are to be regarded as parataxa. 13. The type species of Polygnathus : The position as regards the type- species of Polygnathus may be summarised as follows :— . (a) Hinde (1879 : 361-368) proposed the new genus Polygnathus “‘ for an ; animal possessing numerous minute and variously formed Conodont teeth and similarly minute tuberculated plates grouped together, but of which the natural arrangement is not at present known. This meagre definition is all that is afforded by the single example of the genus met with, in which about twenty-four entire and : fragmentary teeth and six plates have been crushed together in a a small patch of about one-fourth of an inch in diameter, in black shale”. The “single example” of twenty-four fragments is then described under the name Polygnathus dubius (recte dubia) and figured as pl. 16, figs. 6-18. Hinde immediately follows this description with the description of a further nineteen new species all assigned to Polygnathus (four questionably so). All these nineteen species were based on discrete conodonts. One was named P. pennatus (recte pennata). , (b) Miller (1889 : 520) listed P. dubius as type of Polygnathus. (c) Bryant (1921 : 23) described a species of discrete conodont under the name Polygnathus pennatus Hinde, in the synonymy of which he included “‘ Polygnathus dubius, G. J. Hinde (in part), ... Plate XVI, fig. 17”. In the description of the species he states: “If, for no other reason than convenience in classification, in the present state of our knowledge, I believe the genus Polygnathus should be restricted, so as to include only those tuberculated and rugose tritoral plates discovered for the first time with the type specimen and characteristic of it. These consist of leaf-shaped plates with a central rib or ridge which is produced beyond the tritoral margin into a stem-like flattened crest of pectinate teeth. P. pennatus is the smallest and 3 one of the commonest of these forms.” (d) Ulrich and Bassler (1926: 43) in discussing the genus Polygnathus make the following statement : “‘ Polygnathus was founded by Hinde upon a group of plates and teeth occurring associated on the same slab of Rhinestreet shale from western New York which he believed to represent the remains of a single animal. In this assemblage no less than five genera as now understood were represented, and it RSs would have been better to have discarded the genus. Since Bryant Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature has redefined the genus and selected a genotype, P. pennatus, which he says is represented in Hinde’s type assemblage of P. dubius in the edge view of the common Genundewa species the genus may be recognized in this restricted sense.’’ In spite of Ulrich and Bassler’s contention, Bryant’s action could not, according to the present Régles, be “‘ rigidly construed ”’ as selecting a type species. However, Holmes (1928 : 17) lists P. pennatus as “‘ genotype ”’ with “ P. dubius Hinde, 1879, part ” in parenthesis. (e) Roundy (1926: 13) refers to Bryant’s restriction of the genus Polygnathus, and states that: “As ... many of the various teeth described and figured under the type species, P. dubius, have been referred to previously described genera, it is necessary to select the genotype. Of the forms figured by Hinde as P. dubius but three (Pl. 16, figs. 16, 17 & 18) could now remain under the genus. Bryant, however, says that figure 17 is only a differently oriented view of the form described by Hinde as Polygnathus pennatus and that figures 16 and 18 show different aspects of the form described as P. cristatus. I therefore propose that the genotype Polygnathus dubius Hinde be restricted to the specimen shown on his Plate 16 as figure 17. Hence Polygnathus pennatus Hinde becomes a synonym of P. dubius.” Roundy reproduces Hinde’s figure 17 under the name Polygnathus dubius. (f) Branson and Mehl (1933: 146) make the following statement : “Roundy calls Hinde’s figure 17 of plate 16 the genotype of Poly- gnathus. Branson referred it to P. pennata after studying the types and comparing the specimens, but as both were in slabs the comparison was not entirely satisfactory. However, he took free specimens of P. pennata and compared them by placing them adjacent to the specimens on the slabs and thus verified his reference. The original Polygnathus dubia, which consisted of specimens of several genera . Should not have one of its kinds used as genotype. Bryant used P. pennata as the genotype, and that seems the best way out of a bad situation. If that procedure is followed and it is recognized that Hinde’s figure 16 of plate 16 is not identifiable as to species, only figure 18 of plate 16 remains to bear the name P. dubia and we are using that specimen as the type.” (g) If, as we recommend, the name Polygnathus is to be restricted to the nomenclature of a parataxon, it will clearly be necessary for the ~ Commission to specify which species is to be regarded as type species, _and which specimen is to be used in the interpretation of that species. It will be seen from the foregoing analysis of the situation that P. dubia has priority as type species, and that Hinde’s Pl. 16, fig. 17 has priority as lectotype of that species. The specimen is preserved 4 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 25 in the British Museum under the Catalogue Number A.4211. We recommend that the Commission should specify that the genus should be interpreted by references to this species and specimen. (h) In the view of Bryant (1921), Roundy (1926), and Branson and Mehl (1941), the specimen selected as lectotype of P. dubia according to the recommendations is synonymous with the species described by Hinde in the same paper as P. pennatus. It now becomes necessary, therefore, to determine which of the two subjective synonyms, P. pennata or P. dubia, should have priority. Bryant (1921) synonymized the specimen subsequently selected as lecto- type of P. dubia with P. pennata. Roundy (1926) on the other hand quotes P. pennata as a synonym of P. dubia, rather than vice versa. On the principle of “first reviser’’, it is difficult to maintain that Bryant suppressed P. dubia in favour of P. pennata, for he listed other of Hinde’s type-specimens of P. dubia in the synonymies of several other species. In view of this ambiguity we recommend that the Commission should rule that in the case of the type-specimens of P. dubia and P. pennata being considered members of one species, the former name is to have priority. This is in accord with page precedence. . 14. Gender of the genera Polygnathus and Scottognathus: The genus Polygnathus Hinde (1879) was treated by him as masculine, and some subse- quent authors have followed him in this practice. The word, however, is derived from the Greek yva8os (jaw) which as a classical word has always been regarded as feminine. Of the 179 species listed under this genus by Fay (1952)47 are in masculine form, 71 in feminine form, and the remainder in a form equivalent for either gender. It is recommended that the genus be recorded as feminine in the Official List. The genus Scottognathus, also based on the same Greek word, was treated as masculine. The name is of rather recent introduction and has not yet been extensively quoted. We recommend it should also be recorded as feminine in the Official List. 15. It is not proposed that all the names discussed in this paper should at this time be entered on the Official Lists and Official Indexes, for many of them are subjective synonyms even within the category of parataxa. We believe that it is necessary, however, to enter on the Lists those names which we have discussed above in some detail. Three of these names, which we are proposing to enter on the Official List as parataxa, have become type-genera of families. These are POLYGNATHIDAE Bassler, 1925, PRIONIODONTIDAE Bassler, 1925 (as PRIONIODIDAE) and GNATHODONTIDAE Camp, Taylor and Welles, _ 1942. The last-cited name would be a junior homonym of GNATHODONTIDAE Huene, 1929, if that name were an available name. Huene (1929 : 49) intro- duced it for a family containing four genera of rhynchocephalian reptiles from 26 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature the Triassic of South Africa. The name, however, is not nomenclaturally available, as it is not based on the stem of a type-genus. Huene credited the name to Broom (without date or bibliographic reference), but we have been unable to trace to Broom any use of the name in the form quoted by Huene. In a number af papers Broom referred to the ‘‘ Gnathodonts ”’ in the vernacular (e.g. 1906 : 598) and at least once (1906 : 599) used the name Gnathodontia as that of an Order. 16. In our view the present nomenclatural situation, which we have disclosed in the foregoing analysis, is undesirable, and prejudices the strict application of the Régles by leaving authors who work in this field with no alternatives other than to disregard the Régles, or disrupt nomenclature to an alarming extent. We therefore submit the following proposals to the Com- mission requesting that they direct : (1) that the nomenclature of all categories based on types which in the opinions of the original authors, are discrete conodonts, shall be in terms of parataxa and as such shall be unavailable as names of taxa based on conodont assemblages ; (2) that the names of all categories based on types which in the opinions of the original authors, are assemblages of conodonts derived from single animals, shall be unavailable for the designation of parataxa ; (3) that, notwithstanding (2) above, the generic name Polygnathus Hinde, 1879 (: 359) (gender : feminine) (type species, by subsequent designa- by Miller (1889 : 520) ; Polygnathus dubius Hinde, 1879) be placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology as the name of a parataxon ; (4) that the name dubius Hinde, 1879 (: 362-365), published in the com- bination Polygnathus dubius (Hinde, 1879) (type species of Poly- gnathus Hinde, 1879) is to be placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology as the name of a parataxon, this species to be interpreted by the specimen figured by Hinde as Pl. 16, Fig. 17, now preserved in the British Museum (Natural History) under Catalogue Number A.4211, which specimen is to rank as lectotype ;_ (5) that the following generic names, being introduced for assemblages of conodonts believed by their authors to represent single animals, are not available as names of parataxa, and are to be entered on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ; Duboisella Rhodes, 1952 (: 895) (gender : feminine) (type-species, by original designation, D. typica Rhodes, 1952) ; Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 27 Scottognathus Rhodes, 1953 (: 612) (gender : feminine) (type- species, by original designation, Scottella typica Rhodes, 1952) ; Illinella Rhodes, 1952 (: 898) (gender : feminine) (type-species, by original designation, I. typica Rhodes, 1952) ; Lochriea Scott, 1942 (: 293) (gender : feminine) (type-species, by original designation, L. montanaensis Scott, 1942) ; Lewistownella Scott, 1942 (: 299) (gender : feminine) (type-species, by original desigriation, L. agnewt Scott, 1942) ; Westfalicus Schmidt, [? 1956] (gender : masculine) (type-species, by original designation, Gnathodus integer Schmidt, 1934). (6) that the following specific names, type-species of the genera listed in para. (5), being based on assemblages of conodonts presumed by their authors to represent single animals, are not available as names of parataxa, and are to be entered on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology : typica Rhodes, 1952 (: 895), as published in the combination Duboisella typica (type-species of Duboisella) ; typica Rhodes, 1952 (: 891), as published in the combination Scottella typica (type species of Scottognathus Rhodes, 1953) ; typica Rhodes, 1952 (: 899), as published in the combination Illinella typica (type species of Illinella) ; montanaensis Scott, 1942 (: 295), as published in the combination Lochriea montanaensis (type species of Lochriea) ; agnewt Scott, 1942 (: 300), as published in the combination Lewistownella agnewi (type species of Lewistownella) : integer Schmidt, 1934 (: 77), as published in the combination Gnathodus integer (type species of Westfalicus). (7) that the following generic names, being introduced as names of categories based on discrete conodonts, are to be entered as names of parataxa on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology : Prioniodus Pander, 1856 (: 29) (gender : masculine) (type species by subsequent designation by Miller, 1889 : 520, P. elegans Pander, 1856) ; Gnathodus Pander, 1856 (: 33) (gender : masculine) (type species, by monotypy, G. mosquensis Pander, 1856) ; (8) that the following specific names, having as type specimens discrete conodonts, are to be entered as parataxa on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology : elegans Pander, 1856 (: 5), as published in the combination Prioniodus elegans (type species of Prioniodus Pander, 1856) ; mosquensis Pander, 1856 (: 34) as published in the combination Gnathodus mosquensis (type species of Gnathodus Pander, 1856) ; 28 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (9) that the following family-group names, having as type genera conodonts classed as parataxa, are to be entered as parataxa on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology : POLYGNATHIDAE Bassler (1925: 219) (type genus: Polygnathus Hinde, 1879) ; PRIONIODONTIDAE (correction, first made herein, of PRIONIODIDAE) Bassler (1925 : 218) (type genus : Prioniodus Pander, 1856) ; GNATHODONTIDAE Camp, Taylor & Welles (1942: 525) (type genus : Gnathodus Pander, 1856) ; (10) that the name Scottella Rhodes, 1952, a junior homonym of Scottella Enderlein, 1910, be entered on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology ; (11) that the names PRIONIODIDAE Bassler, 1925 (an Invalid Original Spelling of PRIONIODONTIDAE) and GNATHODONTIDAE Huene, 1929 (an unavailable name since not based on the stem of a type genus) be entered on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family- Group Names in Zoology. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 29 TABLE 1 Natural Conodont Assemblages and their Constituents Names based on discrete conodonts with which constituents of assemblages have been identified [Type species of genera indicated by an asterisk (*)] tIdioprioniodus Gunnell, 1933 (*I. typus Gunnell, 1933, L. Penn-U. Penn., N. Am.) *7. typus Gunnell, 1933 . Metalonchodina Branson & Mehl, 1941 (* Prioniodus bidentatus Gunnell, 1931, M. Penn., N. ‘eee * M. bidentata (Gunnell), 1931 : Hibbardella Bassler, 1925 (*Prioniodus angulatus Hinde, 1879, U. Dev., N. Am.) H., sp., cf. H. subacoda (Gunnell) 1931 ... Lonchodina Bassler, 1925 (*L. typicalis Ulr. & B., . Am 1926, U. Dev., m.) L. clarki (Gunnell, 1931, L. Penn.-L. Perm., N. Am x L. sp. [A], Rhodes, 1952 ... ZL. subsymmetrica Branson & Mehl, 1941 Prioniodus Pander, 1856 (* P. elegans Pander, 1856, L. Ord., Eu.), L. Ord.-U. Penn., Eu.-N. Am. P. conjunctus Gunnell, 1931, M. Penn ... P. sp. [B], Scott, 1942 P. sp. [C], Scott, 1942 P. undosus Ulrich & Bassler, 1926 ( 7 5 1952), U. Dev.-Miss., Eu.-N. Am. P. radiatus Bryant, 1921 Names Applied to Conodont Assemblages @ |orj} > la |o lo |e Jo RB jag/? la _ |& |8 (8 |& SF ga Mae ae Cn ee ae E ory ely . a g Aaa * a aQ pO ” BslS4\2 |es|S8lF |e jes eS ero] pen ey foo Brae Oe = te s<_¢it ein oF -lg = a7 os Oo 8 )19 DM 2G o g x a(S P|o Aa eo) a Z| Sous oZ|malast anj/o 2/9 ° ab no) ~— an - 9 |.%-4 ea iva) i) o = alm eS |2 A — =O 3 elssls*|s=|s2/8 = c/s (22/88 a a aie LA gal SIS 81s eo; Sols . a Sse .;S &/ Ss SEIS als 8 ss iS) FisS/88/So1s o}8 &S] SISSl/S S| SSIS SIS ESS S313 Sls 8 8 8iS$ sss] 2lek 3 3|s2 Sa, 33 2h 3A gs sis - «|e. = : SSS alesis als slscisslss 2s 4) 38 Sm Oo" iS & = 3Q S&S @ISsis SQlss 8s © 3 ./3 2/8 8/3 2/8 g0/e0 18 S EISEISS(S ES Cle s(Ssls AGSSRR ISS HAS |Re la ee S| Rn | ec | eae nae [gael In gaan | Ade Bape | SE EN | amie |e) erat geen | x ie ae tea As Ce he S| eal | aes | ey) peel Asan | oe ee fue old BR bee Cae ek oe saan shies aa A = f=] {X] Me hese eset So eh hee: Te spe ste wee i een Se eg lila OT gee BEG Pie 5 Se ae, a ae SST | aS |g Ngee le Di «al Pree gee: Sie) eine oad $8 30 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Idiognathodus Gunnell, 1931 (*J. claviformis Gunnell, 1931, Penn., N. Am. *I, claviformis Gunnell, 1931 __... aa ki a ee: ee ee ee ee J. sp. [D], Rhodes, 1952 tss ee fob = = = s = 4) 7 eer ee Streptognathodus Stauffer & Plummer, 1932 (*S. excellsus S. & P., 1932, M. Penn.-U. Penn., N. Am.) *§. excellsus 8. & P., 1932 — Sa és So Ke] Sap [hee Se — Ozarkodina Branson & Mehl, 1933a (*O. typica B. & M., 1933, M. Sil., N. Am.) O. delicatula (S. & P.), 1932, Dev.-Perm., N. Am. =| tae = = = ae & O. sp. [E], Rhodes, 1952 ... “a = = - = = = aay ff Ree Synprioniodina Bassler, 1925 (*S. alternaia U. & B., 1926, U. Dev.-L. Perm., N. Am.) S. microdenta Ellison, 1941, Penn., N. Am. ... ah eee = = = me 2 S. sp. [F], Rhodes, 1952 ... oF es aro ~ - - = = = eae: Hindeodella Bassler, 1925 (*H. et Us &.B., 1926, U. Dev.-L. Miss., N. Am.) H. delicutala Stauffer & Ss si M. Penn.-U. Penn., N. Am. om ae Se eee H. sp. [G] Scott, 1942... Bi ies a - - Bee | eae ay dhe & x oe H. ap. [Hi] Scott, 1942... x. - Sieve) au 1) 20) Sa eee H. sp. [1] Eichenberg, 1930 30 Bed Soe = j=) =.) ay Sonera H. sp. [J] Schmidt, 1934 Pe ee be be es ees ee ees H. acicularis Branson & Mehl, 1933b_ ... = -}/-]/-]-]-]-] - |B Gondolella Stauffer & Plummer, 1932 (*G. elegantula S. & P., 1932, Penn., N. Am.) G. cufoata S. &P., 1932, M. Penn., N. Am. ... - et a os x a e Lonchodus Pander, 1856 (*Centrodus simplex Pander, 1856, Dev.-L. Carb., Eu.-N. Am.) *L. simplex (Pander) fide Roundy, 1926 a8 -?}f-]-f-)-]- | = 9) Bg Rach) Rhee, ar ee [ee te Tierep fill Rishanbey 1090°~ eo ee = L. sp. [M] Schmidt, 1934 Ses RD emer! tyaee Mam Frey CFE Meee ee Ty. bneaies Padider, fide Roundy, 1926...) 2, -|'--03) 209i ees] L ak fee Spathognathodus Branson & Mehl, 1941 (*Spathodus primus B. & M., 1933a, Sil., N. see S. sp. [N] Scott, 1942. = ree a le (lacked (a-Si | ae er oe S. sp. [0] Branson & Mehl, 1933 3 fees i Cae Ci Wala Meee! (ete |i [=| Prioniodella Bassler, 1925 (*P. normalis U. & B., 1926, U. Dev., N. Am.) P. sp. [P] Scott, 1942... ae at me — | =f = [Xena Seb ‘ M if j Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 31 Subbryantodus Branson & Mehl, 1934 (*S8. arcuatus ) B. & M., 1934, L. Miss., N. Am S. sp. [Q] Scott, 1942... Cavusgnathus Harris & Hollingsworth, 1933 (*C. altus H. & H., U. Miss., N. Am.) C. sp. [BR] Scott, 1942 a Gnathodus Pander, 1856 (*G. mosquensis Pander, 1856, Carb., Eu. G. sp. [S] Branson & Mehl, 1941 G. sp. [T] Schmidt, 1934 Bryantodus Bassler, 1925 (*B. typicus U. & B., 1926, U. Dev., N. Am.) B. sp. [U] Eichenberg, 1930 B. sp. [V] Schmidt, 1934 B. immersus Branson & Mehl, 1933c Ancyrodella Ulrich & Bassler, 1926 (*A. nodosa U. & B., 1926, U. Dev., N. Am.) A. sp. [W] Eichenberg, 1930 Polygnathus Hinde, 1879 (*P. dubia Hinde, 1879, U. Dev., N. Am.-Eu.) *P. dubia Hinde, 1879 P. sp. [X] Eichenberg, 1930 Scaliognathus Branson & Mehl, 1941 (*S. anchoralis Branson & Mehl, 1942, iM Miss., N. at 8. sp. [Y] Branson & Mehl, 1941 a 7 Not considered by Rhodes to be generically distinct as a discrete part from Ligonodina Ulrich & Bassler, 1926 (*LZ. pectinata), Dev., N. Am. t [X] An X in brackets denotes identifications made by an author subsequent to the one who named the assemblage. 0 ite cpedt }. 0p) ap wz degh [ean 4 Nea nee eed hal MEER Ssh peels (a RR Ds Fa a a grey aE St PRET ES ae op ei he ee ee ee ed 5s ett Fhe! io) eset Ay ad ee | -}-{[-]/-]-]-|]|-|]x Merde AS NT oh arh pdt S pemoiese) $8E0 fox lv References Bassler, R. S. (1915), “‘ Bibliographic index of American Ordovician and Silurian fossils’ Bull. U.S. nat. Mus. 92, vols. 1 and 2 : 1-1321 Bull. Geol. Soc. Amer. 36 (No. 1) - (1925), “ Classification and stratigraphic use of conodonts ” (abstract) : 218-220 Branson, C. C., & Mehl, M. G. (1933a) ‘‘ Conodonts from the Bainbridge (Silurian) of Missouri”? Univ. Mo. Stud., 8 (No. 1) : 39-52, pl. 3 32 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (1933b), ‘‘ Conodonts from the Jefferson City (Lower Ordovician) of Missouri”? Univ. Mo. Stud. 8 (No. 1) : 53-64, pl. 4, 1 fig. (1933c), ‘A study of Hinde’s types of conodonts preserved in the British Museum” Univ. Mo. Stud. 8 (No. 2) : 133-156, pls. 11-12 (1934), ‘‘ Conodont studies no. 4, Conodonts from the Bushberg sand- stone and equivalent formations of Missouri’ Univ. Mo. Stud. 8 (No.4) : 265-300, pls. 22-24 (1941), ‘New and little known Carboniferous conodont genera e J. Paleont. 15 (No. 2) : 97-106, pl. 19 Broom, R. (1906), “‘ On the South African Diaptosaurian Reptile Howesia ” Proc. Zool. Soc. Lond 1906 : 591-600, pls. 40, 41 Bryant, W. L. (1921), ‘ The Genesee conodonts ” Bull. Buffalo Soc. nat. Sci. 13 (No. 2) : 1-59, figs. 1-7, pls. 1-16 Camp, C. L., Taylor, D. N., & Wells, S. P. (1942), “* Bibliography of fossil vertebrates ” Geol. Soc. Amer. Spec. Paper 42 : 1-663 Eichenberg, W. (1930), ‘‘ Conodonten aus dem Culm des Harzes ” Paldont. - Z. 12 : 177-182, 1 pl. Ellison, Samuel (1941) ‘‘ Revision of the Pennsylvanian conodonts ” J. Paleont., 15 (No. 2) : 107-1438, pls. 20-23, fig. 1-4 Fay, R. O. (1952), “ Catalogue of Conodonts ” Palaeont. Contr. Univ. Kans., Vertebrata, Art. 3 : 1-206, figs. 1-109 Gunnell, F. H. (1931), ‘‘ Conodonts from the Fort Scott limestone of Missouri” J. Palaeont. 5 (No. 3) : 244-253, pl. 29 (1933), ‘‘ Conodonts and fish remains from the Cherokee, Kansas City, and Wabaunsee groups of Missouri and Kansas ” J. Paleont. 7 (No. 3) : 261-297, pls. 31-33 Harris, R. W., & Hollingsworth, R. V. (1933), ‘‘ New Pennsylvanian conodonts from Oklahoma” Amer. J. Sci. (5) 25 (No. 147) : 193-204, pl. 1 Hinde, G. J. (1897), ‘“‘ On conodonts from the Chazy and Cincinnati group of the Cambro-Silurian, and from the Hamilton and Genesee-shale divisions of the Devonian, in Canada and the United States ” Quart. J. geol. Soc. Lond., 35 (xiii) (3) (No. 139) art. 29 : 351-369, pls. 15-17 Huene, Friedrich (1929) “‘ Ueber Rhynchosaurier und andere Reptilien aus den Gondwana-Ablagerungen Siidamerikas” Geol. paldont. Abh. (N.F.) 17 : 1-62, 14 figs., 8 pls. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 33 Mehl, M. G., & Thomas, L. A. (1947), ‘‘ Conodonts from the Fern Glen of Missouri” J. Sci. Labs., Denison Univ. 47 (No. 5) (40) art. 2 : 3-19, pl. 1 Miller, S. A. (1889), North American geology and palaeontology for the use of amateurs, students, and scientists: Western Methodist Book Concern Cine., Ohio : 1-718, figs. 1-1265 Pander, C. H. (1856), ‘“‘ Monographie der fossilen Fische des silurischen Systems der russisch-baltischen Gouvernements ” K. Akad. Wiss. St. Petersburg 1856 : 1-91, pls. 1-9 Rhodes, F. H. T. (1952), “A classification of Pennsylvanian Conodont assemblages ” J. Paleont. 26 : 886-901, pls. 126-129, 4 figs. (1953), “‘ Nomenclature of conodont assemblages ” J. Paleont. 27 : 610- 612 Roundy, P. V. (1926), ‘Introduction, the micro-fauna, in Mississippian formations of San Saba County, Texas, by P. V. Roundy, G. H. Girty, and M. I. Goldman” Prof. Pap. U.S. geol. Surv. 146 : 1-63, pls. 1-33, fig. 1 Schmidt, Hermann (1934), “‘ Conodonten-Funde in urspriinglichem Zusammen- hang ” Paldont. Z. 16 (Nos. 1-2) : 76-85, pl. 6 Scott, H. W. (1934), “The zoological relationships of the conodonts” J. Paleont. 8 (No. 4) : 448-455, pls. 58-59 (1942), “‘ Conodont assemblages from the Heath formation, Montana ”’ J. Paleont. 16 (No. 3) : 293-301, pls. 37-40 Stauffer, C. R., & Plummer, H. J. (1932) “‘ Texas Pensylvanian conodonts and their stratigraphic relations” Bull. Univ. Tex. 3201, Contr. to Geol., pt. 1 : 13-59, pls. 1-4, tabs. 1-2 Ulrich, E. O., & Bassler, R. S. (1926), “ A classification of the toothlike fossils, conodonts, with descriptions of American Devonian and Mississippian species” Proc. U.S. nat. Mus. 68 (art. 12) (No. 2613) : 1-63, pls. 1-11, figs. 1-5 Youngquist, W. L., & Heezen, B. C. (1948), ‘‘ Some Pennsylvanian conodonts from Iowa” J. Paleont. 22 (No. 6) : 767-773, pl. 118 Cc 34 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature ANNEXE TO DOCUMENT 1/2 Dates of some genera of Conodonts The type species of Lonchodina, L. typicalis, is sometimes credited to Bassler, 1925, sometimes to Ulrich & Bassler, 1926. In fact Bassler, 1925: (1) lists genus Lonchodina ; (2) gives diagnosis of genus ; (3) lists : ““ Genotype, _ L. typicalis, new species”. In our view this leaves L. typicalis a nomen nudum, but some maintain generic diagnosis validates single species quoted. Ulrich & Bassler in 1926 refer additional spp. to Lonchodina, and generic diagnosis applies equally to all these species, as well as to the type species, here first described. The same observations apply to Synprioniodina Bassler, 1925, and its type species 8. aliernata Ulrich & Bassler, 1926 ; to Hindeodella Bassler, 1925, and its type species, H. subtilis Ulrich & Bassler, 1926 ; Prioniodella Bassler, 1925, and its type species, P. normalis Ulrich & Bassler, 1926 ; and Bryantodus Bassler, 1925, and its type species, B. typicus Ulrich & Bassler, 1926. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 35 DOCUMENT 1/3 Note on procedure : The paper reproduced below as Document 1 B3 was originally submitted to the Office of the Commission at a time when (as explained in the Note on Procedure prefixed to Document 1 [1 normal procedure as soon as possible after the close of that Meeting. fintl’d F.F. 11th July 1957.] Second supplemental application : Application for a ruling by the International Commission directing that the classification and nomenclature of ammonoid aptychi (Class Cephalopoda) be in terms of « parataxa ”’ By RAYMOND C. MOORE (University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas, U.S.A.) and P. C. SYLVESTER-BRADLEY (University of Sheffield, England) (Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 1056) The purpose of this application is to remove conflicts in nomenclature of mollusks belonging to the Subclass Ammonoidea of the Class Cephalopoda parts of these animals, known exclusively as fossils. These sets of names 36 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature respectively comprise (1) generic and specific names based on the shell (or conch) which enclosed the soft parts of the living animal, and (2) generic and specific names based on the discrete internal (hyponomic) or opercular structures called aptychi, which after the death of the animal generally are not retained in the living chamber of the conch and therefore almost invariably are found separated from the conch. The first-mentioned group far outweighs the other in importance, because only the conch reveals morphological characters that can be used reliably for taxonomic classification ; also, it is probable that many ammonoids possessed no aptychi suitable for preservation as fossils. On the other hand, some known aptychi possibly belong to extinct cephalopods other than ammonoids, as for example belemnoids and soft-bodied dibranchiates. Whatever their origin, many aptychi are common enough and distinctive enough to have value in stratigraphic paleontology. Though they lack useful- ness for distinguishing whole-animal taxa, there is need to describe them, illustrate them, and name them ; in fact, the nomenclature of aptychi already has developed to the extent of approximately 30 generic names and nearly 500 specific names. These aptychus names must be governed in manner to assure avoidance of conflict between them and names based on ammonoid conchs. The present application partly constitutes a counter proposal’ to one submitted previously by W. J. Arkell (1954, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 9 : 266-269). We agree with him unreservedly in the wish to remove disturbance of nomen- clature that arises from treating names for aptychi as correlative with names for ammonoid conchs but we are of the opinion that the suppression under Plenary Powers of all aptychus names would be undesirable in the extreme. The manner in which names published for aptychi introduces confusion in the nomenclature of ammonoids has been stated clearly by Arkell (op. cit.) and we urge that the problem presented should receive immediate attention of the Commission, for conflicts are even more numerous than might be inferred from the group of names cited by Arkell. The present application, which is supple- mentary to a preceding application of general scope on the subject of parataxa, seeks a Ruling of the Commission that the classification and nomenclature of fossils defined by the original author as aptychi should be in terms of parataxa. Reference to this application is being made in a volume of the Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology containing systematic descriptions of Ammonoidea but in this volume the nomenclatural status of names published for aptychi necessarily must be left unsettled. 1 As will have been noted, the applicants in the present case state that their proposals represent, in part, a counter-proposal to an application previously submitted by Dr. W. J. Arkell. Accordingly, it has been decided to include Dr. Arkell’s application among the documents submitted in connection with the plan for the recognition of the concept “ parataxon ”’ (i.e. to include that paper among the documents relating to Case No. 1 on the London Agenda Paper). Dr. Arkell’s original application—on which no decision has as yet been taken by the International- Commission—is accordingly being reprinted as Document 1/4 in the present volume (pp 71—75). It will be understood that Dr. Arkell’s proposals were directed solely to the removal, as he considered, of the threat to stability in the “ normal ” nomenclature of ammonites (i.e. in whole- animal nomenclature) represented by names based solely upon aptychi. It was in no way concerned therefore with the question dealt with in the present application by Professor Moore and Mr. Sylvester-Bradley for the recognition of “ parataxa ”’, the proposals in regard to which had not at that time been submitted to the Commission. [intl’d F.H. 12th July 1957.] rE Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 37 2. Specialists in the study of ammonoid cephalopods are unanimous in concluding that the only reliable basis for discrimination of genera and species in this group of mollusks consists of morphological characters exhibited by the shell or conch. Accordingly, without exception, zoological names given to the ammonoid conchs have prevailed wherever a named coneh has been found associated with a named aptychus in such a way as to allow no reasonable doubt that both belonged to the same animal. No one has yet been willing to accept the senior name of an aptychus as substitute for the name of a conch, despite stipulation of the Régles (Article 27) that the first-published name for a part of an animal shall be recognized for designation of the whole animal. A pertinent point which needs emphasis in this connection is the fact that prevailingly the characters displayed by aptychi are not diagnostic of genera and species based on conchs, and in consequence, some individual species of aptychi have been identified as belonging to two or more genera and species of ammonoids as defined by conchs. Therefore, in considering this problem it seems appropriate to accept as basic premises (1) the primary importance of nomenclature based on ammonoid conchs, and (2) the distinctly secondary importance of nomenclature based on aptychi. The present application is like that of Arkell in having the main purpose of establishing firmly names for ammonoids based on conchs by removing threats to their stability which come from aptychus names, but it differs in seeking to safeguard the usefulness of these latter. For the purpose of clear distinction generic and specific names ~ based on ammonoid conchs, wherever cited in this application, are printed in boldface type, whereas all such names applied to aptychi are printed in italics, generic names recommended for acceptance being printed in capital letters. Designations employed simply as morphological terms (aptychus, anaptychus, synaptychus) are printed in roman letters without initial capitals. The type species of genera are marked uniformly by an accompanying asterisk (*). . 3. Before attention is directed to the problems of nomenclature of aptychi the bearing of somewhat opposed stipulations of the revised Régles, both directed toward the stability and continuity of nomenclature, needs to be considered. One of these stipulations is observance of the Law of Priority, which in simplest terms means that the oldest valid name for a taxon shall prevail. On the other hand, the Principle of Conservation provides that the name of a generic or lower-rank taxon in general current use and available for 50 years or more shall not be replaced on nomenclatural grounds by a senior Synonym unless the latter has been widely used during part of the 50-year period preceding proposed substitution. Provision has also been made for the suppression of nomina dubia and long-overlooked names by a challenge pro- cedure that avoids use of the Plenary Powers (Copenhagen Decisions zool. Nomencl. : 24,25). Several aptychus names are found to possess great antiquity of original publication, yet they have been long-overlooked and lack much, if any, subsequent use. Such names may appropriately be suppressed in favour of later-published, widely-used names and therefore recommendations to this effect are submitted in later paragraphs of the present application. We have 38 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature not, however, recommended adoption of the “ challenge procedure ”’ advocated at Copenhagen, for, as the Plenary Powers of the Commission need, in any case, to be invoked in other instances, it seems preferable to deal with the whole question of aptychi at one and the same time, rather than to adopt a procedure which would enforce a waiting period of two years before finalization of some but not all names concerned. 4, The following preliminary points are submitted :— (1) It is the general purpose of this application to seek a Ruling that only those names which were defined by the original author as aptychi should be accepted as parataxa, special cases being dealt with through use of Plenary Powers. All names herein proposed for recognition fall into this category. It is a happy incident following this pro- cedure that with a single exception (SIDETES) generic names of aptychi recommended for acceptance uniformly are compounds of various prefixes with the termination ‘‘-aptychus”’. The first use of “ aptychus ” as a vernacular word which we have discovered is by Giebel in 1847 who referred to a special sort of undivided aptychus which he named SIDETES. He wrote: “.. . is ein besonders Aptychus von Salzburg sehr bemerkenswerth, denn seine Schalen beriihrten sich in der Mitte, Ich nenne ihn, da er generell eigentiimlich ist, Sidetes’’. (2) We recommend that the following two specific names, which are designated as the type species of genera of aptychi, should be recognized by Plenary Powers as the names of parataxa, although introduced by their respective authors without statement that they represent aptychi :— lamellosus Parkinson, 1811, as used in the combination T'rigonellites lamellosus (specific name of the type species of LAMELLA- PT YCHUS Trauth, 1927) ; ceratoides Ooster, 1857, as used in the combination T'rigonellites ceratoides (specific name of the type species of LAHVILA- MELLAPTYCHUS Trauth, 1930). (3) The generic name T'rigonellites Parkinson, 1811, although not recognized _ by Parkinson as the name of an aptychus, is an objective senior synonym of the genus LAMELLAPTYCHUS Trauth, 1927. Both names are in current use, and it becomes necessary to decide between two alternative courses, both of which require use of the Plenary Powers. Either the name T'rigonellites must be validated as the name of a parataxon (when it would, of course, take precedence Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 39 over Lamellaptychus), or it must be suppressed for the purposes of the Law of Priority to prevent conflict with conch names as listed below in para. 11 (1). Either course would stabilize nomenclature, but we believe that the latter would result in less preliminary name changing than the former, and have therefore recommended that the Plenary Powers should be used to suppress the name T'rigonellites Parkinson, 1811. 5. Following is a chronologically arranged list of the generic names which have been applied to aptychi, those recommended for recognition as parataxa being printed in capital italic letters and those not thus recommended (including junior homonyms, junior objective synonyms, nomina dubia, and long-disused names which are recommended for suppression) being printed in small italic letters with initial capital. Synonyms are marked as objective by the abbrevia- tion “obj.” or as subjective by “subj.”. Earliest authors variously mis- interpreted the zoological affinities of aptychi, which came to be classed as lamellibranchs, fragments of fishes, or parts of crustaceans. Gradually, evidence has accumulated which serves to prove that the fossils called aptychi belong to cephalopods, many of them surely to ammonoids, but their taxonomic placement necessarily is subjective. Names based on species whose type- specimens were not recognized as aptychi by the original authors, but only subsequently so recognized, are preceded by a question mark. The mor- phological terms ‘“ aptychus ”’, “ anaptychus ’’, and “ synaptychus ”’ (printed in small roman letters) are included in the list because each of these words has been published also as a generic name ; explanations accompany the entries. The designation of type species of aptychus genera offers no problem if published names are based on aptychi, with type specimens consisting either of discrete aptychi or the aptychi of conch-and-aptychus associations, but difficulty is encountered where no separate and distinct specific name has been used for an aptychus. This matter is discussed in later paragraphs which deal with the conflict of aptychus and conch names. 4 8Solenites Gesner, 1758 (Tract. phys. Petrificatis: 39) [nec Mabille, 1887]. A nomen dubium possibly but not certainly applied to an aptychus, and in any case unavailable, as Gesner’s T’ractatus has been suppressed for ~nomenclatorial purposes by the International Commission under its Plenary Powers (Opinion 230). ? Tellinites Gesner, 1758(op. cit.: 38). Like Solenites Gesner, a nomen dubium, possibly but not certainly applied to an aptychus, but in any case not available, as Gesner’s work has been suppressed (Opinion 230). ¢ Trigonellites Parkinson, 1811 (Organic remains former world 3 : 184). Type species (by subsequent selection, Moore and Sylvester-Bradley, 1956, Treatise Invert. Paleont., L), *T'. lamellosus Parkinson, 1811 (: 186, pl. 13, 40 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature figs. 10-11); =Tellina cuneiformis Baier, 1757 (Monum. petrif. oryct. noricae: 19, pl. 14, fig. 6-7), non Tellina Linne, 1758 (7'. radiata, type species, a lamellibranch). [=Solennites Schlotheim, 1813 (subj.) ; Aptychus von Meyer, 1831 (subj.) ; Muensteria Eudes-Deslongchamps, 1835 (subj.) ; Aptycus Deshayes, 1845 (subj.) ; Aptichus Crosse, 1867 (subj.) ; LAMELLA- PTYCHUS Trauth, 1927 (obj.); ? PALAPTYCHUS Trauth, 1927 (subj.)]. Recommended for suppression by the Plenary Powers. The junior objective synonym LAMELLAPT YCHUS is available as a replace- ment name for the taxon, and has been commonly so used in recent years. ? Solennites Schlotheim, 1813 (Leonhard Taschenb. 7(1) : 105). Type species (by monotypy), *S. annulatus Schlotheim, 1813. A nomen dubium, possibly but not certainly applied to an aptychus. Recommended for suppression as a nomen dubium and as a long-overlooked name (lack of use subsequent to 1813). ? Tellinites Schlotheim, 1813 (op. cit.). Type species, none designated. A nomen dubium, possibly but not certainly applied to an aptychus, but certainly so used by Schlotheim, 1820 (Petrefactenk: 182, Tellinites problematicus Schloth., n. sp., fig’d by Baier, 1757, Monum. petrif. oryct. noricae: pl. 14, figs. 3, 8; =Trigonellites latus Parkinson, 1811; and Tellinites solenoides Schloth., n. sp., fig’d by Baier, 1757, pl. 14, figs. 6-7, =Trigonellites lamellosus Parkinson, 1811) and by Riippel, 1829 (Abbild. Verstein. Solenhofen : 1-8), who redescribed and figured Schlotheim’s species 7’. problematicus and 7’. solenoides. Recommended for suppression both as a nomen dubium and as a long-overlooked name (lack of use subsequent to 1829). ? Ichthyosiagones Bourdet de la Niévre, 1822 (Notice .. . fossiles inconnus : 81). Type species (by monotypy, Riippell, 1829, Abbild. Verstein. Solenhofen : 12, pl. 2, figs. 1-3), *Tellinites problematicus Schlotheim, 1820 (=*T'rigo- nellites latus Parkinson, 1811, subj.). Senior subjective synonym of LAEVAPTYCHUS Trauth, 1927. Recommended for suppression as a long-overlooked name (lack of use subsequent to 1829). Aptychus von Meyer, 1831 (Nova Acta Leopold.-Carol. Akad. Naturf. 15 (Abt. 2) : 125). Type species (by subsequent selection, Moore & Sylvester-Bradley, 1956, op. cit.), *A. imbricatus von Meyer, 1831 (: 127, pl. 59, figs. 1-12) (=*T rigonellites lamellosus Parkinson, 1811, fide von Meyer, 127; fide Giebel, 1851, Fauna Vorwelt 3 : 768 ; fide Trauth, 1938, Palaeontograph. 88A : 149; confirmed Moore & Sylvester-Bradley, 1956) [=T'rigonellites Parkinson, 1811 (subj.) ; Mwensteria Kudes-Deslongchamps, 1835 (subj.) ; Aptycus Deshayes, 1845 (obj.) ; Aptichus Crosse, 1867 (obj.) ; LAMELLA- PTYCHUS Trauth, 1927 (subj.); Palaptychus Trauth, 1927 (subj.)]. The date of von Meyer’s publication has been cited erroneously by many authors as 1829 (when the paper was read but not when it was published) ; it is correctly cited by Neave (Nomencl. zool. 1 : 268) as 1831. Un- questionably, the designation Aptychus was originally published as a Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 41 generic name and it has been used in this way by many authors in the period 1837-90, by a few in the period 1890-1927 (to the time of beginning of Trauth’s extensive studies), and virtually not at all since 1927. Mean- while, aptychus (pl. aptychi), used as a common noun, has gained universal currency as a morphological term, which is employed to designate the presumed opercular structure of many ammonoids and possibly of some other cephalopods. Aptychus is recommended for suppression as a generic name on the grounds that (1) it has disappeared from common use as such in paleontological literature ; (2) it has come to be replaced by other generic names (both sensu lato and sensu stricto) ; (3) it induces confusion with aptychus and aptychi as morphological terms ; and (4) it presents an analogy between the proposed suppression of the name Aptychus and the suppression of the name Ammonites under the Plenary Powers (Opinion 305) but in this case Aptychus cannot be claimed a nomen dubium. The case for the suppression of the name Aptychus rests, therefore, mainly on the fact that its reintroduction into the literature as a generic name would cause it to preoccupy, as a senior subjective synonym, the currently used name LAMELLAPTYCHUS, whereas its suppression would cause no name changes. ? Muensteria Kudes-Deslongchamps, 1835 (as Miinsteria) (Mém. Soc. linn. Normandie 5:61) [non Knebel, 1909 (Arch. Biont. 2: 222)]. Type species by subsequent selection, Moore & Sylvester-Bradley, 1956, op. cit.), *M. sulcata Kudes-Deslongchamps, 1835 (: 66, pl. 2, figs. 10-11) (=* T'rigon- ellites lamellosus Parkinson, 1811). [=Trigonellites Parkinson, 1811 (subj.) ; Aptychus von Meyer, 1831 (subj.); LAMELLAPTYCHUS Trauth, 1927 (subj.)]. Recommended for suppression as a long-overlooked name (lack of use since 1835). Aptycus Deshayes, 1845 (in Lamarck, Hist. Anim. s. Vert. ed. 2, 11 : 228) [pro Aptychus von Meyer, 1831 (obj.)]. Recommended for suppression as an invalid subsequent spelling of Aptychus. SIDETES Giebel, 1847 (N. Jahrb. Mineral. 1847 : 821). Type species (by monotypy, Giebel, 1849, Zedtschr. Deutsch. Geol. Gesell. 1 : 99, text-fig. p. 100), *S. striatus Giebel, 1849. [—Anaptychus Schlumberger, 1868 (subj.) (non Stimpson, 1860) ; Pholidocaris H. Woodward, 1882 (subj.) ; Cardiocaris H. Woodward, 1882 (subj.) ; ? Hllipsocaris H. Woodward, 1882 (subj.); ? Lisgocaris Clarke, 1882 (subj.); Palanaptychus Trauth, 1927 (subj.); ? NEOANAPTYCHUS Nagao, 1931 (subj.)]. The type species and its type specimen are based on an isolated aptychus found in. Upper Cretaceous strata and association of this type species with ammonoid conchs is unknown. On the other hand, several other species of SIDETES are represented by specimens forming parts of conch-and-aptychus associations. As the name SIDETES was stated by Giebel to be based on a special kind of aptychus, it can be classed as a parataxon by operation of the general Ruling recommended for adoption in this application. It is currently used as a generic name for aptychi. 42 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature ? Ichthyosiagon Herrmannsen, 1847 (Index Gen. Malac. 1 : 555) [pro Ichthyo- siagones Bourdet de la Nievre, 1822 (obj.)]._ Recommended for suppression as an invalid subsequent spelling of Ichthyosiagones. aptychus (pl. aptychi) Giebel, 1847 (N. Jahrb. Mineral. 1847 : 821), Oppel, 1856 (Jahresh. Ver. vaterl. Naturk. Wirttemberg 12 : 107, 194), common noun used solely as a morphological term and subsequently almost uni- versally employed in this way by authors. No consideration or action by ICZN in connection with a morphological term is necessary or appropriate. anaptychus (pl. anaptychi) Oppel, 1856 (op. cit. : 194) as indicated by context, a common noun introduced and used solely as a morphological term for an undivided type of aptychus and subsequently so used almost universally by authors. As stated in discussion of Anaptychus Schlumberger, 1868, the citation of Oppel as author of Anaptychus as a generic name is, in our view, erroneous. The Commission is not concerned with anaptychus as a morphological term. However, the name Anaptychus is listed by Neave (Nomenclator Zoologicus) as a genus dating from Oppel, and has often thus been regarded. We recommend that the Commission should remove all ambiguity by directing that the name “ anaptychus ”’ as used by Oppel, 1856, is not to be regarded as the name of a genus, but only as a morphological term. [Oppel (1856: 194) first refers to this aptychus in general terms, thus “Ammonites planorbis zeichnet sich durch den Besitz eines ungespaltenen Aptychus* aus,” ; in a footnote he introduces the new name: *(Footnote) Veilleicht besser ““Anaptychus ” (avaarvyos entfaltet), da dieser innere Theil des Ammonites planorbis von Aptychus anderer Ammoniten ginzlich verschieden ist.’’]. Aptichus Crosse, 1867 (J. Conchyliol. 15 : 456) [pro Aptychus von Meyer, 1831 (obj.)]. Recommended for suppression as an invalid subsequent spelling of Aptychus. Anaptychus Schlumberger, 1868 (Bull. Soc. linn. Normandie (2) 1 : 97) [non Stimpson, 1860, Ann. Lyceum nat. Hist. N.Y.7 : 183 (Crust.)]. Based on three conch-and-aptychus associations, two identified without query with the following conch species: Ammonites laqueus and Amaltheus margaritatus. If we are right in our opinion that Oppel, 1856, introduced anaptychus as a morphological term only, the nomenclatural status of Anaptychus as a generic name has nothing to do with Oppel. In 1860 Stimpson published this name for a group of crustaceans, making Schlum- berger’s use of the same name for designation of ammonoid aptychi a junior homonym and therefore invalid. Accordingly, Anaptychus Schlumberger, 1868, is recommended for suppression as a junior homonym. In 1928 Strand (Arch. Naturgesch. 92 (A8) : 40), thinking that Anaptychus Stimpson, 1860, had been pre-occupied by Oppel, 1856, introduced the new name Anaptychoides to replace Stimpson’s Anaptychus, which was actually valid. Anaptychoides Strand, 1928, is therefore a junior objective synonym Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 43 of the crustacean Anaptychus Stimpson, 1860, but whether either name has actually been used is a question which should be referred to specialists on the Crustacea. ; ? Pholadocaris H. Woodward, 1882 (Geol. Mag. (2) 9 : 338). Type species (by monotypy), *P. leeit Woodw., 1882 (: 388, pl. 9, fig. 16). [=SIDETES Giebel, 1847 (subj. ; fide Trauth, 1935, Jahrb. Preuss. Geol. Landesanst. 55 : 69; fide Moore & Sylvester-Bradley, 1956)]. Because the type species has been only subjectively identified with an aptychus subsequently to original publication, it is not recommended that the name should be added to the Official Lists as that of a parataxon. ? Cardiocaris H. Woodward, 1882 (Geol. Mag. (2) 9 : 386). Type species (by subsequent selection, Moore & Sylvester-Bradley, 1956), *C. roemeri Woodw., 1882 (: 386, pl. 9, figs. 1-3). [=SIDETES Giebel, 1847 (subj. ; fide Trauth, 1935, op. cit.: 65; fide Moore & Sylvester-Bradley, 1956)]. This name, like that of Pholadocaris is based on a type-species only subse- quently identified with an aptychus. It is not recommended that it should be added: to the Official Lists as a parataxon. Ellipsocaris H. Woodward, 1882 (Geol. Mag. (2) 9 : 444). Type species (by monotypy), *H#. duwalquet Woodw., 1882 (: 445, fig. 4). (?=SIDETES Giebel, 1847 (subj. ; fide Trauth, 1935, op. cit. : 58 ; fide Moore & Sylvester- Bradley, 1956)]. It is not recommended that this name, with type species only subsequently identified with an aptychus, should be added to the Official Lists as that of a parataxon. ¢ Insgocaris Clarke, 1882 (Am. J. Sci. (3) 28 : 478). Type species (by mono- typy), *L. lutheri Clarke, 1882 (: 478, fig. 5). [?=SIDETES Giebel, 1847 (subj. ; fide Trauth, 1935, op. cit.: 67; fide Moore & Sylvester-Bradley, 1956)]. It is not recommended that this name, with type species only subsequently identified with an aptychus, should be added to the Official Lists as that of a parataxon. synaptychus (pl. synaptychi) Fischer, 1882 (Manuel Conchyliol. Paléont. : 377), common noun apparently intended as a morphological term rather than a genus (for example, Fischer writes under the description of Scaphites spiniger “Aptychus 4 surface granuleuse ou striée ressemblant 4 celui des Perisphinctes. Les deux pieces se soudent sur la ligne mediane chez les 8. spiniger et Rémeri (Schliiter). Cette forme d’Aptychus peut étre appelée Synaptychus’”’. Nowhere does he use Synaptychus in combination with a specific name so as to form a binomen). As stated in discussion of Synaptychus Basse, 1952, the citation of Fischer as author of Synaptychus _ as a generic name is therefore, in our view, erroneous. The Commission is not concerned with synaptychus as a morphological term. However, as in the case of anaptychus, this name has been listed by Neave (Nomen- ad Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature clator Zoologicus) as a genus dating from Fischer, 1882, and we recommend that the Commission should, in order to remove all ambiguity, direct that the name “ synaptychus ” as used by Fischer, 1882, is not to be regarded as the name of a genus, but only as a morphological term. CORNAPTYCHUS Trauth, 1927 (Ann. naturhist. Mus. Wien 41 : 189, 228). Type species (by monotypy), *Aptychus hectict Quenstedt, 1849 (Petre- factenk. Deutschl. 1 : 119, 315, pl. 8, fig. 10). Recommended for entering on appropriate Official List as a parataxon available for designation of aptychi but not ammonoid conchs or conch-and-aptychus associations. CRASSAPTYCHUS Trauth, 1927 (op. cit.: 205, 228). Type species (by monotypy), *Aptychus crassus Hébert, 1885 (Mem. Soc. Geol. France 5 : 368, pl. 28, figs. 8a, b). Recommended for entering on appropriate Official List as a parataxon available for designation of aptychi but not ammonoid conchs or conch-and-aptychus associations. GRANULAPTYCHUS Trauth, 1927 (op. cit. : 217, 228). Type species (by subsequent selection, Moore & Sylvester-Bradley, 1956), *G. swevicus Trauth, 1930 (Ann. naturhist. Mus. Wien 44 : 389, pl. 5, figs. 3-5 ; lectotype defined by Moore & Sylvester-Bradley, 1956, as original specimen represented by Trauth’s fig. 4) ; no species were assigned to the genus in 1927 but descrip- tions and illustrations of 4 species were published by Trauth in 1930, G. suevicus being one of these. Recommended for entering on appropriate Official List as a parataxon available for designation of aptychi but not ammonoid conchs or conch-and-aptychus associations. LAEVAPTYCHUS Trauth, 1927 (op. cit.: 189, 228). Type species (by monotypy), *Aptychus meneghinit Zigno, 1870 (Mem. reale Ist. Venete Sci. Arte 15 : 11, pl. 8, figs. 1-4)[=Ichthyosiagones Bourdet, 1822 (subj.), a name proposed for suppression as long-overlooked]. Recommended for entering on appropriate Official List as a parataxon available for designation of aptychi but not ammonoid conchs or conch-and-aptychus associations. LAMELLAPTYCHUS Trauth, 1927 (op. cit.: 189, 228). Type species (by subsequent selection, Moore & Sylvester-Bradley, 1956), *T'rigonellites lamellosus Parkinson, 1811 (op. cit. : 184, pl. 13, figs. 10-11). [=T'rigonel- lites Parkinson, 1811 (obj.), a name proposed for suppression under the Plenary Powers]. Recommended for entering on appropriate Official List as a parataxon available for designation of aptychi but not ammonoid conchs or conch-and-aptychus associations. LISSAPTYCHUS Trauth (op. cit. 220, 231). Type species (by subsequent ~ selection, Moore & Sylvester-Bradley, 1956), *Aptychus leptophyllus Sharpe, 1856 (Mon. Palaeontograph. Soc. : 55, pl. 24, figs. la, b]. Recom- mended for entering on appropriate Official List as a parataxon available for designation of aptychi but not ammonoid conchs or conch-and-aptychus associations. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45 ¢ Palanaptychus Trauth, 1927 (op. cit. : 203, 214). Type species (by monotypy), *Manticoceras intumescens (von Bayrich). [=SIDETES Giebel, 1847 (subj.)]. Recommended for suppression by the Plenary Powers on the grounds of nomenclatural ambiguity (since the type-specimen of the type- species is a conch and not the conch-and-aptychus association on which the name Palanaptychus is based). The name, moreover, has not been used since its original introduction, and cannot be used for an aptychus as a parataxon if its type-species has a conch for a type-specimen. Nor can the name be used for a conch genus without such violation of the author’s original intent as to introduce grave ambiguity. The case is further discussed in para. 9(2) below. PALAPTYCHUS Trauth, 1927 (op. cit.: 214). Type species (by subsequent selection, Moore & Sylvester-Bradley, 1956), *Aptychus carbonarius Koenen, 1879 (N. Jahrb. Mineral. 1879 : 317), one of the two originally included species. [?=LAMELLAPTYCHUS Trauth, 1927 (subj.)]. Although doubtfully distinguished from LAMELLAPTYCHUS, we recommend that it should be entered as a parataxon on the Official List for the use of any taxonomist who believes it to represent a parataxon distinct from that genus. PRAESTRIAPT YCHUS Trauth, 1927 (op. cit. : 219, 230). Type species (by subsequent selection, Moore & Sylvester-Bradley, 1956), *P. gerzensis Trauth, 1930 (op. cit. : 380, pl. 5, figs. 14-15 ; lectotype defined by Moore & Sylvester-Bradley as the specimen represented by Trauth’s fig. 14). Recommended for entering on appropriate Official List as a parataxon available for designation of aptychi but not ammonoid conchs or conch- and-aptychus associations. PSEUDOSTRIAPTYCHUS Trauth, 1927 (op. cit. : 220, 231). Type species (by monotypy, Trauth, 1928, Ann. naturhist. Mus. Wien 42 : 168), *P. pseudostobaei Trauth, 1928. Recommended for entering on appropriate Official List as a parataxon available for designation of aptychi but not ammonoid conchs or conch-and-aptychus associations. PTERAPTYCHUS Trauth, 1927 (op. cit.: 188, 218). Type species (by monotypy), *Aptychus numida Coquand, 1854 (Mem. Soc. géol. France (2) 5 : 140, 148, pl. 3, fig. 1). Recommended for entering on appropriate Official List as a parataxon available for designation of aptychi but not ammonoid conchs or conch-and-aptychus associations. PUNCTAPTYCHUS Trauth, 1927 (op. cit. : 200, 228). Type species (by subsequent selection, Moore & Sylvester-Bradley, 1956), *Aptychus punctatus Voltz, 1837 (N. Jahrb. Mineral. 1837:435; Trauth, 1935, Jahrb. Geol. Bundesanst. Wien 75 : 315, pl. 12, figs. 1-6), chosen from 3 nominal species cited by Trauth in his 1927 publication as belonging to 46 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature the genus, although one of these (Aptychus profundus Pictet) was synony- mized with A. punctatus by Trauth in 1935 (: 315). Recommended for entering on appropriate Official List as a parataxon available for designa- tion of aptychi but not ammonoid conchs or conch-and-aptychus asso- ciations. RUGAPTYCHUS Trauth, 1927 (op. cit. : 220, 228). Type species (by subse- quent selection, Moore & Sylvester-Bradley, 1956), *Aptychus rugosus Sharpe, 1856 (op. cit.: 57, pl. 24, figs. 8-9; Trauth, 1928, op. cit. : 122, pl. 2, figs. 1-4), chosen from 4 species referred to genus in Trauth’s original publication. Recommended for entering on appropriate Official List as a parataxon available for designation of aptychi but not ammonoid conchs or conch-and-aptychus associations. i SPINAPTYCHUS Trauth, 1927 (op. cit.: 200, 220). Type species (by monotypy), *Aptychus spinosus Cox, 1926 (Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (9) 17: 577, pl. 24, figs. 1-3; Trauth, 1928, op. cit.: 131, pl. 3, figs. 17-18). Recommended for entering on appropriate Official List as a parataxon available for designation of aptychi but not ammonoid conchs or conch-and- aptychus associations. STRIAPTYCHUS Trauth, 1927 (op. cit. : 189, 229). Type species (by subse- quent selection, Moore & Sylvester-Bradley, 1956), *S. spinigeri Trauth, 1927 (244), chosen from 20 species and subspecies listed in Trauth’s original paper as belonging to this genus. [=Synaptychus Basse, 1952 (obj.)]. For further discussion of synonymy see below under Synaptychus Basse, 1952 and para. 9(1). Recommended for entering on appropriate Official List as a parataxon available for designation of aptychi but not ammonoid conchs or conch-and-aptychus associations. LAEVILAMELLAPTYCHUS Trauth, 1930 (op. cit. : 336). Type species (by subsequent selection, Moore & Sylvester-Bradley, 1956), *T'rigonellites ceratoides Ooster, 1857 (Petrif. remarquables Alpes Suisses (2) : 16, pl. 6, figs. 6-8 ; Trauth, 1930, op. cit. : 366, pl. 4, figs. 9-10), chosen from 3 species referred without question to the genus in Trauth’s 1930 publication. Recommended for entering on appropriate Official List as a parataxon available for designation of aptychi but not ammonoid conchs or conch-and- aptychus associations. NEOANAPTYCHUS Nagao, 1931 (Proc. Imp. Acad. Japan 7: 109). Type species (by monotypy), *NV. tenuiliratus Nagao, 1931 (: 109, figs. 1-2). Trauth in 1935 (N. Jahrb. Mineral. 73B : 75; ibid. 74B : 459) invalidly © designated NV. semicostatus Nagao, 1932 (Proc. Imp. Acad. Japan 8 : 175, text-fig. p. 178) as the type species. [—?SIDETES Giebel, 1847 (subj.)]. Recommended for entering on appropriate Official List as a parataxon for use of any taxonomist who believes it to represent a parataxon distinct from SIDETES. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47 Laevicornaptychus Trauth, 1936 (Ann. naturhist. Mus. Wien 47 : 28). Not an available name, as no type species was indicated subsequent to 1930. Synaptychus Basse, 1952 (T'raité Paléont. 2 : 548). Type species (by mono- typy), *STRIAPTYCHUS spinigert Trauth, 1927 (erroneously cited by Basse as “‘ Synaptychus spiniger Trauth”’). Schliiter, 1872 (Palaeonto- graphica 21 : 82-85, pl. 25, figs. 1-7) in describing a new species of ammonoid named by him, Seaphites spiniger, mentioned two specimens which contain “den zugehérigen Aptychus ” in the living chamber, one of these being illustrated (pl. 25, figs. 5-7); this figured specimen with its bipartite aptychus in position has been designated (Moore & Sylvester-Bradley, 1956) as lectotype of Schliiter’s species, now known as Acanthoscaphites spiniger. It is the aptychus of this specimen that was refigured by Fischer, 1882 (op. cit.:377) with the designation “synaptychus of Seaphites spiniger ’? and accompanying discussion which makes clear Fischer’s use of synaptychus only as a morphological term. Trauth, 1927 (op. cit. : 244) introduced for this aptychus (or synaptychus) the name “ S7'RI- APTYCHUS spinigert Trauth, n. n.”. Basse, 1952 (: 549, figs. 12, 19) copied Schliiter’s pl. 25, fig. 6, incorrectly attributing it to Reeside, and (: 549, fig. 12, 12) reproduced Schliiter’s pl. 25, fig. 7, with identification of it as ‘‘ Synaptychus spiniger (Trauth)’’. As matters stand, Basse is the first author to publish Synaptychus as a generic name and the holotype of its type species is part of the same specimen that serves Acanthoscaphites spiniger (Schliiter), as holotype Synaptychus Basse, 1952, is reeommended for suppression as a junior objective synonym of STRIAPTYCHUS Trauth, 1927. 6. A large majority of the binomina which have been published as scientific designations for different aptychi are composed of generic and specific names that are quite independent of those used for ammonoid conchs. For example, the name SIDETES striatus Giebel, 1849, was given to an undivided type of aptychus found in Upper Cretaceous strata, the type specimen being an isolated aptychus, and neither the name SIDETES striatus nor fossils belonging to this species are related to a known conch. Such aptychi may have value in stratigraphic paleontology and are not involved in nomenclatural conflicts until representatives of a given species happen to be found in associa- tion with a named species of conch. 7. Specimens of aptychi sometimes are found in the living chambers of ammonoid conchs or neatly filling the shell apertures in the manner of opercula ; such associations leave no reasonable doubt that the aptychus and conch were produced by a single animal. Under operation of the present Régles, every occurrence together of a genus and species of aptychus with a genus and species of conch, each independently named, introduces questions of synonymy which 48 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature are illustrated and discussed in following paragraphs. At least 40 genera defined by characters of the conchs are involved in nomenclatoral conflicts of this nature. We believe that none of these genera or others which may be found associated with aptychi should be synonymized with aptychus names and hence propose in para. 14 of this application that nominal genera and species of aptychi shall be defined as parataxa, thus remaining subject to the Régles but being denied status which permits interference by them with names published for conchs. As applied to aptychi occurring in association with ammonoid conchs in manner that clearly indicates their belonging together in life, three modes of nomenclatural treatment of the aptychi are found in the literature. Each of them presents problems and is unsatisfactory from the standpoint of trying to apply the present Régles. This is demonstrated by brief explanation and illustration. (1) A common method of referring to the aptychi of conch-and-aptychus associations, especially in older publications, has been to use only the morphological term “ aptychus ’ in combination with the name of the conch, as ‘“ aptychus of Baculites knorrianus ’’ (Schliiter, 1876, p. 27), without other designation. This conforms to the Régles and is entirely adequate for description of the conch-and- aptychus specimen but isolated aptychi of seemingly identical sort cannot safely be identified as belonging to this conch species. It would be misleading to describe beds with many such aptychi but lacking specimens of conchs as “characterized by abundant Baculites knorrianus ”’. (2) A second method of designating the aptychi of conch-and-aptychus associations is to use the specific name of the conch combined with a generic name different from that of the conch and denoting a particu- lar sort of aptychus, as in the following example : (a) The aptychus mentioned in subparagraph (1) has been cited (Diener, 1925, Fossilium Catalogus, 29:40) as ““Aptychus knorrianus Schliiter”’, which combines the generic name Aptychus von Meyer, 1831, with the specific name knorrianus, originally published by Demarest, 1817, in combination with the conch name Baculites. The combination “Aptychus knorrianus ’”’ was never used by Schliiter, who merely referred to the ‘“‘ aptychus of Baculites knorrianus”’. The attribution to Schliiter is therefore clearly false. (b) In 1927, Trauth (op. cit. : 245) published the name “‘ Rugaptychus knorrianus (Schliiter) ’’ for this fossil, changing the generic name and repeating Diener’s error in attributing authorship of the species to Schliiter. (c) Ambiguity persists because it is not clear whether the specific name knorrianus as used in the combination A ptychus knorrianus ee ie i Mile ee ene ete elie elie eee G>- = o's Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49 should be interpreted as a new name introduced by Diener [leading to designation as “ RUGAPTYCHUS knorrianus (Diener) ’’, with type specimen the aptychus figured in asso- ciation with a conch by Schliiter], or referred to Desmarest [leading to ‘““RUGAPTYCHUS knorrianus (Desmarest) ”’, with type specimen the conch (without atypchus) figured by Desmarest in 1817]. With recognition of RUGAPT YCHUS as a parataxon, the former alternative becomes the only possible one, for RUGAPTYCHUS can only be a parataxon if its type species is based on an aptychus. (d) A number of the genera which we propose should be recognized as parataxa have type species cited in this ambiguous manner. To remove any doubt as to what specimens should be regarded as type specimens of these species, we recommend that the Plenary Powers should be used to specify the holotype in the following cases : GRANULAPTYCHUS suevicus Trauth, 1930, to be inter- preted by reference to the specimen figured under this name by Trauth (1930 : pl. 5, fig. 4) ; PSEUDOSTRIAPTYCHUS pseudostobaei Trauth, 1928, to be interpreted by reference to the unfigured specimen described by Schliiter, 1872 (58) and Trauth, 1928 (168) from Coesfelder Berge, Germany ; NEOANAPTYCHUS tenuiliratus Nagao, 1931, to be interpreted by reference to the specimen figured under this name by Nagao, 1931 (109, fig. 1). (3) A third method of referring to the aptychi of conch-and-aptychus associations is to employ a name for the aptychus that is wholly independent of the conch name (as noted in para. 6). This avoids confusion of the sort considered in the preceding subparagraph, and is the most common method in current use. However, it is incom- patible with present Régles which allow only a single name for the conch-and-aptychus, for the conch alone, or for the aptychus alone. With the recognition of parataxa, however, it would be the recom- mended method. Thus Anaptychus pala Trauth, 1935 (N. Jahrb. Mineral., 73B : 85) is a name given to the aptychus of Amaltheus margaritatus de Montfort, 1808 ; LAEVAPT YCHUS latus (Parkin- son), 1811, is the name given to the aptychus of Euaspidoceras perarmatum (Sowerby), 1822; SIDETES sellaeformis bicarinatus (Trauth), 1935, is designation of the aptychus of Asteroceras stellare (Sowerby), 1815 ; and LAMELLAPT Y CHUS beyrichi (Oppel), 1865, is the name of an aptychus belonging to Haploceras elimatum (Oppel), 1868. All of these examples introduce problems of synonymy as 50 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature interpreted by the present Régles which are discussed in later para- graphs. These problems vanish with the recognition of parataxa. 8. As previously stated, every association of conch-and-aptychus which leads one to believe that the two were derived from a single animal, results, on applying Article 27 of the present Régles, to a conflict between the names applied respectively to the conch and aptychus. The problem of synonymy is complicated by the fact that the taxonomic bounds of many aptychus species are currently drawn very much more widely than those of any conch species, as is indicated by published records of a single aptychus species classed as belonging to two or more different species (or even different genera) of conchs. Therefore, it is not possible to determine what species of conch is represented by an isolated specimen of aptychus, even if other specimens, subjectively identified with the isolated one, are found in association with a conch species. For example, Trauth, 1938 (130) identified the aptychus species LAMELL- APTYCHUS rectecostatus (Peters), 1854, as belonging to four different conch species classed in three different genera—Oppelia bous (Oppel), 0. euglypta (Oppel), Neochetoceras steraspis (Oppel)*, and Haploceras lingulatum solenoides (Quenstedt). Under such circumstances, synonymization according to the present Régles is impossible at the specific level and the whole situation is nomenciaturally unstable. If the names based on aptychi are classed as para- taxa, conflicts of this sort will disappear. The extreme complication of the synonymy involved, and the undesirable nomenclatural situation that would arise if the present Régles were applied, is illustrated in the following para- graphs 9-13. The degree of subjectivity concerned is first determined by the firmness of identifying the species involved in the questions of synonymy. Among all recorded ammonoid conch-and-aptychus associations none con- stitutes the type specimen of the type species both of a nominal genus of conchs and nominal genus of aptychi, thus providing for objective identification of one with the other. Indeed, no conch genus with type species defined by a type specimen consisting of a conch-and-aptychus association is known. There are some cases, however, in which the type species of an aptychus genus has as type specimen conch or conch-and-aptychus association, which is also type specimen of a conch species. These cases therefore involve objective synonymy between the aptychus species and the conch species and are dealt with in paragraph 9. All other cases of synonymy between conch and aptychus are subjective in that they involve type specimens which are not identical. Four different classes of subjective synonyms can be distinguished as follows :— (1) synonymy involving subjective identification of the type species of 4 an aptychus genus with the type species of a conch genus (see para- graph 10) ; BEDE ARTIC s OTS Coe Dk ee eee * At the same time Trauth identified Lamellaptychus theodosia longa Trauth as belonging also to Neochetoceras steraspis. This must surely be a case of misidentification. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51 (2) synonymy involving subjective identification of the type species of an aptychus genus with a conch species other than the type species of the genus to which it is assigned (see paragraph 11) ; (3) synonymy involving subjective identification of the type species of a conch genus with a species of aptychus other than the type species of the genus to which it is assigned (see paragraph 12) ; (4) synonymy involving subjective identification of a conch species and an aptychus species, neither of which is the type species of a genus (see paragraph 13). 9. This paragraph deals with those cases in which type species of aptychus genera are, according to the present operation of the Régles, objectively Synonymous with species of conch genera, being based on the same type specimens. Five aptychus genera are involved. The fact that three of these (Anaptychus, Synaptychus, Palanaptychus) are respectively classed as a junior homonym, junior objective synonym, and junior subjective synonym, the other two (STRIAPTYCHUS, PSEUDOSTRIAPTYCHUS) being considered valid, is incidental to the nomenclatural problems presented by their conch associations. These problems are discussed briefly. (1) STRIAPTYCHUS and Synaptychus versus Acanthoseaphites. Syn- aptychus Basse, 1952, is a junior objective synonym of STRIAPTY- CHUS Trauth, 1927, since the type specimen of the type species of both is the same, consisting of the aptychus of a conch-and-aptychus association which is also the type specimen of Acanthoscaphites spiniger (Schliiter), 1872. The name of the aptychus species is STRIAPTYCHUS spinigeri Trauth, 1927. The nominal genus Acanthoseaphites was introduced by Nowak in 1911 (type species, *Seaphites tridens Kner, 1848). This is a clear-cut case which according to the Régles leaves no possibility of doubt in concluding that STRIAPTYCHUS spinigeri is a junior objective synonym of Acanthoscaphites spiniger and that STRIAPTYCHUS is a junior subjective synonym of Acanthoscaphites, even though some aptychi which seem surely classifiable as ST7RIAPT YCHUS are known to belong to other conch genera. For example, S. cheyannensis occurs in the living chamber of a conch identified as Discoseaphites cheyennensis (Meek). With recognition of STRIAPTYCHUS spinigeri as a parataxon (as we recommend) the name ST RIA PT Y CHUS becomes a permissible generic name for such aptychi; otherwise the name must either be suppressed, as @ synonym of Acanthoseaphites, or become designation of a new genus of conchs with Acanthoscaphites spiniger as type species. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (2) Palanaptychus versus Manticoceras. The name Palanaptychus was published by Trauth 1927 (op. cit. : 234) to designate the undivided aptychus in the conch of a specimen of Manticoceras intumescens (von Beyrich) from Devonian rocks. This species becomes type of Palanaptychus by monotypy. As such, however, the species is based not on the conch-and-aptychus association on which the name Palanaptychus was founded, but on the conch (without aptychus) which forms the type specimen of M. intumescens. According to the Régles Manticoceras (type species, *Goniatites simulator Hall, 1874) is therefore a senior subjective synonym of Palanaptychus, but if the type specimen of the latter should be interpreted as generically distinct from Manticoceras and from Gephuroceras Hyatt, 1884 (=Gephyroceras Frech, 1901, obj.) and Crickites Wedekind, 1913, which now are classed as subjective synonyms of Manticoceras, Palanaptychus would be an available name. This application proposes the suppression of Palanaptychus, however, as we believe that to use the name for a genus of conchs based on M. intumescens would be most objectionable. (3) PSEUDOSTRIAPTYCHUS versus: Parapachydiscus. The genus PSEUDOSTRIAPTYCHUS was introduced by Trauth, 1927, for an aptychus found in association with a conch identified as Para- pachydiseus pseudostobaei (Moberg, 1885). No other specimen was mentioned. This species therefore becomes type of PSHUDO- STRIAPTYCHUS by monotypy, and, as in the case of Palanapty- chus, we are left in the unsatisfactory situation in which the type species of an aptychus genus has a type specimen which is a conch without aptychus. Parapachydiseus Hyatt, 1900 (type species, *Ammonites gollevillensis Sharpe, 1857) is a junior subjective synonym of Pachydiseus Zittel, 1884 (type species, *Ammonites neubergicus Hauer, 1858, by subsequent designation, de Grossouvre, 1894). However, if Pachydiscus pseudostobaei (Moberg) were deemed to be generically distinct from both Pachydiscus and Para pachydiseus, then PSEUDOSTRIAPTYCHUS would be an available name for such a conch genus. This we believe would be as objectionable as to use Palanaptychus as the name of a genus of conchs. If, however, PSEUDOSTRIAPTYCHUS is ruled to be a parataxon, as we recommend, it is necessary to stipulate that its type species must be based on an aptychus. In 1928 Trauth (op. cit. : 168) named the aptychus associated with Moberg’s species as ‘‘ PSEUDO- STRIAPTYCHUS pseudostobaei Trauth, n.n.” Inasmuch as this name was applied to a specimen of aptychus identified with Para- pachydiscus pseudostobaei, it is based on a type specimen different from that of the species of conch described by Moberg and therefore is a new species as well as a new name. Moreover, since this is the only species then referred without question to the genus, it may be recognized as the type species by subsequent monotypy. In order Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53 to regularize the choice of type species without ambiguity, we recommend that the Commission use its Plenary Powers to validate PSEUDOSTRIAPTYCHUS pseudostobaei Trauth, 1928, as the type species. (4) Anaptychus. Oppel used the word “ anaptychus ” as a morphological term in 1856. It was not until 1868 that Schlumberger introduced Anaptychus as a generic name, including within it those conch-and- aptychus associations identified with Amaltheus margaritatus de Montfort and Ammonites laqueus Quenstedt. The name is, however, a junior homonym, as it had already been used in 1860 by Stimpson for a genus of Crustacea. It must therefore be suppressed, and it becomes unnecessary to choose a lectotype. If, however, it had been a valid name, it would have raised the same problems as PSHU DO- STRIAPTYCHUS. 10. This paragraph deals with synonymy involving subjective identification of the type species of an aptychus genus with the type species of a conch genus. Nomenclatural conflicts which are encountered in applying the present Régles can in each case be avoided by defining the aptychus names as parataxa. The type species of both conch genera and aptychus genera are indicated by an asterisk, and if synonymization involves the type specimen of an aptychus species, this is indicated by “holotype” or “ lectotype”’ in parentheses following the specific name, but otherwise identifications are based on speci- mens other than type specimens. (1) PUNCTAPTYCHUS versus Haploceras. The aptychus genus PUNCTAPTYCHUS Trauth, 1927, is based on the type species *Aptychus punctatus Voltz, 1837. The conch genus Haploeeras Zittel, 1870, has the type species *Ammonites elimatus Oppel in Zittel, 1868 (by subsequent selection, Spath, 1923). Trauth, 1935 (Jahrb. Geol. ~ Bundesanst. Wien 85 : 314) records the occurrence together of these two type species in a conch-and-aptychus association which is not the type specimen of either species. If the identification of these components is accepted, the Régles would require rejection of PUNCTAPTYCHUS as a junior subjective synonym of Haploceras and the specific name elimatus would be displaced similarly by punctatus, introducing great nomenclatural confusion both as regards designation of other species now assigned to PUNCT APT YCHUS and coordination with the problem of Haploceras versus LA MELL- APT YCHUS given in para. 12, subpara. 10 below. Such confusion i: is avoided if the aptychus names are defined as parataxa. (2) CORNAPTYCHUS versus Hecticoceras. The aptychus genus CORNAPTYCHUS Trauth, 1927, is based on *Aptychus hectict 4 54 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Quenstedt, 1849 (monotypy). The conch genus Hecticoceras Bonarelli, 1893, is based on the type species *Nautilus hecticus Reinecke, 1818 (monotypy). The holotype of C. hectict occurs in the living chamber of a conch identified by Quenstedt as Ammonites hecticus (Reinecke) (Trauth, 1930, op. cit. : 351). According to the Régles, the valid name of both conch and aptychus is Heeticoceras hecticum, and since the name of the type species of the important aptychus genus CORNAPTYCHUS thus becomes suppressed, confusion arises as to the nomenclature of numerous described species which are now assigned to CORNAPTYCHUS. The problem can be solved by ruling that this and other aptychus genera are to be classed as parataxa. 11. This paragraph deals with synonymy involving subjective indentifica- tion of the type species of aptychus genera with species of conchs other than the _ type species of the genera to which they are assigned. Seven genera of aptychi are contained in this group. (1) Prigonellites (1811), Aptychus (1831), Muensteria (1835), and LAMEL- LAPTYCHUS (1927) versus Oppelia (1869). The four above- named aptychus genera are all either objective or subjective synonyms of each other, all having type species which are objectively or sub- jectively synonymous. This species has been subjectively identified with the aptychus in three conch-and-aptychus associations in which the conch has been subjectively identified as respectively Oppelia flexuosa (van Buch) 1831; O. discus (Quenstedt) 1856; and O. euglypta (Oppel) 1863. According to the ordinary operation of the Régles, the oldest aptychi names have priority over the conch names. According to our recommendations, as detailed in para. 5 above : (a) the name T'rigonellites Parkinson, 1811 [*7’. lamellosus Parkinson, 1811] should be suppressed under the Plenary Powers (see para. 4(3) above) ; (b) the name Aptychus von Meyer, 1831 [*A. imbricatas von Meyer, 1831 (=Trigonellites lamellosus Parkinson, 1811)] should be suppressed under the Plenary Powers ; (c) the name Muensteria Eudes-Deslongchamps, 1835 [*M. sulcata Eudes-Deslongchamps, 1835 (= T'rigonellites lamellosus Parkinson, 1811)] should be suppressed as a long-overlooked name ; Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55 (d) the name LAMELLAPTYCHUS Trauth, 1927 [*Trigonellites lamellosus Parkinson, 1811] should, together with its type species, be ruled a parataxon, available for classification of aptychi but not for conchs. (2) Ichthyosiagones (1822) versus Aspidoceras (1867). Ichthyosiagones Bourdet de la Nievre, 1822 [*Tellinites problematicus Schlotheim, 1820 ; =Trigonellites latus Parkinson, 1811 (=Laevaptychus latus)]. Based on conch-and-aptychus associations, subjective synonyms among conchs include Aspidoceras eyeclotum (Oppel) 1865 ; A. inflatum (Zieten) 1830 ; and A. longispinum (Sowerby) 1825. Ichthyosiagones has priority over Aspidoceras according to normal operation of the Régles, but we recommend its suppression as a long-overlooked name ; (3) GRANULAPTYCHUS (1927) versus Hlawiceras (1921). GRANUL- APT YCHUS Trauth, 1927 [*G. suevicus Trauth, 1927]. The type specimen of the type species occurs in a conch identified as Hlawiceras sp. aff. H. suevicum (Wetzel) 1911. The type species of Hlawiceras Buckman, 1921, is *H. platyrrymum Buckman, 1921. The generic name based on the aptychus is junior to that based on the conch, which is not definitely identified specifically. We recommend that GRANULAPTYCHUS should be recognized as a parataxon, thus removing any conflict with Hlawiceras. (4) NEOANAPTYCHUS (1931) versus Gaudryceras (1894). NHOAN- APT YCHUS Nagao, 1931 [*N. tenuiliratus Nagao, 1931]. Holotype of the type species in living chamber of a conch identified as Gaudry- ceras tenuiliratum Yabe, 1903, Cretaceous of Japan. The genus Gaudryceras de Grossouvre, 1894, is based on *Ammonites mitis Hauer, 1866, as type species. Both the generic and specific names for the conch have priority over those applied to the aptychus, but we recommend that both the generic and specific names of the aptychus should be recognized as parataxa. 12. This paragraph is concerned with synonymy involving subjective identifications of the type species of conch genera with species of aptychi other than the type species of the genera to which they are assigned. The aptychus names given between quotation marks are as written by the author who identified the conch-aptychus association. The names given in square brackets are those which would be adopted as those of parataxa if our recom- mendations are approved. Only in this case is conflict avoided between the name of conch and aptychus. Conflicts with SJDETES are cited in sub- paragraph (1) to (5) ; with CORNAPTYCHUS in (6) to (8) ; with LAMELL- APTYCHUS in (9) to (11); with GRANULAPTYCHUS in (12); with LAEVAPT YCHUS in (18) to (15) ; and with PRAEST RIAPT Y CHUS in (16). Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (1) Amaltheus (1808) versus SIDETHS (1847). Amaltheus de Montfort, 1808 (*A. margaritatus Montf., 1808). Subj. syn., “Anaptychus margaritatus ’’ Schlumberger, 1868 [=SI DET ES pala (Trauth, 1935)]. The generic name SIDETES Giebel, 1847, and specific name pala Trauth, 1935, are both junior to the names applied to the conch. (2) Asteroceras (1867) versus SIDETES (1847). Asteroceras Hyatt, 1867 [*Ammonites stellaris Sowerby, 1815 ; subsequent selection Buckman, 1911 ; already placed on the Official List (ICZN Opinion 324)]. Subj. syn., “Anaptychus sellaeformis bicarinata ” Trauth, 1935[=SIDETES sellaeformis bicarinatus (Trauth)]. The generic name Asteroceras is junior to SIDETES Giebel, 1847, but the specific name stellaris is senior to Trauth’s name for the aptychus found associated with the conch identified as Asteroceras stellare. (3) Pleuroceras (1867) versus SIDETES (1847). Pleuroceras Hyatt, 1867 [*Ammonites spinatus Bruguiére, 1789 ; subsequent selection Fischer, 1882; already placed on the Official List (ICZN Opinion 324)] [=Paltopleuroceras Buckman, 1895 (obj.)]. Subj. syn., ““Anaptychus mitraeformis”’ Trauth, 1935 [=SIDETES mitraeformis (Trauth)], and “A. pala” Trauth, 1935 [=SIDETES pala (Trauth)], both identified in the living chamber of conchs identified as Ammonites spinatus [—Pleuroceras spinatum]. The generic and specific names for the aptychi are junior to those of the conch. (4) Psiloceras (1867) versus SIDETES (1847). Psiloceras Hyatt, 1867 [*Ammonites planorbis Sowerby, 1824 ; subsequent selection Spath, 1924]; already placed on the Official List (ICZN Opinion 324) ; [=Psilonoticeras Quenstedt, 1883 (obj.)]. Subj. syn., “Anaptychus carapax angusta”’ Trauth, 1935 [=SIDETES carapax angustus (Trauth)]. Introduction of the designation ‘‘ anaptychus” by Oppel (1856) was based on discovery of an undivided aptychus in the living chamber of a conch identified by him as Ammonites planorbis but plainly he used the word as a morphological term rather than as a generic name. Ascribed to SIDETES Giebel, 1847, the generic name for this aptychus is older than the generic name given to the conch but the specific name is junior to planorbis. (5) Arietites (1869) versus SIDETHS (1847). Arietites Waagen, 1869 [*Ammonites bucklandi Sowerby, 1816, already placed on the ~ Official List (ICZN Opinion 305)] [=Arieticeras Quenstedt, 1883 already placed on the Official List of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names (ICZN Opinion 337) (obj.) (non Sequenza, 1885, already placed on the Official List, ICZN Opinion 337)]. Subj. syn., “Anaptychus sellaeformis”” Trauth, 1935 [=SIDETES sellaeformis (Trauth)]. The generic name SIDETES Giebel, 1847, is older than sh ee ee ee Py Pere Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 57 Arietites but it could not appropriately be recognized as a replace- ment name for this genus of conchs because the type of aptychus to which it applies occurs with several other genera of conchs. We recommend that it be recognized as a parataxon, and thus be removed from competition with all the foregoing conch genera. (6) Hildoceras (1867) versus CORNAPTYCHUS (1927). Hildoceras Hyatt, 1867 [*Ammonites bifrons Bruguiére, 1789; subsequent selection Buckman, 1889] already placed on the Official List (ICZN Opinion 304). Subj. syn., “Aptychus elasma”’ von Meyer, 1831 [=CORNAPTYCHUS elasma (Meyer)]. Trauth, 1936 (: 49-52) has identified this same species of CORNAPT YCHUS associated with conchs identified by him as Leioceras opalinum (Reinecke), Pseudolioceras lythense (Young & Bird), P. faleatum (Quenst.), P. gigas (Quenst.), and P. lineatum (Quenst.). Both the generic and specific names for the species of aptychus associated with Hildoceras bifrons are junior to the names of the conch. (7) Leioceras (1867) versus CORNAPT YCHUS (1927). Leioceras Hyatt, 1867 [*Nautilus opalinus Reinecke, 1818; subsequent selection Buckman, 1887]. Subj. syn. ““Aptychus elasma’”’ von Meyer, 1831 [=CORNAPTYCHUS elasma (Meyer)]. See preceding subpara- graph for other reported associations of this aptychus with species of conchs. (8) Harpoceras (1869) versus CORNAPTYCHUS (1927). Harpoceras Waagen, 1869 [*Ammonites falcifer Sowerby, 1820; subsequent selection Arkell, 1951 already placed on the Official List (ICZN Opinion 303)] [Faleiferites Breistroffer, 1947 (obj.)]. Subj. syn., “ Tellinites sanguinolarius ’’ Schlotheim, 1820 [CORNAPT YCHUS sanguinolarius (Schloth)], which is reported by Trauth, 1936, to occur also in association with conchs identified as Harpoceras serpentinum (Reinecke) 1818 and Pseudolioceras lythense (Young & Bird) 1828. The generic name for this aptychus is junior to names used for associated conchs. We recommend CORNAPTY- CHUS be recognized as a parataxon, and thus removed from compe- tition with these conch genera and those of the two preceding subparagraphs. (9) Oppelia (1869) versus LAMELLAPT YCHUS (1927). Oppelia Waagen, 1869 [*Ammonites subradiatus J. DeC. Sowerby, 1823 ; subsequent selection H. Duovillé, 1884; already placed on the Official List (ICZN Opinion 324)]. Subj. syn., ““ LAMELLAPTYCHUS sub- radiatus’ Trauth, 1930 [=LAMELLAPTYCHUS sp.]. (10) Haploeeras (1870) versus LAMELLAPTYCHUS (1927). Haploceras Zittel, 1870 [*Ammonites elimatus Oppel in Zittel, 1868; subsequent Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature selection Spath, 1923]. Subj. syn., “Aptychus beyrichi ’’? Oppel, 1865 [=LAMELLAPTYCHUS beyrichi (Oppel) Trauth, 1938]. This synonymization is based on the occurrence of the aptychus L. beyrichi in the living chamber of a conch identified as belonging to Haploceras elimatum. As reported above (para. 10, subpara. (1)), PUNCTA- PTYCHUS punctatus has also been identified in association with a conch claimed to represent Haploceras elimatum. Clearly identifica- tion of conch or aptychus must be at fault in at least one of these conch-and-aptychus associations. If LAMELLAPTYCHUS and PUNCTAPTYCHUS are recognized as parataxa, such uncer- tainties of identification will not affect nomenclature. (11) Neochetoceras (1925) versus LAMELLAPTYCHUS (1927). Neo- chetoceras Spath, 1925 [*Ammonites steraspis Oppel, 1863]. Subj. syn., “Aptychus rectecostatus’’ Peters, 1854 [=LAMELLAPTY- CHUS rectecostatus (Peters), Trauth, 1938] and “Aptychus theo- dosia’”’ Deshayes, 1838 [=LAMELLAPTYCHUS theodosia (Des- hayes) longa Trauth, 1938]. Seemingly, the conch or aptychus comprising one of the associated pairs is misidentified for, as in the previous subparagraph, it is unreasonable to suppose that a single species defined by characters of the conch would possess in different individuals aptychi classifiable as belonging to different species. In any case, however, we recommended that LAMEHLLAPT YCHUS be recognized as a parataxon, thus nullifying the effect that such subjective identifications would otherwise have on the nomenclature. (12) Lithacoeeras (1900) versus GRANULAPTYCHUS (1927). Lithaco- ceras Hyatt, 1900 [Ammonites ulmensis Oppel, 1858]. Subj. syn., “Aptychus planulati” Fraas, 1885 [=GRANULAPTYCHUS planulati (Fraas), Trauth, 1937]; both generic and specific names based on the conch are senior to those applied to the aptychus. (13) Physodoceras (1900) versus LAEVAPT YCHUS (1927). Physodoceras Hyatt, 1900 [*Ammonites circumspinosus Quenstedt, 1858]. Subj. syn., “ Trigonellites latus’’? Parkinson, 1811 [=LAHVAPT YCHUS latus (Parkinson), Trauth, 1931]. The generic name based on the aptychus is junior to that based on the conch, whereas the specific name of the conch is junior to that applied to the aptychus. (14) Hybonoticeras (1947) versus LAHV APT YCHUS (1927). Hybonoticeras Breistroffer, 1947 [Ammonites hybonotus Oppel, 1863]. [obj. syn., Waagenia Neumayr, 1878 (non Kriechbaumer, 1874)]. Subj. syn., “ LAEVAPTYCHUS hybonotus’”’ Trauth, 1931 [=LAHVAPTY- CHUS sp.]. The generic name based on the conch is junior to that based on the aptychus. OD PE ee rR Oe ea ers ew Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59 (15) Euaspidoceras (1931) versus LARVAPTYOH US (1927). Euaspido- ceras Spath, 1931 [*Ammonites perarmatus Sowerby, 1822]. Subj. syn., “ Trigonellites latus ”’ Parkinson, 1811 [=LAEVAPTYCHUS latus (Parkinson), Trauth, 1931]. Both generic and specific names of the conch species are junior to those of the aptychus species. We recommend recognition of LAEVAPTYCH US as a parataxon, thus removing it from competition with the conch genera of this and the two preceding subparagraphs. (16) Sigaloceras (1900) versus PRAESTRIAPTYCH US (1927). Sigalo- ceras Hyatt, 1900 [*Ammonites calloviensis Sowerby, 1815 ; subse- quent designation (ICZN Opinion 324)]. Subj. syn., PRAEST RI. APTYCHUS kostromensis Trauth, 1930. Both the generic and specific names based on the aptychus are junior to those based on the conch, PRAESTRIAPTYCH US is another of the names which we recommend should be recognized as a parataxon. 13. This paragraph concerns synonymy involving subjective identification of conch species and aptychus species, neither of which is the type species of a genus, the synonymy being based on associations of conchs with aptychi above-mentioned ambiguities. Specimens illustrating conch-and-aptychus associations that involve species other than type Species of genera are fairly numerous. We here list 21 genera and 43 Species of conchs which occur with aptychi belonging to 8 genera and 36 species (including subspecies). These are cited as concisely as possible, grouped according to aptychus genera represented in the associations. The symbol “‘ + ” indicates “ associated with ”’. (1) Associations with species of SIDETES Giebel, 1847 [*8. striatus Giebel, 1849]: (a) Lytoceras Suess, 1865 [*Ammonites fimbriatus Sowerby, 1817]. L. cornucopia (Young & Bird), 1822 + S. latexcisus (Trauth), 1935. 60 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (b) Arnioceras Hyatt, 1867 [*A. cuneiforme Hyatt, 1867]. A. flavum (Buckman), 1918 + 8S. peltarion (Trauth), 1935 [=S. falcaries (Quenst.), 1883]. (c) Coroniceras [*Ammonites kridion Zieten, 1830]. ©. rotiforme (Sowerby), 1824 + S. carapax (Trauth), 1935. (d) Psiloceras Hyatt, 1867 [*Ammonites planorbis Sowerby, 1824]. P. harpoptyechum Holland, 1900 + S. listron (Trauth), 1935. (e) Mojsvarites Pompeckj, 1895 [*Ceratites aginor Miinster, 1834]. M. planorboides (Giimbel), 1861 + S. planorboides (Giimbel), 1861. (f) Damesites Matsumoto, 1942 [*Desmoceras damesi Jimbo, 1894]. D. semicostatus (Yabe), 1927 + S. semicostatus (Nagao), 1932. (2) Associations with species of CORNAPTYCHUS Trauth, 1927 [*Aptychus hectici Quenstedt, 1849] : (a) Hildoceras Hyatt, 1867 [*Ammonites bifrons Bruguiére, 1789.— (i) H. kisslingi Hug + C. sanguinolarius (Schlotheim) accurvata- granulata Trauth, 1936.—(ii) H. levisoni (Simpson) + C. san- guinolarius (Schlotheim) levisont Trauth, 1936. (b) Harpoceras Waagen, 1869 [*Ammonites falcifer Sowerby, 1820].— (i) H. exaratum (Young & Bird), 1828 + C. sanguinolarius sanguinolarius (Schlotheim), 1820.—(ii) H. serpentinum (Rei- necke), 1818 + C. sanguinolarius (Schlotheim) sigmopleura Trauth, 1936.—(iii) ? H. faleifer (Sowerby), 1820 + C. sanguino- larius (Schlotheim) accurvata Trauth, 1936. (c) Dumortieria Haug, 1885 [*Ammonites levesquei d’Orbigny, 1844]. D. subundulata (Branco) + C. subundulatus (Buckman), 1891. (d) Pseudolioceras Buckman, 1889 [*Ammonites compactus Simpson in Buckman, 1889].—(i) P. lythense (Young & Bird), 1828 + C. sanguinolarius sanguinolarius (Schlotheim), 1820.—(ii) P. lythense (1828) + C. sanguinolarius (Schlotheim) sigmopleura Trauth, 1936.—(iii) P. lythense (1828) + C. elasma (von Meyer), 1831...(iv) P. lythense (1828) + C. ovatus (von Meyer) clathratus Trauth, 1936.—(v) P. sublythense (Quenstedt) 1886 + C. sublythensis Trauth, 1936.—(vi) P. faleatum (Quenstedt), 1886 + C. elasma (von Meyer), 1831.—(vii) P. gigas (Quenst.), 1886 + C. elasma (1831).—(viii) P. lineatum (Quenst.), 1885 + C. elasma (1831).—(ix) P. lineatum (Quenst.), 1885 + C. elasma (von Meyer) concordans Trauth, 1936. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 61 (3) Associations with species of LAEV APT YCHUS Trauth, 1927 [*Apty- chus meneghinit Zigno, 1870]: (a) Aspidoceras Zittel, 1868 [*Ammonites rogoznicensis Zeuschner, 1846].—(i) A. aeanthicum (Oppel), 1863 + L. laevis longus (von Meyer), 1831.—(ii) A. bispinosum (Zieten), 1830 + L. laevis longus (1831).—(iii) A. inflatum (Zieten), 1830 + LZ. laevis longus (1831). (b) Hybonoticeras Breistroffer, 1947 [*Ammonites hybonotus Oppel, 1863]. H. autharis (Oppel), 1863 + L. “autharis”’ (Oppel), 1863. (4) Associations with species of LAMELLAPTYCHUS Trauth, 1927 [* Trigonellites lamellosus Parkinson, 1811] : (a) Oppelia Waagen, 1869 [*Ammonites subradiatus J. De C. Sowerby, 1823].—(i) O. bous (Oppel), 1863 + L. rectecostatus (Peters), 1854. —(ii) O. euglypta (Oppel), 1863 + L. rectecostatus, 1854.—(iii) O. hauffiana (Oppel), 1863 + L. “ hauffianus ’’ (Oppel), 1863.— (iv) O. trachynotus (Oppel), 1863 + L. pseudoparallelogramma Trauth, 1938.—(v) O. holbeini (Oppel), 1863 + JL. sparsi- lamellosus (Giimbel), 1861.—(vi) O. lithographiea (Oppel), 1863 + L. “ lithographicus’’ (Oppel), 1863.—(vii) O. thoro (Oppel), 1863 + L. “thoro’’ (Oppel), 1863.—(viii) O. thoro (1863) + L. “thoro”’ (Oppel) laevadsymphysalis Trauth, 1938.—(ix) O. flexuosa hastata (Quenstedt), 271885 + L. “ thoro’”’ (Oppel), 1863.—(x) O. haberleini (Oppel), 1863 + JL. “ haberleini”’ (Oppel), 1863. (b) Haploceras Zittel, 1870 [*Ammonites elimatus Oppel in Zittel, 1868].—(i) H. lingulatum solenoides (Hohenegger), 1861 + L. rectecostatus (Peters), 1854.—(ii) H. lingulatum solenoides. (1861) + ZL. lamellosus (Parkinson) “ solenoides ”’ Trauth, 1938. (5) Associations with species of PRAESTRIAPTYCHUS Trauth, 1927 [*P. gerzensis Trauth, 1930]: (a) Perisphinetes Waagen, 1869 [Ammonites variocostatus Buckland, 1836].—(i) P. fasciferus Neymayr, 1873 + P. fraasi Trauth, 1937.—(ii) P. siliceus (Quenstedt), 1856 + P. fraasi (1937). (b) Parkinsonia Bayle, 1878 [Ammonites parkinsoni Sowerby, 1821]. P. subarietis Wetzel, 1911 + P. subarietis Trauth, 1930. (c) Sphaeroceras Bayle, 1878 [*Ammonites brongniarti Sowerby, 1817]. §S. bullatum (Reynes), 1867 + P. “ bullatus’’ Trauth, 1930. 62 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (6) Associations with species of STRIAPTYCHUS Trauth, 1927 [*S. spinigert Trauth, 1927]: (a) Acanthoscaphites Nowak, 1911 [*Scaphites tridens Kner, 1848]. A. roemeri (Schliiter), 1872 + S. roemert Trauth, 1927. (b) Discoscaphites Meek, 1876 [*Seaphites conradi Morton, 1834]. D. cheyennensis (Owen), 1852 + S. cheyennensis Trauth, 1927. (c) Worthoceras Adkins, 1928 [*Macrocephalites platydorsus Scott, 1924]. W. bladenensis (Schliiter), 1871 + S. schluetert Trauth, 1927. (7) Associations with species of GRANULAPTYCHUS Trauth, 1927 [*G. swevicus Trauth, 1930]: (a) Lithacoceras Hyatt, 1900 [*Ammonites ulmensis Oppel, 1858].— (i) L. rueppellianus (Quenstedt), 1888 + G. planulati (Fraas), 1855.—(ii) L. filiplex (Quenst.), 1888 + G. planulati (1855).— (iii) L. eudichotomus Zittel, 1870 + G. planulati (Fraas), 1855. (8) Associations with species of LAHVILAMELLAPTYCHUS Trauth, 1930 [*T'rigonellites ceratoides Ooster, 1857] : (a) Pseudolissoceras Sapth, 1925 [*Neumayria zitteli Burckhardt, 1903].—(i) P. aporum (Oppel), 1863 + ZL. “ aporus”’ Trauth, 1931.—(ii) P. zitteli (Burckhardt), 1903 + L. “ zitteli’ Trauth, 1937. 14. The recommendations which we now submit are that the International Commission should : (1) direct that all names introduced for taxa whose types are, in the opinions of the authors, aptychi of cephalopods are to be in terms of parataxa, and as such are not available as the names of taxa based on ammonoid conchs, or conch-and-aptychus associations ; (2) use the Plenary Powers to suppress the following long-overlooked generic names (all of the Class Cephalopoda) (some of which are, as indicated, also nomina dubia) for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy : Tellinites Schlotheim, 1813 ; Solennites Schlotheim, 1813 ; Ichthyosiagones Bourdet de la Nievre, 1822 ; Muensteria Eudes-Deslongchamps, 1835 ; Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 63 (3) use the Plenary Powers to suppress the generic names trigonellites Parkinson, 1811, Aptychus von Meyer, 1831 and Palanaptychus Trauth, 1927 (all of the Class Cephalopoda) for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy ; (4) use the Plenary Powers to direct that species described under the following names are to be attributed to the authors named, and are to be referred to the type specimen which formed the original of the figure named in parenthesis (or as otherwise defined below) which is to be regarded as the holotype of the species in question : GRANULAPTYCHUS suevicus Trauth, 1930 (op. cit. : 389, pl. 5, fig. 4) ; PSEUDOSTRIAPTYCHUS pseudostobaet Trauth, 1928 (un- figured specimen from Coesfelder Berge, Germany, described by Schliiter, 1872, op. cit. : 58 and Trauth, 1928, op. cit. : 168) ; NEOANAPTYCHUS tenuiliratus Nagao, 1931 (op. cit. : 109, fig. 1); (5) use the Plenary Powers to direct that the following species although not stated by the authors to be names of aptychi, are nevertheless to be regarded as names of parataxa, available only to designate species of aptychi: Trigonellites lamellosus Parkinson, 1811 ; Trigonellites ceratoides Ooster, 1857 ; (6) place the under-mentioned generic names (all Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea) on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology as parataxa, available only for designation of ammonoid aptychi and not for ammonoid conchs or conch-and-aptychus associations : (a) SIDETES Giebel, 1847 (N. Jahrb. Mineralogie, 1847 : 821) (gender: masculine) (type species, by monotypy: Sidetes striatus Giebel, 1849, Deutsche geol. Gesell. 1:99, text-fig. p. 100) ; (b) CORNAPTYCHUS Trauth, 1927 (Ann. naturhist..Mus. Wien, 41 : 189, 228) (gender : masculine) (type species, by monotypy : Aptychus hectici Quenstedt, 1849, Petrefactenkunde Deutsch. 1 : 119, 315, pl. 8, fig. 10) ; (c) CRASSAPTYCHUS Trauth, 1927 (op. cit. : 205, 228) (gender : masculine) (type species, by monotypy: Aptychus crassus Hébert, 1855, Mém. Soc. géol. France 5 : 368, pl. 28, fig. 5a, b) ; Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (d) GRANULAPT Y CHUS Trauth, 1927 (op. cit. : 217, 228) (gender: masculine) (type species, by subsequent selection, Moore & Sylvester-Bradley, 1956, T'reatise Invert. Paleont. L. GRANUL- APTYCHUS suevicus Trauth, 1930, op. cit. : 389, pl. 5, figs. 3-5) [species defined under Plenary Powers under subpara. (4) above] ; (e) LAEVAPTYCHUS Trauth, 1927 (op. cit. : 189, 228) (gender : masculine) (type species, by monotypy : Aptychus meneghinit Zigno, 1870, Mem. reale Ist. Venete Sci. Arte 15:11, pl. 8, figs. 1-4) ; (f) LAMMELLAPTYCHUS Trauth, 1927 (op. cit. : 189, 228) (gender: masculine) (type species, by subsequent selection, Moore & Sylvester-Bradley, 1956, Treatise Invert. Paleont. L: Trigonellites lamellosus Parkinson, 1811, Orangic remains former world, 3 : 184, pl. 13, figs. 10-11) [species defined under Plenary Powers under subpara. (5) above] ; (g) LISSAPTYCHUS Trauth, 1927 (op. cit. : 220, 231) (gender : masculine) (type species, by subsequent selection, Moore & Sylvester-Bradley, 1956, Treatise Invert. Paleont. L : Aptychus leptophyllus Sharpe, 1856, Mon. Palaeontogr. Soc. : 55, pl. 25, figs. la, b) ; (h) PALAPTYCHUS Trauth, 1927 (op. cit. : 214) (gender : mascu- line) (type species, by subsequent selection, Moore & Sylvester- Bradley, 1956, Treatise Invert. Paleont. L : Aptychus carbon- arius Koenen, 1879, N. Jahrb. Mineralogie 1879 : 317) ; (i) PRAESTRIAPTYCHUS Trauth, 1927 (op. cit.: 219, 230) (gender: masculine) (type species, by subsequent selection, Moore & Sylvester-Bradley, 1956, Treatise Invert. Paleont. L : Praestriaptychus gerzensis Trauth, 1930, op. cit. : 380, pl. 5, figs. 14-15) ; (j) PSEUDOSTRIAPTYCHUS Trauth, 1927 (op. cit. : 219, 230) (gender : masculine) (type species, by monotypy, Pseudostri- aptychus pseudostobaet Trauth, 1928, op. cit. : 165) (species defined under Plenary Powers under subpara. (4) above) ; (k) PTERAPTYCHUS Trauth, 1927 (op. cit. : 188, 218) (gender : masculine) (type species, by monotypy, Aptychus numida » Coquand, 1854, Mém. Soc. géol. France (2) 5 : 140, 148, pl. 3, fig. 1); (l) PUNCTAPTYCHUS Trauth, 1927 (op. cit. : 200, 228) (gen- der : masculine) (type species, by subsequent selection, Moore & Sylvester-Bradley, 1956, Treatise Invert. Paleont. L : Aptychus punctatus Voltz, 1837, N. Jahrb. Mineralogie, 1837 : 435, Trauth, 1935, Jahrb. geol. Bundesanst. Wien 75 : 315, pl. 12, figs. 1-6) ; i PE ORE IE MLE TG TO Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 65 (m) RUGAPTYCHUS Trauth, 1927 (op. cit. : 220, 228) (gender : masculine) (type species, by subsequent selection, Moore & Sylvester-Bradley, 1956, Treatise Invert. Paleont. L : Aptychus rugosus Sharpe, 1856, Mon. Palaeontogr. Soc. : 57, pl. 24, figs. 8-9) ; (n) SPINAPTYCHUS Trauth, 1927 (op. cit. : 200, 220) (gender : masculine) (type species, by monotypy: Aptychus spinosus Cox, 1926, Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (9) 17 : 577, pl. 24, figs. 1-3) ; (0) STRIAPTYCHUS Trauth, 1927 (op. cit. : 189, 229) (gender : masculine) (type species, by subsequent selection, Moore & Sylvester-Bradley, 1956, Treatise Invert. Paleont. L : Striapty- chus spinigert Trauth, 1927, op. cit. : 244; Schliiter, 1872, Palaeontogr. 21 : 82, pl. 25, figs. 5-7) ; (p) LAEVILAMELLAPTYCHUS Trauth, 1930 (Ann. naturhist. Mus. Wien 44 : 336) (gender: masculine) (type species, by subsequent selection, Moore & Sylvester-Bradley, 1956, Treatise Invert. Paleont., L : Trigonellites ceratoides Ooster, 1857, Petrif. remarg. Alpes Suisses, (2) : 16, pl. 6, figs. 6-8, pl. 7, fig. 19) [species defined under Plenary Powers under subpara. (5) above] ; (q) NEOANAPTYCHUS Nagao, 1931 (Proc. Imp. Acad. Japan 7 : 109) (gender : masculine) (type species, by monotypy : Neo- anaptychus tenuiliratus Nagao, 1931, op. cit. : 109, figs. 1-2) [species defined under Plenary Powers under subpara. (4) above] ; (7) place the under-mentioned specific names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology as parataxa, available only for designation of aptychi : (a) carbonarius Koenen, 1879, as published in the combination Aptychus carbonarius (specific name of type species of PALAPTYCHUS Trauth, 1927) ; (b) ceratoides Ooster, 1857, as published in the combination T'rigo- nellites ceratoides (specific name of type species of LAE VILA M- ELLAPTYCHUS Trauth, 1930) (classed as a parataxon under the Plenary Powers as in subpara. (5) above) ; (c) crassus Hébert, 1855, as published in the combination Aptychus crassus (specific name of type species of CRASSA PT YCHUS Trauth, 1927) ; (d) gerzensis Trauth, 1930, as published in the combination PRAESTRIAPTYCHUS gerzensis (specific name of type species of PRAESTRIAPTYCHUS Trauth, 1927) ; 66 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (e) hecticti Quenstedt, 1849, as published in the combination Aptychus hectici (specific name of type species of CORNAPT YCHUS Trauth, 1927) ; (f) lamellosus Parkinson, 1811, as published in the combination Trigonellites lamellosus (specific name of type species of LAMELLAPTYCHUS Trauth, 1927) (classed as a para- taxon by virtue of Plenary Powers as in subpara. (5) above) ; (g) leptophyllus Sharpe, 1857, as published in the combination Aptychus leptophyllus (specific name of type species of LISS- APT YCHUS Trauth, 1927) ; (h) meneghinii Zigno, 1870, as published in the combination Aptychus meneghinit (specific name of type species of LAEVAPTY- CHUS Trauth, 1927) ; (i) numida Coquand, 1854, as published in the combination Aptychus numida (specific name of type species of PTHRAPT YCHUS Trauth, 1927) ; (j) pseudostobaei Trauth, 1928, as published in the combination PSEUDOSTRIAPTYCHUS pseudostobaei (specific name of type species of PSEUDOSTRIAPTYCHUS Trauth, 1927) and defined by Plenary Powers as in subpara. (4) above ; (k) punctatus Voltz, 1837, as published in the combination Aptychus punctatus (specific name of type species of PUNCTAPTY- CHUS Trauth, 1927) ; (1) rugosus Sharpe, 1857, as published in the combination Aptychus rugosus (specific name of type species of RUGAPT YCHUS Trauth, 1927) ; (m) spinigert Trauth, 1927, as published in the combination ST RI- APTYCHUS spinigeri (specific name of type species of STRIAPTYCHUS Trauth, 1927) ; (n) spinosus Cox, 1926, as published in the combination Aptychus spinosus (specific name of type species of SPINAPT YCHUS Trauth, 1927) ; (o) striatus Giebel, 1849, as published in the combination SIDETES — striatus (specific name of type species of SIDETES Giebel, 1847) ; (p) suevicus Trauth, 1930, as published in the combination GRAN- ULAPTYCHUS suevicus (specific name of type species of GRANULAPTYCHUS Trauth, 1927) and defined under Plenary Powers under subpara. (4) above ; ‘ Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 67 (q) tenutliratus Nagao, 1931, as published in the combination NEOANAPTYCHUS tenuiliratus (specific name of type species of NHOANAPTYCHUS Nagao, 1931) and defined under Plenary Powers under subpara. (4) above ; (8) place the under-mentioned generic names on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology, all suppressed for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy under the Plenary Powers as in subparas. (2) and (3) above :— Trigonellites Parkinson, 1811 : Solennites Schlotheim, 1813 : Tellinites Schlotheim, 1813 : Ichthyosiagones Bourdet de la Niévre, 1822 ; Muensteria Eudes-Deslongchamps, 1835 ; Aptychus von Meyer, 1831; Palanaptychus Trauth, 1927 ; (9) place the under-mentioned generic names on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology both for the purposes of the Law of Priority and those of the Law of Homonymy :— Aptycus Deshayes, 1845 (invalid subsequent spelling of Aptychus) ; Ichthyosiagon Herrmannsen, 1847 (invalid subsequent spelling of Ichthyosiagones) ; Aptichus Crosse, 1867 (invalid subsequent spelling of Aptychus) ; Anaptychus Schlumberger, 1868 (homonym of Anaptychus Stimpson, 1860) ; Laevicornaptychus Trauth, 1936 (nomen nudum, proposed without ‘indication of type species) ; (10) place the under-mentioned generic name on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy :— Synaptychus Basse, 1952 (junior objective synonym of Striaptychus Trauth, 1927). (11) direct that the name “ anaptychus ” as used by Oppel, 1856, and “ synaptychus ” as used by Fischer, 1882, are not to be regarded as the names of genera, but solely as morphological terms. References Arkell, W. J. (1954), “ Proposed Declaration that a generic or specific name based solely upon the ‘ aptychus ’ of an ammonite (Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea) be excluded from availability under the Régles ” Bull. zool. Nomencel. 9 (9) : 266-269 68 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Baier, J. J. (1757), Monumenta rerum petrificatarum praecipua oryctographiae noricae (Norimbergae) : 1-20, pl. 1-15 Basse, Elaine (1952), “‘Classe des Céphalopodes ” in Piveteau, Jean, Traité de Paléontologie, Masson (Paris) 2 : 461-555, 581-688, pl. 1-24 Bourdet de la Niévre (1822), Notice sur des fossiles inconnus . . . que j'ai nommé Ichthyosiagones (Genéve, Paris) Clarke, J. M. (1882), “ New phyllopod crustaceans from the Devonian of western New York ”’ Amer. J. Sci. (3) 23 Coquand, H. (1841), ‘‘ Mémoire suivant les Aptychus ” Bull. Soc. géol. France, 12 : 376-392, pl. 9 Cox, L. R. (1926), ‘‘ Aptychus spinosus, sp. n., from the Upper Chalk”? Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (9) 17 : 573-580, pl. 24 Diener, Carl, (1925), Fossilium catalogus, Ammonoidea neocretacea: Animalia I: pars 29, 224 p. Eudes-Deslonghcamps, M. (1835), “Les coquilles fossiles du genre Miinsteria ”’ Mém. Soc. linn. Normandie 5 : 59-67, pl. 2 Fischer, Paul, (1880-87), Manuel de conchyliologie et de paléontologie F. Savy (Paris), 1369 p., 23 pl., 1158 fig. Gesner, Johann (1758), T'ractatus physicus de petrificatis (Lugdini Batavorum) Giebel, C. G. (1847), “ Mittheilung an Prof. Bronn gerichtet’ Newes Jahrb. Mineral. 1847 : 819-825 (1849), “ Briefliche Mittheilung an Herrn Beyrich” Z. Deutsch. geol’ Gesell. 1 : 99-100 (1851), Fauna der Vorwelt mit steter Beriicksichtigung der lebenden Thiere: Brockhaus (Leipzig) 3 : 856 p. Gmelin, J. F. (1793), Caroli Linné, Systema naturae (Lipsiae), ed. 13, 3 : 399 Hébert, E. (1855), ‘‘ Tableau des fossiles de la Craie de Meudon et description de quelques espéces nouvelles ” Mém. Soc. géol. France 5 : 367 Koenen, A. von (1879), ‘Die Kulm-Fauna von Herborn” Neues Jahrb. Mineral. 1879 : 309-346, pls. 6-7 Meyer, Hermann von (1831), ‘Das Genus Aptychus”’ Verhandl. Kais. Leopold.-Carol. Akad. Naturforsch. 15(2) : 125-170, pls. 58-59 Moore, R. C., & Sylvester-Bradley, P. C. (1957), Treatise invert. Paleont. L : 465- ; 471 Ammonoidea (in press) 4 Nagao, T. (1931), ‘ The occurrence of Anaptychus-like bodies in the Upper Cretaceous of Japan” Proc. Imp. Acad. Japan 7 : 106-109, figs. 1-2 (1932), “‘ Discovery of a Desmoceras operculum” ibid. 8 : 175-178, text-fig. Ooster, W. A. (1857), Petrifications remarquables des Alpes Suisses (IL) Genéve Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 69 Oppel, Albert (1856), “Ueber einige Cephalopoden der Juraformation Wiirttembergs, 2, Ammonites planorbis Sow. (psilonotus Quenst.) mit erhaltenen Aptychus’”’ Jahresh. Ver. vaterl. Naturk. Wiirttemberg 12 : 107-108 (1856), “‘ Die Juraformation Englands, Frankreichs und des siidwest- lichen Deutschlands ” ibid, 12 : 121-556 Parkinson, James (1811), Organic remains of former world Sherwood, Neely & Jones (London) 3 : 479 p., 22 pl. Quenstedt, F. A. (1846-49), Petrefactenkunde Deutschlands (Tubingen) 1 : text and atlas Riippell, Eduard (1829), Abbildung und Beschreibung einiger neuen oder wenig gekannten Versteinerungen aus der Kalkschieferformation von Solnehofen Bronner (Frankfurt-a.M.), 12 p., 4 pl. Schlotheim, E. F. von (1813), Taschenbuch fiir die gesamte Mineralogie mit Hinsicht auf die neuesten Entdeckungen herausgegeben von Dr. Carl Caesar Leonhard (Frankfurt-a.M.) 7(1) : 312 p., 7 pl. (1820), Die Petrefactenkunde auf ihren jetzigen Standpunkte (Gotha), 437 p., pl. 15-29 Schlumberger, M. (1868), ““Aptychus et Anaptychus ” Bull. Soc. linn. Normandie (2) 1 : 92-100, pl. 3, figs. 1-15 Schliiter, Clemens (1871-72), “‘ Cephalopoden der oberen deutschen Kreide, Teil lL”? Palaconiographica 24 : 1-120, pl. 1-35 (1-24, 1871 ; 25-120, 1872) (1876), ““ Cephalopoden der oberen Kreide, Teil 2” ibid. 24 : 1-144 Sharpe, Daniel (1856), ‘‘ Description of the fossil remains of Mollusca found in the Chalk of England ’’ Mon. Pal. Soc., London : 37-70, pls. 17-27 Trauth, Friedrich (1927), “‘ Aptychenstudien, I, Uber die Aptychen in allgemeinen ” Ann. naturhist. Mus. Wien 41 : 171-259 (no Illustr.) (1928), “‘ Aptychenstudien II, Die Aptychen der Oberkreide”’ sbid. 42 : 121-193, pls. 24 (1930), ‘“ Aptychenstudien III-V ” ibid. 44 : 329-411, pls. 3-5, figs. 1-2 (1931), “ Aptychenstudien VI-VII ” ibid 45 : 17-136, pl. 1 (1935), “Die Aptychen des Paliozoikums” Jahrb. Preuss. Geol. Landesanst. 55 (1934) : 44-83, pls. 1-2 (1935), “Die Aptychen der Trias” Sitzwngsber. Akad. Wiss. Wien (math.-naturwiss. Kl.) 144(1) : 455-482, pl. 1 see ,» Die Anaptychen der Lias ’”’ Neues Jahrb. Mineral. 73B : 70-99, pl. 6 (1935), “ Anaptychi und Anaptychus-ihnliche Aptychi der Kreide ” ibid. T4B ; 448-479, pl. 14 cai 70 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Trauth Friedrich (1935), “Die Punctaptychi des Oberjura und der Unterkreide” Jahrh. Geol. Bundesanst. Wien 85 : 309-332, pl. 12, figs. 1-2 (1935-36), “‘ Die zweivalvigen Aptychen des Lias” Jahresh. Ver: vaterl. Naturk. Wiirttemberg 91 (1935) : 22-58, pls. 1-2; ibid. 92 (1936) : 10-43, pl. 3 (1936), “‘ Aptychenstudien VIII” Ann. naturhist. Mus. Wien 47 : 127- 145 (1936), “‘ Die Praestriaptychi und Granulaptychi des Oberjure und der Unterkreide ” Pal. Z. 19 : 134-162, pls. 10-11 (1938), “‘ Die Lamellaptychi des Oberjura und der Unterkreide”’ Palaeontographica 88A : 115-229, pls. 1-6 Voltz, P. L. (1837), ““Détermination des fossiles connus sous le nom d’Aptychus”’ Inst. J. gén. Soc. Trav. sci. France et l’Etranger, Sec. 1, 5 : 48, 97 (also cited as published in Bull. Séances Soc. Hist. nat. Strasbourg) Woodward, Henry (1882), ‘‘ On a series of phyllopod crustacean shields from the Upper Devonian of the Eifel and on one from the Wenlock shale of S. Wales ” Geol. Mag. (2) 9 : 385-390, 1 pl. (1882), ‘‘ Note on Ellipsocaris duqalquei, a new phyllopod crustacean shield from the Upper Devonian of Belgium ” ibid. 9 : 444-446, text-fig. Zigno, A. de (1870), “ Annotazioni paleontologiche ” Mem. reale Ist. Veneto Sct. Lette Arti 15 : 27 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 71 DOCUMENT 1/4 Editorial Note : The following paper by Dr. W. J. Arkell was published in 1954 (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 9 : 266—269), the intention of the applicant being to secure that names based solely upon aptychi should not be permitted to cause inconvenience and confusion in normal ammonite nomenclature. It was not concerned in any way with the question whether provisions should be inserted in the Régles regulating the nomenclature of discrete fragments of fossils, a matter which had not at that time been placed before the International Commission. Following the publication of Dr. Arkell’s paper objection was raised on the ground that the adoption of a Declaration in the sense proposed might prejudice the general question of the recognition of names given to unidentifiable discrete fragments of fossils. For this reason Dr. Arkell’s application was deferred for consideration in connection with the foregoing wider problem. Of the three papers submitted by Professor Moore and Mr, Sylvester-Bradley in regard to that problem the third, which is specially concerned with the naming of ammonite aptychi—here published as Document 1/3—is described by its authors (paragraph 1) as being, in part, a counter-proposal to that previously submitted by Dr. Arkell. The latter author’s original application has accordingly been incorporated in the London Agenda Paper and is here republished (as Document 1/4) in immediate juxtaposition to the counter-proposal (Document 1/3) submitted by Professor Moore and Mr. Sylvester-Bradley. [intl’d. F.H. 11th July 1957.] Proposed adoption of a “ Declaration ’’ that a generic or specific name based solely upon the “aptychus ’’ of an ammonite (Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea) be excluded from availability under Article 27 of the “ Régles ’’ and proposed suppression of certain such names under the Plenary Powers. By W. J. ARKELL, M.A., D.Sc., F.R.S. (Cambridge University, Sedgwick Museum, Cambridge) (Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 1056, formerly Z.N.(S.) 589 and 858) Sub-section (a) of Article 27 of the Régles provides that “ the oldest available name is retained when any part of an animal is named before the animal 72 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature itself’. The present application seeks a clarification of this provision in one particular. 2. Many nominal genera are based upon nominal species of which the type specimens are incomplete. The foregoing rule is therefore, in general, desirable. 8. There are however certain special cases where the application of the above rule would lead to highly undesirable disturbance of existing nomen- clature. Such cases can be dealt with either by the insertion of words in Article 27 ruling out from availability names based exclusively upon some specified part of an animal or can be eliminated individually by the names concerned being suppressed by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature under its Plenary Powers, the names so suppressed being then placed on the appropriate Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Names in Zoology. 4, An example of the undesirable disturbance of existing nomenclature which would arise from the strict application of Sub-section (a) of Article 27 is provided by the names bestowed upon the aptychi of ammonites, structures which are now generally admitted to be opercula, analogous with those of gastropods. In the first half of the XIXth century, the nature of these structures was not understood, and several nominal genera and nominal species were established for them in the belief, usually, that they were lammellibranchs. Subsequently, some of these opercula have been found in sifu in the body- chamber of ammonites. In these cases the names currently used for the genera and species of ammonite concerned were not published until long after the names published for their aptychi. The names published for the aptychi being at present available names, there is a serious risk of disturbance in current nomenclatorial practice unless the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature takes preventive action. 5. One of the oldest nominal genera based upon aptychi is Trigonellites Parkinson, 1811 (Organic Remains former World : 184), for which a description and good figures were provided by Parkinson. No type species was designated for this genus, the type species of which must however be one or other of the two originally included nominal species, T'rigonellites latus Parkinson, 1811 (: 186, pl. 13, figs. 9, 12) and 7’. lamellosus Parkinson, 1811 (: 186, pl. 13, figs. 10, 11). Since Parkinson’s time, the nominal species 7’. latus has been identified as having been based upon the aptychus of a species of the genus Aspidoceras Zittel, 1868, and 7’. lamellosus as having been based upon a species of the genus Oppelia Waagen, 1869. Thus, whichever of the foregoing species were to be selected as the type species of the nominal genus T'rigonellites Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 73 Parkinson, a serious situation would arise, for in the one case the name T'7i- gonellites Parkinson would replace the name Aspidoceras Zittel, while in the other case that name would replace Oppelia Waagen. These are both important genera and are the type genera of families ; the supersession of either of these names would give rise to confusion and would be open to strong objection. It is the object of the present application to prevent these and other names in current use from being invalidated by the resuscitation of these old names based upon aptychi. In the present case it is desirable that, as part of its decision in regard to the name T'rigonellites Parkinson, the International Commission should place the name Aspidoceras Zittel on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. In the case of Oppelia Waagen, 1869, a proposal for its addition to the Official List has already been submitted to the International Commission (1951, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 2(6-8) : 227) and no further action is therefore needed here?. It may be noted that Dr. F. Trauth (Vienna), the sole world authority on aptychi, does not recognise as an available name any generic name or specific name based solely upon the aptychi of ammonites. See Trauth, F., 1927-1936, Aptychenstudien I-VIII (Ann. naturh. Mus. Wien 44-48) (especially “Aptychenstudien I”, published in 1927 (loc. cit. 44 : 221-228)). It will be seen therefore that the action now recommended is in line with current usage both from the point of view of the study of ammonites and from that of the study of aptychi. 6. Itis accordingly recommended that the International Commission should render a ‘“‘ Declaration ’’ recommending the International Congress of Zoology to amend Article 27 of the Régles in such a way as to deprive of availability in zoological nomenclature any name based solely upon the aptychus of an ammonite. 7. The amendment of the Régles in the foregoing sense would completely dispose of the problem here under consideration, but in the nature of the case this is a remedy which cannot be secured until the suggested Declaration is reported to, and approved by, the next International Congress of Zoology. It would however be most undesirable that the particular names with which we are here concerned should be permitted to retain their present status until the next Congress, for, as matters now stand, it would otherwise be necessary to take account of them in the forthcoming Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology. It is therefore recommended that the immediate situation should be dealt with by the suppression of these names by the International Commission under its Plenary Powers, the names in question, when so suppressed, being placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. 1 This name was later placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology in Opinion 324 (published in 1955). 74 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 8. The proposals which are now specifically submitted to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature are that it should :— (1) render a “ Declaration” recommending that Sub-section (a) of Article 27 be amended by the addition of the following words excluding from its scope any generic name or specific name based solely upon the aptychus of an ammonite: “save that, where a nominal genus or nominal species of ammonites (Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea) has been established solely upon an aptychus or upon aptychi, the generic name or, as the case may be, the specific name published for the nominal genus or nominal species so established is to have no status in zoological nomenclature ”’ ; (2) in anticipation of the insertion in the Régles of the foregoing amend- ment of Article 27, use its Plenary Powers to suppress the under- mentioned names of generic and specific names of species, each of which is based solely upon the aptychus, or upon the aptychi, of ammonites :— (a) the under-mentioned generic names :— (i) Trigonellites Parkinson, 1811, Organic Remains former World 3 : 184; (ii) Solennites Schlotheim, 1813, Tasch. Min. : 105; (iii) Solenites Schlotheim, 1820, Petref. : 180 (an emendation of Solennites Schlotheim, 1813) ; (iv) Aptychus Meyer, 1831, Jahrb. f. Min. 1831 : 393 ; id., 1831, N. Acta Acad. Caes. Leopold. Car. 15 (No. 2) : 125; (v) Aptycus Deshayes, 1845, in Lamarck, Hist. Anim. sans Vertébr. (ed. 2) 11 : 228 (an emendation of Aptychus Meyer, 1831) ; (vi) Muensteria Eudes-Deslongchamps, 1835, Mém. Soc. linn. Normandie 5 : 61; (b) the under-mentioned specific names :— (i) lamellosus Parkinson, 1811, as published in the binominal combination T'rigonellites lamellosus ; (ii) Jatus Parkinson, 1811, as published in the binominal com- bination T'rigonellites latus ; (3) place the six generic names proposed, under (2) (a) above, to be suppressed under the Plenary Powers, on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology : a Sas es PP LAGI L Se i | 4 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 75 (4) place the two specific names proposed, under (2) (b) above, to be suppressed under the Plenary Powers on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology ; (5) place the generic name Aspidoceras Zittel, 1868 (Pal. Mitt. Mus. Bayer. 2 (Abt. 1) : 116) (gender of generic name: neuter) (type species, by monotypy : Ammonites rogoznikensis Zeuschner, 1868 (im Zittel, Pal. Mitt. Mus. Bayer. 2 (Abt. 1): 116, pl. 24, fig. 5) on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology : (6) place the specific name rogoznikensis Zeuschner, 1868, as published in the combination Ammonites rogoznikensis (specific name of type species of Aspidoceras Zittel, 1868) on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. 76 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature DOCUMENT 1/5 Comments received in 1954 on the proposal by Dr. W. J. Arkell for the adoption of a “ Declaration ’’ depriving names based solely upon the aptychi of ammonites of the status of availability for the purposes of zoological nomenclature (i.e. of whole-animal nomenclature in the terminology of the “ Parataxa Plan ’’) By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E. (Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) (Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 1056, formerly Z.N.(S.) 589 and 858) The publication in 1954 of the application by Dr. W. J. Arkell for the adoption of a Declaration depriving names based solely upon the aptychi of ammonites of the status of availability for the purposes of zoological nomen- clature, i.e. for the purpose of what becomes ‘“‘ whole-animal nomenclature ”’ in the terminology of the “ parataxa ” elicited three comments. These were from the following specialists :— (a) Joshua L. Baily, Jr. (San Diego, California, U.S.A. (letter dated 27th November 1954) (b) C. W. Wright (London) (letter dated 30th November 1954) . (c) P. C. Sylvester-Bradley (University of Sheffield, England) (letter dated 29th December 1954). 2. The communications so received from Dr. Baily and Mr. Wright are reproduced in Annexe 1 and 2 respectively to the present note. The letter received from Mr. Sylvester-Bradley was an objection based upon the apprehen- sion that the issue of a Declaration in the sense recommended by Dr. Arkell might prejudice the later introduction into the Régles of provisions regulating the nomenclature of discrete fragments of fossils unidentifiable as parts of whole-animals. The communications so received from Mr. Sylvester-Bradley are not here reproduced, for they have since been superceded by the detailed treatment of this problem, both generally and with particular reference to Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 77 names based solely upon the aptychi of ammonites in the detailed papers subsequently submitted which are here reproduced as Documents 1/1 and 1 [3 respectively. ANNEXE 1 TO DOCUMENT 1/5 Comment by JOSHUA L. BAILY, Jr. (San Diego, California, U.S.A.) (Letter dated 27th November 1954) On the basis of the information supplied by Dr. Arkell, I would recommend the suppression of the name T'rigonellites Parkinson, as otherwise it would have to displace one of two universally used and understood names. I do not, however, agree with Dr. Arkell that subsection (a) of Article 27 of the Régles be amended to exclude the Aptychus of Ammonites from its application. The rule is short and compact and semantically expressed, and to make an exception to it would complicate it unnecessarily. Simple rules that are easily understood and easily remembered are the best. If further cases parallel to this one should develop it would be better to deal with each one separately by suspending the rules, rather than by amending the rules with complicated exceptions for the purpose of anticipating emergencies which may not arise. ANNEXE 2 TO DOCUMENT 1/5 Comment by C. W. WRIGHT (London) (Letter dated 30th November 1954) As a specialist in Mesozoic Ammonoidea I should like to support strongly Dr. Arkell’s proposal for a Declaration that generic or specific names of ammonite aptychi should have no validity in zoological nomenclature. 78 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature DOCUMENT 1/6 The Moore/Sylvester-Bradley “ Parataxa ’’ Proposals By W. J. ARKELL, M.A., D.Sc., F.R.S. (Sedgwick Museum, Cambridge University, Cambridge) (Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 1056) (Letter dated 20th June 1956) I have read these documents and support them without reserve. The proposal for a special category of parataxa with its own special nomenclature is in my view the only satisfactory solution to an increasingly troublesome problem facing palaeontologists. I think the authors have made their case completely. I am not qualified to comment on the First Supplemental Application (Conodonts), and my support must be understood as limited to approval of the Application as a general solution for the problem, and as applied in detail in the Second Supplemental Application (Aptychi). On the latter I have some small comments on matters of fact, which in no wise detract from my acceptance of the authors’ main thesis. Paragraph 5: Status of Anaptychus Oppel, 1856, and Synaptychus Fischer, 1882. It does not seem to me to be satisfactorily demonstrated that these names were not considered as genera by their authors. Oppel in his 1856—8 book did not print any generic or specific names in italics, and Anaptychus was not printed in italics ; and it was listed in the “ Register” at the end of the book, which contains no other entries but genera and species. Synaptychus was printed by Fischer in italics with initial capital, as for genera, and he used neither italics nor initial capitals for morphological terms. Paragraphs 12 and 13 : The generic attributions given in these paragraphs require careful sifting before they could be regarded as reliable. For instance : Euaspidoceras referred to in paragraph 12(15) is an Oxfordian and Callovian subgenus and it is highly doubtful whether it can have been found associated with Aptychus latus, which is essentially Kimeridgian. This is unlikely to be the only case of misidentification. a ee FR Fp ee. iin on Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 79 DOCUMENT 1/7 The Moore/Sylvester-Bradley ‘‘ Parataxa ’’ Proposals By DON L. FRIZZELL and HARRIET FRIZZELL (Rolla, Missouri, U.S.A.) (Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 1056) (Letter dated 21st June 1956) We wish to endorse most enthusiastically the Moore/Sylvester-Bradley application for the recognition of the special category of “‘ parataxa”’ for fragmental fossils. We feel strongly that this special category is indispensable for progress in micropaleontology. Moore and Sylvester-Bradley (paragraph 5) refer to our recent use of dual nomenclature applied to fossil holothurian remains (Univ. Missouri School of Mines & Metallurgy, Bull., Tech. Ser., No. 89, 1955). We would stress the fact that our decision to use a dual system of binominal nomenclature within the framework of the international code—essentially identical with Moore and Sylvester-Bradley’s proposal for “taxa”’ and “ parataxa ’—was made quite independently (except for the literature cited in our Monograph). No other course seems possible to us, if confusion in nomenclature is to be avoided and if the vast preponderance of fossil material is to be made available for use in stratigraphy and paleozoology. The concept of ‘‘ parataxa ”’ certainly should be incorporated within the Régles, and an orderly system of ‘‘ parataonomy ” so expedited ! 80 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature DOCUMENT 1/8 The Moore/Sylvester-Bradley ‘“‘ Parataxa ’’ Proposals By ELIANE BASSE (Laboratoir de Géologie, Sorbonne, Paris) (Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 1056) (Letter dated 23rd June 1956) Je vous envoie mon accord au sujet des propositions concernant la nomen- clature zoologique sous l’égide de Professor R. Moore et P. C. Sylvester-Bradley. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 81 DOCUMENT 1/9 The Moore/Sylvester-Bradley ‘‘ Parataxa ’’ Proposals By J. BROOKES KNIGHT (Smithsonian Institution, United States National Museum, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.) (Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 1056) (Letter dated Ist July 1956) May I endorse the proposal of Raymond C. Moore and P. C. Sylvester- Bradley that the International Commission of Zoological Nomenclature establish a special category called ‘“‘ parataxa”’ for the classification and nomenclature of discrete fragments or life stages of animals which are inadequate for identification of whole-animal taxa. Let me emphasize these authors recommendation “that the provisions concerning parataxa should be limited to special groups of animals specifically defined for the purpose by the Commission ”’. It is my opinion that the period of six months which they propose be allowed to elapse between the publication in the Bulletin of a proposal to the Commission and the vote taken by the Commission is far too short. What with delays in the world-wide distribution of the Bulletin by mail, in sorting out and distributing the matter at the subscribing institution, the likelihood that the Bulletin will not be called promptly to the attention of all interested in this or other matter in it coupled with the time needed to digest the proposal and get a letter back to the Commission, the entire interval of six months may well have passed. I urge one year as a minimum. 82 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature DOCUMENT 1/10 The Moore/Sylvester-Bradley ‘‘ Parataxa ’’ Proposals By H. SCHMIDT (Geologisch- Palaeontologisches Institut der Georg August-Universitat, Gottingen, Germany) (Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 1056) (Letter dated 3rd July 1956) Zum Antrag Raymond C. Moore & Sylvester-Bradley méchte ich meine grundsitzliche Zustimmung ausdriicken. Auch ich halte es fiir notwendig, dass die Parataxa nomenklatorisch von den Taxa getrennt werden, und dass Homonymie solchen gegeniiber verhindert wird. Beziiglich Festellung von Synonymie sollte von seiten der I.R.Z.N. jedoch keine Vorschrift gemacht werden. Zum Wortlaut der Recommendation (sub 2a) schlage ich vor, das Wort “ fragments ” durch “ parts ”’ zu ersetzen. Begriindung : Es gibt zahlreiche Namen fur fossile Fahrten. Diese sind niemals “ fragments ” von Tierkérpern, sie tiberliefern uns aber die Form von > Teilen der Kérper und kénnen unter solche gerechnet werden, besonders weil ja auch sonst viele Fossilien eigentlich nur Abdriicke (manchmal Pseudomor- phosen eines Minerals) nach Teilen eines Tierkérpers sind. Die Aufzahlung der “ zoological entities ’’ bei Moore & Sylvester-Bradley ist in Bezug auf Fahrten und Spuren unvollstiindig. Ich vermute, dass beide Forscher, denen diese Begriffe natiirlich nicht fremd sind, durch Weglassen derselben eine Vereinfachung anstrebten. Ich bin aber der Meinung, dass auch die Parataxa aus diesem Bereich beriicksichtigt werden sollten. Namen fiir Tetrapoden- Fahrten (Beispiel : Chirotherium) sollten einbezogen werden. In der Kategorie Organogene Spuren (Definition bei Krejci-Graf, Senckenbergiana 14, 1932, p. 29) _ gibt es beispielsweise solche, die auf Enteropneusta bezogen werden ; eine neue Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 83 Untersuchung k6nnte (theoretisch!) finden, dass andere ‘‘ Vermes ” zugrunde- liegen, und so miissten nacheinander mehrere Tierklassen durch die Commission eine Zulassung fiir Parataxa bekommen. Ich hoffe, dass der vorliegende Antrag so modifiziert werden kann, dass spatere Schwierigkeiten in dieser Richtung vermieden werden. Eine bestimmte Formulierung in diesem Sinne vorzuschlagen habe ich nicht, méchte auch den Antragstellern nicht vorgreifen. Des weiteren bitte ich zu bedenken, dass es nach dieser Regelung im Einzelfall oft unklar bleiben wird, ob ein Taxon oder ein Parataxon vorliegt. Deshalb sollte fiir die Zukunft empfohlen werden, dass Parataxa schon in der Namensform als solche kenntlich gemacht werden. Ich habe dazu einen Vorschlag gemacht (Paldontologische Zeitschrift 28, 1954, p. 3). Zu “Supplement Application Conodonts ” : In Table 1 sind zu dem von mir beschriebenen Westfalicus integer (vorher “‘ Gnathodus’”’) einige Vermut- ungen dargestellt. Ich habe kiirzlich Schritte unternommen, um neues Material zu beschaffen. In einigen Monaten werden besser begriindete Aussagen wahrscheinlich méglich sein. Zu ‘Supplement Application, Aptychi”: Die Gottinger Sammlung besitzt mehrere Aptychi(es ist tiblich, in solchen Fallen das Wort ‘““Anaptychus ” nach Oppel, 1856 zu verwenden, aber diese Unterscheidung halte ich fiir unrichtig) in situ bei Crickites holzapfeli, darunter das Original zu Matern, Senckenbergiana 18, 1931, p. 160. Danach gehért Spathiocaris koeneni Clarke, 1884, hierher und wire p. 111 und 151 noch zu nennen. P. 411, 7a : carbonarius Koenen, 1879, ist nach Trauth, Aptychen des Paldéozoikums, 1934, p. 78, zu _ streichen, was ich bestitigen kann. Ls 4 Translation of letter by H. Schmidt reproduced above ¢ * In regard to the application of Raymond C. Moore & Sylvester-Bradley _ I would like to express my approval. I too think it necessary that the para- _ taxa should be nomenclatorially separated from the taxa, thereby avoiding _ homonymy. Regarding the establishment of synonymy there should be no _ directions on the part of the I.R.Z.N. e. The page numbers here cited are to the pages of the typescript of this paper which was circulated by the authors to certain specialists. Of the pages cited page 11 is here reproduced on pages 42-43, page 15 on pages 45-46, and page 41(7)(a) on page 65. 84 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature As regards the wording of the Recommendation (subparagraph 2a) I recommend that the word ‘ fragments ”’ be replaced by “ parts ”’. Explanation: There are in existence countless names for fossile marks. These are never “ fragments ”’ of animal bodies, but they give us the form of sections of these bodies and can therefore be considered as such, especially as many fossiles are really only imprints (sometimes pseudomorphosia of a mineral) of parts of animal bodies. The enumeration of “ zoological entities” by Moore & Sylvester-Bradley is incomplete in regard to tracks and marks. I suppose that the two researchers, to whom this concept will not be a strange one, want to simplify matters by omissions. I am, however, of the opinion that also the parataxa falling into this group should be considered. Names for Tetrapod tracks (Example : Chirotherium) should be included. In the category Organogene marks (Definition by Krejci-Graf, Senckenbergiana 14, 1932, p. 29) there are some which refer to Enteropneusta; a new examination could (theoretically) find them to be based on another “ Vermes”’, and so the Commission would have to admit several animal groups to the parataxa. I hope that the application can be so modified that difficulties which might later arise in this connection may be avoided. I cannot make definite sugges- tions in this matter, and also do not wish to anticipate those responsible for this application. I would also like you to bear in mind that this Ruling would not always make it clear whether a taxon or parataxon is under consideration. Therefore it should be recommended that parataxa should be distinguishable in the form of the name. I have made a suggestion to this effect (Paldontologische Zett- schrift 28, 1954, p. 3). In the First Supplemental Application (Conodonts), Table 1, I have added a few remarks to my description of Westfalicus integer (formerly “Gnathodus’’). I have lately taken steps to get new material. In a few months’ time I hope to be able to give a better reasoned account. Re the Second Supplemental Application (Aptychi): The Gdttinger collection possesses several Aptychi (it is usual in such cases to use the word “Anaptychus ”’ after Oppel, 1856, but I do not consider this correct) in situ by Crickites holzapfeli, among which is the original of Matern, Senckenbergiana 13, 1931, p. 160. According to this Spathiocaris koeneni Clarke, 1884, belongs here and should be quoted on p. 11? and p. 15%. Page 41°, 7a: carbonarius Koenen, 1879, according to Trauth, Aptychen des Paldozoikums, 1934, p. 78, should be omitted, which I can confirm. = See Footnote 1. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 85 DOCUMENT 1/11 The Moore/Sylvester-Bradley ‘‘ Parataxa ’’ Proposals By CURT TEICHERT (Petroleum Geology Laboratory, United States Geological Survey, Denver, Colorado, U.S.A.) (Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 1056) (Letter dated 9th July 1956) _ Dr. R. C. Moore and Mr. Sylvester-Bradley have sent me a copy of their “Application for a Declaration recognizing Parataxa, etc.’ and I wish to record whole-hearted support of their proposals. These are extremely well phrased and very logically conceived. I find it quite difficult to offer any worthwhile comments except to say that the suggested solution of the problems arising out of the naming of discrete fragments of animals strikes me as good common sense. To the groups of fragments and life-stages listed by Moore and Sylvester- Bradley I would like to add the genera founded on cephalopod mandibles. For these objects, mainly of Mesozoic age, about 10 or 12 generic names are now available, but for most of them it is not known with certainty whether they are of nautiloid or of belemnoid affinities. Classification and treatment of this group as a parataxon as suggested by Moore and Sylvester-Bradley would greatly facilitate taxonomic work. 86 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature DOCUMENT 1/12 The Moore/Sylvester-Bradley “ Parataxa ’’ Proposals (Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 1056) Copy of a letter dated 18th July 1956 from R. C. MOORE (University of Kansas) to H. SCHMIDT (Gottingen, Germany) commenting on suggestions submitted by J. Brookes Knight (Document 1/9), H. Schmidt (Document 1/10) and C. Teichert (Document 1/11) It is very helpful to have your discussion of application of parataxa to various groups and the recommendation that wording in the basic declaration should be broadly applicable to groups defined and approved by the Commission for use of parataxa. Thus, it has been suggested that not only for parts of organisms common as fossils but life stages of some organisms as in parasitology may advantageously be classified and named in terms of parataxa. These questions are subject for study and future decision. In order to avoid inde- pendent subjective procedures, it has been the view of Sylvester-Bradley and me that the responsibility for designating the areas in which parataxa may be used, should be in the hands of the Commission. This is endorsed by a number of others such as J. Brookes Knight and Curt Teichert. Teichert has raised the question of applying parataxa to nomenclature of “ lebensspuren ”’ and evidently he agrees with thinking expressed in your letter. Purposely, we submitted only two Supplemental Applications because it has seemed to us that the principles should receive consideration and I hope adoption before the effort to apply parataxa in various groups is taken up comprehensively. I thank you for the specific suggestions made with reference to the Supple- mental Applications. I shall look forward to seeing the publication concerning conodonts which you mention, and will study the suggested changes for the Application concerning aptychi. ee Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 87 DOCUMENT 1/13 The Moore/Sylvester-Bradley “‘ Parataxa ’’ Proposals By D. T. DONOVAN (University of Bristol) (Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 1056) (Letter dated 10th September 1956) I have received from Professor R. C. Moore and Mr. P. C. Sylvester-Bradley a duplicated draft of an application submitted to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature in which they ask for “ parataxa ” to be recognized as a special category. I am writing to say that as a palaeontologist, although not one who is primarily concerned with the groups of fossils for which the category _ “parataxon”’ is proposed, the concept seems to me to be a useful one, and I _ therefore support the proposal. 88 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature DOCUMENT 1/14 Note on the provision in the Moore/Sylvester-Bradley ‘‘ Parataxa °’ Plan for the possible application of the ‘‘ parataxa system’’ to the naming of collective groups of certain stages in the life histories of parasites. By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E. (Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) (Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 1056) On 8th October 1956 I received a letter dated 3rd October 1956 from Professor A. C. Walton, Secretary to the American Society of Parasitologists, transmitting a Resolution adopted by the Society commenting upon the relationship in the field of the nomenclature of parasites of the “ Collective Group ” Concept to that which (in Document 1/1) Professor Raymond C. Moore and Mr. P. C. Sylvester-Bradley had recommended should be recognised under the term “ Parataxon”’. 2. The receipt of the foregoing resolution led to correspondence between the Office of the Commission, Professor Walton, Dr. Allen McIntosh and Professor Raymond C. Moore. Later, Dr. McIntosh communicated to the Office of the Commission copies of three further documents, namely, a letter addressed by Dr. McIntosh to Dr. Norman R. Stoll, a letter addressed by Professor J. Chester Bradley to Professor Walton, and Dr. McIntosh’s reply to Professor Bradley. 3. The Resolution adopted by the American Society of Parasitologists is attached to the present note as Annexe 1. The ensuing correspondence between the Office of the Commission and the specialists referred to in para- graph 2 above is attached as Annexes 2 to 6. The three documents communi- cated to the Office of the Commission by Dr. McIntosh are attached as Annexes 7 to 9, ‘ “ ‘ Se ee ee a i i = ee Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 89 ANNEXE 1 TO DOCUMENT 1/14 Resolution by the American Society of Parasitologists (Transmitted by Professor A. C. Walton under cover of a letter dated 3rd October 1956) (a) That the “ parataxa plan’, as outlined by Moore and Sylvester- Bradley, will not meet the needs of parasitologists. (b) That the “ Collective groups ”’ have offered a suitable solution for dealing with the problem of nomenclature for larval stages of parasites, of unknown systematic position. (c) That since there appears to be some difficulty among zoologists in the use of the Recommendation pertaining to “Collective groups” the Com- mission should clarify the Recommendation by a Declaration specifying the status of names associated with them, therefore the Society proposes the following resolution : Certain biological groups which have been proposed distinctly as collective groups, not as systematic units, may be treated for convenience as if they were genera, but they require no type species. Any specific name proposed in combination with a collective group name shall have the same status as if it had been proposed in combination with a generic name of a systematic unit. ANNEXE 2 TO DOCUMENT 1/14 Copy of a letter dated 10th October 1956 from FRANCIS HEMMING (London) to A. C. WALTON (American Society of Parasitologists) I should like, if I may, to raise a question of interpretation regarding the Resolution favoured by your Society. Am I right in thinking that it is the object of this Resolution to secure that where names or terms are published to dis- tinguish collective groups and not to serve as systematic units the names or , terms so published though ranking for priority with one another would not possess any status in zoological nomenclature as generic names, and would not preoccupy the names so used for use as generic names by later authors either in the same or in another part of the Animal Kingdom ? 90 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature ANNEXE 3 TO DOCUMENT 1/14 Copy of a letter dated 22nd October 1956 from ALLEN McINTOSH (Chairman, Committee on Nomenclature, American Society of Parasitologists) to FRANCIS HEMMING (London). Your letter of 10th October 1956 to Dr. A. C. Walton, Secretary American Society of Parasitologists, Knox College, Galesburg, Illinois has been referred to me for reply to the question you have raised regarding the resolution presented by the A.S.P. pertaining to collective groups. The purpose of the resolution is to request the Commission to issue a declaration to clarify the Recommendation under Article 8 (old Code) per- taining to collective groups. The declaration to read as follows :— Certain biological groups which have been proposed distinctly as collective groups, not as systematic units, may be treated for convenience as if they were genera, but they require no type species. Any specific name proposed in combination with a collective group name shall have the same status as if it had been proposed in combination with a generic name of a systematic unit. The declaration is twofold : (1) To retain the collective groups as genera for convenience with the interpretations you have given in your letter to Dr. Walton. Except that, although not mentioned in the resolution, the same spelling as that of a collective group name should never be employed for a generic name of a systematic unit. (2) That any specific name proposed for a new species in combination with a collective group name shall have the same status as if it had been pro- posed in combination with a generic name of a systematic unit. ANNEXE 4 TO DOCUMENT 1/14 Copy of a letter dated 27th November 1956 from RAYMOND C. MOORE (University of Kansas) to FRANCIS HEMMING (London) In view of the communications sent to you by Dr. A. C. Walton indicating that “collective group” nomenclature seems adequate for purposes of bi- nominal nomenclature of life-stages such as those studied by parasitologists, Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 91 it may be well to remove this from the application which we submitted on parataxa. Seemingly, an essential difference between collective groups and parataxa is that concept of type species, type specimens, and the like are not used with the former whereas they are essential in connection with parataxa. ANNEXE 5 TO DOCUMENT 1/14 Copy of a letter dated 5th December 1956 from FRANCIS HEMMING (London) to RAYMOND C. MOORE (University of Kansas) As regards the point raised in your letter, and my correspondence with Dr. A. C. Walton, it seems to me that the question of whether or not collective groups on parataxa should be accepted (a) as concepts not having type species or (b) as concepts having type species, is one of fundamental importance, for obviously if names given to such units are to be given type species as in the case of ordinary genera, the problem is one of considerably greater complexity than if they are not. In view of the differences of opinion which have been expressed on this question it will be particularly necessary that the Commission should be furnished with a representative sample of the view of specialists on this aspect of the matter before it takes a decision. ANNEXE 6 TO DOCUMENT 1/14 Copy of a letter dated 8th January 1957 from RAYMOND C. MOORE (University of Kansas) to FRANCIS HEMMING (London) After discussion with some parasitologists at the meeting of the Society of Systematic Zoology in New York City, I am not sure that all agree with the views expressed by Dr. Walton but so far as I am concerned reference to “ life stages ” in our application on parataxa could be deleted without affecting in any way the crucial objectives concerned with discrete parts of fossil organisms. However, I do think that the question of requirement of type species or lack of such requirement as affects names for “ collective groups” is important. I am very sure that efforts to apply collective group nomenclature to our discrete fossils would not solve problems, mainly because we must have names both for the parts and for assemblages of parts presumed or demonstrated to represent complete animals. 92 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature ANNEXE 7 TO DOCUMENT 1/14 Copy of a letter dated 13th August 1956 from ALLEN McINTOSH (Chairman, Committee on Nomenclature, American Society of Parasitologists) to NORMAN D. STOLL (Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research) (trans- mitted by Allen McIntosh). Herewith are copies of letters from the other members (Hunter, Kruidenier, and Wharton) of the A.S.P. Committee on Nomenclature and Terminology, of which I am Chairman. These pertain to the possibility of incorporating a new article in the Code for “ parataxa’”’ as recommended by Moore and Sylvester-Bradley, with supplementary suggestion by Commissioner Chester Bradley for broadening the plan to include “ Collective groups’ names as used by the helminthologists. Granting that the “ Parataxa plan ’”’ may be an excellent working tool for the paleontologists, such a plan, as outlined by Dr. Moore and Mr. Sylvester- Bradley, would, in the unanimous opinion of the A.S.P. Committee, handicap the work of helminthologists if adopted by them. It is true that the category “‘ Collective groups ”’, established for larval stages of worm parasites in which only a fragment in the life-cycle is known, is somewhat parallel to the proposed “ parataxa ’’, the latter to include fossil fragments that are inadequate for identification. There is, however, a difference. In the case of the parasites we are working with living animals and have been able to resolve the complex life-cycle for many of the species placed in the “Collective groups ”’. To accept and practice the concepts of ‘“‘ parataxa”’ as outlined by the two eminent paleontologists would be acting contrary to the Law of Priority, Article 25, and the Application of the Law of Priority, Article 27. Some nomenclaturists may argue that to accept the Recommendation under Article 8, that certain biological groups which have been proposed distinctly as collective groups, not as systematic units, but may be treated for convenience as if they were genera, would be contradictory to the present rules. But such is not the case. Most helminthologists, in general, have not considered that the Recommendation under Art. 8 is inconsistent with or con- trary to the rules and it has been their practice to accept as the valid name of a species only that name under which it was first designated on the condition : (a) That this name was published and accompanied by indication, or a definition, or a description ; and (b) That the author has applied the principles of binary nomenclature (Art. 25). Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 93 Even in the case of collective groups where a name, for convenience, is treated as a genus, the practice is not in violation of Article 27, for the Law of Priority obtains and consequently the oldest available name is retained : (a) When any part of an animal is named before the animal itself ; (b) When any stage in the life history is named before the adult ; (c) When the two sexes of an animal have been considered as distinct species or even as belonging to distinct genera ; (d) When an animal represents a regular succession of dis- similar generations which have been considered as belonging to different species or even to different genera (Art. 27). The practice of combining a new specific (trivial) name with a collective group name (a genus for convenience) does not create a scientific name con- trary to binary nomenclature. (Art. 25b). Many of the names of the ‘“ Collective groups ”’ that are treated as genera for convenience, were proposed as genera but are synonyms of valid genera. If types were designated for other “Collective groups ” and the name treated as generic taxa, they too would become synonyms of older genera. Some of these names were proposed for the purpose of serving as genera for larval stages of certain species that had similar characteristics. For such names (genera for convenience) no types were designated nor were any needed as the authors were aware that when the life histories were known several named genera would probably be represented under the collective group names. Other names that have come into use, as collective groups, were proposed as valid genera with types designated at the time or at a later date, for what were believed to be, in some cases, free-living animals but proved later to be a free living stage in the life cycle of parasites. Mueller’s (1773) genus Cercaria included such forms. It has been argued that specific names combined with collective group names (genera for convenience) are never combined with genera of systematic units. This is not the practice of helminthologists as the following examples will serve to indicate : 1. Schistosomatium douthitti (Cort, 1914) is the accepted name for the blood trematode of the muskrat and other rodents. This para- site was first known in the larval stage as Cercaria douthitti Cort, 1914. Before the life history of Cercaria douthittti was known this parasite was of considerable medical importance as a producer of schistosome dermatitis (‘‘ swimmer’s itch’). Thus genus Schistosomatiwm was proposed by Tanabe in 1923 as a monotypical genus with Schistosomatium pathlocopticum, Tanabe, 1923, as type. Tanabe had first observed this parasite as a fwrcocercous cercaria in Lymnaea palustris. He successfully developed the adult of this blood flude parasite in mice. In 1929 Helen F. Price, under the direction of Dr. George R. La Rue, University of Michigan, worked out the life history of Cercaria douthitti Cort, 1914, obtaining the adult in rats and mice. The adults occur as natural 94 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature infections in Ondatra zibethica and Microtus p. pennsylvanicus. Miss Price transferred the specific name from the collective groups name, Cercaria (the genus Cercaria was proposed by Mueller, 1773, for a number of free swimming organisms that included among them some species of trematodes in their free swimming larval stage) to the genus Schistosomatium Tanabe, 1923, and today this parasite is known as Schistosomatium douthitti (Cort, 1914) Price, 1929, Syns. Cercaria douthitti Cort, 1914, and Schistosomatium pathlocopticum Tanabe, 1923. 2. Another interesting parasite, in which the name was first proposed in combination with a collective genus, is Leucochloridiomorpha constantiae. (Mueller, 1935) Allison, 1943, a trematode in which the adult stage is found in a duck, Anas rubripes. This parasite was first known and described from an immature stage found in a snail, Campeloma decisum Say, and described under the name Cercariaeum constantiae by Mueller, 1935. The adult was described by Gowar, 1938, as Leucochloridiomorpha macrocotyle n.g., n.sp., Allison (1943) in publishing the results of his investigations on the life cycle of Cercariaewm constantiae found this larval species to be identical with Gower’s Leucochloridiomorpha macrocotyle. The accepted name today of this parasite is Leucochloridiomorpha con- stantiae (Mueller, 1935) Allison, 1943 ; Syns. L. macrocotyle Gower, 1938 ; and Cercariaeum constantiae Mueller, 1935. 3. Some additional collective group binominals in which the specific names have been combined with genera of systematic units : (a) Nematodium passali Leidy, 1852 [=Chondronema passali (Leidy, 1852) Christie and Chitwood, 1931]. (b) Cercaria variglandis Miller and Northup, 1926 [=Microbilharzia variglandis (Miller and Northup, 1926) Stunkard, 1951). (c) Dubium erinacei Rudolphi, 1819, Syn. Sparganum erinacei-europaer (Rud. 1819) Diesing, 1854 [=Spirometra erinacei (Rud. 1819) Mueller, 1937]. (d) Cercaria elephantis Cort, 1917, [=Spirorchis elephantis (Cort, 1917) Wall, 1941]. (ec) Diplostomulum joyeuxi Hughes, 1929 [=Szidatia joyeuxi (Hughes, 1929) Dubois, 1938]. (f) Aganofilaria georgiana Stiles, 1906, [=Filaria georgiana (Stiles, 1906) Castellani and Chalmers, 1910). aa SS. ————————— es OC TS——<—~CS:S Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 95 Some of the “Collective groups” have had only a few specific names assigned to them and in the case of Amphistomulum Brandes, 1892, no species have been assigned. It is my opinion that the helminthologists should either go on record as opposing the suppression of the Recommendation under Art. 8 of the Rules pertaining to collective groups, or, recommend to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature the rendering of a Declaration to read as follows :— Certain biological groups which have been proposed distinctly as collective groups, not as systematic units, may be treated for convenience as if they were genera, but they require no type species. Any specific name proposed in combination with a collective group name shall have the same status as if it had been proposed in combination with a generic name of a systematic unit. ANNEXE 8 TO DOCUMENT 1/14 Copy of a letter dated 30th November 1956 from J. CHESTER BRADLEY (Cornell University, Ithaca) to A. C. WALTON (American Society of Parasitologists) (transmitted by Allen McIntosh). I have been giving thought to your recent letter. Some questions arise. (1) What provision should be made concerning homonymy? Should names of collective groups enter into homonymy with one another? With generic names ? (2) The Regles provide, in effect (cf. Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 226, par. 21) that a specific name, in order to become available, must be published in connection with a specified generic name. This seems to be a fundamental principle of zoological nomenclature. Would you care to propose an amendment to bring it into line with the Society’s resolution 2 (3) The Reégles provide (cf. Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 114, par. 16) that the name of a hypothetical concept shall have no status. Since a “ collective group ”’ is not related to taxonomy, will it be argued by some that it is a hypo- thetical concept and therefore excluded from zoological nomenclature ? (4) A taxon is any taxonomic unit—but this excludes a collective group. Without a type such a group cannot be objectively defined—but perhaps no definition is necessary. Should one conclude that being non-taxonomic it has no place in taxonomy, that it belongs to no family, order or class ? 96 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature In my proposed draft of the Régles I have frequently used the word taxon in wording a provision. Since all such provisions would exclude collective groups (as not coming under taxa) should not your resolution have some provision to the effect that wherever the word “‘ taxon ”’ is employed in the Regles, it should be understood that the provision in question likewise applies equally to a collective group? Without reading through the entire draft I cannot tell whether this should not poi be true, nor how important it would be. (5) Subsequent to 1930 a generic name does not become available until published with a type-species. Since names of collective groups require no type species, should there not be some clarification of their status inserted in that provision ? I mean should one say “‘A generic name but not the name of a collective group ” does not become available etc. ? It would be helpful to know whether the Resolution enclosed in your letter was adopted (a) by mail vote of the membership of your society, or (b) by the nomenclature committee only. It would also be useful to know whether the vote, however taken, was unanimous, or if not what proportion was affirmative. Personally, I feel that exceptions made for special disciplines are objection- able in the Régles and should be held down to a minimum. I had hoped that the proposal for parataxa might also cover the requirements of parasitologists, or be modified so as to be acceptable to them as well as to paleontologists. I am disappointed that your letter dismisses them without any explanation of why they will not serve. ANNEXE 9 TO DOCUMENT 1/14 Copy of a letter dated 19th December 1956 from ALLEN McINTOSH (Chairman, Committee on Nomenclature, American Society of Parasitologists) to J. CHESTER BRADLEY (Cornell University, Ithaca) (transmitted by Allen McIntosh) Your letter of November 30th 1956, to Dr. A. C. Walton, Secretary, American Society of Parasitology, Knox College, Galesburg, Illinois, has been referred to me for reply to the questions you have raised regarding the Resolution presented by the American Society of Parasitologists pertaining to collective groups. aah, Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 97 These questions are answered in the order in which they appeared in your letter. (1) Names of collective groups should be treated as if they were generic names, entering into homonymy with one another and with generic names. (Several names that are today used as collective groups were originally proposed as generic names.) (2) Names of collective groups should not present an insurmountable problem. Why not state in Article 25, provoso (c), that such names are to be treated as if they were generic names ? With reference to specific names to become available (cf. Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 228, par. 21, last part) it is suggested that the underscored words be inserted in the following paragraph quoted from the above-mentioned reference : The Commission agreed to recommend :— that words should be inserted in Article 25 to make it clear that the status of a trivial name (specific, subspecific or infra-subspecific) is not adversely affected where the generic name (including name of a collective group) with which it was combined when first published is a name which was itself either an unavailable name by reason of its having been published in conditions which do not satisfy the require- ments of Article 25 (Law of Priority) (proviso (c) cases) or was invalid under the Law of Homonymy. (3) Names of collective groups should not be treated as “‘ hypothetical concepts ” (cf. Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 144, par. 16). They are names applied to certain immature forms, the categories of which are supra-generic in scope, and for convenience are treated as if they were genera. Dr. Ch. Wardell Stiles (1905) in “ The determination of generic types ” _ stated his views concerning collective biological groups as follows : “ Collective groups of this kind are of course unnatural, but they are nevertheless con- venient, for they enable an international specific nomenclature for certain forms without recourse to classifying worms in an uncertain manner in genera which _ have a more or less definite status ”’. Dr. Stiles went on to say, ‘‘ In case species are temporarily classified in such collective groups, we believe their specific _ nates should be entitled to priority when they are definitely classified in their proper genera ’’. These quotations from Dr. Stiles’s work are mentioned here since he has influenced the taxonomic and nomenclatural work of many helminthologists. G 98 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (4) Collective groups should not be classed as non-taxonomic units as all the species can be placed in classes, most of them in orders and many in families. It would do no harm if our Resolution contains some provision to the effect that wherever the word “taxon” is employed at the generic level in the Régles, it should be understood that the provision in question applies equally to a collective group, except that a collective group does not require a type species. (5) Since generic names, Article 25, proviso (c), are not available until published with a type species, there should be inserted in the proviso an exception for collective groups, since, as you have pointed out, they require no type species. The Resolution was first approved by the nomenclature committee of the American Society of Parasitologists. It was then presented at the Council meeting of the Society at the annual meeting held at Storrs, Conn., August 26th, 1956. The Council, which consists of sixteen voting members of the Society, adopted the Resolutions unanimously. At the annual luncheon and business meeting of the Society, August 29th 1956, the action of the Council was approved unanimously by the members assembled, estimated at over two hundred present. Your objections to exceptions made for special disciplines are under- standable and appreciated. But, we believe our Resolution is more in the nature of a clarification (of the Recommendation under Article 8, old code) than a request for a special exception. It is regretted that you were not informed as to the Nomenclature Com- mittee’s reaction regarding parataxa. One of our objections to parataxa, as outlined by Moore and Sylvester-Bradley, is that it violates the principle that a name applied to any part of any stage of an animal is to be considered in the same light as a name based upon any entire adult animal. In parataxa a wall would be conceived separating parataxa nomenclature from taxa nomenclature, disregarding the Law of Priority. * Parataxa ’’ may be an excellent plan for the palaeontologists, but in the field of parasitology it would not be practical as here we are working with _ living animals and have been able to resolve the complex life-cycles for many of the species that were once placed in “ collective groups’, and hence to definitely place them in taxonomic genera. I am enclosing a copy of a letter to Dr. Norman R. Stoll (August 13th 1956) containing additional background data. er _ My Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 99 DOCUMENT 1/15 Arrangements made between the Office of the Commission and Professor Raymond C. Moore for making an organised attempt to obtain comments on the “ Parataxa Plan’’ from representative palaeontological institutions and individual specialists. By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E. (Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) (Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 1056) In 1956 correspondence took place between the Office of the Commission and Professor Raymond C. Moore on the question of the need for taking special measures to obtain comments on the “ Parataxa Plan” submitted by Mr. P. C. Sylvester-Bradley and himself from representative palaeontologists in different parts of the world. This led to Professor Moore kindly undertaking to prepare for this purpose a succinct digest of the principal proposals embodied in the foregoing Plan. 2. The document so prepared by Professor Moore was despatched by the Office of the Commission on 8th July 1957 to a large number of palaeontological institutions and individual palaeontologists. In addition, copies of Professor Moore’s digest were sent to a number of other zoological institutions and specialists whose views were sought on the question of possible repercussions on the current system of nomenclature for species (i.e. of the nomenclature of * whole-animals ” in the terminology of the Moore/Sylvester-Bradley Plan) of the introduction into the Régles of provisions for the naming of discrete parts of animals unidentifiable as whole-animals, such parts to be reorganised under the title “ parataxa”’. 3. The Letter so issued, together with the digest prepared by Professor Moore, is reproduced in the Annexe attached to the present note. ANNEXE TO DOCUMENT 1/15 Letter dated 8th July 1957 issued by the Office of the Commission to certain palaeontological and other zoological institutions and to certain specialists inviting comments on the “ Parataxa Plan ’’. Proposed insertion in the “‘ Régles ’’ of a provision defining, and providing for the nomenclature of “ Parataxa ’’ (—dis- crete parts of animals unidentifiable as belonging to whole- animal genera and species). Among the papers which will be considered by the Fifteenth International _ Congress of Zoology, London, 1958, will be three papers on the above subject 100 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature submitted jointly by Professor Raymond C. Moore (University of Kansas) and Mr. P. C. Sylvester-Bradley (University of Sheffield). These papers will shortly be published in the London Congress Agenda Volume (Volume 15) of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. It has been agreed between Professor Moore and this Office that in view of the novelty and complexity of the issues raised by the foregoing proposals it is desirable that exceptional measures should be taken before the Congress to ascertain the views of specialists on the action recommended. For this purpose Professor Moore has prepared a digest of the proposals in question which it has been agreed should be submitted to a number of specialist bodies and individual specialists for observations. A copy of Professor Moore’s digest is enclosed herewith and it is hoped very much that you will be so good as to furnish observations to this Office on the action recommended. Two groups of issues are involved, namely :—(1) Are the proposals appro- priate for the palaeontological purposes which they have been devised to serve # (2) Are the safeguards proposed adequate to render the introduction of the scheme innocuous from the point of view of the nomenclature of species and subspecies (whole-animal nomenclature)? The first of these questions is primarily of interest to palaeontologists ; the second is of importance to all zoologists, neontologists as well as palaeontologists. Enclosure to letter issued by the Office of the Commission reproduced above as the Annexe to Document 1/15 Proposed addition to the “ Régles ’’ of provisions recognising and regulating the nomenclature of “ parataxa ”’ Plan submitted jointly by RAYMOND C. MOORE (University of Kansas, Lawrence, U.S.A.) and P. C. SYLVESTER-BRADLEY (University of Sheffield, England). Request to specialist bodies and specialists for advice. (Note by the Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature.) Arrangements have been made by the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature for the publication at a very early date in the special London Congress (1958) Agenda Volume of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (Volume 15, Part 1/4) of a group of three papers written jointly by Professor Raymond C. Moore (University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas, U.S.A.) and P. C. Sylvester-Bradley (University of Sheffield, England) containing proposals es eee x a err Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 101 for the incorporation in the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature of a group of provisions recognising and defining the concept “ parataxon ”’ and providing for the regulation of the nomenclature of units belonging to this category. 2. In view of the novelty of the proposed plan and the inevitable complexi- ties involved it is evident that the Fifteenth International Congress of Zoology when it meets in London in 1958 is likely to wish to satisfy itself not only that the proposals are well-conceived but also that they command a representative body of support among palaeontologists. This is all the more important in the present case in view of the fact that its subject is primarily of interest to palaeontologists, a body of specialists who are normally not strongly represented at International Congresses of Zoology. In these circumstances consideration has been given by Professor Moore and myself to the question of the procedure to be adopted for bringing the foregoing proposals prominently to the attention of interested specialists in advance of the London Congress. 3. It is to be hoped that in part the foregoing object will be achieved by the publication in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature of the detailed papers prepared by the applicants and also by the issue of Public Notices to representa- tive serial publications at the time when these applications are published in the Bulletin. Experience has shown however that in the case of exceptionally complicated problems and also in that of cases of a general—as contrasted with a specialised—interest the foregoing procedure is not always capable of securing as fully a representative sample of comments as is desired. This problem arose in 1952 in connection with proposals affecting certain broad issues touching the provisions of the Régles. It was then decided that the normal methods for obtaining the views of interested specialists should be supplemented by the distribution of questionnaires to specialist bodies and individual specialists. The replies to these questionnaires were published in the special Copenhagen Congress (1953) Agenda volumes of the Bulletin (Volumes 8 and 10) immediately upon their receipt in the Office of the Commission. It has been decided to adopt a similar procedure in the present case. 4. In pursuance of the foregoing decision Professor Moore has kindly prepared a digest of the lengthy documents in which he and Mr. Sylvester- Bradley had discussed the problem of the nomenclature of parataxa, in which he drew attention to the principal issues involved and gave particulars of the provision which it was recommended should be inserted in the Régles. The digest so prepared by Professor Moore is attached to the present note as an appendix. 5. It is particularly hoped that the specialist bodies and individual specialist to whom the present document is being despatched will be so good as to assist the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature and, 102 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature through it, the Fifteenth International Congress of Zoology, London, 1958, by communicating statements to this Office :— (1) setting out their views on the proposals submitted by Professor Moore and Mr. Sylvester-Bradley ; (2) indicating, if they consider that those proposals ought to be expanded or otherwise amended in any respect, how the changes desired should be fitted into the general framework of the plan submitted in this case. 6. Answers to the present appeal for advice should be addressed to the Secretary, International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (address : 28 Park Village East, Regent’s Park, London, N.W.1). Communications so received will be published in the Agenda volume of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature immediately upon their being received. In view of the import- ance attached to the early publication in the above volume of the Bulletin of comments on all matters of nomenclature to be brought before the London Congress next year, it will be particularly appreciated if recipients of the present request for assistance will be so kind as to furnish replies at the earliest date which they may find to be practicable. (signed) FRANCIS HEMMING Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 4th July 1957. Appendix to the Note by the Secretary dated 4th July, 1957 Digest of an application submitted by R. C. Moore and P. C. Sylvester- Bradley for the introduction into the “ Régles’’ of provisions recognising parataxa as constituting a special category for the classification and naming of Discrete Parts or Life-Stages of Animals which are inadequate. for identification as Whole- Animal Taxa. Digest prepared by RAYMOND C. MOORE (University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas, U.S.A.) The purpose of applications proposing recognition of classifactory units termed “ parataxa” is to remove instability and confusion affecting the nomenclature of several thousand kinds of already named Discrete Parts of ———— — ee Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 103 animals (almost exclusively fossils) which are unidentifiable as belonging to generic and specific taxa of Whole Animals or are even unplaceable in supra- generic taxa. A large majority of these fragmentary remains have been demonstrated to possess high value in stratigraphic paleontology. Similarly, certain life-stages of parasites, very important in medical studies, are indeter- minable as to the taxa of adults and possibly those may be usefully defined as parataxa. 2. As a basic premise we may agree that zoological taxonomy comprises a single system based on presumed natural relationships and into this system all animals, with varying degree of success, may be fitted. However, because many Discrete Parts of animals cannot be incorporated in any Whole-Animal taxa, a system of parataxonomy that is measurably independent of zoological taxonomy is called for. Then classification and nomenclature applicable to the Discrete Parts of unidentified animals may proceed without confusion or disturbance of either category (taxa or parataxa) with the other. It is needful that all rules governing nomenclature of whole-animal taxa should be applied without any difference in mode or force to the category of parataxa as used for Discrete Parts of unidentifiable Whole Animals, except that for purposes of the Law of Priority a wall should be conceived to separate nomenclature of Whole- Animal taxa from nomenclature of parts defined as parataxa. For the purposes of the Law of Homonymy, taxa and parataxa would be co-ordinate. 3. Names given to Discrete Animal parts representing unknown Whole- Animal taxa have been treated in three different ways, none of them satis- factory. All consists of binomina for “ specific’? units and trinomina for “ subspecific ” units. (a) Names construed to differ in no way from those employed for Whole- Animal taxa and conforming to Article 27 (a) of the Régles which stipulates that “the oldest available name is retained when any part of the animal is named before the animal itself ”’ ; (b) Names construed as “‘ technical terms ”’ (Paris, 1948) which are rejected from the domain of zoological nomenclature ; and (c) Names construed to designate ‘‘form”’ taxa analogous to ‘ form- genera ’’, “‘ organ-genera”’, “ form-species ’”’, etc., of the Botanical Code but not recognised by zoological rules. 4. If nomenclature of Discrete Animal parts is governed exactly in the manner accepted for naming of Whole Animals (see paragraph 3(a) above), there would be a continuous risk of confusion and instability of nomenclature which may be serious. Out of many examples, two are cited briefly here. (a) T'rigonellites lamellosus Parkinson, 1811, based on an ammonoid aptychus (operculum) is the type species of T'rigonellites Parkinson, 1811. It 104 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature was described from a specimen not associated with a conch. Subse- quently, 7’. lamellosus has been found in situ within conchs identified as Oppelia flexuosa (von Buch, 1831), O. discus (Quenstedt, 1856) ; and O. euglypta (Oppel, 1863). The genus Oppelia Waagen, 1869, is based on Ammonites subradiatus Sowerby (J. de C.), 1823, as type species, described from a conch. If Trigonellites and Oppelia are correlative competing names, Article 27 (a) would call for the acceptance of T'rigonellites and the rejection of Oppelia, despite very long and widespread use of Oppelia for scores of species, including fossil zone-guide forms. Also, it would be inadmissible for three valid species as defined by conchs (O. flexuosa; O. discus; and O. euglypta) to be synonymized under the name T'rigonellites lamellosus. °"4 2 (b) A Whole-Animal (?) species named Scottognathus typicus (Rhodes, 1952) is based on 132 natural assemblages of Pennsylvanian (Upper Carboniferous) conodonts. Scottognathus Rhodes, 1953, is a sub- stitute name for Scottella Rhodes, 1952 (nec Enderlein, 1910). Discrete components of these assemblages are conodonts named Hindeodella d licatula Stauffer & Plummer, 1932; Synprioniodina microdenta Ellison, 1941 ; Idiognathodus claviformis Gunnell, 1931 ; Streptognathodus excelsus Stauffer & Plummer, 1932 ; and Ozarkodina delicatula Stauffer & Plummer, 1932. Generic synonymy of Scottognathus and of one or more of its constituents can be established only if the type species of discrete conodont genera recognized in the assemblages is present. Hindeodella and MSynprioniodina, Bassler, 1925 and Ozarkodina Branson & Mehl, 1933, are not repre- sented by their type species, whereas Idiognathodus Gunnell, 1931, and Streptognathodus Stauffer and Plummer, 1932 are represented by their type species. Accordingly, under Article 27, Scottognathus typicus must yield to Idiognathodus claviformis as the name for the assemblage. Out of sixty-four nominal species of Idiognathodus and forty-three of Streptognathodus, all but thirty-one are listed as synonyms of discrete conodonts found in such association with “* Scottognathus ’”’ typicus as to indicate that they have been derived 1. It should be noted here that in 1954 Dr. W. J. Arkell made an application to the International Commission for the grant of a Declaration excluding from availability for the purposes of zoological nomenclature, i.e. for the purposes of what Professor Moore here terms the nomenclature of “ whole-animal taxa ” of any name based solely upon the aptychus of an ammonite and proposing the addition to the Official Indexes of Rejected and Invalid Names of a number of such names, including the name T'rigonellites Parkinson, 1811, here cited by Professor Moore as an example (Arkell (W.J.), Bull. zool. Nomencl. 9 : 266-269). No action has as yet been taken by the International Commission on the above application, it having been considered better to defer action thereon until a decision had been taken by the International Congress of Zoology on the wider issues of a general character which it was known that Professor Moore and Mr. P. C. Sylvester-Bradley proposed to raise, i.e. the proposals put forward in the papers, of which Professor Moore has here given a digest. (initialled F. H. 4th July 1957.) 2. See Document 1/4 on pages 71-75 of the present Case, Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 105 from animals conspecific with this species. It is difficult indeed to see by what names these forms should be described under the present Régles. > 5. Names treated as “ technical terms” which are expressly rejected as zoological names lack government by the Laws of Homonymy and Priority, as well as other regulation, thus promoting chaos in nomenclature. Virtually all names published for parts of unidentified whole animals are binomina com- posed of “ generic’ and “ specific’ Latinized names exactly similar to zoo- logical names and because most fossils are varyingly incomplete, discrimination between those considered suitable for nomenclature under zoological rules and those excluded from such treatment is wholly subjective. Indeed, the probably complete skeletal remains of some organisms assignable to protistan groups have been named by Deflandre using intended “ Technical term ”’ procedure whereas most authors would consider the published names (without regard to intent of the author) as undeniably acceptable zoological names. Here lies confusion. 6. The concepts of ‘‘ form-genera ” and “‘ form-species ” might be adapted advantageously to classification and nomenclature of Discrete Parts of uni- dentified animals but they contravene the rules of zoological nomenclature. It seems preferable to recognise a special category of “ associate taxa ”’, that is, parataxa, which would be correlative with all zoological names for the purposes of the Law of Homonymy but would constitute a wholly segregated group for purposes of the Law of Priority. In this way instability and confusion of nomenclature would be easily avoided. In order to avoid subjective variation, in deciding what zoological objects are to be classified and named in terms of parataxa, rather than in those of whole-animal taxa, it is recommended that this be determined solely by the Commission. 7. Recommendation is made accordingly : (i) that Article 27 (a) should be modified by adding the phrase “ except for parataxa’”’, thus excluding the classificatory units called para- taxa from application of the Article : and (ii) that a new Article should be incorporated in the Régles :— (a) defining “parataxon” as a taxonomic category comprising Discrete Parts or Life-Stages of animals, which, by decision of the Commission, are deemed to be unidentifiable in terms of * the whole animals that produced them ; 106 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (b) stipulating that classification and nomenclature of any group of Discrete Parts or Life-Stages of animals in terms of para- taxa shall be allowed only after the Commission has ruled to this effect and then such ruling shall apply retroactively irre- spective of whether an author uses the term “ parataxa ” ; and (c) providing that the nomenclature applied to taxa and parataxa shall be mutually exclusive and independent for the purposes of the Law of Priority, but co-ordinate for the purposes of the Law of Homonymy, names belonging to one category not being transferable to the other. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 107 DOCUMENT 1/16 Parataxa nomenclature in relation to whole-animal nomenclature Correspondence between Francis Hemming, Raymond C. Moore and P. C. Sylvester-Bradley (Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 1056) Editorial Note : The Document Number 1/16 has been allotted to letters and other papers on the subject specifically of the possible repercussions of the recognition of parataxa nomenclature on whole-animal nomenclature. ANNEXE 1 TO DOCUMENT 1/16 Copy of a letter dated 5th July 1957 from FRANCIS HEMMING (London) to RAYMOND C. MOORE (University of Kansas) and P. C. SYLVESTER- BRADLEY (University of Sheffield). I am sure, if I may say so, that you and Mr. Sylvester-Bradley were right when you decided to base your plan for the recognition of parataxa on the basis that the nomenclature of such units should be independent of, and should not interfere with, zoological nomenclature as currently understood, that is what you call “ whole-animal nomenclature”. It seems to me, however, that in one or two respects your scheme needs further consideration from this point of view. 2. The problems with which we are here concerned are very similar to those which faced the International Congress of Zoology in Paris in 1948 when it considered the question of granting some kind of recognition in the Régles to names in what it was then decided to call “ infra-subspecific forms”. As you no doubt know, there are some branches of whole-animal nomenclature the literature of which is weighed down by innumerable names given to individual aberrations, i.e. to individual specimens differing in some respect from what the 108 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature authors giving the names consider to be the ‘‘ normal ” form of the population in question. At that time the Régles contained no clear provision on this matter, and in the particular groups concerned a growing body of workers attached importance to the naming of these individual infra-subspecific forms, while a much larger number of zoologists, while disliking the naming of such forms, felt bound to take account for the purposes of the Law of Homonymy of the names published for such forms. It was to resolve this dilemma that the Paris Congress decided that, while names given to infra-subspecific forms should be recognised, such names should be treated as belonging to a system independent of that prescribed for species and subspecies, i.e. for populations. This basic feature of the Paris decision on infra-subspecific forms has been copied in your plan for the recognition of names for parataxa, but I feel that in its present form your plan does not provide as completely as is required for the independence of parataxa nomenclature and whole-animal nomenclature. 3. When the parallel problem was being considered in Paris, it was found necessary to give consideration to the form in which names had been published for taxa currently regarded as applying not to populations (species or sub- species) but to aberrations and other minority forms. It seems to me a some- what similar problem arises in the present case. The scheme will require to be such as to apply appropriately to names published in any of the following ways :— (1) After the acceptance of your plan and its coming into operation, it may certainly be expected that palaeontologists will start publishing papers containing new names which they will expressly state are names given to parataxa and not to whole-animal taxa. (2) Names already published for “ form genera ”’ and the like. (3) Names already given expressly to discrete parts of fossils and published as being names belonging to the categories Legio, Cohors, Manipulus or Centuria under the scheme devised by M. Georges Deflandre, or under similar schemes devised by other specialists if such schemes exist. (4) Names stated by their authors as being based upon some object which is, (a) expressly stated to be, or (b) is later determined by specialists to be, a discrete part of some whole animal, for example a name either expressly stated by the author to be based upon the aptychus of an ammonite or later determined as having been so based. 4. In its present form your scheme does not seem to me to deal satis- factorily, or at least not as satisfactorily as it could, with each of the classes Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 109 of names enumerated above. First, names belonging to class (1) above should I suggest be brought within the parataxa scheme directly in the new Article, it being quite unnecessary that names of this group should be subject to prior reference to the Commission. Similarly, I consider that names belonging to classes (2) and (3) above, i.e. names expressly given for form genera, etc., and names expressly given as belonging to the special Hztra-Régles categories devised by M. Deflandre should also be brought directly into the scheme and should not be made subject to reference to the Commission. 5. We now come to class (4) above. For the purposes of discussion it will I think be convenient to take as an example names based upon the Aptychi of Ammonites. Under your scheme (point (2)(b)), it would be open to any zoo- logist to submit an application to the Commission for a Ruling that a name based upon the aptychus of an ammonite is to be treated as a name belonging to the parataxa system, and not to the whole-animal system of nomenclature. Once such a Ruling had been given, the position would be perfectly clear in the case of any name, the author of which had stated expressly that he based the unit so-named upon an aptychus, for in that case a definite and objective criterion would be available for deciding to which of the systems of nomen- clature (parataxa or whole animal) the name concerned belonged. It appears to me, however, that this would not be the case where an author described what he considered to be what you would call a whole-animal species but which some later author or authors considered was based upon an aptychus or on some other discrete part of a whole animal, for in that case only a subjective taxonomic judgement would be available for determining to which of the two systems of nomenclature the name should be considered to belong. 6. The ambiguity discussed above is one which will, I think, need to be solved. As a palaeontologist, you may say that from your point of view a subjective judgment of the foregoing kind is quite good enough, and no doubt for the purposes of parataxa taxonomy this would be true, but we have to look on this matter from the point of view of the whole-animal zoologists as well as of that of the palaeontologist. From the point of view of the former, a subjective taxonomic view by palaeontologists that a particular name was a name which should be regarded as that of a parataxon under a Ruling given by the Commission under point (2)(b) of your scheme, would not provide a satis- factory solution. What the whole-animal zoologist requires is some provision of a clear cut objective kind which would enable him to know whether the name in question belonged to the parataxa system and, therefore, would not interfere with whole-animal nomenclature, this being necessary if parataxa nomenclature and whole-animal nomenclature are to be genuinely independent of one another. 7. This brings me to your point (2)(c), the meaning of which I do not find to be clear. In this section you say that the names for whole-animal taxa and 110 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature for parataxa are to be mutually exclusive and independent for the purposes of the Law of Priority “ but co-ordinate for the purposes of the Law of Homo- nymy ”’. The only point of the Law of Homonymy is to rule out as unavailable the later of any two homonyms. Accordingly if names for parataxa and names for whole-animal taxa are to be independent for the purposes of the Law of Priority, I cannot see how the Law of Homonymy could play any useful, or indeed any, part at all. My feeling is that as in the system for naming infra- subspecific forms so also in that for the naming of parataxa, the mutual independence should be complete and should apply therefore for the purposes of the Law of Homonymy as well as for those of the Law of Priority. 8. There is also a question of drafting in connection with your point (2)(b) which I should like to raise. As at present drafted, the only person who is entitled to ask the Commission for a Ruling is the zoologist who wants to have the classification and nomenclature of a particular group of animal fragments treated in terms of parataxa. I quite see that it is natural that you should have conceived of the scheme from this point of view, but it is necessary also that it should be looked upon from the standpoint of a zoologist who wants to get out of the way names based upon such units. For example, Dr. W. J. Arkell, when he made his application to the Commission (1954, Bull. zool. Nomenel. 9 : 266-269) for the suppression of the name T'rigonellites Parkinson, 1811, and other names based on ammonite aptychi, was not in the least interested in the question of the use of names for discrete parts of ammonites, his sole object being to get such names out of the way and to prevent them from interfering with the ordinary nomenclature for ammonites. I think it clear that the wording of your point (2)(b) will need to be revised to take account of the foregoing considerations. 9. To sum up, it seems to me that : (a) If there is to be a special world of parataxa nomenclature, there are certain classes of names which ought to be put into that world direct in the Article itself without the necessity of prior reference to the Commission ; (b) Further consideration is, I think, necessary in regard to the status to be accorded to names published as names for whole-animal taxa but considered subjectively on taxonomic grounds by later authors as being names based on discrete parts of some whole animal ; (c) For the reasons which I have explained, I feel that a name applicable to a parataxon should be independent of any name given to a whole animal not only as proposed in your paper for the purposes of the Law of Priority but also for those of the Law of Homonymy ; Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 11] (d) The wording of point (2)(b) in the plan requires further consideration so as to provide an approach to the Commission not only to zoologists who desire to see certain categories of names recognised as names for parataxa but also to zoologists whose sole aim is to eliminate certain such names from consideration for the purposes of whole-animal nomenclature. 10. I look forward to receiving your comments and suggestions on the above points at a very early date. ANNEXE 2 TO DOCUMENT 1/16 Copy of a letter dated 9th July 1957 from P. C. SYLVESTER-BRADLEY (University of Sheffield) to FRANCIS HEMMING (London) Thank you for your various letters on the “‘ Parataxa Plan ”’, and for the careful reading you have given to the scheme, and for the comments and suggestions which, as a result, you have incorporated in your letter to Professor Moore of 5th July. I will in this letter set out my observations on these suggestions of yours. In paragraph 3 of your letter you suggest that it will be necessary for the scheme to be applicable to names published in four different ways. I agree that this is so, and it will be convenient if I deal with each in turn. In passing, I should mention that I do not altogether agree with the suggestion you make in the same paragraph, that the regulations introduced to cater for infra- subspecific forms are in fact coping with a somewhat similar situation,as those that are now proposed for dealing with dual nomenclature. The two situations differ in many important respects, and any assumption that the problems of the two can be solved by similar regulations would seem to me dangerous. In particular I refer near the end of this letter to your observations on the Law of Homonymy. Finally, I will deal with your remarks on the drafting of our Proposal 2 (b). 1. Regulations governing names given in the future to taxa expressly stated to be parataxa. The regulations framed by us in proposal 2 (a) are intended to ensure that this system of nomenclature will be applied only to groups of animals expressly - listed by the Commission as available only for the creation of parataxa. In your letter you say that you consider names in any animal group expressly stated by the author in question to be those of parataxa should be accepted 112 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature as such without prior reference to the Commission. The limitation we have suggested was introduced to avoid strong criticism from the many palaeonto- logists who would abhor the creation of parataxa in particular groups in which they are specialists. Accordingly we have attempted to set out reasons for seeking prior authorization from the Commission in paragraph 12 of our application, and have also referred to them in the second half of paragraph 8. Perhaps I can state the situation most clearly by citing examples: Discrete animal parts vary in value as indicators of whole-animal relationship. In our opinion, discrete conodonts and ammonoid aptychi possess insufficient diagnostic characters to allow recognition of whole-animal taxa. In this context, “ our opinion ”’ is of course subjective. In other groups of animals the degree of subjectivity varies widely. Some vertebrate palaeontologists might believe that fish-teeth formed a suitable group of discrete animal parts for “ para- taxonomy ”’ ; I fancy, however, that most vertebrate palaeontologists would be opposed to this view on two grounds : (a) because they believe that many fish teeth possess sufficient diagnostic characters for the recognition of at least some degree of whole-animal taxonomy ; and (b) because the existence of a dual system of nomenclature such as would be brought about by the creation of such parataxa would bring confusion into a system where confusion does not exist at the moment. They might argue that no convincing case has yet been put forward showing that any advantage attaches to the creation of a dual system of nomenclature in this case and that the action of Art. 27 is satisfactory. Even stronger arguments have been sent to Moore and myself by vertebrate palaeontologists who have said that they would object to the recognition of parataxa consisting of discrete vertebrate bones of any kind. Other examples are more controversial, which usually means they are more involved. In brief, I would say that my own feeling is that parataxonomy is not likely to be justifiable in any animal group in which unofficial dual systems of nomenclature do not already exist. One of the controversial cases involves dual systems which have been proposed for the discrete skeletal parts of crinoids, and in particular the discrete ossicles of crinoid stems. It is con- troversial (as we discovered by correspondence) because some specialists believe that the recognition of parataxa would introduce undesirable complica- tions since some crinoid ossicles are sufficient for the diagnosis of whole-animal taxa. Less controversial cases concern dual nomenclatures already existing which deal with holothurian spicules and scolecondonts. We might, in fact, have included these groups as supplemental applications additional to those dealing with conodonts and aptychi if we had not felt that such recommend- ations would have necessitated adding both to the length and complexity of a subject which is already clearly long and complex enough. fA Summarizing, the decision of whether an animal group is suitable for the creation of parataxa or not is a subjective one. Many of our correspondents believe that it would be a mistake to leave such subjective judgments to Ye ee ee Ce ee ee ee ee ae oe Wa”, Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 113 individual taxonomists, and argue that such a method would in many groups of animals introduce confusion into a situation which is at present adequately controlled by the provisions of Article 27(a). The only alternative is to give to the Commission the onus of deciding whether or not a particular animal group can usefully be classified into parataxa, Ishould emphasize that once a group has been recognized by the Commission for this purpose, new names introduced for parataxa will automatically be valid without further reference to the Commission. Thus if the Commission were to adopt our proposals regarding conodonts and ammonoid aptychi, new names introduced within these groups would automatically be regarded as those of parataxa. 2. Names already published for ‘ form-genera ”’ These would automatically be regarded as parataxa providing the original authors had recognized them as names given to the discrete parts of groups of animals listed by the Commission under regulations concerning parataxa. 3. Names given in schemes such as those devised by Deflandre and his wife No proposals have yet been made for the inclusion of the various protozoa studied by Deflandre, or the holothurian spicules studied by his wife, in the scheme of parataxa we present. In my opinion such proposals should be made, however, if the scheme is approved by the Commission. 4a. Names expressly stated by their authors to be for discrete parts If such discrete parts are included in the Commission’s list of those in which parataxa are to be recognized, the names will automatically be regarded as those of parataxa. Ifthe discrete parts are not in the Commission’s list, names applied to them will remain subject to the usual provisions of Article 27 until such time as they may be added to the list. 4b. Names not expressly stated by the original author to be those of discrete parts, but subsequently and subjectively so deter- mined by later authors. The subjective nature of arguments deciding whether such names should be applied to whole-animal taxa or parataxa was recognized by Moore and H 114 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature myself when we drew up our application, and we have considered it in some detail in our supplemental applications (e.g. para. 4(1) of that dealing with aptychi). I agree with you, however, that it would be wise to deal with this question in the general application, and enclose a draft of a possible additional paragraph (to follow on, I suggest, after para. 12) for the consideration of Professor Moore and yourself. The Law of Homonymy as it affects parataxa. I now come to the question of the Law of Homonymy. Your first comment concerning our para. 2(c) is that you do not find its meaning clear. I have re-read the paragraph carefully, and I cannot see where its meaning can be in doubt. It is customary for Plenary Powers to be used to suppress names for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy. The generic name Striaptychus Trauth, 1927 is a junior subjective synonym of Acanthoscaphites Nowak, 1911. If the names are regarded as mutually exclusive for the purposes of the Law of Priority, both can be used in their respective roles as the names of a parataxon’ and a whole-animal taxon respectively. On the other hand the name Sidetes Giebel, 1847, is that of an aptychus, and is therefore a name of a parataxon. According to our proposal, it would invalidate for the purposes of the Law of Homonymy any subsequent use of the name Sidetes either for a whole-animal taxon or for any other para- taxon of generic rank. The regulation seems to me clear. A second point with regard to the Law of Homonymy is the fact that I understand you disagree with the purpose of our proposed regulation, in that you believe there would be no disadvantage in allowing the co-existence of two valid generic homonyms such as Sidetes Giebel, 1847 (an aptychus) and Sidetes, say, Smith, 1957 (a whole-animal genus). There is, of course, room here for a difference of opinion. To my mind, to make such homonymy legitimate would be to invite confusion, a confusion which would surely be disastrous if the two homonyms happened to fall into closely related groups—for example, into ammonoid conchs and ammonoid aptychi respectively—or into conodont assemblages and into discrete conodonts. The wording of our proposal 2 (6) I see the force of the point you raise, but find it a little difficult to cater for ; I cannot, in fact, devise a satisfactory solution. The Commission can only judge on the advisability of admitting a specified group of animal parts to those in which parataxa are allowed if full details of the circumstances are presented to them. Such details can only be gathered by a taxonomist prepared to devote some time and trouble to the task. The preparation of the twosupple- — mental applications on aptychi and conodonts which were undertaken by th tte Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 115 Moore and myself were not written without a deal of preliminary research— greater, I suspect, than Arkell would have been prepared to spend on the question of aptychi. If the sole object of an applicant is to get rid of unwanted names, perhaps his best expedient is to do what Arkell did, and apply for the use of the Plenary Powers to suppress such names. If this were found to be objectionable by taxonomists using the names in question, they could be asked to prepare the necessary application for the recognition of parataxa in their group. Summary The substance of this letter may be considered under three headings. (1) The arguments which led us to restrict the operation of regulations governing parataxonomy to animal groups expressly listed by the Commission are set out. These arguments are not necessarily decisive. There seems to me some force in your suggestion that any taxonomist should be able to adopt parataxonomy in his group without prior reference to the Commission provided his action affected only new names proposed by himself. Any such subjective and individual opinions should not, in my view, be allowed to change retro- actively the status of names already validly proposed as those of whole- animal taxa. Such a proposal for a change or addition to the regulations proposed by us would seem to me best framed as a separate proposal. (2) The suggestion that names given to parataxa should not be co-ordinate with those given to whole-animal taxa for the purpose of the Law of Homonymy runs counter to one of the main objects of our proposal. I would myself strongly oppose such a suggestion. (3) I agree with your suggestion that our application needs an additional paragraph setting out the procedure desired to secure objectivity in deciding whether a name is that of a parataxon or not. Draft of additional paragraph to R. C. Moore and P. C. Sylvester-Bradley’s ** Application for a Declaration recognising Parataxa” 13. Procedure to ensure objectivity in deciding whether a name is that of a@ parataxon or not. The scheme here put forward can only function without ambiguity if an objective decision can be made as to whether a name is that of parataxon or not. To ensure this, it will be necessary for the Commission to lay down in clear 1 The figure ‘13’ here cited by Mr. Sylvester-Bradley refers to the paragraph so numbered in the paper reproduced as Document 1/1 on the Agenda Paper (see page 12 of the present volume). 116 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature terms the form of evidence necessary to make such a decision. In the cases of the two groups of animals which we propose, in the supplemental applications that follow, as suitable for the recognition of parataxa, we have attempted to word the proposals with the requisite clarity. We suggest that a name can only be recognised as that of a parataxon in these groups if the original author makes it clear that the name in question is for a taxon consisting of respectively either the aptychi of ammonoids, or conodonts not regarded as natural assemblages. Some names introduced, for example, for aptychi have only subjectively. been so classed by later authors, the original author not having used the word “ aptychus ”. We suggest that these should not automatically be regarded as the names of parataxa, as subjective decisions by later authors are not valid for this purpose. Such names, we suggest, should only be admitted as those of parataxa by operation of the Commission’s Plenary Powers. ANNEXE 3 TO DOCUMENT 1/16 Copy of a letter dated 13th July 1957 from RAYMOND C. MOORE (University of Kansas) to FRANCIS HEMMING (London) I believe that I understand the parallel which you draw between parataxa and consideration of “‘ infra-subspecific forms ” as considered by the Congress in Paris in 1948. Possibly it is true that if parataxa nomenclature is to be set sharply apart from whole-animal nomenclature, your conclusion that the Law of Homonymy is no more significant than the Law of Priority as regards conflicts between names of the two groups seems logical. However, unless proposals for recognition of parataxa as a separate system of nomenclature are seriously diminished by letting the recommendations made by Sylvester- Bradley and me stand, I very much favor legislation that prohibits hononymy even in separate systems of nomenclature. I would go so far as to say it is lamentable that some names for plants are duplicates of those allowed for animals (1) because the supply of scientific names is not limited and (2) the boundary between plants and animals is a decidedly fluctuating one, without going into the question of Protista. In sum, I answer the points you raise about homonymy by saying that in spite of favoring strongly the recom- . mendation submitted by Sylvester-Bradley and me, if the change in this regard makes for simplification of the whole proposal, thereby winning greater likeli- hood of its acceptance, I should regard this change as a strategic retreat, Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 117 Concerning the four categories of names listed in paragraph 3 of your letter, I readily agree with your opinion concerning numbers 1, 2, and 3. The fourth category of names is quite another matter, bringing up problems to which Sylvester-Bradley and I gave a great deal of thought, ending in judgment that the only way in which subjectivity of the individual could be avoided was by reference to the Commission. In this area we encounter the vexatious question of ‘“‘ Problematica ”, but without mentioning these I turn to the point you raise expressing the viewpoint of the whole-animal neozoo- logists (or paleozoologists) who demand an objective criterion for classifying entities belonging to one or the other systems of nomenclature. I fear that a wholly objective basis for deciding this does not exist, even though in several large areas an easy differentiation can be made. There are innumerable isolated fragments of vertebrate skeletons (teeth, scutes or scales, otoliths, etc.) that are unidentifiable in terms of whole-animal taxa and in greatly varying manner some of these can be so identified reasonable. As consequence the unidentifiables generally are let alone, which probably is as it should be. If one contemplates a regulation (as objective criterion) that any unidentifiable tooth is automatically ineligible to whole-animal nomenclature but appropriate for parataxa nomenclature the situation must be faced that what is unidenti- fiable now may be definitely so in a few years. Considerations of this sort led us to the conclusion that objectivity in dealing with these matters could be had probably only through the Commission. Referring to your summation in paragraph 9, I do not now see how your sub-paragraph (a) can be made effective presently by any sort of general wording. Your sub-paragraph (b) calls to mind several examples known to me that individually include questions on which the Commission should be called to rule, decision on subjective basis by an author being inappropriate. I have already discussed your sub-paragraph (c) and so pass on (d) to say that I will welcome any suggestions that meet the points you have in mind. It seems to me that present wording is susceptible of use by a zoologist “ whose sole aim is to eliminate certain such names from consideration for the purposes of whole- animal nomenclature”. For example, Dr. Arkell, wishing to avoid nomen- clatural bothers arising from names for aptychi could submit the same applica- tion as a paleontologist wishing to name aptychi in terms of parataxa. After studying the revised draft of our application, Dr. Arkell has written to me of his endorsement of it. 118 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature DOCUMENT 1/17 Comment on the Moore/Sylvester-Bradley “‘ Parataxa Plan ”’ (Reference ; Professor Moore’s Digest reproduced as Document 1/15) By DON L. FRIZZELL and HARRIET FRIZZELL (Rolla, Missouri, U.S.A.) (Letter dated 16th July 1957) I find, as a micropaleontologist, that a dual classification of discrete parts and whole-animals is unavoidable. The need is obvious for numerous groups, including fish otoliths, scolecodonts, conodonts and echinoderm remains, and will be emphasized as work progresses on the taxonomy of less known microfossil forms. In general, Moore and Sylvester-Bradley’s proposals covers the situation admirably. Some points, however, may cause difficulty. (a) It could be inhibitive to progress in micropaleontology for publication of a new parataxon type to await the Commission’s ruling as to its appropriateness. Further, the need for recognition of a particular parataxon might be more apparent to active workers in the field than to members of the Commission. To avoid delay in publication of parataxon names important to stratigraphy and paleoecology, I would urge that all parataxa be per- mitted, subject to protest within a limited time. The efforts of the Commission, then, would be required only in cases of actual controversy. (b) “ Discrete parts ’’, if possible, should be defined more adequately. For example, a bone of a fish (although obviously “discrete ’’) is a unit of a whole animal, whereas an otolith (or possibly a tooth) belongs unavoidably to the parataxon classification. Similarly, the gastrolith of an astacomorph decapod crustacean would be considered “ discrete”, | although a disjointed cheliped from the same species would be undeniably part of the whole-animal. These interpretations depend upon individual judgment, nature of available fossil material, and general usage. A Recommendation therefore would be preferable to stringent stipulations, Le Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 119 (c) It should be stressed that a parataxon classification is basically distinct in concept from a “natural” or “ genetic” arrangement. It depends upon similarity of structure rather than postulated evolution. The frequent associations of biologically closely related forms is to some extent fortuitous. For example, holothurian sieve plates occur in widely separated taxonomic groups, yet it is convenient to place them within a parataxon of family position. The otoliths of fishes show another situation. Closely related whole animals of the Recent fauna sometimes possess otoliths of types characterizing different genera and even families and in other instances a distinctive otolith type crosses generic boundaries defined from whole animals. The extra-legal nomenclatorial arrangement in use for fossil fish otoliths for nearly 75 years is similar to the proposed para- taxon system, but is-markedly inferior in allowing too few classificatory hierarchies. (d) It might well be recommended that, where possible, systematists using the whole-animal nomenclature should include parataxon names in their synonymies. Parataxa, of course, should be clearly distinguished from the binomina of strictly zoological nomenclature. (The foregoing has been discussed with Dr. Harriet Exline (Mrs. D. L. Frizzell), who concurs. 120 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature DOCUMENT 1/18 Comment on the Moore/Sylvester-Bradley “‘ Parataxa Plan ”’ (Reference : Professor Moore’s Digest reproduced as Document 1/15) By SAMUEL P. ELLISON, Jr. (University of Texas, Austin, Texas, U.S.A.) (Letter dated 18th July 1957) I have your letter and request of July 8 concerning the proposed insertion in the Régles of a provision defining and providing for the nomenclature of * Parataxa ”’ (discrete parts of animals unidentifiable as belonging to whole- animal genera and species). I personally like this proposal which Dr. Moore and Mr. Sylvester-Bradley have made. I think this would clear up a great deal of the problems of nomenclature that exist in the whole field of micropaleontology. It will also make it pos ible to continue the use of the Law of Priority on nomenclatorial problems that involve discrete parts of animals which have yet not been identified as to the whole. From the view of the practical stratigrapher and micropaleontologist, I urge that your Commission adopt Dr. Moore’s and Mr. Sylvester-Bradley’s proposal. 7* * Se? Or Pa aat YA PURCHASED 7 & SEP 1957 D.1/1 D.1/2 D.1/3 D.1/4 D.1/5 CONTENTS (continued from front wrapper) THE LONDON AGENDA PAPER Case No. 1 : Proposed recognition of the category “ parataxon ”’ Proposal by R. C. Moore and P. C. Sylvester- Bradley Proposal for the application of the ‘“ Parataxa Plan ”’ to discrete conodonts. R.C. Moore and P. C. Sylvester-Bradley Proposal for the application of the “ Parataxa Plan” to ammonoid aera R. C. Moore and P. C. soe ae Bradley 3 wy ; 4 Proposed adoption of a Declaration de ing the status of names based solely on the aptychi of ammonites. W. J. Arkell is fs a ee ae Comments on W. J. Arkell’s proposal (D.1/4): Note by Secretary to the International Commission .. . - (a) By J. L. Baily, Jr. (b) By C. W. Wright .. D.1/6-D.1/13 Comments on the Moore/Sylvester-Bradley ‘‘ Parataxa ” D.1/6 D.1/7 D.1/8 D.1/9 11/10 D.1/1l D.1/12 D.1/13 D.1/14 proposals By W. J. Arkell By D. L. Frizzell and Harriet Frizzell By Eliane Basse By J. Brookes Knight By H. Schmidt By C. Teichert Rejoinder by R. C. Moore By D. T. Donovan Correspondence on the possible application of the “ Parataxa Plan ” to the names of collective groups in the stages of the life histories of parasites: Note by Secretary to the International Commission “a ¥. 7 ae (a) A. C. Walton to Secretary (b) Secretary to A. C. Walton (c) A. McIntosh to Secretary (d) R. C. Moore to Secretary (e) Secretary to R. C. Moore (f) R. C. Moore tq Secretary (g) A. McIntosh to N. D. Stoll (h) J. C. Bradley to A. C. Walton (i) A. McIntosh to J. C. Bradley & 14 35 71 76 77 77 78 79 80 81 82 85 86 87 88 89 89 90 90 91 91 92 95 96 CONTENTS : (continued from inside back cover) D.1/15 Digest of the ‘‘ Parataxa Plan ” (D.1/1) (a) Letter by the Secretary to specialists inviting comments ne a ” - 2% - 99 (b) Explanatory Note annexed to letter to specialists .. 100 (c) Digest prepared by R. C. Moore es a ba ae | D.1/16 Correspondence between the Secretary to the International Commission, R. C. Moore and P. C. Sylvester-Bradley (a) Secretary to R. C. Moore and P. 8. Sylvester-Bradley 107 (b) P. C. Sylvester-Bradley to Secretary .. tr ; core (c) R. C. Moore to Secretary a Ad o- D.1/17 Comment on the “ Parataxa Plan”. D. L. Frizzell and. Harriet Frizzell a 3 Se se “46 D.1/18 Comment on the “ Parataxa Plan”. 8S. P. Ellison, Jr. . Note to Subscribers The attention of subscribers is drawn to the fact that in order to make a start with the publication of the documents to be included in the London Agenda Paper, the present Quadruple-Part (Part 1/4) of the present volume is being published (1) before the completion of Volume 13 (the current volume containing applications for decisions from the Commission on individual names), of which the most recently published Part is Part 8 (published today), and (2) before the issue of any portion of Volume 14, the Volume earmarked for the publication of the draft English text of the “‘ Régles ’’ as amended by the Paris (1948) and Copenhagen (1953) Congresses. This latter volume is, however, now in the press and will be published at an early date. (intl’d) F.H., 26th August 1957. Printed in England by METCAL FE & Cooper LimrreD, 10-24 Scrutton St., e EC2 VOLUME 15. Double-Part 5/6 31st October 1957 pp. 121—184. 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 Second Instalment of the London Congress Agenda Paper (continued inside back wrapper) AL HIS” LONDON : —— Printed by Order of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature and Sold on behalf of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenelature by the International Trust at its Publication Office, 41, Queen’s Gate, London, 8.W.7 1957 Price Two Pounds (All rights reserved) INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE A. The Officers of the Commission Honorary Life President: Dr. Karl Jorpan (British Museum (Natural History), Zoological Museum, Tring, Herts, England) President: Professor James Chester BrapitEy (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) Vice-President : Senhor Dr. Afranio do Amara (Sao Paulo, Brazil) (12th August 1953) Secretary: Mr. Francis Hemmaine (London, England) (27th July 1948) B. The Members of the Commission (Arranged in order of precedence by reference to date of election or of most recent re-election, as prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology) Professor H. Boscuma (Rijksmuseum van Natwurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) (1st January 1947) Senor Dr. Angel Caprura (La Plata, Argentina) (27th July 1948) Mr. Francis Hemmine (London, England) (27th July 1948) (Secretary) Dr. Henning Lemcue (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark) (27th July 1948) Professor Teiso Esaxr (Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan) (17th April 1950) Professor Pierre Bonnet (Université de Toulouse, France) (9th June 1950) Mr. Norman Denbigh Riwzy (British Musewm (Natural History), London) (9th June 1950) Professor Dr. Tadeusz JaczEwski (Institute of Zoology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland) (15th June 1950) Professor Dr. Robert Merrens (Natur Museum u. Forschungs-Institut Senckenberg, Frankfurt a. M., Germany) (5th July 1950) Professor Dr. Erich Martin Herrna (Zoologisches Museum der Humboldt-Universitat zu Berlin, Germany) (5th July 1950) Senhor Dr. Afranio do Amara (S. Paulo, Brazil) (12th August 1953) (Vice-President) Professor J. R. Dymonp (University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada) (12th August 1953) Professor J. Chester Brapuey (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) (President) Professor Harold E. Voxzs (University of Tulane, Department of Geology, New Orleans, Louisiana, U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) Professor Béla Hank6 (Mezégazdasdgi Museum, Budapest, Hungary) (12th August 1953) Dr. Norman R. Srotn (Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, New York, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) Mr. P. C. SytvesteR-Braviey (Sheffield University, Sheffield, England) (12th August 1953) Dr. L. B. Horraurs (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) (12th August 1953) Dr. K. H. L. Kuy (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Canberra, A.C.T., Australia) (15th October 1954) Dr. Alden H. MrtiEr (Musewm of Vertebrate Zoology, University of California, Berkeley, California, U.S.A.) (29th October 1954) Doe. Dr. Ferdinand Pranti (Ndrodni Museum v Praze, Prague, Czechoslovakia) (30th October 1954) Professor Dr. William Ktunext (Zoologisches Institut der Universitat, Vienna, Austria) (6th November 1954) Professor F. S. Bopunsumer (The Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Israel) (11th November 1954) Professor Ernst Mayr (Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard College, Cambridge, Massa- chusetts, U.S.A.) (4th December 1954) Professor Enrico Tortonrse (Museo di Storia Naturale “ @. Doria”, Genova, Italy) (16th December 1954) BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE (ES pautaka of the proposed redraft of the Reégles should be changed to commence : Homonymy among specific or subspecific names shall apply only to those that are or have been contained in the same nominal genus or collective group, thus .. . 5. The first phrase of Article 6, Section 1(h)® of my proposed draft of the Réegles reads : A specific, subspecific, or infra-subspecific name must be published _ "See Vol. 14 : 163. 3 See Vol. 14 : 175. * See Vol. 14 : 176. 5 See Vol. 14 : 106. ® See Vol. 14 : 49, 244 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature in connection with a specified generic name. This is a statement, in different wording, of the rule of availability that an author must have applied the principles of binominal nomenclature (Régles, Article 25(b), as amended at Paris, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4:65, paragraph (3)(a)(i)). In order to make provision for collective groups, this should be reworded as follows : A specific, subspecific, or infra-subspecific name must be published in connection with a specified generic name or a name of a collective group. 6. It would seem desirable to add the following paragraph to Article 1, Section 3? of the proposed revised draft of the Régles (cf. Bull. zool. Nomencl. 15 : 97(3)). (a) Collective groups. A collective group, although not a natural taxonomic group, shall not be considered to be a hypothetical concept. 7. The following paragraph should be added to Article 25, Section 3 of Proviso (c) of the Régles, as amended at Paris (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 72, paragraph (8)(1)) and equally to Article 6, Section 1(k)* of the proposed draft of the Régles : The provisions of paragraph (k) do not apply to names of collective groups. 8. The following paragraph should be added to the recommendation in Article 8 of the Régles, made a mandatory provision at Paris (cf. Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 253, paragraph 15) and equally at the end of Article 14, Section 2° of the proposed draft of the Régles : Wherever the word “ taxon ” is employed at the generic level in the Régles, it should be understood that the provision in question applies equally to a collective group, except where it would be inappropriate, or is distinctly excluded by the purport of the provision. 9. I believe that the foregoing proposals provide for the substance of the resolution of the American Society of Parasitologists (adopted at a business meeting of the Society, 29th August 1956, by a unanimous vote estimated to have been over 200 persons) (cf. Bull. zool. Nomencl. 15 : 90) as well as for the points discussed in the letter from Mr. Allen McIntosh dated 19th December 1956, to which reference has already been made (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 15 : 96-98), and such additional matters as are necessary for the sanction and operation of the relevant usages of parasitologists. 7 See Vol. 14 : 36. 8 See Vol. 14 : 51. ® See Vol. 14 : 101. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 245 DOCUMENT 1/43 Comment on the Moore/Sylvester-Bradley ‘‘ Parataxa Plan ”’ (Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 1056) By JOHN S. HAMPTON (Bromley, Kent) (Letter dated 12th November 1957) The recent proposals by Professor R. C. Moore and Mr. P. C. Sylvester- Bradley, “Proposed Recognition of the Concept ‘ Parataxon’ and the Provision of Rules for the Nomenclature of Units of this Category ” (1957, Bull. zool. _ Nomencl. 15 : 5-13) appear to offer complete clarification of nomenclatural and taxonomic problems which have arisen in micropalaeontological studies of certain fragmentary fossils. In support of the above workers proposed recognition of “ Parataxa”’ in the Régles, I furnish the following comments concerning the discrete fossil sclerites of Holothuroidea (Echinodermata) : (1) Dissociated sclerites are the only basis for an understanding of the palaeontology of the class Holothuroidea. They are widely distributed in marine sedimentary strata, but are seldom common (Frizzell and Exline, 1955, Bull. Missouri School Mines and Metallurgy, No. 89). The study of fossil sclerites presents, however, an almost completely unexplored field in micro- palaeontology, as no suitable procedure has been provided for applying names to them without reference to the whole-animal species which they represent. The dual nomenclature now applied (see Frizzell and Exline, op. cit.) has to some extent solved this problem, but the recognition of the ‘ families, genera and species ”’ of Frizzell and Exline’s (op. cit.) classification of fossil sclerites as parataxon would make the study of such discrete fragments of considerable value in stratigraphical palaeontology. (2) Many of the “ genera ” of fossil holothurian sclerites are extinct and no comparisons can be made to Recent biospecies. This would, however, be impossible as in Recent holothurians markedly unlike sclerites are found within the same species, and apparently identical sclerites are reported to exist in 246 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature relatively unrelated forms. It appears obvious, therefore, that fossil holothurian sclerites are best fitted only for parataxa. Frizzell and Exline recognise the categories of their classification (op. cit.) as parataxa (Frizzell, 1957, Personal Communication). (3) In recent micropalaeontological studies several new “ genera, sub- genera and species” of holothurian sclerites have been proposed (Hampton, Geol. Mag., and Micropaleont., in press), the artificial nature of these categories was recognised, and as they were proposed within the classification of Frizzell and Exline (op. cit.) they are best considered as parataxa. (4) The taxonomic arrangement adopted by Frizzell and Exline (op. cit.) is exactly comparable to that of Zoology (i.e. Linnean taxonomic categories are employed), and to avoid ambiguity the recognition of fossil categories as parataxa is essential. As a worker on the micropalaeontology of holothurian sclerites I strongly support the proposals of Moore and Sylvester-Bradley (op. cit.) to apply to the study of certain discrete fragments. » Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 247 CASE No. 2 (continued from page 154) DOCUMENT 2/16 Submission of a Draft Text embodying the reversal of Copenhagen Decision 54(1)(a) and of the amalgamation of the provisions so amended with Decision 54(1)(b) By G. H. E. HOPKINS (British Museum (Natural History), The Zoological Museum, Tring) (Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 835) (Proposal submitted under cover of a letter dated 14th August 1957) Until relatively recently the International Rules of Zoological Nomenclature made no provision for the application of priority to names other than those of genera and smaller taxa, and until 1953 there was no clear provision for the mode of application of priority to family-group names. In these circumstances authors have applied priority to such names as best they could in the absence of generally-accepted rules. 2. The Rules decided on at Copenhagen in 1953 (Copenhagen Decisions on Zoological Nomenclature : 32-37, Decisions 43-58) have cleared up many obscurities, but one point is still not sufficiently clear and one decision seems to me to introduce an unnecessary complication into the Rules and to represent an unfortunate departure from the principle which had been followed for very many years, while another point is still not sufficiently clear. 3. Both the points I wish to discuss are contained in Decision 54 of the Copenhagen Decisions and deal with family-group names found to be based on generic names which are invalid, either because they are junior synonyms (objective or subjective) (Decision 54(1)(a)) or because they are junior homo- nyms (Decision 54(1)(b)). In the latter case the family-group name based on a 248 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature junior homonym is to be altered, whereas in the former instance, provided for in Decision 54(1)(a), the family-group name based on a junior synonym is not to be changed. This difference in the treatment to be accorded to family-group names based on generic names which are invalid for different reasons seems to me to be illogical and to introduce an unnecessary complication. Moreover, the provision that family-group names based on generic names which are synonyms should not be altered is in conflict with a principle contained in the earliest proposals for an international Code of Zoological Nomenclature which include any provision on the point (1897, Bull. Soc. zool. France. 22 : 179, “Un nom de famille doit disparaitre et étre remplacé, si le nom génerique, aux dépens duquel il était formé, tombe en synonymie et disparait luiméme de la nomenclature ’’), which was contained in the accepted version of the Régles Internationales de la Nomenclature Zoologique published in Paris in 1905 (Article 5, p. 29, “ The name of a family or subfamily is to be changed when the name of its type genus is changed ”’), and which was in force until 1953. That the reversal of a principle which has been followed by two generations of zoologists should apply retrospectively seems to me to be deplorable, and in the group of insects with which I am mainly concerned will, if not rectified, force us to choose between making a number of totally unnecessary changes in family- group names which are universally accepted and which were valid under the Rules in force when they were proposed, or making a number of appeals to the Commission that these names should be validated. From Dr. W. J. Arkell’s remarks (1957, Opin. Decl. int. Comm. zool. Nomencl. 16 : (v))* it is clear that the same position exists in many other groups of animals besides that which is my main concern. 4. The obscurity in the Copenhagen Decisions regarding family-group names to which I have referred is in Decision 54(1)(b). On this subject I am submitting a separate note.” 5. My proposal as regards the present part of the subject is that Section (1) of Decision 54 of the Copenhagen Decisions on Zoological Nomenclature should be rescinded and replaced by the following :— The name of a taxon belonging to the family-group must be based on the oldest available name for the type genus ; and accordingly where the name of such a genus is rejected either (i) as a junior synonym (either objective or subjective) of an older generic name or (ii) as a junior homonym of an older generic name, the name of the family-group taxon based on the rejected generic name is itself to be rejected. 1 See also Document 2/1. 2 See Document 3/2. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 249 DOCUMENT 2/17 Submission of a Draft Text embodying a partial reversal of Copenhagen Decision 54(1)(a) (Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 835) By J. CHESTER BRADLEY (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) (Statement received on 15th October) When should a rejected junior synonym continue to serve as the basis for a name of the Family-Group ? The Copenhagen Decisions on Zoological Nomenclature, Decision 54(1)(a) (: 36) provide that a family name is not to be changed because the name of its type genus is found to be a junior synonym. 2. This action has led to widespread dissatisfaction. Numerous applica- tions received by the Commission since 1953 strongly condemn it, and I have not observed a single case where its wisdom has been upheld. In practise it has been found that if followed, it would lead to name-changing, because in the past it has been quite the universal custom to assume that the name of a taxon of the Family-Group must be based on the valid name of its type- genus, and changes based on that assumption have become firmly fixed in literature. _ 8. The action was taken to prevent name-changing, but certainly the minds of its sponsors were looking to the future, and did not at all envisage _ the overhauling of current names that it would entail. It was correctly _ foreseen that the well-established name of many a Family-Group taxon would, _ from time to time be found to be based on an objective or subjective junior _ Synonym of another generic name. It was designed to prevent the necessity _ of thereupon making a corresponding change in the name at the Family-Group level. In this respect the Copenhagen action is not without merit. It may readily be seen that it is particularly important in case the synonymy is subjective and not universally accepted, for different taxonomists might R 250 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature otherwise feel obliged to use different names at the Family-Group level for the taxon in question. Where the name of the type-genus of a nominal Family-Group Taxon is a Junior Synonym Z.N.(S.) 835 4, At the outset it will be worth while to consider the various ways in which a Family-Group name could logically be handled within the general principles of zoological nomenclature if the name of its type-genus is a junior synonym, first for objective, then for subjective synonymy. (a) If the nominal species which is the type-genus of a family is a junior objective synonym 5. Suppose that the nominal genus A-uws, 1798, with its type species 2, is the type-genus of the nominal family 4-1pAE, 1815. In 1900 B-us, 1796, is found also to have the type species x and therefore to be an objective synonym of A-us. In such a case, rules aside, there are four logical courses of action : (1) If a new nominal family B-1DAE were to be founded in 1900, this would have the type-genus B-us, a different nominal genus from A-us, and therefore would date from 1900. B-1DAE would have to compete in priority with all other Family-Group names within the same taxonomic family. Thus if the first such taxon to be established had been a subfamily c-INAE in 1875, c-IDAE would now become the family name to replace A-IDAE. A-IDAE would become an unavail- able* senior objective synonym of B-1DAz, and at the family level, an unavailable senior subjective synonym of C-IDAE. B-IDAE would become an available junior subjective synonym of o-IDAE, An advantage of this procedure is that the family name would not be a wholly unknown Family-Group name. (2) A shift from the name a-1DAz, 1815, to B-1DAE, 1900 would involve a change in the nominal type-genus of the taxonomic family, but no taxonomic difference could possible arise. It would therefore be reasonable for the Régles to provide that since the family B-IDAE is objectively the taxonomic equivalent of a-1paz, it shall rank from 1815 and supplant A-1DAE. This would have the disadvantage of almost certainly introducing a wholly unfamiliar name to replace a well-established family name. * On the supposition that the name of a taxon of Family-Group is not an available name unless the name of its nominal type-genus is valid. , eee he Se ae Se eS SS Ue - ‘ Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 251 (3) A-us is the nominal type-genus of A-IDAE, 1815, and there is no provision of the Régles to the effect that a nominal family must be abandoned in case its nominal type-genus is incorrectly named. Therefore it is quite logical to rule that the nominal family a-mDAz in such a case shall be maintained, even though its nominal type-genus A-us exists only as a junior objective synonym of B-us. This is the prevailing rule, and was adopted at Copenhagen in 1953 (cf. Copenhagen Decisions zool. Nomencl. : 36, Decision 54(1)(a)(i)). This plan has the advantage that it avoids any shift in the first- established family name for the taxonomic family. There is no objection to applying it to cases that may arise in the future, but the attempt to apply it to family names that have already been changed on the basis of some other understanding is unfortunate. (4) The Commission may be requested to suppress B-us under its Plenary Powers, thus permitting the retention of A-us and A-IDAE. (b) If the nominal species which is the type-genus of a family is a junior subjective synonym 6. Suppose that the nominal genus A-us, 1798, is the type-genus of the nominal family a-IDAE, 1815, with its type-species x. In 1900 B-us, 1796, type species y, is believed to be a subjective synonym of A-us. In such a case there are three logical courses of action : (1) If a new family B-1DAE were to be founded in 1900, this would have the type-genus B-us, a different nominal genus from A-us, and only potentially synonymous with the taxonomic genus A-us. B-IDAE would have to compete in priority with all other Family-Group names within the same taxonomic family. Thus if the first such taxon to be established had been a subfamily C-INAE in 1875, C-IDAE would now become the family name to replace A-IDAE. A-IDAE would remain an available senior subjective synonym of C-IDAE, subject to revival only by anyone who treats A-us and B-us each as a valid taxonomic genus*. At the family level it would also be a senior subjective synonym of B-IDAE. As in Section (a) (paragraph 5(1) above) this method has the advantage of providing at the family level a not wholly unfamiliar Family-Group name ; but it has the disadvantage of providing only an unstable name subject to fluctuation with taxonomic opinion as to the synonymy between the genera A-us and B-us. * Although 4-1paE would be a senior subjective synonym of both B-1pAk and 4-IDAE it could not be employed by anyone who accepts the synonymy of A-us and B-us. This follows from the assumption that the name of a taxon of the Family-Group is not an available name unless the name of its nominal type-genus is valid. 252 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (2) The solution described under Section (a) in paragraph 5(2) above, will not apply in the case of subjective synonymy between A-us and B-us. (3) A-us is the nominal type-genus of a-IpAE, 1815, and there is no provision of the Régles to the effect that a nominal family must be abandoned in case its nominal type-genus exists only as a subjective synonym of another generic name. Therefore it is quite logical to rule that the nominal family a-1DAz shall be maintained. This plan not only maintains the first-established family name, being therefore in compliance with the provision that priority shall obtain, but guards against the necessity of changing from one family-name to another whenever there is change of thought in regard to the synonymy between A-us and B-us. It is therefore even more important to use it in the future than it is when the synonymy is objective, but its application to cases which have been decided on some other basis in the past, as now required by the Régles, is causing trouble. (4) As in the case of objective synonymy, the Commission could be appealed to, but would scarcely be inclined to suppress the older genus B-us ; since taxonomists who did not agree to the synonymy would wish to use it at the generic level. If they did not suppress B-us, they would either have to adopt A-1D4E for all taxonomists ; which would be the equivalent to plan (3) preceding, or adopt A-IDAE only for those who do not accept the synonymy of A-us and B-us, C-IDAE for those who do, which would be the plan under (1) preceding. 7. Although, for simplicity, I have described the preceding alternatives in terms of family, they apply equally to all categories of taxa of the Family- Group. 8. It is evident that, whatever plan may be adopted, it should be clearly stated to be the normal plan, especially applicable to cases that arise in the future. Ifa family name has already been changed because its nominal type- genus is an objective synonym, or held to be a subjective synonym, and the change has won any measure of acceptance, it should not be again disturbed. Other cases, or doubtful cases, should be presented to the Commission for decision, evoking the Plenary Powers if necessary. 9. When the nominal species which is the type-species of a genus is discovered to be a junior synonym, we do not change the name of the genus, nor do we change the type-species. The principle of the permanency of types forbids the latter. Any type, all of which serve to determine the proper Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 253 application of the name of some taxon, would be useless if it were subject to change. What we do do is to list the nominal species which is the type-species as a junior synonym of some other nominal species, and if it be an objective synonym, we cite it in the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology under the name of its senior synonym. Here we find ample precedent for the principle that would be applied to Family-Group names by paragraphs (3) preceding. Furthermore only that method would observe the principle of priority in names of the Family-Group. It is therefore the only plan (outside of appeal to the Commission) that would consistently employ the oldest name, and therefore would cause the least change, unless applied to names that have already been changed by some other method. 10. From all these considerations, I am led to propose the following amendments to the Régles, for consideration at the London Congress :— (1) To extend Decision 61(2) of the Copenhagen Decisions on Zoological Nomenclature to apply to all taxa of the Family-Group or higher, and to re-word it to read : (a) The type of each taxon of the Family-Group or higher shall be a nominal genus. Explanation: A taxonomic genus cannot serve as a type, because it is incapable of objective definition, except in terms of a nominal genus, and is therefore subject to varied interpretation and fluctuating limits. (b) The type of any taxon once fixed, shall not be subject to change, except under the Plenary Powers of the Commission. (c) A nominal type-genus is not necessarily a valid genus, but may have come to be listed as a junior synonym of another nominal genus. Explanation : If the name of a taxonomic family is changed, as from A-IDAE to B-IDAE, the type of the nominal family a-1Daz has not been changed, but a new nominal family B-IDAE has been established, dating from the time of the change. B-IDAE is then a junior subjective synonym of A-IDAE as long as their type-genera are held to belong to the same taxonomic family. {This would replace Article 18, Section 21, of the proposed redraft of the Régles.| (2) Decision 54(1)(a) of the Copenhagen Decisions to be amended to read : The name of the nominal type-genus of a nominal taxon of the Family-Group is found to be a junior synonym (whether objective or 1 See Vol. 14 : 117 254 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature subjective), and a corresponding change has not customarily been made in the name of the taxon of the Family-Group, no change shall hereafter be made on that account in the name of the taxon of the Family-Group. But if such a change has already been made on grounds of such synonymy, and has won general acceptance, it shall be adopted as the correct name of the taxonomic Family- Group, and shall be given the same date as the supplanted name, of which it shall be deemed to be a senior synonym. Doubtful cases, especially in regard to degree of acceptance, shall be submitted to the Commission for decision. Explanation : If both names were not given the same date, the supplanting name would be a junior synonym, hence invalid under the Law of Priority. [This would replace Article 13, Section 4(a),? of the proposed redraft of the Régles.] ee TTaETEEEnERERENOnINEnE 2 See Vol. 14 : 97. eS = Sa - a te dies?) ‘io ee eS Oe eae i mm Longe ete Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 255 CASE No. 3 (continued from page 155) DOCUMENT 3/2 Submission of a Draft Text providing for the reversal of the provisions in Copenhagen Decision 54(1)(b) in relation to the date and authorship to be attributed to a substitute family-group name (Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 1252) By G. H. E. HOPKINS (British Museum (Natural History), The Zoological Museum, Tring, Herts, England) (Enclosure to a letter dated 14th August 1957) The authorship and priority to be attributed to Family-Group names replacing others under Copenhagen Decision 54(1)(b) is not made sufficiently clear. Traub & Hopkins (1955, Trans. R. ent. Soc. Lond. 107 : 252) considered that ‘it is clearly implied that the replacing name inherits the seniority of that which it replaces ’’, and the same interpretation of the provision has been made by at least two other siphonapterologists, but the Secretary to the Commission on Zoological Nomenclature tells me that although this principle was submitted to the Copenhagen Congress (see Hemming, 1952, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 7 : 73, 74) it was rejected, so that our interpretation of Decision 54(1)(b) is incorrect. 2. It is obviously desirable that no change of family-group name necessitated by the discovery that the generic name on which a family-group name is based is invalid should be allowed to affect the identity of the taxon by bringing about a change in its type-genus, yet this will often be the case if Decision 54(1)(b) is to remain unaltered. Taking an example from the Siphonaptera, the family-group name SARCOPSYLLIDAE was published by Taschenberg in 1880 for a taxon based on the genus Sarcopsylla Westwood, 1840 (a junior objective synonym of T'wnga Jarocki, 1838) ; the name TUNGIDAE _ was first published by C. Fox in 1925 but there is a much senior family-group name, HECTOPSYLLIDAE Baker, 1904, which most authors regard as a subfamily of TUNGIDAE ; in this instance Decision 54(1)(b) involves the setting up as the type-genus of the family of a genus belonging to a different subfamily from that to which the genus which has always been regarded as the type belongs. 256 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature In another instance (used below as an example) the family-name which has to be replaced is based on a generic name which is a junior homonym, but again the result of Decision 54 would be similar, for it would necessitate rejecting the universally accepted name of the family in favour of one based on a genus which certainly belongs to a different subfamily and which is regarded by some authors as belonging to a different family. 8. All siphonapterologists, in common with what I believe to be the great majority of zoologists, have taken the view that such changes in the basic concept of a family-group taxon are undesirable in the highest degree, and I can only assume that the rejection by the Copenhagen Congress of the principle that the identity of a family-group taxon must be maintained through all nomenclatorial vicissitudes must have been due to the obvious awkwardness of attributing to a name an authorship and date which are not in accordance with fact and which reference to the work cited would show to be incorrect. There is a very real difficulty and I have tried to deal with it in a further proposal which I am submitting herewith. 4. In order to ensure that the type-genus of a family-group taxon shall not be changed because of some nomenclatorial discovery, I suggest the following provision :— Where a family-group name is rejected on the ground that the name of its type genus is either (i) a junior synonym (either objective or subjective) of an older generic name or (ii) a junior homonym of an older generic name, the family-group name published in substitution for the name so rejected shall rank for the purposes of priority from the date on which the rejected family- group name for which it is a substitute was originally published. Example: The family-group name CTENOPSYLLIDAE was published by Baker in 1905 for a taxon based on the generic name Ctenopsyllus Kolenati, 1863 (a junior homonym of Ctenopsyllus Kolenati, 1857), for which Leptopsylla Jordan & Rothschild, 1911, is a nomen novum and the oldest available name ; the name LEPTOPSYLLIDAE was first published by Rothschild in 1915. The Z «(oH “priority of this family would date from 1905. PURCHASE Bs , JAM-On —_— ey Dx. Corrigenda 1 / JAN (298 “Yea, yig(2Phe following corrections should be made on page 154 of the present volume :— line 3: substitute “ALSATASPIDAE ”’ for “ALASTASPIDAE ” line 4: substitute ‘“‘is’’ for “‘as” line 6: substitute “ALSATASPIDAE ” for ““ALSATASIDAE ” 1 See Document 4/1. CONTENTS (continued from front wrapper) THE LONDON AGENDA PAPER (a) New Proposals Case No. 4: Copenhagen Decision 54(1)(b) (family-group names) : citation of authorship and date for substitute names where the names of the type genera of any two nominal family-group taxa are found to be homonyms D.4/1 G.H.E. Hopkins ... ‘ ; Case No. 5: Family-group names, application of priority principle to D.5/1 Francis Hemming D.5/2 Committee on Entomological Nomenclature, Entomological Society of America Case No. 6 : Copenhagen Decision 75 (emendation of generic and specific names) : proposed introduction of a revised saving clause in favour of current usage D.6/1 J. Chester Bradley Case No. 7 : Copenhagen Decision 50(1)(a) and (b) (formation of family- group names) : proposed adoption of a revised provision relating to D.7/1 J. Chester Bradley Case No. 8: Copenhagen Decision 45 (continuity versus priority in relation to: family-group names) : proposed substitution of a revised provision relating to D.8/1 J. Chester Bradley D.8/2 Francis Hemming Case No. 9: Article 22 of Draft of the Revised “‘ Régles ’’ : proposed insertion of an additional provision regarding the method to be adopted in citing a name which has been validly emended D.9/1 J. Chester Bradley D.9/2. Francis Hemming Case No. 10 : “ Régles Internationales de la Nomenclature Zoologique ”’ : proposed amendment of the Settlement of 7th November 1953 on the subject of the language or languages to be accepted for the substantive text or texts of D.10/1 Curtis W. Sabrosky... D.10/2 Francis Hemming Page 185 187 194 196 199 210 212 CONTENTS (continued from inside back cover) (b) Comments on previously published proposals Case No. 1 : Proposed recognition of the “‘ Parataxon ’”’ concept D.1/35 Nomenclature Discussion Group of Washington, D.C. ... D.1/36 E. Voigt D.1/37 L. Stormer ... D.1/38 W. H. Haas... D.1/39 V. Pokorny ... D.1/40 P. C. Sylvester-Bradley D.1/41 F. Trauth D.1/42 J. Chester Bradley D.1/43. J. S. Hampton Case No. 2: Family-group names : proposed rejection of when name of type genus is rejected as a junior synonym D.2/16 G. H. E. Hopkins ... D.2/17 J. Chester Bradley Case No. 3 : Family-group names : priority and authorship of substitute names D.3/2 G. H. E. Hopkins Corrigenda to Double-Part 5/6 Priated in England by MeTCALFE & Cooper LimrteD, 10-24 Scrution St., London E C2 216 220 221 229 223 228 230 242 245 _ 85 255 ee ee ee a ee ee ee ee a a} Vee SO ES Oe Pe Pee we eee ST ae VOLUME 15. Double-Part 9/10 llth February 1958 pp. 257—320 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 Fourth Instalment of the London Congress Agenda Paper (continued inside back wrapper) PURCHASED 4) | 7 FEE 1958 4 4 Beg LONDON : Printed by Order of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature and Sold on behalf of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature by the International Trust at its Publications Office, 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7 1958 Price Two Pounds (All rights reserved) INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE A. The Officers of the Commission Honorary Life President: Dr. Karl Jorpan (British Museum (Natural History), Zoological Museum, Tring, Herts, England) President: Professor James Chester BrapLey (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) Vice-President: Senhor Dr. Afranio do AMarat (Sao Paulo, Brazil) (12th August 1953) Secretary : Mr. Francis Hemminea (London, England) (27th July 1948) B. The Members of the Commission (Arranged in order of precedence by reference to date of election or of most recent re-election, as prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology) Professor H. Boscuma (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) (Ist January 1947) Senor Dr. Angel Casrera (La Plata, Argentina) (27th July 1948) Mr. Francis Hemmuine (London, England) (27th July 1948) (Secretary) Dr. Henning Lemcur (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark) (27th July 1948) Professor Teiso Esaxi (Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan) (17th April 1950)* Professor Pierre Bonnet (Université de Toulouse, France) (9th June 1950) Mr. Norman Denbigh Ritey (British Museum (Natural History), London) (9th June 1950) Professor Dr. Tadeusz JaczEwski (Institute of Zoology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland) (15th June 1950) Professor Dr. Robert Mertens (Natur Museum u. Forschungs-Institut Senckenberg, Frankfurt a. M., Germany) (5th July 1950) Professor Dr. Erich Martin Herina (Zoologisches Museum der Humboldt-Universitat zu Berlin, Germany) (5th July 1950) Senhor Dr. Afranio do Amarat (S. Paulo, Brazil) (12th August 1953) (Vice-President) Professor J. R. Dymonp (University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada) (12th August 1953) Professor J. Chester Brapiey (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) (President) Professor Harold E. VoxEs (University of Tulane, Department of Geology, New Orleans, Louisiana, U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) Professor Béla Hanxé (Mezdgazdasdgi Museum, Budapest, Hungary) (12th August 1953) Dr. Norman R. Strout (Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, New York, N.Y., U.8.A.) (12th August 1953) Mr. P. C. SytvestEer-BrabDiey (Sheffield University, Sheffield, England) (12th August 1953) Dr. L. B. Hotrnuis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) (12th August 1953) Dr. K. H. L. Kny (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Canberra, A.C.T., Australia) (15th October 1954) Dr. Alden H. Minter (Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, University of California, Berkeley, California, U.S.A.) (29th October 1954) Doe. Dr. Ferdinand Pranti (Ndrodni Museum v Praze, Prague, Czechoslovakia) (30th October 1954) Professor Dr. William Ktunett (Zoologisches Institut der Universitat, Vienna, Austria) (6th November 1954) Professor F. S. Bopensrmer (The Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Israel) (11th November 1954) Professor Ernst Mayr (Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard College, Cambridge, Massa- chusetts, U.S.A.) (4th December 1954) Professor Enrico Tortonese (Museo di Storia Naturale “‘G. Doria”, Genova, Italy) (16th December 1954 * Professor Esaki died on 14th December, 1957, while the present Part was passing through the press. BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Volume 15, Double Part 9/10 (pp. 257—320) 11th February 1958 PURCHASED BEBO ASE’ No. 11 DRAFT “ REGLES ”’, ARTICLE 18, SECTION 2, AND ARTICLE 13, SECTION 4(a) : THE NATURE OF THE TYPE OF A TAXON OF THE FAMILY-GROUP CATEGORY (Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 1280) (For the relevant provision in the Draft of the Revised Regles see 1957, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 14 : 117, 97) DOCUMENT 11/1 Proposed verbal amendment in Article 18, Section 2, of the Revised Draft of the ‘“‘ Régles ’’ and proposed addition of an Explanatory Note to Article 13, Section 4(a) of the above Draft By J. CHESTER BRADLEY (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) (Statement received on 25th October 1957) In 1798 Fabricius established the nominal genus, Pompilus. When Leach established the family PomPpiLipDaz in 1815 this automatically became its nominal type-genus. Authors have supposed that Pompilus and POMPILIDAE were spider-hunting wasps, but in recent years it has been discovered that the type-species* of Pompilus belongs to another taxonomic family, the thread- ‘ waisted wasps. Therefore, the name POMPILIDAE, under the Rules, passed * Pompilus and POMPILIDAE have been conserved under the Plenary Powers (1945, Ops. Deels. int. Comm. zool. Nomencl. 2 : 375-398). These names are used here only as an illustration, and all statements apply to what would have been the case if the Plenary Powers had not been used. s 258 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature out of the family of spider-hunting wasps and they had to receive some other family name. 2. In this case it seemed that a name must be found for the taxonomic genus which hitherto incorrectly had been called Pompilus. But what was that genus? It is impossible to answer that question because only a nominal genus has a type-species, and the group of species which at one time were incorrectly termed ‘‘ Pompilus ’’ have in the course of time been divided into many genera, no one of which has any better claim than another to represent those spider-hunting wasps which were originally, but incorrectly, associated with the name Pompilus. However, it has been found that there is a nominal genus to which some of these wasps belong that is even older than Pompilus. This is Psammochares Latreille, 1796, a name that fell into complete disuse. This taxonomic genus had been renamed Anoplius by Dufour in 1834. Banks, 1910, thought that in Psammochares he had found the answer to the unanswerable question of a replacement name for the undefinable taxonomic genus that had incorrectly passed under the name Pompilus. In reality he had merely uncovered a senior subjective synonym of Anoplius Dufour, 1834. Nevertheless, Banks fell into the error of assuming that Psammochares must now replace Pompilus as type-genus of the taxonomic family of spider-hunting wasps. This is the whole point of what I have been leading up to, for it serves as an excellent illustration of erroneous thinking into which many taxonomists have fallen and continue to fall. Banks, 1910, thought that he was proposing PSAMMOCHARIDAE as a substitute name for POMPILIDAE*. What he actually did, from the view-point of nomenclature, was to establish a new nominal family, dating from 1910, with Psammochares as its nominal type-genus. This family name could only compete with other potential family names, as to becoming the correct name for the spider-hunting wasps. 3. The Régles provide that the Law of Priority shall govern the names of taxa of the family-group (Copenhagen Decisions zool. Nomencl. : 33, Decision 45). APORIDAE Leach, 1815 (type-genus A porus Spinola, 1808, a true genus of spider- hunting wasps) was the first taxon of the family-group category erected within the limits of that family as taxonomists now conceive it. Therefore, APORIDAE, not PSAMMOCHARIDAE is the correct name under the Reégles (barring action under the Plenary Powers) for the taxonomic family formerly incorrectly known as POMPILIDAE 4. Because the situation illustrated by the preceding example has not always been fully understood and confusion has sometimes arisen, it might be well to slightly amend the Régles and to add an explanation to that part of them that deals with changes in names of the family-group. * Banks did not know that Pompilus was a valid name for a group within another family of wasps, but abandoned the name under the mistaken belief that it was a preoccupied name. This, however, makes no difference for the purpose of my illustration. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 259 5. Article 4 of the existing Régles might be divided by preceding the present paragraph with one reading : The type of each taxon of the family-group, or higher, shall be a nominal genus. 6. In the revised Draft of the Régles' the preceding provision would replace Article 18, Section 2. 7. It is quite impossible to make a taxonomic, as opposed to a nominal, genus the type, because the former is purely subjective and incapable of _ objective definition, except in terms of nominal genera. 8. The following explanation of Copenhagen Decision 54(1)(a) (page 36) might be attached to Article 13, Section 4(a) of the revised Draft of the Régles.* When the type-species of the nominal genus that is the type of a nominal family is found to belong to a taxonomic family other than that to which it had been supposed to belong, the family name passes out of the taxonomic family to which it had mistakenly been supposed to apply and comes to compete in priority with the current name of the family to which it correctly applies. This leaves the misnamed taxonomic family without a name, unless some taxon within that family, such as subfamily or tribe, has already been named, in which case the oldest such name becomes the name of the taxonomic family. All of this applies equally to any taxon of the family-group. All of the preceding follows logically and inevitably from the provision that names of taxa of the family-group are subject to priority. If the incorrectly used name of a taxon of the family-group is of some importance and has long established usage, the best course may be to request the Commission to conserve it, under the Plenary Powers. This can be done by arbitrarily establishing a type-species ‘for the type-genus of the family that is in harmony with the customary usage of the name. Example: Pompilus Fabricius, 1798, was incorrectly used as though pulcher Linnaeus, a spider-hunting wasp, were its type-species, and as such became type-genus of the family Ppompripaz, 1815. This family name was in use for more than a century. Under the Régles the species viaticus Linnaeus, a thread-waisted wasp, was the correct type-species, so that POMPILIDAE competed with sPHEGIDAE as the correct name for the thread-waisted wasps. Under its Plenary Powers the Commission designated pulcher to be the type-species of Pompilus, therefore restoring that genus and the family pomprtipax to their customary usage. 1 See Vol. 14 : 117. * See vol. 14 : 97-98. 260 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature CASE No. 12 DRAFT “ REGLES ’’, ARTICLE 11, SECTION 1: EMENDATION OF GENERIC AND SPECIFIC NAMES (Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 1286) (For the relevant provision in the Draft of the Revised Régles see, 1957, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 14 : 88) DOCUMENT 12/1 Proposed clarification of the expression ‘‘ evidence in the original publication as used in relation to the emendation of generic and specific names in Article 11, Section 1 of the Draft of the Revised “‘ Régles ”’ By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E. (Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) Note dated 5th December 1957 The present note is concerned to suggest a slight clarification of the decision (Decision 71(1)(i)(a)) by the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology, Copenhagen, 1953 (1953, Copenhagen Decisions zool. Nomencl. : 43) that the original spelling of a zoological name is the Valid Original Spelling, unless there is clear evidence “ in the original publication ” that that spelling was the result of an inadvertent error such as a lapsus calami or a copyist’s or printer’s error. 2. This Rule is clear and unambiguous in the case of a name published in a separate work, when issued in a single instalment, but is not free from doubt in the case of a name published in a work issued in instalments or in a serial publication. In the case of a separate work the author or editor by inserting a “Corrigendum ” at the end of the volume is able to correct the spelling of any new name included in that volume which had there appeared in an incorrect Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 261 ‘ se form and is thus able to provide “in the original publication’ the “ clear evidence” that the ‘‘ Original Spelling’ for the name in question was an “Invalid Original Spelling’. In such a case therefore the name in question may be emended to its correct form, the conditions laid down by the foregoing Copenhagen Decision being fully satisfied. 8. The position however is not so clear in the case of a name published in a Part of a serial publication. For (1) the author of a name published in this way has no means himself of providing evidence that an incorrect spelling used for a particular name in his paper is due to any of the special causes specified in the Copenhagen Decision quoted above, and (2) it is the practice of editors to defer the publication of Corrigenda until the close of the volume as a whole. In the absence of some qualification of the wording employed by the Copenhagen Congress in this matter it is questionable whether the publication of a correction in a Corrigenda issued on the completion of a volume of a serial publication can properly be regarded as being made “ in the original publication ’’, since some months at least may elapse between the publication of an incorrectly spelled new name in a part of a volume of a serial publication and the publication of a correction of that mistake in the concluding part of the volume concerned. 4. This point was not expressly raised in the discussions at Copenhagen, but it appears to me that it would be in harmony with the general intention of Decision 71 of that Congress that in the case of a name published in a serial publication, a correction of the spelling so used for that name, if published in a “ Corrigendum ” included in the final part of the volume concerned, were to be treated as having been published “ in the original publication ” for the purposes of the foregoing Decision. Any other decision would produce the highly anomalous result that, while misspellings of new names can be corrected in the case of a name introduced in a separate work, if published as a single unit and not in instalments (through the inclusion of a “ Corrigendum ”’ at the close of that volume), no corresponding correction could be made in the case of a name introduced in a serial publication or in a separate work if published in instalments (by reason of the fact that in the case of publications issued serially “ Corrigenda ” are not normally compiled by editors until the close of the volume and therefore normally appear only in the concluding part of the volume concerned). 5. It is accordingly proposed that the foregoing question should be clarified by the addition of appropriate words at the point in the Revised Régles where the foregoing decision by the Copenhagen Congress is incorporated. It is recommended also that the same opportunity should be taken to correct another small defect in Copenhagen Decision 71. This is in connection with the use of the word “‘lapsus”’. In Article 19 of the existing Régles this word 262 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature appears as part of the phrase ‘‘ lapsus calami’’ and, so used, makes sense, having the meaning “‘ lapse [or slip] of the pen”. For some reason the word ‘‘ ealami ” was omitted at the time when Copenhagen Decision 71 was drafted. Accordingly, this portion of that Decision reads “‘ an inadvertent error such as a lapsus”. The word “ lapsus”’, when not employed in its principal meaning (a fall, a slipping, a sliding, etc.) has the meaning “a failing’, “an error” or ‘‘a fault ’’, but such errors or faults may be of any kind, the meaning not being confined to slips of the pen, a sense in which indeed the word does not appear to have been used at all in classical Latin. Accordingly, the expression ‘“‘an inadvertent error such as a lapsus”’ as used in the above Copenhagen Decision is purely tautological meaning only “‘ an inadvertent error such as a mistake’. It is recommended that this matter be rectified by the re- instatement of the word “ calami”’ after the word “‘ lapsus ”’. 6. The Copenhagen Decision discussed above appears in Article 11(1)(a) of the Draft of the Revised Régles (1957, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 14 : 88). It is recommended that the points indicated above be met by the insertion of the following verbal amendments in the foregoing passage :— (1) Line 6: After the words “ original publication’ insert the words “including any corrigendum published for the volume in question ” ; (2) Line 8: After the word ** lapsus ” insert the word “ calami”’. ——_— Sw Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 263 CASE No. 13 DRAFT “ REGLES ”’, ARTICLE 28, SECTION 13 : SPECIFIC NAMES IN ADJECTIVAL FORM CONSISTING OF PARTIALLY LATINISED WORDS : PROPOSAL THAT SUCH NAMES SHOULD BE TREATED AS “BARBAROUS’’ WORDS AND THEREFORE AS BEING EXEMPT FROM CHANGE IN GENDER (Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 1064) (For the relevant provision in the Draft of the Revised Regles see, 1957, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 14 : 220-221) DOCUMENT 13/1 Question of the treatment in the matter of liability to gender changes to be accorded to adjectival specific names consisting of partially Latinised words By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E. (Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) (Note dated 10th December 1957) In the early part of last year a communication was received in the Office of the Commission from Dr. Leo Sheljuzhko (Zoologische Sammlung des - Bayerischen Staates, Miinchen) on the question of the treatment in the matter of liability to gender changes which should be accorded to adjectival specific names consisting of partially latinised words. The example actually cited by Dr. Sheljuzhko was the name Parnassius mnemosyne Linnaeus, form melaina Honrath, 1885. The question so raised was whether, having regard to the fact +d 264 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature that the generic name Parnassius is masculine in gender the adjectival name melaina which is feminine in form should be changed to the masculine form and, if so, what would be the correct form for this name. 2. As the result of correspondence with Dr. Sheljuzhko and Professor the Rev. L. W. Grensted, Consulting Classical Adviser to the Commission, I pre- pared a paper for the consideration of the Commission in which I suggested that the Commission should adopt a Declaration that a specific name consisting of a partially latinised adjective should be treated as being a “ barbarous” word and should therefore be exempt from gender change. The very interesting Report received from Professor Grensted was attached to the above paper as an Appendix. The paper described above was published on 26th August 1957 (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 13 : 235—239). 3. Following the publication of this paper I received a letter dated 17th September 1957 from Professor Ernst Mayr intimating that, in his view, the solution recommended in the above paper was the realistic solution, but adding that in the case of ornithology the practice had been to change the gender of such names to agree with that of the name of the genus in which the species concerned was currently placed, with the result that a given name might appear in the literature as melas, melaena or melan according to the gender of the generic name employed. In reply, I put forward (in a letter dated 21st November 1957) the suggestion that in the circumstances the best course might be for the Commission to adopt a Declaration in the sense recommended but should add a rider to it to the effect that, where prior to the proposed Ruling a name of this type had been altered in form to correspond with the gender of the generic name with which it has been combined and that change has become generally accepted, the original spelling should not be restored without prior reference to the Commission. In a further letter (dated 27th November 1957) Professor Mayr expressed doubts as to the practicability of freezing a given ending in a case of the kind under consideration. 4. In the circumstances, I have come to the conclusion that the best course will be for the present matter to be placed on the Agenda Paper for the London Congress rather than that it should be dealt with by way of Declaration. I have so informed Professor Mayr. -5. My original proposal for the adoption of a Declaration is attached to the present paper as an Annexe. Extracts from my subsequent corres- pondence with Professor Mayr are reproduced in the immediately. following paper, Document 13/2. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 265 ANNEXE TO DOCUMENT 13/1 Proposed adoption of a “ Declaration’’ on the question whether adjectival specific names consisting of not fully Latinised words should be treated, under Article 14 of the “ Régles’’, as consisting of “barbarous ’’ words and therefore as being exempt from change in gender The purpose of the present application is to place before the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature certain difficulties which have come to light in connection with the spelling to be adopted for specific names consisting of direct transliterations of Greek adjectives and to invite the International Commission to provide a solution by rendering a Declaration clarifying the action which under Article 14 of the Régles should be taken in such cases. 2. This problem was first brought to the attention of the Office of the Commission by Dr. Leo Sheljuzhko (Zoologische Sammlung des Bayerischen Staates, Miinchen, Germany) who in a letter dated 9th December 1955 enquired what was the correct form for the specific name melaina if placed in a genus having a name which was masculine in gender. The word “ melaina”’ is a direct transliteration of the feminine form of a Greek adjective, a direct transliteration of the masculine of which is “melas” and of the neuter “melan”’. The question for consideration is how a specific or subspecific _ Mame consisting of the word “ melaina” should be formed when combined with a generic name consisting of a word having either a masculine or a neuter gender. 8. Ina case such as that discussed above there are broadly two alternatives : either a specific name such as melaina should take the form melas if placed in a genus having a name of masculine gender such as Parnassius (the genus to which the taxon bearing the above name cited by Dr. Sheljuzhko is currently _ referred) or (b) such a name should be treated as not being subject to change when the taxon bearing that name is placed in a genus having a name which is either masculine or neuter in gender. | 4. As a preliminary to the further consideration of the present problem, I _ invited Professor the Rev. L. W. Grensted, Consulting Classical Adviser to the _ International Commission, to examine and report on the problems involved. The very interesting Report subsequently furnished by Professor Grensted is attached to the present note as an Appendix. It will be seen from Professor Grensted’s Report that he takes the view that the best course will be to treat specific names of the class discussed above as consisting (in the terminology of 266 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature the Régles) of “‘ barbarous” words and therefore as being exempt from the normal rules regarding the agreement in gender of adjectival specific names with the generic names with which they are combined: It will be seen also that in his Report Professor Grensted raises also the question of the treatment to be accorded to specific names belonging to a somewhat analogous group, namely names consisting of compound words which are adjectival in form in cases where the final component of the name is wholly Greek in form. 5. Professor Grensted’s proposals appear to me to merit full support, for in addition to being logical and self-consistent, they provide a solution which is in harmony with current usage, the adoption of which would avoid unnecessary and undesirable name-changing. 6. If provision in regard to this matter is to be made in the revised text of the Régles by the Fifteenth International Congress of Zoology when it meets in London next year, it is clearly desirable that the present problem should be thrown open to general discussion as soon as possible. It is for the purpose of providing a basis for such a discussion that, in agreement with Professor Grensted, I now submit for consideration the proposal that the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature should adopt a Declaration clarifying as follows the provisions of Article 14 in the above regard :— Draft Declaration (1) Where a specific name consists of a word which is an adjective in Greek or in any other language, except Latin, and where the exact form of that adjective is retained when the word in question is published as a zoological name, the name is to be treated as being composed of a “ barbarous’”’ word and accordingly is not to be subject to change in termination if the specific name consisting of that word is combined with a generic name having a gender different from that in which the specific name in question was cited at the time when it was first published. Example: A specific name consisting of the word “ melaina’’, that word being an exact transliteration of the feminine form of a Greek adjective, the transliteration of the masculine of which is “ melas ’’, is to retain the form in which it was originally published, irrespective of the - gender of any generic name with which it may be combined. (2) The Rule prescribed in (1) above is to be applied also to any specific name consisting of a compound word where that word is adjectival in form and its final component is wholly Greek in form and origin. Example: A specific name consisting of the compound word * celebrachys ”’, being a word which is adjectival in form, its final component ———— Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 267 being wholly Greek in form and origin, is not to be changed to “ celebracheia ” if the taxon so named is placed in a genus having a name of feminine gender but is to retain its original form, irrespective of the gender of any generic name with which it may be combined. APPENDIX On the application of the Rule of Gender Agreement in the case of Specific names which are adjectival but have not been Latinised By L. W. GRENSTED, M.A., D.D. (Consulting Classical Adviser to the I nternational Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) Dr. Sheljuzhko, in a letter to the Secretary of the Commission, has raised a question as to the correct form of the sub-specific name in the case of Parnassius mnemosyne melaina. The name melaina was first used by von Honrath as the name for an aberration, but later von Bryk raised the form to the status of a sub-species, and accordingly gave melaina its masculine form in Greek, melas. This raises a question involving a number of Specific names which are Greek in form and which have sometimes been attached to generic names with a curious disregard for agreement in gender. Specific names, under the Rules, are regarded as Latin. Should they, when wholly Greek in form, follow the laws of Greek grammar, or not ? 2. The common Greek adjective melas, melaina, melan is a case in point. _Melas is only found in classical Latin as a proper name, and the feminine melaina is not found at all. In Souter’s Glossary of Later Latin an obscure writer of 4th century A.D. is cited as giving the Latinised melas, melaena, melan, but this is nothing more than a transliteration of the genders of a common Greek adjective. It does not amount to its use. But it enables us to treat as a proper Latin transcription of HéAacva, a fact which may be of Service in circumstances which might arise. In zoological nomenclature the use of melas begins with an anomaly, never challenged down to the present day, in Erebia melas Herbst, where Erebia is feminine and melas masculine. _ But melas in this case is doubtlessly the name Melas, taken from classical mythology, as with so many butterflies, and not the adjective. For melaina we have Sitta melaina Beseke (1787), and twenty years later, melaena appears in Haltica melaena Illiger (1807), followed by Atherix melaena Hoffmansegg (1820), Mordella melaena Germar (1824), Baris melaena Germar ( 1826), - Hembracis melaena Germar (1835), Cetonia melaena McCleay (1838), Locusta 268 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature melaena de Haan (1842), etc. As all these names are feminine no question arises, and none can arise unless one of these species is transferred to a masculine genus, when the question raised by Dr. Sheljuzhko would have to be asked again. 3. Melas and melaina are purely Greek in form. It is more difficult to know how to regard melaena. One solution is to treat it as a neo-Latin adjective in spite of its obviously Greek origin. This solution appears in such regrettable forms as Abramis melaenus Agassiz (1835), Aradis melaenus Germar (1840), and Sphaeridium melaenum Germar (1824). Obviously Germar, who uses the specific name five times, treated it in that way. The alternative is to treat melaena, with melaina, as a fixed form, not varying in gender. The case can fairly be argued on either side. 4. In this connection the use of the very common Greek adjective micros-a-on is illuminating. This appears as a specific name with a complete and undisputed disregard of gender. Thus micros, used correctly with Tachys, Trechus and Miarus, appears in Bembidium micros (Sturm) C. R. Sahlberg, Diss. Ent. Ins. Fenn. 205 (1827), where the neuter micron would naturally be expected. Still more curious are Bulimus micra d’Orb, 1837, and Obeliscus micra H. Beck, 1837, where the feminine is doubtless based on Helix micra d’Orb, 1835. The danger here is that micra, like melaena, might come to be regarded as a Latin feminine, giving rise to a masculine micrus, a form which is wholly unclassical. The obvious suggestion is that an original micros or micra should remain unchanged, whatever may be the gender of any generic name under which the species concerned may come to be placed. 5. To confirm this we have Metallina lampros Herbst, where Metallina is feminine, for which the accepted name now is Bembidion lampros, where Bembidion is neuter, lampros being the masculine form of the Greek adjective. 6. In such a specific name as Hulophus myodus Walker the difficulty does not arise, for though myodes (vaéns) is a purely Greek form it would not vary at all in any gender when put into Latin lettering. 7. The natural suggestion, upon this evidence, is that where a specific name is wholly Greek in form (or, indeed, of any other language than Latin) it should be treated as “ barbarous”’ and not be subject to any change of gender, even when there is a change of gender in the generic name to which it is attached. This rule might apply when the diphthong ai is transliterated ae, thus covering such cases as melaena, but there is an arguable case for treating melaenus-a-um as a neo-Latin adjective. 8. Such a form as melaneus, melanea, which has been used (as in Sazicola melanea Rueppell) is, of course, a true neo-Latin adjective, and would not come under such a rule. a ee. oo ee Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 269 9. The above rule should also apply in compound specific names where the final component of the name is wholly Greek and cannot naturally be given a Latin change of gender. Such names are rare, but a form such as celebrachys (Eustrigiphilus celebrachys Nitsch in Denny, 1842) would have as its natural Greek feminine celebracheia. It would be far better to keep the original form of the name unchanged. 10. There is one group of Greek adjectives which might perhaps be held to constitute an exception to the principle. These are compound two-termination adjectives ending in -os. These do not change in the feminine, but end in -on in the neuter, and were often taken over in their Greek form by Latin writers with a taste for Greek, such as Petronius and Pliny. Thus we find monochromos -on, monochordos -on, paraphoros -on, and many others. The case has not actually arisen with Nymphalis polychloros (L.), but polychloros, though not classical in either Greek or Latin, is clearly an adjective of this type, and there would be strong classical precedent for writing polychloron if the species were ever placed under a generic name of neuter gender. The case is a most unlikely one, and such specific names appear to be extremely rare, if indeed there is another to be found. Probably the best course would be to treat this case too as coming under the Rule suggested above. 11. This note is not intended to be a complete survey of the cases that may arise. Actually it is a very difficult matter to cover the field, since an Index of specific names does not afford a ready clue to their termination. It would be very desirable, before a final decision is taken in this matter, that comments should be obtained from experts in different parts of the field. It would be particularly helpful if specialists who may be aware of analogous cases which would not fall within the scope of the rule suggested above would furnish particulars of those cases, so that the rule might be expanded to such extent as may be necessary. 270 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature DOCUMENT 13/2 Correspondence as to the applicability of the gender rules to adjectival specific names consisting of partly Latinised words between FRANCIS HEMMING (Secretary to the Commission) and ERNST MAYR (a) Extract from a letter dated 17th September 1957 from Professor Ernst Mayr I am very much interested in your proposed Declaration dealing with the action to be taken with respect to the gender of Greek adjectives. The realistic solution is, no doubt, the one proposed by you even though in the ornith. literature it has been customary to adjust the gender, for instance : Lanius melas became Campephaga melaena when transferred to Cambephaga, Edolsoma melan, and finally Coracina melaena. There seem to have been enough Greek scholars among the ornithologists to swing eventually the opinion of those who did not know Greek. I do think such adjustments of the gender are much more frequent than is implied in your comments. I suggest you go slow on this, or else there might have to be a lot of changing of well established endings. The disadvantage of the proposal is that one will have to check in what genus each specific name was first proposed ! (b) Extract from a letter dated 2ist November 1957 from Francis Hemming In the circumstances, I have been wondering whether the best thing.to do might be for the Commission to take a decision on the lines indicated in my paper but to add to it a rider to the effect that, where prior to the proposed Ruling a name of this class has been altered in form to correspond with the gender of the generic name with which it has been combined and that change has become firmly established, the original spelling should not be restored without prior reference to the Commission. I should be grateful to have your views on this subject. (c) Extract from a letter dated 27th November 1957 from Ernst Mayr If our classification were completely mature, one could freeze one ending. However, we have numerous cases where a name, let us say melas, was originally proposed in a genus with a masculine gender, subsequently transferred to a genus with feminine gender and subsequently transferred back to a genus with masculine gender. Let us assume that the feminine ending had been in ——s a _ Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 271 : exclusive use for 40 or 50 years, it would nevertheless seem pedantic to have to ask the Commission to permit restoring the original masculine ending. There is an alternate solution which might possibly cause fewer difficulties. This would be to consider the adjective -melas, -melaena, -melan as “‘ Latinized ” and included specifically as an appendix for those not familiar _ with grammar. There may be a few more such cases but certainly not many. Incidentally another word which should be mentioned somewhere in the rules is the ending -cola. First of all it should be pointed out that this is a noun, _ and secondly that in spite of the terminal “a ”’ the gender is masculine (ardiasic first declension). To go back to your original draft, I wonder how many Greek adjectives have actually been used in nomenclature without complete Latinization. _ Perhaps the most sensible approach would be to determine this first, because it would give us a clue how often we will run into a problem. I might add that the mere fact that the ending -melaena is used instead of -melaina indicates _ clearly that the word has been Latinized. If this is the case, then it would seem _ improper to treat it as a barbaric word. There are so many aspects to this case that I would like to have advice from several specialists of medieval Latin. (d) Extract from a letter dated 17th December 1957 from Ernst Mayr . The more I look into the Latinization of Greek words, the more I realize that we have a tiger by the tail. A casual check through the literature reveals _ that in ornithology it has been quite customary to treat Greek nouns as if they were Latin adjectives! We have leucurus, Leucura, leucurum ; chalconotus, -ta, -tum ; chloropterus, -ra, -rum; cyanocphalus, -la, -lum; diophthalmus, -ma, -mum; macrorhinus, -na, -num; heliosylus, -la, -lum. These are just a few examples. The minute we start legislating we are liable to find ourselves in a morass of difficulties. The simplest solution is probably to advise zoologists to disregard the original Greek and to treat any Greek word used in Latin as if it were a Latin adjective, with a few spectacular and well known exceptions. In view of the fact that melas has probably been used quite a few _ times (see Sherborn) it might be simplest to say that the grammatical forms of melas when Latinized are melas, melaena, melan. In addition to leucomelas (Temminck, 1835) I have found also the deviant forms in the literature : leucomela and leucomelanos (Latham, 1790). _ The case of Coracina melaena is about as good a case as you can find ‘because the specific name is used as melan when in combination with the generic name Edolisoma or as melas when in combination with the generic a justed the ending of the specific name each time it was shifted into a genus with a different gender. 272 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature DOCUMENT 13/3 Support for the proposed adoption of a ‘“ Declaration’’ to treat barbarous words as exempt from change in gender By LEO SHELJUZHKO (Zoologische Sammlung des Bayerischen Staates, Munich, Germany) (Letter dated 22nd June 1957) melas/melaina Was meine Meinung betrifft, nach der Sie mich anfragen, so bin ich volkommen mit Threr Ansicht einverstanden, dass in solchen Fallen, wie der Vorliegende, keine Anderung der Namen vorgenommen werden soll. Ich glaube namlich, dass solche Anderungen nur verwirrend wirken miissten. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 273 CASE No. 14 DRAFT “REGLES”’, SUGGESTED NEW ARTICLE BETWEEN ARTICLES 25 AND 26: THE CODE OF ETHICS : PROPOSED CLARIFICATION AND EXTENSION OF PROVISIONS IN (Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 763) (For the suggested position in the Draft of the Revised Régles see, 1957, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 14 : 189) DOCUMENT 14/1 The “ Code of Ethics ’’ : proposals for clarification and extension in certain respects By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E. (Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) (Note dated 12th December 1957) Some years ago the late Professor Z. P. Metcalf (North Carolina State College of Agriculture and Engineering, University of North Carolina, Raleigh, North Carolina, U S.A.) drew attention to a practical defect in the “ Code of - Ethics ” adopted by the Ninth International Congress of Zoology, Monaco, 1913. No action was taken on this matter at that time, for it was apparent that the “ Code of Ethics ” as adopted by the Monaco Congress was incomplete and in need of a thorough review. 2. This matter was re-examined in the early part of the present year and a paper putting forward proposals for the reform of the text of the “Code of Ethics ” was prepared. This paper was published on 28th June 1957 (Hemming, Tr 274 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 1957, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 18 : 171—76). I have since been informed by Professor Chester Bradley (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) that the proposal submitted has his general support. Professor Bradley has, however, suggested various drafting changes. 8. The problem here involved appears to me to be one, the details of which could more conveniently be discussed round the table than by means of a postal vote in the Commission. I have come to the conclusion therefore that, having regard to the fact that there will be an opportunity for such a discussion at the London Congress in July next year, it would be better that this case should be dealt with by inclusion in the London Agenda Paper rather than by way of a Declaration, more especially in view of the fact that such a Declaration could not in any case be published until shortly before the London Congress. I have accordingly withdrawn the proposal that the Commission should be invited to adopt a Declaration in this case and have entered it as Case No. 14 on the London Agenda Paper. 4. In order that members of the London Congress may be aware of the reasons which led to the submission of the proposal, the text of that proposal is annexed as an Appendix to the present note. In a second paper—to which has been allotted the Number Document 14/2—there is submitted a revised draft which has been prepared in consultation between Professor Bradley and myself and which is recommended by both of us. APPENDIX TO DOCUMENT 14/1 Proposed adoption of a “ Declaration”’ clarifying and extending the provisions of the “‘ Code of Ethics ” By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E. (Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) The purpose of the present paper is to place before the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature certain considerations relating to the wording and scope of the “ Code of Ethics” and to suggest the adoption of a Declaration clarifying and in one respect extending the provisions of that Code Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 275 I. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND 2. Before setting out the points on which it is suggested that further action is necessary, it may be convenient briefly to recall the origin and purpose of the “Code of Ethics” and its subsequent history. The precise circumstances which led up to the adoption of the Code are not known and cannot now be ascertained, for the papers relating to this matter were included among that portion of the records of the Commission which owing to storage difficulties were destroyed in 1931. All that is known is that at its Session held at Monaco in 1913 the International Commission adopted a Resolution in which the “‘ Code of Ethics’ was propounded. The Commission’s Resolution on this subject was embodied in its Report to, and was approved by, the Ninth International Congress of Zoology. Thereafter the “‘ Code of Ethics ” was published with all editions of the Régles, although it was not formally a part of those Régles. When in 1943 the “ Declarations”’ Series was inaugurated, the ‘‘ Code of Ethics” was embodied in Declaration 1 (1943, Ops. Decls. int. Comm. zool. Nomencl. 1(A) : 1-6). 8. In 1935 the Commission received from Professor Dr. Eduard Handschin, then President of the Schweizerische entomologische Gesellschaft, a proposal prepared by the Verein Entomologia Zurich that certain specified action should be taken by the International Commission in any case where it was satisfied that a given author had repeatedly and deliberately violated the “Code of Ethics”. Particulars of an individual case which, in the opinion of the two Societies, fell in the above class were furnished in the documents then submitted to the Commission. This matter was considered by the Commission at its Session held at Lisbon in September 1935. In the discussion which then ensued the view was unanimously expressed that the Commission was not equipped for undertaking disciplinary functions of the kind which had been suggested and that it was undesirable that it should be asked to undertake duties of this kind. At this meeting, in the absence through ill- health of Dr. C. W. Stiles, I was officiating as Acting Secretary to the Commission and it appeared to me that in recording the foregoing discussion it would not be appropriate to include particulars of the individual case cited in the application submitted in which, in the opinion of the applicant-societies, a particular zoologist had committed breaches of the “‘ Code of Ethics ”’, having regard to the expressed unwillingness of the Commission to take individual cases into consideration. Accordingly, both in the Official Record of the Proceedings of the Commission at its Lisbon Session (1943, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 1 : 25) and in the Declaration (Declaration 12 published in 1944, Ops. Decls. int. Comm. zool. Nomencl. 2 : xvii-xxiv) embodying the decision then taken, all reference to this side of the question was deliberately omitted, the record _ being confined to a recital of the Resolution in which the Commission placed on record its considered opinion that the question whether the “ Code of Ethics ” had been duly complied with in any given case was not a matter on which it felt authorised to enter. 276 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 4, The text of the “‘ Code of Ethics’ as embodied in Declaration 1 and as clarified in Declaration 12 was examined in Paris in 1948 both by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature and by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology. As a result certain amendments, particulars of which are given in paragraph 6 below, were made in the text of Declaration 1, while as regards Declaration 12 greater precision was given to the provision prescribing that it was no part of the functions of the International Commission to exercise functions of a disciplinary character in relation to alleged breaches of the ‘“‘ Code of Ethics’. Subject to the amendments so adopted the Paris Congress decided that a provision embodying the “ Code of Ethics ” should be incorporated in the revised text of the Régles which it then agreed should be prepared. The provision which it was then decided to insert in the Régles was in the following terms (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 167) :— When a worker notices that a generic or subgeneric name or a name of a species, subspecies or infra-subspecific form published as a new name by an author who is alive at the time of the foregoing discovery is invalid by reason of being a homonym and requires to be replaced, the author making such a discovery should notify the author by whom the name in question was published, and, before himself publishing a substitute name, should so far as practicable, give the original author an opportunity of so doing, it being made clear that the observance of the foregoing provision is a matter to be left to the proper feelings of individual workers, it not being part of the duties of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to investigate or pass judgment upon alleged contra- ventions of this provision. II. Examination of certain aspects of the text of the “ Code of Ethics ”’ 5. Having placed the “‘ Code of Ethics” in its historical setting, we are now in a position to examine certain aspects of the text of that Code which present features which appear to call for consideration. Two problems are involved. The first is concerned with the question of removing from the text a provision which, if strictly observed, might have the unintended result of seriously impeding the necessary correction of errors arising out of the publication of invalid homonyms. The second is concerned with the question of coverage. The intention of the authors of the Code was no more than to provide a means for discouraging irregular practices in the matter of the replacement of invalid homonyms, and the title “‘ Code of Ethics ” given to the resolution so adopted was much wider than the resolution itself. Now, however, that the ‘“‘ Code of Ethics” is, under the decision of the Paris Congress, to be incorporated in a special Article in the revised text of the Régles it would be illogical to leave that provision in its present incomplete and unbalanced state. These matters are considered separately below. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 277 (a) Proposed removal of an unduly restrictive provision from the portion of the “Code of Ethics’’ relating to the replacement of invalid homonyms 6. In the form in which it originally read, an author discovering that a given name was an invalid junior homonym of another name was enjoined under the “ Code of Ethics ”’ to give the author of the invalid name “‘ ample opportunity ” himself to publish a valid substitute name. Nothing was said in the resolution as what should be done if the author discovering the conditions of homonymy between the two names was unable to get into touch with the author of the invalid name nor was any indication given as to what should be regarded as an “ample opportunity ’’ for the purpose of compliance with the “Code”. As will be seen from the text of the decision quoted in paragraph 4 above, an attempt was made in Paris to deal with both of these points, as regards the former by inserting the words ‘“‘so far as practicable’ and as regards the latter by deleting the word ‘“‘ ample” before the word “ opportunity ”’. 7. While the drafting changes adopted by the Paris Congress undoubtedly constitute an improvement on the original text, neither, in my opinion, is fully satisfactory. As regards the first, it is only in a minority of cases that an indication of the addresses of the authors of papers are given in serial publications and it is often very difficult to ascertain the address of the author of a paper in a serial published in some foreign country or even to be certain whether the author is still alive. Moreover, in existing world conditions, it is not always possible to communicate with zoologists resident in particular countries or, if one does write to them, to be confident that one’s letter is duly delivered. Of _ these difficulties the first is relevant to the question of making a notification under the ‘“‘ Code of Ethics’’, the second, to the question of the amount of _ time which should be regarded as constituting an “ opportunity ” to the author of an invalid name himself to replace it. 8. In view of the fact that we are here concerned with a provision, non- _ compliance with which lays an author open to the stigma of having offended against professional etiquette, it seems important that the wording of the _ provision should be such as expressly to absolve from blame an author who publishes a substitute name for an invalid name published by another author _ if, after making reasonable efforts, he finds it impossible (a) to ascertain _ whether the author concerned is alive—this being a relevant factor in that _ the fact that a given name is an invalid homonym may often not be detected _ until long after the publication of the paper containing the name in question, or (b), if that author is alive, to communicate with him. It is accordingly suggested in the revised text submitted in paragraph 13 below that words dealing with this matter expressly should be substituted for the words “‘ so far as practicable ” inserted in the “Code” by the Paris Congress. 278 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 9. The existing difficulties in regard to the interpretation of the expression “ opportunity” were brought forward vigorously in the following passage included in a letter primarily concerned with another subject which was addressed to the Office of the Commission on 17th April 1953 by the late Professor Z. P. Metcalf (North Carolina State College of Agriculture and Engineering, University of North Carolina, Raleigh, North Carolina, U.S.A.) :— While I agree with the general purport of the Code of Ethics, in regard to publishing new names to take the place of preoccupied names, there is another side to this situation. When you write to an author three or more times and he makes no reply or when he says he is going to publish a new name for the preoccupied name in the next number of a journal and then three or six years later, having forgotten his previous promise, repeats the same promise, courtesy ceases to be a virtue. 10. The difficulties discussed above are more likely to confront the compilers of large catalogues than any other class of zoologist and it may be confidently concluded that it was as the author of the General Catalogue of the Hemiptera that Professor Metcalf had encountered the difficulties in applying the “‘ Code of Ethics ” described in the letter quoted above. The point which he makes is, I consider, a valid one and I suggest that it should be met by the insertion in the “Code of Ethics” of a specified period which, after having made the prescribed notification, an author should be required to wait before himself publishing a substitute name for the invalid homonym in question. It is suggested that the period so to be specified should be “‘ one year’. Even in this case there should, however, in equity be a safeguard exonerating from blame an author who publishes a replacement name for some other author's invalid name where this is necessary in order to save the author concerned from being forced to employ in a book or paper already in preparation a name which he has ascertained to be invalid. (b) Proposed extension of the “‘Code of Ethics’’ to include a condemnation of the publication of a name for a new taxon when it is known that another author has arranged to publish a name for the taxon concerned 11. In its present form the ‘‘ Code of Ethics’ contains a condemnation — only of the publication of a substitute name without giving the author of the invalid name a chance himself to publish a valid name. Such practice, though — reprehensible, are not, however, by any means the most serious of those ‘which it would be reasonable to expect to see condemned in a “‘ Code of Ethics ”. In particular, it seems very anomalous that the “Code ” does-not- condemn > ~~ Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 279 the publication of a name for a new species by an author when he knows—or has reasonable ground for believing—that another author has already arranged to publish a name for that species. Fortunately, cases of this kind are rare but they do nevertheless occur from time to time and it would seem appropriate that a condemnation of them should be included in the ‘“ Code of Ethics” at a time when that “ Code ”’ is incorporated into the Régles. (ec) Responsibilities of editors in relation to the observance of the “Code of Ethics ”’ 12. In the case of papers containing new names published in serial publications the editor of the serial would not normally himself possess the detailed knowledge required to enable him to satisfy himself that papers published in the serial for which he was responsible did not contain any breaches of the ‘Code of Ethics”. It seems reasonable therefore that responsibility for the observance of the ‘“‘ Code” should rest with the author of a paper and that responsibility in this matter should not be imposed upon editors, subject to the condition that no editor should wittingly publish a paper which to his own knowledge contained a breach of the “ Code of Ethics ”’. Ill. Recommendation 13. For the reasons set out above it is suggested for consideration that the International Commission should render a Declaration substituting for the existing text of the “Code of Ethics” the following revised text in which have been embodied the amendments suggested in paragraphs 7 and 9 above and the extensions suggested in paragraphs 10 and 11 :— Suggested Revised text of the “‘ Code of Ethics ”’ (1) The following precepts in connection with the procedure to be observed by authors publishing zoological names form collectively a “Code of Ethics ” and any wilful failure to observe these precepts constitutes a breach of professional etiquette :— (a) An author should not publish a name for a new taxon if he knows, or has reasonable ground for believing, that another author has already arranged to publish a name for that taxon. (b) An author should not publish a name in replacement of an invalid homonym previously published by another author during the lifetime 280 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature of that author in any case where he is able to ascertain that author’s address and where postal and other conditions make it possible to communicate with that author until :— (i) he has notified the author concerned that the name in question is an invalid homonym and requires replacement ; (ii) he has allowed a period of one year to elapse after the despatch of the foregoing notification in order to enable the original author himself to replace the invalid name, save where a delay of so long a period would make it necessary for the author by whom the condition of homonymy had been discovered to employ the invalid name in a work to be published within that period. 1 (2) Editors and others responsible for the publication of zoological papers should avoid publishing any paper which to their knowledge contains a breach of the foregoing precepts. (3) The observance of the “ Code of Ethics”’ is a matter for the proper feelings of individual zoologists and the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is not authorised or empowered to investigate, or pass judgment upon alleged breaches of its provisions. —-- ee ee ee ce ne Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 281 DOCUMENT 14/2 Revised proposal for the clarification and amplification of the “ Code of Ethics ’’ and a proposal regarding the place in which the “Code of Ethies’’ so revised should be incorporated into the “ Régles ” By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E. (Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) (Note dated Ist January 1958) The present note has a twofold purpose: First to put forward for consideration a revised proposal for the clarification and amplification of the “Code of Ethics” in place of the proposal published in June 1957 and now republished as the Appendix to Document 14/1, this revised proposal having been concerted in consultation between Professor Chester Bradley and myself ; Second, to submit for consideration proposals as to the point at which the “Code of Ethics”, as proposed to be revised should be incorporated into the text of the Régles which the London Congress is to be invited to approve this year. I. Revised proposal for the clarification and amplification of the “ Code of Ethics ”’ 2. The revised draft of the ‘‘ Code of Ethics ’” embodying the proposals for its clarification and amplification now recommended is attached to the present _ Rote as an Annexe. Point (1) of this revised draft is substantially the same as one prepared by Professor Chester Bradley in correspondence following the _ publication of the original proposal, the only difference being that, in order to avoid repetition, a new Point (2) has been added in place of qualifications inserted by Professor Bradley both in (a) and (b). 5 8. The points numbered (3) and (4) in the present draft are the same as _ those numbered (2) and (3) in the original draft. Point (2) contains an _ admonition to the editors of zoological serials to assist by avoiding the publication of any matter which to their knowledge contains a breach of the _ “Code of Ethics”. Point (3) places on record that the Commission as a body is not concerned with, and is not empowered to take action in connection with, alleged breaches of the “‘ Code of Ethics ”’. 282 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 4. I think that Point (3) raises a matter of importance for I see no reason why editors should be relieved of responsibility for securing compliance with the provisions of the “Code of Ethics”. Point (4) reproduces a decision taken by the Commission at Lisbon when dealing with an individual case—a decision which was later embodied in Declaration 12 and in 1948 was incorporated into the Régles by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948. The existence of this provision has, in practice, proved of value in dealing with suggestions in particular cases that the Commission should intervene in the matter of certain alleged breaches of the “ Code of Ethics ”. 5. The revised draft now submitted has been prepared in consultation with Professor Chester Bradley who has informed me (in litt., 27th December 1957) that he concurs in its terms. II. Proposal as to the point at which the revised “‘ Code of Ethics ”” should be incorporated in the revised text of the “ Régles ”’ 6. Bound up with the above question is the related question of the position in which the ‘‘ Code of Ethics ’’ is to appear in the Revised text of the Régles to be approved by the International Congress of Zoology this year. The “Code of Ethics ’’ as such does not appear in the Draft of the revised text of the Régles having been incorporated, in part only, as Recommendation 3 in Article 24 (1957, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 14 : 172—173), where, it will be noted, it is suggested that the decision by the Paris Congress (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 167) that the “‘ Code of Ethics ” should be incorporated into the Régles as a mandatory provision should be set on one side. 7. In this connection it is necessary to note that, if, as proposed by Professor Bradley and myself in the draft annexed to the present note, the “ Code of Ethics ” is expanded to cover the deliberate anticipation by one author of the naming of a new taxon already proposed to be named by another author, the present position of the suggested provision in the Draft of the Régles (paragraph 5 above) would in any case cease to be appropriate, for the Draft Article in © which that provision has been inserted relates only to the question of the Law of Homonymy (with which the “ Code of Ethics ” is at present alone concerned). . 8. On the broader issue involved, it would, I think, be most unfortunate if the Congress were to be asked to approve a proposal (1) which involved the : : ¢ a ee z iter ca thy Bulletin of Zoological N omenclature 283 reversal of the decision by the Paris Congress that the “Code of Ethics ” should be included in the Réegles in a separate Article, (2) which dropped altogether the long-established title “ Code of Ethics ” and (3) down-graded the provisions now included in the “Code of Ethics” to the status of an inconspicuous Recommandation included in some Article dealing with a different subject. On general grounds it is undesirable that one Congress should be asked to reverse a decision affecting the text of the Regles taken by an earlier Congress unless it is actively desired to reverse the decision (as was the case, for example, at Copenhagen as regards the problem of the “ First Reviser ” Principle versus the “ Page Precedence ” Principle) or unless for some other for example, at Copenhagen as regards the problem of the “First Reviser ” Principle versus the “ Page Precedence ” Principle) or unless for some other between Articles 25 and 26 of the draft, i.e. on page 189 of the Draft as published Recommendations 9. The recommendations which I now submit for consideration are therefore :— (1) that the “ Code of Ethics ” should be amended as shown in the Annexe to the present paper ; (2) that, as decided upon by the Paris Congress of 1948 the “ Code of Ethics ” should be incorporated in the Régles as a mandatory provision, & Separate Article being devoted to this purpose. 284 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature ANNEXE TO DOCUMENT 14/2 “Code of Ethics’’: revised draft including certain proposed clarifications and amplifications (based upon correspondence between J. Chester Bradley and Francis Hemming) The Code of Ethics (1) The following precepts in connection with the procedure to be observed by authors publishing zoological names form collectively a “‘ Code of Ethics ”’ and any wilful failure to observe these precepts constitutes a breach of professional etiquette [? substitute “ conduct ” for “‘ etiquette ’’] :— (a) A zoologist should not publish a name for new taxon if he (i) knows, or has reasonable grounds for believing, that another zoologist has already decided to publish a name for it or (ii) that a name for that taxon is to be published in a posthumous work of a deceased zoologist, unless there is an urgent need for the establishment of the new nominal taxon concerned, in which case the second zoologist may establish the taxon in question, provided (1) that he first so notifies the other zoologist, if it is possible to communicate with him, and, (2), having done so, waits for a period of at least one year. (b) During the lifetime of a zoologist who has published an invalid homonym, no other author should publish a name in replacement of it, or intentionally publish a synonym of it, until, if it is possible to communicate with the former zoologist, he has (i) notified that zoologist that the name in question is an invalid homonym and requires replacement, and (ii) has allowed a period of one year thereafter to elapse. (2) The period specified in (1) above may be reduced if it is necessary for the second zoologist to refer to the taxon before the expiry of one year from the date of his notifying the first zoologist. (3) Editors and others responsible for the publication of zoological papers should avoid publishing any paper which to their knowledge contains a breach of the ‘‘ Code of Ethics ”’. (4) The observance of the “ Code of Ethics” is a matter for the proper feelings of individual zoologists and the Commission is not authorised to investigate or pass judgment upon alleged breaches of its provisions. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 285 CASE No. 15 DRAFT “ REGLES ”’, ARTICLE 8, SECTION 2 (COPENHAGEN DECISIONS 123-124) : PROPOSED RE-INSTATEMENT OF THE “ PAGE PRECEDENCE PRINCIPLE’? IN PLACE OF THE “FIRST REVISER PRINCIPLE ” RESTORED BY THE COPENHAGEN CONGRESS (Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 1291) (For the relevant provision in the Draft of the Revised Régles see, 1957, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 14 : 71) Document 15/1 Proposal for the amendment of Article 28 of the existing ** Régles ’? as amended at Copenhagen (1953) so as to give preference to the principle of page priority in the selection of generic and specific names and for other purposes By CYRIL F. DOS PASSOS (The American Museum of Natural History, New York, and The Carnegie Museum, Pittsburgh) and ALEXANDER B. KLOTS (The College of the City of New York, New York) (Enclosure to letter dated 5th December 1957 from Cyril dos Passos) Introduction _ Prior to the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology held at Paris in 1948, Article 28 of the Régles read as follows : Article 28.—A genus formed by the union of two or more genera or sub genera takes the oldest valid generic or subgeneric name of it 286 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature components. If the names are of the same date, that selected by the first reviser shall stand. The same rule obtains when two or more species or subspecies are united to form a single species or subspecies. Recommendation.—_In absence of any previous revision, the establishment of precedence by the following method is recommended : (a) A generic name accompanied by specification of a type has precedence over a name without such specification. [If all or none of the genera have types specified, that generic name takes precedence the diagnosis of which is most pertinent. (b) A specific name accompanied by both description and figure stands in preference to one accompanied only by a diagnosis or only by a figure. (c) Other things being equal, that name is to be preferred which stands first in the publication (page precedence). Prior ruling by the Commission 2. But one Opinion, Opinion 40, appears to have construed Article 28, and that was back in 1912. That case involved two applications to the Commission that were considered together. (i) The first was : Salmo eriox vs. 8. trutta and S. fario and it was held that on the basis of the evidence submitted it was not necessary to sub- stitute ertox, the earliest name, in place of fario and trutta, later names, because “. . . all other things are not equal in this case, and it is best to select the most commonly used name, which under the premises is Salmo fario”’. (ii) The second case, Heniochus acuminatus vs. H. macrolepidotus was decided in accordance with the first reviser principle, because it was found that Cuvier (1817) had in fact acted as the first reviser and had selected macrolepidotus. 3. At the time of the rendition of Opinion 40, the Commission consisted of 11 members, and it was quite apparent from the statements of some of them that they followed reluctantly the First Reviser rule. (i) Hartert, Commissioner, said in part : “The greatest convenience is undoubtedly page-priority, and as it is the only one which admits no discussion (convenience and __ common usage being uncertain quantities), it alone must decide. Cuvier, in my opinion, was not a ‘first reviser’ or monographer. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 287 He did not revise nor monograph the South Sea fishes, but only mentioned some in this Régne Animal.” (ii) Jentink, Commissioner, said : “Salmo eriox is the first published name, like also Chaetodon acuminatus, and they have therefore priority.” (iii) Jordan (D.S.), Commissioner, said : “TI personally much prefer the recognition of line and page priority as giving absolute fixity. But I agree that the above is the rule and shall abide by it.” 4, Stejneger alone dissented from the Opinion upon the ground that Collett united these species in 1875 and that he selected eriox as the collective name. Proceedings at the Thirteenth and Fourteenth International Congresses of Zoology in Jas . 5. At the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology the First Reviser _ rule was abolished, because of dissatisfaction with it, in favour of Page Priority. _ Although the Régles as amended at Paris were never published’, as was _ ordered by that Congress, we can obtain the gist of the amendment of Article 28 _ by referring to Volume 4 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. There _ on pages 330-331 we find the following : hg i} THE COMMISSION agreed to recommend .— + (1) that in place of the provisions in Article 28 relating to names of the ; same date there be inserted in the Régles at an appropriate point provisions (a) that where two or more names were published for the same taxonomic unit, or where the same name was published _1 Tm accordance with the decision here referred to taken by the Thirteenth International _ Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948, a draft of the Régles as amended by that Congress, was duly oes. That draft was not, however, published because by the time that it was available _ it was already evident that it was likely that the text of the Régles would be subject to such _ extensive further amendment that it would be rendered out of date before it could be formally Promulgated. In these circumstances the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature took the view that it would not be justified in incurring the expenditure involved in printing the draft based upon the Paris decisions, considering that the proper course would be to wait until it was possible to publish a draft embodying the Copenhagen, as well as the Paris, decisions. (intl’d. F.H. 20th December 1957) 4 288 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature for more than one taxonomic unit, in the same book or serial or in the same part of any book or serial and were in consequence of identical date, the name printed on the earlier of the pages concerned is to have precedence over the name or names published on a later page, (b) that, where two or more such names are published on the same page, the name which appears on the line nearest to the top of the page is to have precedence over any name or names which appear lower down that page and (c) that, where two or more such names are printed in the same line, a name appearing earlier, is to have precedence over any name or names appearing later, in the same line ; (2) that the provisions specified in (1) above should be subject to the following conditions :— (a) that, where the application of the foregoing provision would lead to a change in the name of a taxonomic unit of importance, particularly in the fields of medicine, agriculture, veterinary science or other applied fields in biology or in the teaching of zoology, specialists may apply to the Commission for the use of its Plenary Powers to maintain existing nomenclatorial practice and that, on such an application having been sub- mitted, no change in that practice should be made until the Commission’s decision is made known ; (b) that the said International Commission shall give sympathetic consideration to applications for the use of its Plenary Powers for the purpose of stabilising names, when requested to do so in accordance with (a) above ; (3) that the existing Recommandation to Article 28, being inconsistent with the provisions now proposed to be inserted in that Article, should be deleted therefrom. 6. At the Fifteenth International Congress of Zoology held at Copenhagen in 1953, Article 28 was again amended so as to restore the First Reviser rule. Again it is impossible to quote the exact language of the Amendment, because this has not been published in either draft or final form. However, by referring to the Copenhagen Decisions (1953), edited by Francis Hemming, we find the following (: 66-67) : Article 28 123. Reinstatement of the “ First Reviser”’ Principle in place of the Principle of “Page Precedence” for determining the relative status of Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 289 names published in the same work and on the same date : The Colloquium recommends that the decision taken in Paris in 1948 (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 330-331) to substitute the principle of page, line and word precedence for the principle of the First Reviser should be reversed, the original provisions in Article 28 being reinstated with the addition (1) of the definition of the action to be accepted as the action of a First Reviser recommended in paragraph 124 below, and (2) of the Recommandation submitted in paragraph 125 below. 124. Definition of action constituting selection by a “ First Reviser ” : The Colloquium recommends the addition to Article 28 of the following definition of the action constituting action by a First Reviser :— The expression “selection by a First Reviser” is to be rigidly construed, and such a selection is to be deemed to have been effected -— (a) in the case of generic names, only when an author, after citing two or more such names published in the same book and on the same date, clearly indicates by whatever method, (a) that he is of the opinion that the type species of the nominal genera so named represent the same taxon, and (b) that he is selecting one of the generic names concerned, to the exclusion of the other name or names, to be the name to be used for the genus concerned ; (b) in the case of specific names, only when an author, after citing two or more such names published in the same book and on the same date, clearly indicates by whatever method, (a) that he is of the opinion that the nominal species so named represent the same taxon, and (b) that he is selecting one of the names concerned, to the exclusion of the other name or names, to be the name to be used for that taxon. 125. “ Recommandation”’ urging authors, when acting as “ First Revisers ’’, other things being equal, to apply the Principle of Page Prece- dence: The Colloquium recommends the addition to Article 28 of the following Recommandation :— An author, when acting as a First Reviser in regard to two names for the same taxon published in the same book on the same date, is advised to select, other things being equal, the name which appeared first in the work in question, as judged from the standpoint of page and line precedence. 290 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature The case of the names “ Hesperia hegon ’’ Scudder, 1863, and “ Hesperia samoset ’’ Scudder, 1863 7. The above case illustrates how the return to the first reviser rule can upset long-established usage. 8. In 1863 Scudder named two Hesperiidae on the same page of one of his papers, Amblyscirtes hegon having line priority. The fact that these names were synonyms was realized a few years (1868) later by Scudder, who there- upon placed hegon, although having line priority, in the synonymy of samoset. The use of these names by subsequent authors shows that samoset was almost uniformly used until 1917 when Barnes and McDunnough changed the name to hegon. This was probably due to the influence on American authors of the Banks and Caudell ‘‘ Code of Entomological Nomenclature ” (1912), because that Code prescribed the principle of Page Priority. 9. In 1955 when Evans completed the publication of his monumental work on the American Hesperiids, he felt obliged to use samoset and sink hegon, claiming that the Régles required that action. Thus a name that had not been used for about forty years, with one exception, came into use again and the principle of stability was upset. 10. The odd thing is that Evans, while correct in his conclusion, founded it on a false premise. He relied upon Scudder’s revision of 1872, while Scudder had originally taken similar action in 1868, a reference that Evans did not discover. This shows the difficulty of ascertaining who was the First Reviser. Evans was a taxonomist of wide experience with the literature of the world at his elbow, yet he failed to find the first revision. 11. In a case such as this one, involving a search of the literature for nearly one hundred years, there is every possibility of making a mistake and the search may well consume days, whereas page priority is ascertained by a glance at the original description. Argument 12. This reversal of the page and line priority principle in favour of the first reviser principle was, in the opinion of the authors, an error, with which the great majority of systematists are not in accord for the following reasons : (1) Page and line priority are objective. There can seldom be any Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 291 difference of opinion concerning the order in which pages of a book or periodical were published. Usually they were numbered. Never in the author’s experience has there been any dispute on this subject. (2) The first reviser principle is highly subjective. Often there is difficulty in determining what was the first revision and who was the first reviser. Even then, serious differences of opinion may arise as to what is a revision and who is a reviser. (3) It is of vital importance that the Régles be objective. The more the Régles make mandatory an objective method of solving problems, the fewer will be the disputes that will have to be passed upon by the Commission. Proposal 13. It is the authors’ opinion that when two or more names have been proposed at the same time in the same publication for the same genus or other taxon, the first name published (line or page priority) should prevail, unless to insure greater stability the International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature, for cause shown by application to it, shall otherwise order. No such order should be issued by the Commission until one year shall have expired after the publication of the application in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. Such action by the Congress would reinstate the decision taken at Paris in 1948 and substitute the principle of page, line, and word precedence for the principle of the First Reviser. As a proposed text for such a rule the following wording is suggested : Article 28 Names of the same date: _ (a) that, where two or more names were published for the same taxon- omic unit, or where the same name was published for more than one taxonomic unit, in the same book or serial or in the same part of any book or serial and were in consequence of identical date, the name printed on the earlier of the pages concerned is to have precedence over the name or names published on a later page ; (b) that, where two or more such names are published on the same page, the name which appears on the line nearest to the top of 292 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature the page is to have precedence over any name or names which appear lower down that page, and (c) that, where two or more such names are printed on the same line, a name appearing earlier, is to have precedence over any name or names appearing later, on the same line; » that the provisions specified in (1) above should be subject to the following conditions : (a) that, where the application of the foregoing provision would lead to a change in the name of a taxonomic unit of importance, particularly in the fields of medicine, agriculture, veterinary science or other applied fields in biology or in the teaching of zoology, specialists may apply to the Commission for the use of its plenary powers to maintain existing nomenclatorial practice and that, on such an application having been sub- mitted, no change in that practice should be made until the Commission’s decision is made known ; (b) that the said International Commission shall give sympathetic consideration to applications for the use of its Plenary Powers for the purpose of stabilizing names, when requested to do so in accordance with (a) above. Literature cited Banks, Nathan, and Andrew Nelson Caudell, 1912. ‘‘ The entomological Code. A code of nomenclature for use in entomology.” Washington, D.C., Judd and Detweiler, Inc., 32 pp. Barnes, William, and James Halliday McDunnough, 1917. “ Check list of the Lepidoptera of Boreal America.” Decatur, Illinois, Herald Press, viii + 392 + [6] pp. Scudder, Samuel Hubbard, 1863. ‘‘A list of the Butterflies of New England.” Proc. Essex Inst., 3 : 161-179 ——, 1868. Supplement to a list of the Butterflies of New England. Proc. Boston Soc. nat. Hist. 11 : 375-384 ——, 1872. “A systematic revision of some of the American butterflies, with brief notes on those known to occur in Essex County, Mass.” Salem, Massachusetts, The Salem Press, 62 + [2] pp. Also published in 4th Ann. Rept. Peabody Acad. Sci., for the year 1871, Salem, pp. 24-83 + errata p. [1] at ee ee ee, ee ee ee 4 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 293 DOCUMENT 15/2 Proposed retention of the “ First Reviser ’’ Principle for the purpose of determining the precedence to be accorded to any one of two or more names published in the same work and on the same date By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E. (Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) (Note dated 20th December 1957) The purpose of the present note is to advocate the retention of the decision taken by the Copenhagen Congress of 1953 to re-instate the “ First Reviser”’ Principle as the method to be applied in determining the relative precedence to be accorded to any one of two or more names considered to apply to the same taxonomic unit in cases where the competing names in question were published in the same work and on the same date. 2. When this matter was considered in Paris in 1948, I supported the policy then decided upon that the “ First Reviser”’ Principle at that time embodied in Article 28 should be replaced by the ‘“‘ Page Precedence” Principle. I advocated this change at that time because of the much greater simplicity of the “‘ Page Precedence ” method and the fact that, once the original of the book or paper in which any two given names were first published was available for inspection, the application of the foregoing principle was absolutely auto- matic and thus not open to challenge. It appeared to me that these were such important advantages as to make the “ Page Precedence ”’ Principle superior to that of the “ First Reviser ”’, more particularly in view of the fact that, as experience had shown, the application of the ‘“‘ First Reviser”’ Principle could not be relied upon to produce unequivocal results in the absence of a provision in the Régles defining the nature of the action required to be taken in order to qualify that action as being that by a “ First Reviser ”’. 3. The decision of the Paris Congress to replace the “ First Reviser”’ Principle in Article 28 by that of ‘‘ Page Precedence ”’ evoked a large body of criticism, mainly from specialists in the United States, on the ground that the 294 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature abandonment of the “ First Reviser”’ Principle, far from promoting stability in nomenclature, would lead to extensive disturbances in existing nomenclature and consequent name-changing. This question was accordingly placed on the Copenhagen Agenda Paper as Case No. 38, six documents being submitted in connection with this item. These documents were published in 1953 in Volume 10 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (: 376-390). To any zoologist not familiar with the back-history of the present problem a study of the papers referred to above will be most rewarding. 4. In the light of the documents referred to above I came to the conclusion before the Copenhagen Congress that the balance of opinion was in favour of a return to the “ First Reviser”’ Principle for determining the relative precedence of names published in the same work and on the same date and I accordingly advocated that course, subject to the insertion in the Régles of a definition of the action to be treated as constituting action by a “ First Reviser”’ (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 10 : 377). The discussion at Copenhagen showed that opinion was divided on this subject but by a large majority the Colloquium agreed to reinstate the “ First Reviser ” Principle in place of that of ‘‘ Page Precedence ” which had figured in the Régles during the preceding five-year period (1948-1953), this decision being accompanied by a further decision to include in the Régles a clear definition of the nature of the action which is to be taken in order to qualify the author of any given work as there acting as a “ First Reviser”’ (1953, Copenhagen Decisions zool. Nomencel. : 66-67, Decisions 123 & 124). 5. It seems to me quite clear that, whether the “‘ First Reviser ”’ Principle is retained in this matter or whether that principle is once more displaced by the “Page Precedence’”’ Principle, cases will always be found where the principle enshrined in the Régles would, if acted upon, give rise to name-changing of an objectionable kind. Indeed, in view of the fact that neither of these principles has been uniformly applied by zoologists as a whole, the occurrence of such cases is inevitable. What is required therefore is the selection of that one of the competing principles whichever is on balance the least likely to give rise to disturbance of existence practice. On this subject I personally found the representations submitted in connection with Case No. 38 on the Copen- hagen Agenda Paper very impressive and reached the conclusion that on balance the “‘ First Reviser ” Principle was likely to give rise to fewer anomalies than would that of “ Page Precedence”. Under either system individual cases would be bound to arise where the only way of preventing undesirable name-changing would be by the use by the Commission of its Plenary Powers. This is particularly likely in the case of a group such as the Lepidoptera where frequently—though incorrectly—the “‘ Page Precedence ”’ Principle had been applied prior to the acceptance of that principle by the Paris Congress of 1948. A striking example of this kind is provided by the publication by Linnaeus in 1758 of two names (jurtina and janira) for the two sexes of an extremely Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 295 common European Satyrid butterfly (The Meadow Brown). In this case the “Page Precedence” Principle gives preference to the name jurtina and it is by this name that the species has been known for many years. There is, however, a very old but long-overlooked “ First Reviser”’ selection (by Fabricius, 1787) in favour of the name janira. The adoption of this “ First Reviser ”’ selection would have caused great disturbance in the literature. For this reason the Commission was recently asked to use its Plenary Powers to give precedence to the name jurtina over the name janira by setting aside the action taken by Fabricius in 1787 (Hemming, 1956, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 12 : 279-286) and the request so made has since been granted by the Commission (in Opinion 506, now in the press). 6. I am in complete agreement with my friends Mr. dos Passos and Professor Klots in their desire to prevent unnecessary disturbance in the currently accepted nomenclature but I cannot share their view that in the present context the best solution would be to reinstate the “‘ Page Precedence ”’ Principle at the expense of the “‘ First Reviser ’’ Principle (see Document 15/1), for I consider that the better course for zoological nomenclature as a whole would be to retain the “ First Reviser”’ principle, while tempering any ill- effects to which it might give rise in particular cases by a judicious use by the Commission of its Plenary Powers. 296 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature CASE No. 1 (continued from page 246) DOCUMENT 1/44 Comment on the Moore/Sylvester-Bradley “ Parataxa Plan ”’ (Reference : Professor Moore’s Digest reproduced as Document 1/15) By KLAUS J. MULLER (Technische Universitat Berlin, Germany) (Letter dated 22nd November 1957) These notes are intended as an opinion on the proposed action of Prof. R. C. Moore and Mr. P. C. Sylvester-Bradley, insertion in the Régles of a provision defining and providing for the nomenclature of “ Parataxa ”’. 2. Workers in systematic zoology may be appalled at the increase of names which would result from this provision. On the other hand, insertion of parataxa into the Régles could introduce stability in the nomenclature of disjunct elements and thus serve as an aid for comparisons in those groups in which isolated parts exclusively or at least predominately have important applications, e.g., some branches of micropaleontology. 3. Following submittal of a formal application by specialists, it is believed that permission for introduction of parataxa should be granted by the Commission only for those groups where isolated parts have proved to have broad significance, not restricted to taxonomy alone. 4. In order to designate clearly the fundamental difference between taxon and parataxon it is proposed to mark the names of the parataxa in a simple fashion. A preceding ‘‘ degree” sign or super-script lower case letter “‘o”’, e.g., °Prioniodus elegans Pander, 1856, would indicate that this is a partial component which may or may not be a part of a described animal. (See also Miiller, 1956, p. 1327-28). 5. As I am working on conodonts, it may be logical to add observations in regard to these particular microfossils, of still unknown affinity. Ordinarily, single conodonts are preserved as fossils ; assemblages believed to be part of an individual are preserved only under exceptional conditions and to date are known from a few localities only. These assemblages in some cases are Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 297 composed of as many as 8 widely diverse form-types which have been named as different genera. According to Article 27(a) of the Régles an assemblage should receive the name of the first described portion which is included. However, there are many natural assemblages which contain the same form-types of conodonts without being closer related. This is the case, e.g. with Hindeodella which was found in three, and Lonchodina which was found in two different types of assemblages (Rhodes, 1953). 6. Application of Article 27(a) would produce permanent instability of the names of isolated elements, which alone are applicable in micropaleontology for determination of the age and the environmental conditions during the formation of the rocks containing them. For practical reasons a system for the isolated conodonts is needed which, as far as I can see, only could be attained adequately by introduction of parataxa, as proposed by Moore & Sylvester-Bradley. 7. The assemblages in most cases have already received new names in their original descriptions. In conodonts, there are but two cases in which generic names have been used for a disjunct element as well as for an assemblage : Polygnathus. The lectogenotype P. dubius was erected by Hinde, 1879 for a presumed assemblage. Bryant, 1921, restricted the name Polygnathus to a partial-genus and in this meaning it has been used subsequently. This existing usage could be retained, or the partial- genus, as defined by Bryant, will have to receive a new name. Gnathodus was well established by Pander, 1856, for an isolated element. H. Schmidt, 1934, used this name in accordance with the present Regles for an assemblage containing the element. Subsequent authors disregarded this action and it has been used since for isolated elements. Schmidt’s assemblage will have to receive a new name. References Bryant (W.L.), 1921, “‘ The Genesee Conodonts ”’, Bull. Buffalo Soc. nat. Sci., 13 (No. 2) 59 pp., 16 pl. Hinde (G.J.), 1879, ““ On conodonts from the Chazy and Cincinnati group of the Cambro-Silurian, and from the Hamilton and Genesee-shale divisions of the Devonian, in Canada and the United States’, Quart. J. geol. Soc. Lond. 35 : 351-369, pl. 15-17 Miller (K.J.), 1956, ““ Taxonomy, nomenclature, orientation, and stratigraphic evaluation of conodonts ’’, J. Paleont. 30 : 1324-1340, pl. 145 Pander (C.H.), 1856, ‘“ Monographie der fossilen Fische des silurischen Systems der Russisch-Baltischen Gouvernements”’, St. Petersburg: 91 pp., 8 pl. Rhodes (F.H.T.), 1953, “‘ Nomenclature of conodont assemblages ”’, J. Paleont. 27 : 610-612 Schmidt (H.), 1934, ‘‘ Conodonten-Funde in urspriinglichem Zusammenhang ”’, Paldont. Zeitschrift 16 : 76-85, pl. 6 298 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature DOCUMENT 1/45 Remarks on the value of parataxonomy in the case of the Phylum Porifera (Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 1056) By R. E. H. REID (Queen’s University, Belfast) (Enclosure to letter dated 28th November 1957) The spicules of which the skeletons of sponges are composed are divisible into two groups according to the degree of connection which exists between them during life. (1) All spicules are initially separate from one another. Some remain separate permanently, and are only connected together by living tissues or additionally by organic fibres (spongin). As a result they are typically sub- ject to dissociation and dispersal when the sponge dies. This is the case with (i) all spicules in many sponges, (ii) some but not all of the megascleres of certain others, and (iii) normally, all microcleres. (2) In certain cases spicules are united, either by loose to rigid articulation (zygosis) as in lithistid Demospongia, or by actual fusion together as in various Hexactinellida. The resultant structures do not disintegrate on death of the tissues, unless subjected to mechanical fragmentation. The spicules concerned are usually choanosmal megascleres, but dermal (or gastral) megascleres may also be affected. Skeletons of this type account for the majority of sponge remains found as macrofossils. One obvious potential assessment of taxonomic values is that remains referable to these groups should be treated as respectively suitable for description in terms of parataxonomy and ordinary taxonomic categories. This view, however, seems open to objections. 2. It is certainly true that isolated sponge spicules can provide a case analogous with that of the Conodonts. The spicules concerned are usually megascleres, as microscleres are rarely discovered as fossils. It is, first, not uncommon for megascleric elements to be of several kinds in the same sponge, Bulletin of Zoological N omenclature 299 Sponges. However, this problem has long been recognised by spongiologists. Schrammen, for instance, has preferred to illustrate (e.g. 1936) isolated elements of indeterminate status without referring them to specific or generic categories, practice cited ; on the contrary, if spicules are not thought sufficiently diagnostic for establishment of a normal species, then nothing of zoological value is achieved by naming them artificially. The viewpoint of stratigraphy is, of course, different, involving the desire for definite names applicable to all distinguishable objects, particularly where these are of stratigraphical value as in the case of Conodonts. I do not think, however, that any comparable need for para- taxonomic nomenclature can be said to exist in the case of sponge spicules, considering how little use has been made of these bodies by stratigraphers. available for taxonomic purposes. It also seems fair to point out that occasional spicular types have high diagnostic value, even in isolation. An extreme example is the distinctive subdermal hexaster of the Hexactinellid Aulocalyx F. E. Schulze. Hexaster microscleres are not in general diagnostic of any taxon beyond the subclass Hexasterophora F. E, Schulze, but the form known as the rhopalaster is not recorded from any Hexactinellid other than Aulocalyx. 4. The case of sponge skeletons in which spicular elements are united by articulation or fusion presents a comparable analogy with that of the ammonite conch. It may at first sight appear attractive to represent megascleric skeletal 300 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature structures as providing a generally sufficient basis for the establishment of true generic and specific taxa. This view is certainly superficial. It is true that these structures have a generally high value compared with isolated elements, and that their adequacy for diagnosis is assumed by palaeontologists. The loose spicules (i.e. those which are only connected by the tissues) can in fact be closely similar in forms whose connected skeletons refer them to different families. On the other hand, there are also cases where the species of a genus, e.g. the Hexactinellid Farrea Bowerbank, cannot be separated by reference to the skeletal framework, the diagnostic features being provided by the loose spicules. The same can also apply to separation of genera, e.g. Farrea and Claviscopulia F. E. Schulze. In other words, there are cases where connected skeletal structures are just as much unidentifiable discrete parts as are many isolated spicules. The fact is that diagnostic characters are not inherently associated with any particular division of the skeleton. Hence it does not seem possible to make any rigid generalisation, except (a) on a purely arbitrary basis, or (b) on the basis of contention that the only type of material invariably sufficient for recognition of true generic and specific taxa comprises complete specimens with all spicules and soft parts present. Regarding the possibility of analogy between loose spicular elements and aptychi, I do not think it can be said that any serious problem exists due to named forms of isolated spicule occurring in association with more than one kind of named skeletal framework. In any case, such an association is, surely, a clear indication that type material to which a name based on a discrete spicular element is attached cannot be identified as representing any species based on a skeletal framework. Any nomenclatorial problem resulting from assumption that a species name of the former type must necessarily be a synonym of one of several of the latter is therefore essentially artificial and unrealistic in terms of demonstrable relation- ships. I do not think it can be claimed that introduction of parataxonomy as a general solution for such cases has any appreciable general advantage over a simple provision for suppression, subject to normal request and approval, of unwanted names which are demonstrably non-diagnostic. 5. It also seems fair to comment in passing that the supposed adequacy or otherwise of particular animal parts for normal taxonomic purposes is essentially subjective. For instance, ammonite conchs are alleged to provide a sufficient basis for use of normal nomenclature, where aptychi do not. In terms of the whole animal, however, the conch is presumably just as much a discrete part as an aptychus plate. One wonders what view might be taken of the conch if soft parts—say, the tentacles and hood, assuming such to have been present—were available for study. 6. Another point which seems to need comment is the different value of discrete sponge remains at different taxonomic levels. For instance, material which is of little value at specific level may be referable with certainty, so far Po os stk eee ~~ | 4k Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 301 as is known, to a definite genus. It seems possible that indiscriminate intro- duction of parataxonomy for application to discrete sponge material could lead to difficulties in this connection. An extreme example was encountered recently by the writer. The extinct Hexactinellid order Hemidiscosa Schrammen (1924, as Hemidiscaria) was established on the basis of dissociated microscleres of a type known as hemidiscs, or hemiamphidiscs (Schrammen, 1924, 1936). To provide this Order with a generic type, I have had to base a new nominal species (the name of which will appear in a paper entitled “A Monograph of the Upper Cretaceous Hexactinellida of Great Britain and Northern Ireland”’ in the 1957 volume of the Palaeontographical Society’s monographs) on one of Schrammen’s figured hemidiscs. Now the nearest homologue of the hemidisc in living forms is the amphidisc, seen in all Amphi- discosa. These microscleres are so generally similar among members of that order that a specific and generic name based on an isolated example would in general be worthless. A name based on an isolated hemidisc is open to similar suspicion, at least as a species name, though this is, of course, by analogy rather than direct evidence. Other names could be based on other examples ; however, living Amphidiscosa often have amphidiscs of more than one kind, so such names would be open to suspicion for a further reason. Here, one might think, is a case for parataxonomy. On the other hand, it is clear that there must have been at least one true species. Similarly there must have been at least one genus, and no grounds can be cited for distinguishing more than one. At ordinal level, the hemidisc is (a) acceptable evidence of membership of the subclass Amphidiscophora, and (b) distinctive as a spicule not found in any living Amphidiscophoran. Thus what is a dubious basis for establishment of a species has a different perspective at higher taxonomic levels ; in the order group, it is evidence of the former existence of Amphi- discophora with a microsclere unknown in living forms, for which a taxonomic distinction at this level needs to be recognised. Now: can it be possible for a genus recognised in normal taxonomy, as in this case one needs to be, to have for its type a species distinguished as a parataxon ? 7. With these points in mind, I do not think it is desirable to introduce a system of parataxonomy as the basis for nomenclature of discrete sponge remains in general. I do not imply that grounds might not be put forward for use of parataxa in particular cases. I think, however, that any such usage should be on a critical and selective basis, applied in individual cases judged on their own merits, and subject to the approval of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature after due notice and allowance for objection by other specialists. I consider that such usage should be restricted to cases where : (a) it is desired to suppress, for normal taxonomic purposes, a name based on a discrete skeletal part known to occur in several distinguishable skeletal assemblages, or in association with more than one type of 302 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature distinguishable connected skeletal structure, which for some reason it is desired to retain for other—e.g. stratigraphical—purposes ; or (b) it is desired to establish a name for a previously unnamed discrete skeletal part, for purely stratigraphical purposes, from which it is not expected that any single species will be identifiable. It may have been noticed that no distinction has been made above between zoological and palaeontological viewpoints. This is deliberate. No practical taxonomic difference exists between the status of dissociated sponge spicules from a recent dune sand and from the residue obtained by solution of a Carboniferous limestone ; a macerated skeletal framework dreged from the present Atlantic presents essentially the same problem as a similar framework from the Cenomanian of southern England. Hence I see no grounds for generally different viewpoints. References Hinde (G.J.), 1887-1912. ‘A Monograph of the British Fossil Sponges ’”’. Palaeont. Soc. Schrammen (A.), 1924. ‘“ Die Kieselspongien der oberen Kreide von Nort- westdeutschland : III und letzter Teil”. Monogr. zur Geol. und Palaeont. (ed. Soergel), Ser. 1, Heft. IT. Schrammen (A.), 1936. “‘ Die Kieselspongien der oberen Jura von Sud- deutschland’. Palaeontographica, lxxxiv, Abt. A, & lxxxv, Abt. A. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 303 DOCUMENT 1/46 Comment on the Moore/Sylvester-Bradley “ Parataxa Plan ”’ (Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 1056) By ARTHUR N. DUSENBURY, Jr. (Creole Petroleum Corporation, Jusepin, Monegas, Venezuela) (Letter dated 17th November 1957) I wish to support the proposals of Professor Raymond C. Moore and Mr. P. C. Sylvester-Bradley that provisions should be inserted in the Régles recognising ‘‘ parataxa ”’ as a special category for the classification and nomen- clature of discrete parts or fragments of animals, such as conodonts, which are inadequate for identification of whole-animal taxa, yet are frequently valuable in stratigraphic determinations. The majority of paleontologists will probably be found to favor these proposals with enthusiasm. 2. However, in my opinion and in that of Creole paleontologists whom I have consulted, there is a serious defect of omission in the proposals as submitted. Although Moore and Sylvester-Bradley have carefully separated and distin- guished between the two major categories which they call taxa and parataxa, they have failed to provide names to distinguish the individual taxon from the individual parataxon of corresponding rank. Their “species’’, ‘‘ genera ”’ and “families”’ may refer either to taxa or to parataxa, and it becomes necessary to consult the context to discover, if possible, which is meant. This can only lead to confusion. Furthermore, in spite of the fact that they have demonstrated that the “species’’, ‘‘ genera” and “families” of parataxa are not true species, genera and families, i.e., whole-animal taxa, they neverthe- less propose to add these admittedly false “species”? to the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology, these admittedly false ‘‘ genera” to the Official ' List of Generic Names in Zoology and these admittedly false “ families ” to the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology. This particular proposal seems quite self-contradictory to me, and I would like to see it rejected. 304 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 3. Turning from destructive to constructive discussion, I propose that the names “ species’, “‘ genus’, “‘ family ” etc. be applied only to taxa and that their use for parataxa be prohibited. If such a proposal were adopted, it would next become necessary to choose suitable names for the corresponding parataxa. 4. One possibility would be the general acceptance of the scheme devised by M. Georges Deflandre, according to which the names “ legio’’, “ cohors”’, ‘““manipulus”” and “ centuria’’ would be used for the parataxa corresponding respectively to the taxa known as “order”, “family”, “genus” and “species”. Although at first glance this would appear to be an excellent scheme, the amount of acceptance which it has won is surprisingly small. One reason may be that the organisation of the Roman army is unfamiliar to the average modern zoologist or paleontologist, so that he is unable to recall these names of Deflandre readily and, if he does succeed in memorizing them, is likely to forget whether a cohors is composed of manipuli or vice versa. Another reason may be that there is no mental association between “ legio ” and “order”, ‘“cohors” and ‘“ family”’’, ‘‘ manipulus”’ and “genus” or “centuria”’ and “ species”. 5. On the other hand, the mental association between “taxa” and ‘‘parataxa”’ is excellent and obvious. Unfortunately, “para-” is a Greek prefix and ought not to be combined with Latin words such as species, genus and familia. However, the Latin prefix “‘ pro’’, meaning “ for ”’, “in behalf of” or “instead of”, is available, and we may therefore appropriately coin the words “ prospecies ”, “ prospecific ’, ““ progenus ”’, “ progeneric”’, “ pro- familia” (or “ profamily ”’) and “ profamilial”’. Although these names are quite artificial, they are easy to remember and easy to associate with the corresponding taxa. If any one has a better idea, I am open to suggestions. 6. If the above names coined for parataxa should be accepted, the next step would be to establish the necessary official lists and indexes for para- taxa, Viz. : (1) Official List of Prospecific Names in Zoology (2) Official List of Progeneric Names in Zoology (3) Official List of Profamilia-Group (or Profamily-Group) Names in Zoology (4) Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Prospecific Names in Zoology (5) Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Progeneric Names in Zoology (6) Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Profamilia-Group (or Profamily- Group) Names in Zoology --oo ee Ps oh ee - ——— ss SC lee — ee ee eee ae eee ee ee ee a ' a ae vee Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 305 DOCUMENT 1/47 Comment on the Moore/Sylvester-Bradley “‘ Parataxa Plan ”’ (Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 1056) By F. H. T. RHODES (University College, Swansea) (Enclosure to letter dated 29th November 1957) The recent application by Professor Moore and Mr. Sylvester-Bradley is one which I strongly support. I am especially interested in the establishment of parataxa as an aid to the study of the conodonts, and I wish to consider particularly how this proposal relates to special problems in this fossil group, which Moore and Sylvester-Bradley have considered in their First Supplemental Application. The Nature of Conodonts 2. The conodonts are an extinct group of tooth-like microfossils, of obscure affinities. They are found in a variety of sedimentary rocks, ranging from Cambrian to Triassic in age, and have a world-wide geographic distribution. They are composed of calcium phosphate, with characteristics resembling those of apatite, and they exhibit considerable diversity in form. The early types tend to be simple conical or blade-like forms, and the later types either blade- like or platform-like. They have been variously assigned to the Gastropoda, Crustacea, Pisces, and Annelida, and there is at present little agreement concerning their zoological affinities (see Rhodes, 1954). They are of the greatest value as index fossils in the classification and correlation of strata. Existing Nomenclature of Conodonts 3. Conodonts were first described by Pander over a century ago, and since then more than 600 publications have been devoted to them. The lack of knowledge of the zoological affinities and the function of conodonts has raised a number of taxonomic problems. Existing methods of nomenclature are of two types. (a) Because of the selective processes of fossilisation and the usual procedures for the extraction of microfossils, the great majority of conodonts w 306 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature are known as single, isolated specimens. Most conodont students have followed Pander (1856) in adopting a classification based upon the recognition of various types of these individual conodonts as genera and species. A binomial classification therefore exists, which has been developed by workers who rigidly observed the Code of Zoological Nomenclature. More than 1,800 species have thus been erected. Such taxonomic categories are distinguished hereafter in the present text by referring to the category ap. be in quotation marks (“ genus ”’, “ species ’’). In addition a number of “ supra-generic’’ taxonomic categories have been established (Ulrich and Bassler, 1926 : Branson and Mehl, 1944). Experience has shown that this method of classification is both a convenient and a useful one. The majority of “species” are well- established and the nature of morphological variation in conodonts is such that the method of classification is readily applicable. A considerable number of ‘ species”’ have been shown to have a wide geographic dis- tribution, and many are of great value in stratigraphic correlation. (b) Recent studies (Schmidt, 1930, 1950 : Scott, 1934, 1942 : Kichenberg, 1930: Du Bois, 1943: Rhodes, 1952, 1953a, 1954) have shown, however, that as many as five of these “ genera’ of conodonts may be present in a single assemblage, which appears to represent the remains of an individual animal. Recognising that the earlier classification of individual components as different “‘ genera ’’ was therefore invalid, some workers have proposed a new Classification, based upon the recognition of conodont assemblages as natural taxonomic units (i.e. as representing the remains of individual organisms). 4, There are three more or less distinct ways in which the nomenclature of natural conodont assemblages have been established. Method I. Assemblages have been named after the earliest applicable name of any component which they contain (e.g. Eichenberg, 1930: Schmidt, 1934: Sinclair, 1954). Method II. Assemblages have been given new binomina, and the component conodonts have been designated by descriptive technical terms. Scott, 1942, followed essentially this practice, identifying the “ genera ”’ (but not the “ species ’’) represented in two genera of natural assemblages, and describing the components by common nouns coined from the “generic”” names. Thus specimens of Hindeodella were termed hindeodells, ete. Scott emphasised, however, that he considered it desirable that the earlier “‘ form-classification’”’ should be retained (1942, p. 295), even though he found it inconvenient to employ it for assemblages. ah) ae on a. ee ee 1 "ee ek pe ee Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 307 Method III. Assemblages have been given new binomina and the component conodonts have been designated by their previously established “ generic’ and “ specific’ names (if any). (e.g. Rhodes, 1952.) The interpretation of conodont assemblages 5. Since the decision as to whether a conodont assemblage is “natural ” is subjective, it is pertinent to summarise the evidence upon which this con- clusion is based. (a) The assemblages have been described from both Europe and North America, but they are known only, as yet, from strata of Carboniferous age. All the strata from which they have been described appear to represent very quiet conditions of sedimentation. (b) At least seven genera of organisms appear to be represented by the known assemblages. Within each of these types of assemblage the com- ponent conodont elements are generally constant in the variety of forms represented and in their number, allowing for the vagaries and differential hazards of fossilisation. (c) The component conodonts of assemblages are usually found to be paired, and are frequently preserved in what appears to have been their original opposed positions. Isolated pairs of conodonts are not infrequently found, as well as those within more complete assemblages. (d) Such paired components are fundamentally similar to one another in all but the more minute morphological details, except that one may be the mirror-image of the other, representing “left and right ’’ forms. 6. These criteria seem to be sufficiently strong to leave little reasonable doubt that the assemblages described are “‘ natural ’’ (as opposed to coprolitic or fortuitous) associations. Random assemblages are, however, known, and I have elsewhere discussed the problems which they present (Rhodes, 1952). Morphological variation within natural conodont assemblages, and its importance in taxonomic procedure 7. Moore & Sylvester-Bradley (1957, First Supplemental Application) have considered the technical problems involved in the existing system of nomenclature. The variation in the individual conodont components of 308 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature natural assemblages is of such a kind that it is an important factor in nomen- clatorial considerations. The following summary indicates the main features of this variation. (1) Natural assemblages contain paired conodonts, which represent from three to five ‘‘ genera ”’. (2) The total number of component conodonts present in known assem- blages varies from fourteen to twenty-two. (3) Some component “ genera” are represented by a single pair of conodonts, others by up to four such pairs. (4) The same component “ genera ’’ may be present in more than one type of natural assemblage (i.e. more than one natural genus). (5) The component conodonts of a natural genus may show appreciable variation in form, many previously described “ species ’’ being recognisable within assemblages referred to a single natural taxon. (It is not yet known whether such variation is specific or infraspecific.) (6) Some indication of the degree of infraspecific variation in natural assemblages may, however, be provided by the extent of variation within a pair of components extracted from the same assemblage (see Rhodes, 1952, pl. 127, figs. 5, 6 and 11, 12). This variation, although slight, is such that some of the more “‘ extreme ”’ conodont students would probably recognise each of the paired individuals as different “species”. Such paired individuals also commonly differ in being “left and right’ forms, the one being a mirror-image of the other, but virtually all conodont workers regard such variation as “ infra-specific ”’. (7) Condont “ genera ” which are found together in natural assemblages, are frequently not coextensive in their stratigraphic ranges. Taxonomic procedure It is necessary now to consider taxonomic procedure :— (1) If freedom of taxonomic expression is to be granted to those who work both with natural assemblages and to those who work with individual conodonts, the nomenclatorial regulations should satisfy five requirements. (a) They must provide a method for the recognition and classification of natural conodont assemblages. a ee dl NP NMa c= Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 309 (b) They must provide a name to differentiate each of the diagnostic forms of individual conodonts, which are of value in stratigraphy. (c) Homonymy between these two systems of nomenclature must be avoided. (d) Both systems must be within the legal framework of the Inter- national Code, and must derive the protection, stability and uniformity which the Code provides. (e) Any changes in procedures should be of such a kind as to produce the minimum possible disturbance in the existing nomenclature. (2) Of the three methods of dealing with the present taxonomic problem listed in paragraph 4, Method I, in which the assemblages are named after the earliest applicable name of any component conodont which they con- tain, is the “legal’’ solution under the existing Régles (Article 27). It involves serious difficulties of two main types. (a) The name to be used for the assemblage. Clearly the name that must be applied to the assemblage is that given to the first-named part of the animal. If this is done, the following considerations arise : (i) Objective identification with a natural genus can only be made if the type species is present in the assemblage. (ii) One “ genus ” may be present in more than one type of natural assemblage (i.e. in more than one natural genus). (iii) It might be suggested that this problem may be overcome by a modified application of the Principle of Priority, so that the name of a “‘ genus’ unique to the particular type of natural assemblage is selected. Conodont assemblages are rare, however, and it is quite impossible to predict whether or not any “ genus ”’ will prove to be peculiar to a single type of assemblage. (iv) Conodont specialists find it convenient to distinguish two “genera”, Streptognathodus and Idiognathodus on minor morpho- logical features, in spite of the fact that the two genera are transitional*. Rhodes (1952, 1953) has shown, however, that Scottognathus, a genus represented by “‘ natural”? conodont assem- blages, may contain either one or other of these genera, which are ~ This neontologically offensive procedure is not uncommon in palaeontology, for chrono- logical fossil sequences show all grades of transition. Ultimately taxonomic units are more or less arbitrary subdivisions of more or less continuous faunal sequences, although often such taxonomic division appears to be “ natural ”—that is, it corresponds with “ natural” faunal breaks, which result from such factors as sedimentary hiatus, migration, etc. 310 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature transitional within the assemblages. Similar cases may also exist, and it would be misleading if one of these “‘ generic’ names were applied to assemblages in which the “ genus ”’ itself was not present. It may be argued that the “genera ’’, if transitional, must ipso facto be synonymous, but practising palaeontologists would reserve the right to dispute this principle. (v) Similar problems to these three noted above, arise in the choice of a specific name. Other aspects of the problem of the choice of a specific name have been discussed by Moore and Sylvester-Bradley. (b) The name to be applied to isolated conodonts. (i) If the earliest applicable name of a contained conodont component should be applied to an assemblage, all other “ species ” identified within that assemblage would be junior synonyms of that name. This would result in utter confusion in the nomenclature of the isolated conodonts. Some name must be available to designate variation in isolated conodonts, which are of great stratigraphic importance. (ii) Some writers (e.g. Sinclair, 1953, p. 489) have argued that, if this method were adopted, it would be possible to designate individual conodonts as (for example) the ‘“‘ subbryantod element of Streptognathodus elegans”’ (where the binomen is that given to - a natural assemblage). The term “ subbryantod” is coined from the “ genus” Subbryantodus. This might appear satisfactory for conodont components which show little variation in natural assem- blages. Some elements, however, are present in more than one genus—so that two or more names are applicable. This results in three possible ‘“‘ states of synonymy ”—at three categorical levels. In any given case all three might apply. Thus two “species ” Xognathus aa and Xognathus ba of isolated conodonts may be regarded as synonymous. Both these might be further shown to be present in the same assemblage, with the selected name of which at least one or possibly both would then be synonymous. But thirdly, they might also be found to be present in more than one type of natural assemblage: in which case the descriptions “ xognathid element of Alpha Xognathus beta” and ‘“‘ xognathid element of Gamma Xognathus delta’ would be synonymous at a third (quite different) taxonomic level! One need not elaborate the taxonomic confusion that would result from such a situation. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 311 (iii) But this would be only the beginning of the confusion, for only those isolated conodonts which show little variation in natural assemblages have been considered. In many cases, however, this variation is considerable, and a “ specific’ qualification would be necessary to designate any particular form (e.g. the subbryantod type 23 element of Streptognathodus elegantulus). This would not only involve a complete revision of conodont terminology and the substitution of a clumsy and unsatisfactory system of nomenclature for that which at present exists, but it would also deprive the new system of nomenclature of the uniformity and protection which the Régles afford. (iv) Even if, in spite of this, this solution were to be accepted, one insurmountable problem would remain. Only a very few “genera and species”’ (perhaps fewer than 5 per cent. of the “species ’’) are at present known as components of natural assem- blages. For the great majority of isolated conodonts, therefore, no name would be available. (3) It may be suggested that to avoid this confusion, all conodont “ genera ”’ and “ species’ not based upon natural assemblages should be regarded as invalid. Names should be applied only to assemblages, and suitable technical terms should be used to designate isolated component conodonts (Method II of paragraph 4). Such a solution would admittedly reduce the problems of synonymy involved, but all the other major problems discussed above would remain. (4) The third possible method would be to give new names to natural conodont assemblages, and to retain the existing system of nomenclature for isolated conodonts. (Method III of paragraph 4.) 8. A consideration of the factors listed above, will indicate that this represents the best possible solution. It is illegal under the existing Régles, however, but it would be regularized by the recognition of parataxa. Only by this method can the problem confronting conodont workers be satisfactorily resolved. References Branson (C.C.) & Mehl (M.G.), 1944 ‘‘ Conodonts, in Index Fossils of North America”’. H.W. Shimer and R. R. Shrock, N.Y., Wiley & Sons Du Bois (E.P.), 1943 ‘‘ Evidence on the Nature of Conodonts”’. J. Paleont. 17 : 155-159 312 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Eichenberg (W.), 1930 “‘ Conodonten aus dem Culm des Harzes ”. Paldont. Z. 12 : 177-182 Moore & Sylvester-Bradley, 1957 “‘ The Agenda Paper for the Discussions on Zoological Nomenclature To Be Held At, and In Connection With, The Fifteenth International Congress of Zoology, London, July 1958 ”. Bull. zool. Nomencl. 15 : Quadruple-Part 1/4 Pander (C.H.), 1856 ‘‘Monographie der fossilen Fische des Silurischen Systems der russisch-baltischen Gouvernments”’. K. Akad. d. Wiss. St. Petersburg : 1-91 Rhodes (F.H.T.), 1952 “A Classification of Conodont Assemblages”. J. Paleont. 26 : 886-901 ——, 1953 ‘Nomenclature of Conodont Assemblages”. J. Paleont. 27 : 610-612 ——, 1954 ‘‘ The Zoological Affinities of the Conodonts”’. Biological Reviews 29 : 419-452 Schmidt (H.), 1934 ‘‘ Conodonten-Funde in Urspriinglichem Zusammenhang ”’- Paldont. Z. 16 : 76-85 —, 1950 “Nachtrage zur Deutung der Conodonten”. Decheniana. ? 104 : 11-19 Scott (H.W.), 1934 ‘The Zoological Relationships of the ‘Conodonts ”. J. Paleont. 8 (No. 4) : 448-455 ——, 1942 “‘Conodont Assemblages from the Heath Formation, Montana 54 J. Paleont. 16 : 293-300 Sinclair (G.W.), 1953 ‘“‘ The Naming of Conodont Assemblages”. J. Paleont. 27 : 489-490 Ulrich (E.0.) & Bassler (R.S.), 1926 ‘A Classification of the Toothlike Fossils, Conodonts, with Descriptions of American Devonian and Mississippian Species’. U.S. nat. Mus. Proc. 68 (No. 2613) : 1-63 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 313 DOCUMENT 1/48 Comment on the Moore/Sylvester-Bradley ‘‘ Parataxa Plan ”’ (Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 1056) By ELLIS L. YOCHELSON (Washington, D.C., U.S.A.) (Letter dated 2nd December 1957) For the past several weeks I have been studying the Moore/Sylvester- Bradley proposal on parataxa. Though there are certain advantages to it, I am opposed to it for several reasons. This opinion, of course, is mine as an individual and not that of the United States Geological Survey. 2. It is important for zoologists, whether they study Recent or fossil material to think in terms of the ‘“‘ whole animal’”’. All descriptive material is to a greater or lesser extent incomplete. The fact that in cephalopods, for example, aptychi are less complete, that is have fewer diagnostic characters, than conchs, does not seem to be sufficient reason for discussing the conch as a living animal and the aptychus as an entirely separate object. They are one and the same in being parts of the living animal. Both are incomplete and not “whole animals” ; neither is more of a “‘ whole animal ”’ than the other. 3. It is also important that nomenclature be stable. In my opinion, stability is best achieved by using a single set of simple rules which can be readily interpreted and applied without recourse to another group for rulings. The erection of what is for practical purposes a second system of nomenclature for part of the animal kingdom does not appeal to me as a means of promoting stability. The students of conodonts have difficult problems in the synonomy of generic and specific names, but these are differences in degree only, not in kind, from those which beset the student of any animal group. True stability will be achieved in conodont nomenclature when more is known about the group. Until then, any changes reflecting a clearer understanding of zoologic affinities should be welcomed. 4, Finally, and most important, zoology as such should be left to the zoologists and nomenclature as such should be left to the International 314 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Commission. Moore and Sylvester-Bradley indicate that there is no clear dividing line between taxa and parataxa. If there were, we should all welcome their proposal. The retroactive principal and the concept of a wall between taxa and parataxa certainly trespass on freedom of taxonomic practice. 5. To cite only one specific example, the Commission is asked to rule that a genus Polygnathus which was considered by its author’ to be based ultimately on a natural assemblage, is not based on a natural assemblage. Whether this is a true assemblage or a faecal concentration is beside the point. The point is, that matters of this sort should not be within the province of the International Commission. a ae a. ee — lig te guy 35 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 315 CASE No. 3 (continued from page 256) DOCUMENT 3/3 Draft ‘“ Régles’’, Article 13, Section 4(b): Proposed repeal of Copenhagen Decision 54 (1) (b) (family-group names based on junior homonyms) (Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 1252) By J. CHESTER BRADLEY (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) (Statement received on 25th October 1957) Decision 54 (1) (b) in the Copenhagen Decisions on Zoological Nomenclature reads : Where the name of the type genus of a taxon belonging to the Family- Group has to be changed because it is found to be a junior hononym, the name of that taxon is to be replaced by a name based upon the changed name of the type genus. (The purpose of this provision is to secure that in the circumstances in question the Family-Group name concerned shall be based upon the oldest available name for a nominal genus which is either objectively, or, if no such name exists, subjectively, identical with the nominal genus, the name of which has been rejected.) 2. There is need for further examination of what nomenclatural acts actually occur when the preceding provision is applied under various circumstances. 3. I have shown in another paper that the type-genus of a taxon of the family-group can only be a nominal, not a taxonomic genus.’ 4. The name a-IDAE is based upon the nominal genus A-us, which is therefore its normal type-genus ; B-IDAB, likewise, is based upon B-us. A-us 1 See Document 11/1. 316 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature and B-us may be objectively identical taxonomically, but each remains a separate nominal genus, each with its own author and date. In that case A-IDAE and B-IDAE, different nominal families, each with its own author and date, are objectively identical from a taxonomic view-point. 5. Equally, one cannot change the name of a nominal genus. Suppose that A-us and B-us, two nominal genera, are objective synonyms. Suppose that the valid name for the taxonomic genus which they represent is B-us, but that A-us has been in use incorrectly. The shift of name of the taxonomic genus from A-us to B-us is not a change of name of the nominal genus A-us. It is selection of the second of two synonyms as the valid name of the taxonomic genus which each represents. 6. With these facts in mind, let us attempt to reword the first sentence of the opening quotation of this paper. It will then read somewhat as follows :— If a nominal genus, type of a taxon of the family-group, is found to be a junior homonym and therefore invalid, the nominal taxon of the family-group shall also be deemed invalid. The replacing valid nominal genus automatically becomes type of a new nominal taxon of the family- group. The two nominal taxa of the latter are to be listed as synonyms, just as are the two nominal genera. 7. To illustrate : Suppose that A-us, 1796, a genus of birds, is a homonym of A-us, 1800, a genus of insects, and that the latter is the type nominal genus of the family a-1paE, 1815. Suppose that this homonymy was discovered in 1900, and therefore B-us was proposed as a new name for the taxonomic genus represented by A-us, 1800, nec A-us, 1796. The nominal genus B-us, 1900, is a valid (although junior) synonym of A-us, 1800, which is invalid because of homonymy. 8. The rule that we have been discussing requires that, the above being the case, a new nominal family B-IDAE must be erected to replace the nominal family A-IDAE, now deemed nomenclaturally invalid. The family B-mDag, 1900, is then a valid (although junior) synonym of A-IDAE, 1815. A-IDAE is nota homonym because no family of birds named 4-1DAE has been erected, but it is deemed invalid because it is a potential homonym; that is, ornithologists must be free to erect a taxon of the family-group with A-ws, 1796, as its type- genus. 9. This is all sufficiently logical, but I think a contradiction in the Régles will have become apparent. is ss sae a ee ee ee a ee ee ee ee Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 317 10. Suppose that in 1835 a third genus, C-us, within the same taxonomic family of insects, has become type nominal genus of a subfamily c-InAE. This has priority as the name of a taxon of the family-group over B-IDAE, 1900, and the Régles state that priority shall obtain among names of the family-group (Copenhagen Decision on Nomenclature : 33, Decision 45(1). Therefore by that provision 0-1D4E is the valid name of the taxonomic family, while by Decision 54(1)(b) B-1DAzE is the valid name. 11. This impasse can be resolved by a new provision to the effect that if the type nominal genera of two nominal taxa of the family-group are objective synonyms, the latter taxon shall be deemed to have the same date of origin, namely the earliest date of either. Thus, in the preceding example, B-IDAE, instead of dating from 1900, would date from 1815, the same as A-IDAE and could then be substituted for A-IDAE. 12. It will occur to those who have read this far that there is still another class of cases that may cause difficulty. As all know, it often happens that when a nominal genus is found to be an invalid homonym, no substitute name is proposed because there already exists a name which is an objective synonym of the invalid nominal genus, or is considered by at least some zoologists to be a subjective synonym of it. If such a nominal genus is the type of a taxon of the family-group, it will be readily appreciated that the situation may be quite different from the case where a name has been expressly proposed as a substitute for the invalid generic homonym. 18. If the invalid generic homonym is replaced by an objective synonym, even though one that has not been expressly proposed as a substitute, the case is not essentially different from 4s though it had been, and the rule proposed in the preceding paragraph can equally apply. But if it has to be replaced by a subjective synonym, which is probably true in a large majority of such cases, an element of uncertainty enters in, and if such a synonym were allowed to become the type-genus of a new nominal taxon of the family-group, that name would always be unstable, depending upon diverse views of taxonomists, present and future, concerning the synonymy. Even at the outset the newly proposed family-group name would have to be rejected by every taxonomist who refused to accept the generic synonymy. At least this would be true as long as the rule obtains that the new nominal taxon of the family-group has to be based on the nominal genus that replaces the invalid homonym. 14, Under such circumstances it would seem better to let priority govern. Thus, suppose that a-IDAE, 1815, has to be abandoned in 1957 because A-us ‘is an invalid homonym ; then, instead of erecting a new nominal family B-IDAE, 1957, based on a subjective synonym of A-ws, one would search for the oldest family-group name that had been proposed, and this would become the valid 318 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature name of the taxonomic family formerly called a-ipaEz. Only in case no such name existed would a new nominal family have to be erected, not advisably on B-us, for the author could and should choose a type nominal genus of which the status was not in doubt. A decided advantage of this method is that it would usually result in the adoption of a name already familiar as that of a subfamily or tribe instead of a wholly new one. Ifa family were concerned, a familiar subfamily name might replace it. This would leave one taxonomic subfamily without a name, and a known tribal name might be available as a replacement. Then, only at the lowest and least important level, a new nominal tribe might have to be erected. 15. While the methods that I have suggested seem to be those that most closely comply with the intent of the Copenhagen provision, it will be well, now that the subject is open, to consider another approach that would cause less nomenclatorial upheaval. This method is to strictly follow priority in the names of the taxa of the family-group, and not to rule that two names of the family-group based on objectively synonymous nominal genera, are to be deemed established at the same date. 16. For example, if A-us, 1800, is an invalid homonym, then A-IDAB, 1815, is an invalid family name. Another nominal family must be found or established to replace the latter when the homonymy is discovered, say in 1957. If there is within the taxonomic family another nominal genus or genera which have become each the type of a taxon of the family-group (as tribe or subfamily), then the one first made such a type, say C-us, established in 1835 as type of c-INAE, automatically becomes type of c-1DAz, which is then the valid synonym of invalid a-1naz. This is also the simpler rule to follow because it then makes no difference whether the invalid name A-us was replaced by an objective or a subjective synonym. 17. From these considerations I have to propose that one of two courses should be decided upon, and the appropriate amendments, as indicated below, adopted at the London Congress, either course to be preceded by annulment of paragraph 54(1)(b) of the Copenhagen Congress. Alternative “‘ A ’’ 18. If the first plan is adopted, the following amendments will require to be adopted : (1) A nominal taxon of the family-group is invalid if its type nominal genus is a junior homonym. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 319 (2) If a nominal taxon of the family-group that is invalid under the preceding provision has a synonym, and if the type nominal genera of the two nominal taxa are objective synonyms, the two nominal taxa shall be deemed to have the same date of origin. Example: A-us, 1800, is a junior homonym, therefore A-IDAE, 1815, is invalid. B-us, 1900, is an objective synonym of A-us, having in this instance been proposed as a substitute name. Therefore B-IDAE, actually proposed in 1900, is nevertheless deemed to date from 1800. (3) Rule (2) shall not apply in case that prior to the establishment of the objective junior generic synonym, some author has proposed to replace the nominal taxon of the family-group, on the grounds that it is invalid, with whatever subjective synonym has priority. Example: A-us, 1800, is a junior homonym, therefore A-IDAE, 1815, is invalid. c-rNaE, 1830, is the oldest subfamily of the invalidly named taxonomic group A-IDAE. C-IDAE, a subjective synonym of A-IDAE, dating then from 1830, was proposed in 1850 to replace the invalid nominal family a-IpaE (A-uws and C-us are not synonyms, but the families are subjective synonyms). B-us, 1900, is an objective synonym of A-us, but B-IDAE, proposed in 1900 to replace A-IDAE, 1815, then dates from 1900 not 1815, since the name of the taxonomic family had already been changed. (4) An invalid nominal taxon of the family-group shall be replaced by its oldest synonym, whether objective or subjective. Examples: (1) Objective synonomy. A-us, 1800, is a junior homonym, therefore A-IDAE, 1815, is invalid. C-us, 1830, is the type of c-INAE, 1830, but was not used for the family. B-us, 1900, is an objective synonym of A-us, 1800, in this instance proposed as a substitute name. B-IDAE, actually proposed in 1900, dates for purposes of priority from 1815, since no prior proposal had been made to replace the name A-IDAE. Therefore B-IDAE as the oldest synonym, in this case objective, replaces A-IDAE. (2) Subjective synonomy. A-us, 1800, is a junior homonym, therefore a-1DAE, 1815, is invalid. C-us, 1830, is made type of subfamily c-mnaz, 1830. o-1DAz, 1850, is adopted to replace the invalid a-rpaz. Therefore, although C-us is not a synonym of A-us, O-IDAE is a subjective synonym of a-IDAE. B-us, 1900 is proposed as a substitute name for A-ws, 1800. But B-1DAz, if proposed in 1900 to replace a-1Daz, dates for priority only from 1900, and O-IDAE, 1850, remains the valid name to replace A-IDAE. 320 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (5) Rules (2) to (4) above shall apply to invalid nominal taxa of the family- group if replacement has to be made subsequent to 1958. They shall not be applied in such manner as to disqualify a nominal taxon of the family-group that has been accepted prior to 1958 as the valid synonym of an invalid name. Alternative “ B ”’ 19. By the second and simpler method, the following amendments will need to be adopted :— (1) Same as under Alternative “A”’. (2) Same as (4) in Alternative ‘“ A”’. (3) The preceding rule (2) shall apply to invalid nominal taxa of the family-group if replacement has to be made subsequent to 1958. It shall not be applied in such manner as to disqualify a nominal taxon of the family-group that has been accepted prior to 1958 as the valid synonym of an invalid name. 20. Whichever set of rules is preferred would replace Article 13, Section 4(b)? of the proposed Draft of the Régles. 2 See Vol. 14 « 98. i a eas ine eel CONTENTS (continued from front wrapper) THE LONDON AGENDA PAPER (a) New Proposals Case No. 11: Draft “ Régles ’’, Articles 18, Section 2, and 13, Section 4(a) : Family Group Taxa, nature of types of D.11/1 J. Chester Bradley Case No. 12: Draft “‘ Régles ’’, Article 11, Section 1: emendation of generic and specific names D.12/1 Francis Hemming ... Case No. 13: Draft ‘‘ Régles ’’, Article 28, Section 13: Specific names consisting of ‘‘ barbarous ’’ words : question of liability of, to gender changes D.13/1 Frané¢is Hemming D.13/2 Correspondence between Francis Hemming and Ernst Mayr D.13/3 Leo Sheljuzhko Case No. 14: Draft “‘ Régles ’’, suggested Article between Articles 25 and 26: “Code of Ethics ’’: proposed amplification of D.14/1 Francis Hemming ... D.14/2 Franeis Hemming ... Case No. 15 : Draft “‘ Régles ’’, Article 8, Section 2 : ‘“‘ Page Precedence ”’ versus “ First Reviser ’’ Principle D.15/1 Cyril F. dos Passos & Alexander B. Klots 'D.15/2 Francis Hemming Page 257 260 293 CONTENTS (continued from inside back cover) (b) Comments on previously published proposals Case No. 1: Proposed recognition of the “‘ Parataxon ’”’ concept D.1/44 Klaus J. Miiller D.1/45 BR. E. H. Reid D.1/46 Arthur N. Dusenbury, Jr. ... D.1/47 F. H. T. Rhodes D.1/48 Ellis L. Yochelson ... Page 296 298 303 305 313 Case No. 3: Family-group names : priority and authorship of substitute names D.3/3 J. Chester Bradley © 1958. THe INTERNATIONAL TRUST FOR ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Printed in England by MetTcALre & Cooper LimiteD, 10-24 Scrutton St., London E C 2 315 VOLUME 15. Part 11 llth February 1958 pp. 321—356 THE BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE The Official Organ of THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE ie dines » aia as | Edited by FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E. ; Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature =EB 195 eee 1 TF CONTENTS WOR Fifth Instalment of the London Congress Agenda Paper (continued inside back wrapper) LONDON : Printed by Order of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature and Sold on behalf of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature by the International Trust at its Publications Office, 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7 1958 Price One Pound, Two Shillings and Sixpence (All rights reserved) INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE A. The Officers of the Commission Honorary Life President: Dr. Karl Jorpan (British Museum (Natural History), Zoological Museum, Tring, Herts, England) President: Professor James Chester BrapLey (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) Vice-President : Senhor Dr. Afranio do AMarat (Sao Paulo, Brazil) (12th August 1953) Secretary: Mr. Francis Hemmine (London, England) (27th July 1948) B. The Members of the Commission (Arranged in order of precedence by reference to date of election or of most recent re-election, as prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology) Professor H. Boscuma (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) (1st January 1947) Senor Dr. Angel CasBrera (La Plata, Argentina) (27th July 1948) Mr. Francis Hemmine (London, England) (27th July 1948) (Secretary) Dr. Henning Lemcue (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark) (27th July 1948) Professor Teiso Esaxr (Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan) (17th April 1950)* Professor Pierre Bonnet (Université de Toulouse, France) (9th June 1950) Mr. Norman Denbigh Riwey (British Museum (Natural History), London) (9th June 1950) Professor Dr. Tadeusz JaczEwsk1 (Institute of Zoology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland) (15th June 1950) Professor Dr. Robert Mertens (Natur Museum u. Forschungs-Institut Senckenberg, Frankfurt a. M., Germany) (5th July 1950) Professor Dr. Erich Martin Herme (Zoologisches Museum der Humboldt-Universitat zu Berlin, Germany) (Sth July 1950) Senhor Dr. Afranio do AMarat (S. Paulo, Brazil) (12th August 1953) (Vice-President) Professor J. R. Dymonp (University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada) (12th August 1953) Professor J. Chester BrapLEy (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) (President) Professor Harold E. Voxss (University of Tulane, Department of Geology, New Orleans, Louisiana, U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) Professor Béla Hanx6 (Mezojazdasdgi Muzewm, Budapest, Hungary) (12th August 1953) Dr. Norman R. Srouu (Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, New York, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) Mr. P. C. SytvestEeR-Brab Ey (Sheffield University, Sheffield, England) (12th August 1953) Dr. L. B. Hoxruuis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) (12th August 1953) Dr. K. H. L. Key (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Canberra, A.C.T., Australia) (15th October 1954) Dr. Alden H. Minter (Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, University of California, Berkeley, California, U.S.A.) (29th October 1954) Doc. Dr. Ferdinand Prantt (Ndrodni Museum v Praze, Prague, Czechoslovakia) (30th October 1954) Professor Dr. William Ktuyetr (Zoologisches Institut der Universitét, Vienna, Austria) (6th November 1954) Professor F. 8S. BopENHEIMER (The Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Israel) (11th November 1954) Professor Ernst Mayr (Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard College, Cambridge, Massa- chusetts, U.S.A.) (4th December 1954) Professor Enrico TortonEsE (Museo di Storia Naturale “ G. Doria”, Genova, Italy) (16th December 1954) * Professor Esaki died on 14th December 1957, while the present Part was passing through the Press. ——— BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Volume 15, Part 11 (pp. 321-356) llth February 1958 CASE No. 16 DRAFT “ REGLES ’’, ARTICLE 6, SECTION 6(b) : PROPOSALS RELATING TO THE FORM OF GENERIC NAMES INTENDED FOR PALAEONTOLOGY (Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 1293) (For the relevant provision in the Draft Régles see 1957, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 14 : 57) DOCUMENT 16/1 Proposed deletion of Article 6, Section 6(b), of the Draft ‘ Régles ”’ By CURTIS W. SABROSKY (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Entomology Research Division, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.) (Enclosure to a letter dated 29th November 1957) It is proposed that part of (b) of Section 6 be deleted from the Code. IL believe that the provisions of the Code should be general in nature, and not ' attempt to cover particular situations in individual groups. My proposal is based on this principle, and not on the merits of the problem itself ; those could be dealt with by the Commission under its Plenary Powers. 322 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature DOCUMENT 16/2 The Form of Generic Names intended for Palaeontology : A word of caution on Dr. Sabrosky’s proposal By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E. (Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) (Note dated 3lst December 1957) In his note dated 29th November 1957, Dr. Sabrosky has suggested the deletion from the Régles of the provision which at present stands as Article 6, Section 6(b) in the Draft (1957, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 14 : 57) relating to the forms of generic names intended for palaeontology. In submitting this proposal Dr. Sabrosky explains that he does so because in his opinion the Regles should not attempt to cover particular situations in individual groups, adding that if difficulties were to arise in such cases they could be dealt with by the Commission under its Plenary Powers. 2. In general I would agree with Dr. Sabrosky that care should be taken to include in the Régles only provisions of a general character. It seems to me, therefore, that what is required in the present case is advice from palae- ontologists as to whether the problem dealt with in the proposal, sought to be deleted by Dr. Sabrosky, is in their opinion one of sufficiently general character to justify inclusion in the Régles. 3. Looking at this matter purely from the point of view of the procedure of the International Commission, I must say that, if palaeontologists were to be of the opinion that this is a useful provision and that its omission would be likely to give rise either to lack of uniformity or to the submission to the Commission of any considerable number of applications, I would favour the retention of the provision drafted by Professor Chester Bradley. It is important that the Régles should not deal with matters which could better be dealt with on an individual basis by the Commission, but it is important also to avoid falling into the opposite error by omitting provisions from the Régles, where to do so would invite the submission to the Commission of possibly considerable numbers of applications which would be unnecessary if the provision in question had been inserted in the Régles . / | | | : | | . Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 323 CASE No. 17 ARTICLE 22, RECOMMENDATION 10(8) OF THE DRAFT REGLES CITATION OF DATES IN BIBLIOGRAPHICAL REFERENCES (Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 1294) (For the relevant provision in the Draft Régles see 1957, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 14 : 166) DOCUMENT 17/1 Proposed deletion of Article 22, Recommendation 10(£) relating to citation of dates in a particular situation By CURTIS W. SABROSKY (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Entomology Research Division, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.) (Enclosure to letter dated 29th November 1957) It is proposed that item (ii) under Recommandation 7 be deleted. That is a pedantic provision that would be ignored by most zoologists. The difference between (1958) and [1958] would not be apparent to most, and perhaps is a fine distinction that need not be made anyway. 324 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature DOCUMENT 17/2 Proposed retention of the Paris Congress decision at present embodied in “‘ Recommandation ’’ 10(8) of Article 22 of the “ Régles ”’ By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E. (Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) (Note dated 31st December 1957) Dr. Sabrosky (in Document 17/1) suggests that the London Congress should reverse the decision taken by the Paris Congress in 1948 that zoologists should be recommended to place the date of a given name in round brackets (parenthesis) when that date is obtainable only from indirect evidence provided by the work itself. The purpose of this decision by the Paris Congress was to provide a ready means of distinguishing a date ascertainable only in the above manner from a date which can only be determined by reference to some external source. As regards the latter the Congress recommended that the date should be enclosed in square brackets (brackets). The provision, which Dr. Sabrosky suggests should be omitted, corresponds with the practice of the British Museum (Natural History) and other leading bibliographical authorities and its use often proves of material advantage to later authors when considering the date applied to a name by some earlier author. 2. I would agree with Dr. Sabrosky that this is a Recommandation which some authors and editors might perhaps ignore. This does not seem to me, however, to be a good reason for not including in the Régles a provision which has proved intrinsically useful and which, moreover, corresponds with the best bibliographical practice. A provision of this kind would not be suitable for inclusion in the Régles as a mandatory provision, but this is not the proposal in Professor Bradley’s draft where it is recommended that this matter should be dealt with in a non-mandatory Recommandation non-compliance with which would not involve an actual breach of the Régles. 8. For these reasons I recommend that the Paris Congress decision in this matter be upheld and that, in consequence, the provision discussed above be retained in the Régles. ee ee ee ee ee ee eS ee ee ee ey ae ae ee re PR Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 325 CASE No. 18 DRAFT “ REGLES ’’, ARTICLE 24, SECTION 15(e) : REPLACEMENT OF JUNIOR HOMONYMS POSSESSING ONLY SUBJECTIVE SYNONYMS (Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 1295) (For the relevant provision in the Draft Régles see 1957, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 14 : 185-186) DOCUMENT 18/1 Proposed Redraft of Section 15(e) of Article 24 of Draft “ Régles ”” By CURTIS W. SABROSKY (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Entomology Research Division, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.) (Enclosure to a letter dated 29th November 1957) It is proposed that part (e) as it stands be deleted and be replaced with the following, under the same letter and title: “If the junior homonym to be replaced has no objective synonym, but already has one or more subjective synonyms, the rejected homonym is to be replaced by its earliest established available subjective synonym for so long as that name remains subjectively identified with it. If that species ceases to be regarded as subjectively synonymous, the next earliest shall be used. If no other subjective synonyms are known and available, the junior homonym shall be renamed ”’. 326 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature DOCUMENT 18/2 Points for consideration on Dr. Sabrosky’s proposal relating to the replacement of junior homonyms possessing only subjective synonyms By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E. (Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) The question of the procedure to be followed when a name is found to be invalid as a junior homonym of some older available name was discussed at considerable length at the Paris Congress in 1948. It was then generally agreed that, other things being equal, the logical course would be to replace with a new and available name any name found to be invalid as a junior homonym of some other name, for the adoption of this course would make it possible in discussing subjective synonymy to refer to the taxon concerned by a name which was nomenclatorially available. On the other hand, the view was expressed that in a very large number of cases the circumstances were such that no specialist in the group concerned would be likely to take the view that the taxon to which had been given the name to be rejected as a junior homonym was without a name which, on the subjective plane, was clearly applicable to it. In these circumstances, it was argued that the automatic replacement by new names of names rejected as junior homonyms would lead to the intro- duction into the literature of many names which in fact would never be used. This latter view won the day, and it was for this reason that the Paris Congress agreed to include in the Régles a provision under which it would be made clear that an invalid homonym could be replaced by a new name or be replaced by the existing subjective synonym of later date, whichever was considered the more appropriate. 2. Dr. Sabrosky’s proposal has the effect of shifting the emphasis in favour of the second of these courses, that is, against the giving of a new name and in favour of using a subjective synonym. It seems to me that, subject to drafting points noted below, Dr. Sabrosky’s proposal has the advantage of greater brevity, while securing substantially the same ends as those agreed upon in Paris. The drafting points which I should like to suggest for consideration are the following :— (a) First phrase of first sentence: It would, I think, be well to insert the words “and nomenclatorially available’? between the words “ objective” and “synonyms” because a junior homonym might have an objective synonym which, for some reason, was itself invalid. = eee er —— ee ee ee eT eed « =—s ey ee one eh Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 327 (b) First sentence, second portion: For reasons similar to those explained in (a) above, it would, I think, be prudent to insert the words ‘“‘ and nomenclatorially available” between the words “ subjective” and “synonyms ”’, (c) First sentence, main phrase: There may be situations, for example in revisional work, where it is desirable, in the view of the specialist there may exist a name which is, or is claimed to be, a subjective while meeting the point referred to above, maintains, as it seems to me, the general purpose of Dr. Sabrosky’s proposal. (d) Last sentence, at end: In view of the confusion which has occasionally arisen in the literature about the attribution and dating of substitute names, it would, I think, be helpful if at the end of this sentence there were to be added the words “a substitute name so published to be attributed to the author by whom it was published and to the date on which it was published ”, unless it is considered that words to the same effect can be more conveniently inserted in some other part of the Reégles. 328 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature CASE No. 19 Draft “ Régles’’, Article 26: banning of the use of intemperate language in discussions on zoological nomenclature (Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 1296) (For the relevant provision in the Draft Régles see 1957, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 14 : 190) DOCUMENT 19/1 Proposed deletion of Article 26 in the Draft “ Régles ’’ By CURTIS W. SABROSKY (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Entomology Research Division, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.) It is proposed that this entire Article be deleted from the Code. It is an insult to the great bulk of zoologists, and it is wishful thinking to believe that it will have any effect whatsoever on those who do use it, except perhaps to intensify their intemperacy. Language is a matter of good taste, but this is subjective. What one man considers intemperate will seem merely picturesque or forceful to another. The interpretation may vary according to whether or . not one agrees with the speaker or writer. Actually, really intemperate language will in these times rarely, if ever, get past an editor. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 329 DOCUMENT 19/2 Proposed retention of the provision banning the use of intemperate language in discussions on zoological nomenclature By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E. (Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) (Note dated 10th December 1957) In his note ,dated the 29th November 1957 (Document 19/1), Dr. Curtis W. Sabrosky recommends the deletion from the Régles of the provision banning the use of intemperate language in discussions on zoological nomenclature. 2. I recommend that Dr. Sabrosky’s proposal be rejected. The provision to which he takes exception was unanimously adopted by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature at its Session held in Monaco in March 1913, and was approved by the Ninth International Congress of Zoology meeting at that time. This resolution was subsequently embodied in Declaration 4 (1943, Ops. Decls. int. Comm. zool. Nomencl. 1(A) : 23-30), which contains in full the discussion deprecating the use of intemperate language included by my predecessor the late Dr. C. W. Stiles (Washington, D.C.) in the Report which he prepared for, and which was adopted by, the International Commission at Monaco. This Declaration was considered again by the International Commission at Paris in 1948, and on its recommendation was incorporated into the Régles by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology then meeting in that city (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 167). The provision in question has thus been part of the body of international rules relating to zoological nomenclature for over forty years, and, for this reason alone, it would seem to me a mistake to revoke this provision, unless there were any strong grounds for so doing. 8. It will, I think, be generally agreed that during the last half century the standard of politeness in papers on zoological nomenclature has greatly improved, personal attacks and the use of offensive epithets in zoological papers having been of much rarer occurrence than in earlier periods. No ‘doubt this change is due in part to the general improvement in manners during the period, but it may, I think, be claimed that the resolution, adopted by the Commission and approved by the Congress in 1913, deprecating the use of 330 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature offensive language contributed to the improvement which has taken place. It would appear to me to be a retrograde step at this stage to cancel the existing provision on this subject. 4. Dr. Sabrosky is no doubt right when he says that “ really intemperate language will in these times rarely, if ever, get past an editor’. It is also true, however, that the existence of the present provision has often proved of assistance to editors when seeking to delete offensive passages from papers submitted for publication. I might perhaps add that, as Editor of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, I have on more than one occasion found the existence of this provision of value when editing papers for publication. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 331 CASE No. 20 DRAFT “ REGLES ”’, ARTICLE 28, SECTION 9(a) AND APPENDIX : GRAMMATICAL FORMATION OF FAMILY-GROUP NAMES (Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 1266) (For the relevant provisions in the Draft of the Revised Régles see 1957, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 14 : 204, 233-237.) DOCUMENT 20/1 The grammatical formation of names for taxa belonging to the family- group category By J. CHESTER BRADLEY (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) (Enclosure to a letter dated 14th November 1957) Formerly the rule that the name of a taxon belonging to the family-group category was to be formed by adding the appropriate suffix to the stem of the name of its type-genus gave rise to a good deal of uncertainty, because zoologists untrained in the classics did not always recognize the stem of a classical word. 2. When at Copenhagen (1953, Copenhagen Decisions zool. Nomencl. : 34, Decision 50(a)) the rule was changed, so far as classical words are concerned, to require that the genitive case-ending of the word concerned be replaced by the ' appropriate family-group suffix it was believed that the matter had been so simplified as to become routine for any zoologist to use. Since the genitive 332 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature is given in classical lexicons and the genitive case-ending in grammars, any one could easily form the family-group name, without any knowledge of Greek or Latin. 3. The Consulting Classical Adviser to the Commission, Professor L. W. Grensted, has pointed out to me that the rule can only apply if the name, or the last part of the name, is a Greek or Latin word. The wording “ of Greek or Latin origin”, he points out, can lead to misunderstanding and confusion. 4, Any word that is a generic name is by that fact a Latin or Neo-latin word. If it has been transliterated from the Greek with the Greek termination, that is to say, employing the Greek nominative case-ending, then and then only will it retain its original Greek stem. If it has been given a different Latin nominative case-ending, then it will acquire both the stem and the gender appropriate in Latin to the new ending. “‘ The Greek stem ” writes Professor Grensted “‘ only survives when the Greek word survives entire and complete. Then in classical Latin and in zoological usage the Greek stem is retained too, but not otherwise’. ‘‘ The name, once coined, becomes Latin, and the stem required is the Latin stem ”’. 5. For example, take generie names ending in the Greek word xépas (keras) a horn, or ending in a Latinized derivative of that word. The Greek képas has an increasing genitive «épatos (keratos) the termination (genitive case-ending) of which is -os, and when this is eliminated there remains the combining form «xépa7- to which the family suffix -idae must be added to form the family name. The Greek K (kappa) is transliterated into Latin as c. Thus a family name based on the generic name Calliceras would be CALLICERATIDAE. If, however, in forming a Neo-Latin generic name from xé¢pus a new nominative case-ending has replaced the -as, the original Greek stem has been lost, and the word must be declined as any other Latin word. Thus in T'richocera the nominative case-ending -a has replaced the Greek -«s, and the word both as to stem and gender must be treated as a Latin noun of the First Declension and as of the feminine gender. The genitive singular is Trichocerae, the family name TRICHOCERIDAE. In Heterocerus the nominative case-ending “ -us” is employed, and the word is a noun of the Latin Second Declension and is masculine in gender, with its family name HETEROCERIDAE. 6. In order that this matter may be corrected, and clarified, I would suggest that in the Revised Régles an amendment should be made in the portion embodying the opening phrase of Copenhagen Decision 50(1)(a) (1953, Copenhagen Decisions zool. Nomencel. : 34) and an “‘ Explanation’ added. In addition, a further short ‘‘ Explanation ”’ is suggested, together with a proposal Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 333 for the amendment of one phrase wherever it occurs in the Draft Régles. The proposals so submitted are the following :— (1) Draft “‘ Régles ’’, Article 28, Section 9(a), opening phrase? :— The words “ a word of Greek or Latin origin ” to be replaced by the words “a Greek or Latin word ”’. (2) “ Explanation’? proposed to be inserted :— Explanation: If a Greek word is retained in a newly coined Neo-Latin generic name without change of nominative case-ending it retains its Greek stem and genitive. If a Latin nominative case- ending is employed, both the stem and the gender become whatever is appropriate in Latin to the new ending. Hxamples: The following generic names all derive from the Greek word xépas (keras), trans- literated into Latin “ ceras”’) a horn ; (a) Calliceras, using the Greek nominative, retains the Greek stem and gender, and a family name based on it would be CALLICERATIDAE (genitive Calliceratos, stem Callicerat-) ; (b) In Trichocera the Latin nominative ending “ -a”’, has been substituted and this makes it a feminine word of the First Declension, with genitive trichocerae, family name TRICHOCERIDAE ; (c) In Heterocerus the nominative case-ending -us, has been substituted and this makes it a masculine noun of the Latin Second Declension, genitive heteroceri, family name HETEROCERIDAE. (3) Supplementary ‘‘ Explanation ’’ proposed to be added :— The table of Latin nouns set out in the Appendix to Article 28? may be consulted in such cases to assist in determining the proper form of the genitive of a noun and its gender. (4) Proposed substitution of the expression ‘‘ nominative case-ending ’ for the expression “‘ nominative suffix ’’ : The expression “ nominative suffix’ used in the Draft Régles means “‘ nominative case-ending ”’, but the latter expression is more easily understood and should, it is recommended, be substituted in the Draft Reégles for the expression ‘“‘ nominative suffix”’, wherever the latter expression occurs. 1 The prase here referred to appears in lines 10 and 11 on page 204 of the Draft Régles (1957, * Bull. zool. Nomencl. 14 : 204). ? For the Appendix here referred to see pages 233-237 of the Draft Régles (1957, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 14 : 233-237). 334 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature CASE No. 21 DRAFT “ REGLES’’, ARTICLE 28, SECTION Il: GENDER OF GENERIC NAMES (Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 996) (For the relevant provisions in the Draft of the Revised Régles see 1957, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 14 : 208 et seq.) DOCUMENT 21/1 Report on the Rules for the determination of the gender attributable to generic names of various classes adopted by the Copenhagen Congress of 1953 in its Decision 84 By L. W. GRENSTED (Consulting Classical Adviser to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) (Report dated 14th January 1957) In accordance with the request contained in your letter of 30th November 1956 I have examined the rules for determining the gender attributable to generic names laid down by the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology, Copenhagen, 1953 by its Decision 84 (1953, Copenhagen Decisions zool. Nomenel.: 49-51) and submit the following Report on the matters on the nature of the amendments to those Rules which, in my opinion, are desirable under the review called for under Decision 85 (loc. cit.: 51) of the above Congress. ~~. | ~ Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 335 2. Section 84(3) of the Copenhagen Decisions reads as follows :— Where a Greek or Latin word has, on being used as a generic name, been modified by the addition of a nominative suffix, the gender becomes that of the Suffix (thus nouns ending in ‘‘-stomus ” are to be treated as masculine, although those ending in “-stoma” are neuter). This recommendation has resulted in difficulties of interpretation when read in the light of Section 84(7)(b)(1) where names ending in “‘-gnathus”’ are deter- mined as feminine, as being “ obviously derived from Greek words, which are given in the standard Greek lexicon as being feminine in gender”, and of Section 84(7)(c)(1) where names ending in ‘‘-cheilus’’, “rhamphus ”’, “-rhynchus’”’, and “-stathus” are determined as neuter, as being “ obviously derived from Greek words of neuter gender, by reason of having the termination “08 99 ge 3. Two preliminary points arise in connection with these two clauses (as well as certain others) of Section 84(7) :— (i) The phrase “ obviously derived from” is far too loose, and might give rise to many problems of interpretation. Thus, to take the example given in Section 84(3) “-stomus” is “ obviously derived from ”’ the neuter noun stoma, but is nevertheless determined as masculine, by reason of the nominative suffix “-ys ”. (ii) The Greek termination of “-os ” is masculine in the vast majority of cases and cannot be cited as a reason for a neuter gender. Forms such as gnathos, cheilos, etc. are very few, constituting a small and special class. There is clear need for careful re-drafting of Section 84(7) with these points in view. 4. But the most serious difficulty arises in connection with the decision that forms in -gnathus should be feminine, and forms in -cheilus (or -chilus), -rhamphus etc. should be neuter. For by Section 84(3) it appears that, for example, -cheilus is the Greek -cheilos transformed by the addition of the Latin nominative suffix “ -ys ”, which is masculine, exactly as -stoma (the example cited) is the Greek -stoma transformed by the addition of the Latin nominative suffix “-us”, It ig agreed that in this latter case the gender is masculine. There is every reason to apply the same reasoning to the cases cited above of forms in -gnathus, -cheilus ete. A ruling has in fact been recently -given to the effect that the generic name Oxycheilus (or Oxychilus) is, as it has always been regarded in taxonomic usage, masculine, a decision reversing Section 84(7)(c)(1), but agreeing with Section 84(3). 336 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 5. Against this it might be argued that -cheilus is simply a transliteration of the Greek -cheilos (xetAos), and that a form such as Oxycheilus therefore ends in a noun given in the Standard Greek Lexicon as neuter. This is indeed the only ground for attaching the neuter gender to this and similar generic names. There are good reasons for rejecting this argument, as follows :— (1) -chetlus (and similar forms) are not transliterations but Latinisations. The transliteration of yetAos would be cheilos and there are cases in scientific Latin where this transliteration of the Greek “-os ” occurs, as in Nymphalis polychloros, and, in principle in such generic names as Ennomos. But a Latinised Oxycheilus would certainly, being strictly an adjectival form, have been treated as masculine. (2) The “‘ -ws ’”’ in this case must certainly be regarded rather as a masculine “nominative suffix’? than as a transliteration. In other words names such as Ozycheilus do not end in a noun given in the standard lexicon as neuter, but in a modified form, masculine by its termina- tion. (3) A more obscure point, but in fact an equally decisive one, is that names of this type, if put back into their Greek form, would be two- termination adjectives. Thus Osxycheilus would be d€vxerdos (sharp-lipped) and the “-os”’ would not be the termination of the noun xeiAos but the ordinary masculine “-os” of the common adjectival form. Such adjectives are abundant in Greek, and there would be no doubt whatever that a name taken over from them, either in Greek or in a Latinised form, would be masculine. It is in fact not strictly true that Oxycheilus ends in the Greek noun “‘ -cheilus”’. It is, properly speaking, an adjectival form, with ce 2? . stem “‘ Oxcheil-’’? and the Latin masculine termination “ -ws (4) To retain the masculine gender for these nouns would be, largely or wholly, in line with taxonomic tradition. 6. It is clear that this discussion renders a revision of the language of Section 84 very desirable, on lines sufficiently indicated above. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 337 CASE No. 22 DRAFT “ REGLES ”’, ARTICLE 24, SECTION 11(c) : PROVISION FOR CHALLENGING THE REJECTION OF SECONDARY HOMONYMS (Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 1275) (For the relevant provision in the Draft Régles see 1957, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 14 : 180) DOCUMENT 22/1 Proposal to eliminate the provision for Challenge of the Rejection of Secondary Homonyms By CURTIS W. SABROSKY (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Division, Entomology Research Division, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.) (Enclosure to a letter dated 17th October 1957) Article 24, Section 11(c) of the Draft of the new Code provides, in line with Decision 162 of the Copenhagen Congress (1953, Copenhagen Decisions zool. Nomencl. : 82-83), a procedure for challenging the rejection of a secondary homonym. The procedure seems unreasonably drastic and open to abuse, and hence undesirable, for the following reasons :— (a) There is provision for challenge, but none for consideration of the merits of a challenge. Thus one or a few individuals—possibly a small minority in a given field of work—would be given a veto power over the status of a replacement name, merely by entering a protest. 338 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (b) Difference in zoological views may be wide, but sincere, and reasonable allowance must be made. It was not the intent of the Copenhagen Decision, from the discussion at the Colloquium, to cover all ordinary cases, but to provide an escape mechanism against flagrant and meddlesome examples of unjustified synonymy leading to homonyms and consequent replacement names. Yet there is evidence that, as presently worded, the provision will be invoked against ordinary changes made in good faith by reputable zoologists. (c) There is no stated time limit on the replacement names which may be challenged under the provision. In a case known to me, a challenge was drafted against a replacement name over thirty years old, a name proposed in good faith and accepted and used by a number of authors. 2. Particularly flagrant examples could always be handled under the Plenary Powers, without writing into the Code a loose provision that would breed disputes and litigation. 3. It is therefore proposed that paragraph c of Section 11 of Article 24 of the Draft Code be revoked and stricken from the Code. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 339 DOCUMENT 22/2 Support for Dr. Sabrosky’s proposal for the repeal of the provision agreed upon by the Copenhagen Congress for the application of the “ Notification and Challenge ’’ procedure in relation to secondary homonyms By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E. (Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) (Note dated 10th November 1957) I desire strongly to support Dr. Sabrosky’s proposal for the deletion from the Draft Régles of the provision embodying the decision of the Copenhagen Congress to provide what it was hoped would be a substantially automatic procedure for challenging the rejection of names as secondary homonyms. 2. Everyone will agree that there should be appropriate means for securing the rejection of names published as substitute names for names rejected as secondary homonyms in cases where the circumstances leading to the condition of homonymy are such as would never have arisen if the author publishing the replacement names had acted with greater discretion. The opportunities, however, for the unnecessary rejection of names as secondary homonyms are not great, and I agree with Dr. Sabrosky in considering that the best way of dealing with such cases, if detected, would be by submission of the relevant particulars to the International Commission, with a request for the suppression under the Plenary Powers of any replacement names unnecessarily brought into existence in this way. In this connection, however, it will be necessary to make sure that the final text in the Régles regarding the use of the Plenary Powers is drawn sufficiently widely to prevent any question being raised as to the appropriateness of their use for the foregoing purpose. 3. I am reinforced in my view that the proposal submitted in this matter by Dr. Sabrosky deserves the fullest support by my conviction that the ’ “Notification and Challenge” procedure is inherently dangerous, and, as Dr. Sabrosky observes in the present case, is likely to “ breed disputes and litigation ”’, that is, that instead of promoting stability in nomenclature, as it 340 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature was hoped at Copenhagen that it would do, this procedure if applied, would, in fact, give rise to instability and confusion. My reason for regarding this mechanism as misconceived is twofold: (1) Experience in the day-to-day work of the Commission has shown that even the publication of a full statement of a case in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, coupled with the issue of Public Notices, cannot be relied upon in every case to provide an adequate assurance that the proposals submitted command the support of the general body of specialists in the group concerned. In consequence in cases of this kind I have felt it necessary, as Secretary to the Commission, myself to initiate consultations with specialists before submitting the application concerned to the Commission for vote, in order thereby to satisfy myself that the lack of comments received was due to inertia or preoccupation with other duties on the part of specialists in the group in question and was not attributable to hostility to the action recommended by the applicant. (2) If even the full-dress procedure of publication, followed by the issue of Public Notices, cannot be relied upon in every case to provide a reasonable assurance that fiat action is desirable and generally supported, it must be obvious that the supply of the meagre particulars which alone are called for under the “ Notification and Challenge” procedure would be totally insufficient to provide adequate guarantees that its application would produce satisfactory results. Indeed, as Dr. Sabrosky justly remarks in the present instance, the use of this procedure might easily have the effect of putting minorities in a position of imposing their will upon their more numerous—and possibly more responsible, though less vocal—colleagues. While strongly endorsing Dr. Sabrosky’s plea in the present case, I would add that from my own experience I am convinced that the “ Notification and Challenge ”’ procedure suffers from such serious inherent defects that it cannot be relied to promote stability or uniformity, being more likely, on the contrary, to lead to uncertainty and confusion. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 341 CASE No. 23 DRAFT “ REGLES ”’, ARTICLE 6, SECTION 1(d); ARTICLE 10, SECTION 2(a); ARTICLE 23, SECTION 1(a)(i): BANNING OF NAMES CALCULATED TO GIVE POLITICAL, RELIGIOUS OR PERSONAL OFFENCE (Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 1297) (For the relevant provisions in the Draft see 1957, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 14 : 49, 85, 167) DOCUMENT 23/1 Deletion from the “ Régles’’ of the provisions relating to the rejection of names calculated to give political, religious or personal offence By CURTIS W. SABROSKY U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Entomology Research Division, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.) (Enclosure to a letter dated 29th November 1957) It is proposed that the three provisions in the Draft Régles (Article 6, Section 1(d); Article 10, Section 2(a); Article 23, Section 1(a)(i)) dealing with offensive names be deleted from the Code, or at most reduced to Recommendations. Provisions dealing with the offensiveness of names call forth the same comments made in an earlier proposal relating to “The Use of Intemperate 342 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Language” (Article 26)4. Furthermore, there will be grave difficulties in framing fair and effective rules. Intent would be very difficult to prove, and the expression “‘in any language ”’ covers a lot of ground. Good taste and editorial taste will take care of the really serious cases. The rare examples that really ery for relief can always be handled by the Commission under its Plenary Powers. 1 For Dr. Sabrosky’s proposal for the deletion from the Régles of the provision banning of intemperate language in discussions on zoological nomenclature see Document 19/1 1 Vi 328) Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 343 DOCUMENT 23/2 Support for the retention in the “ Régles ’’ of the provisions banning the use of offensive words as zoological names By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E. (Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) (Note dated 10th December 1957) In his note, dated the 29th November 1957 (Document 23/1), Dr. Curtis W. Sabrosky recommends the deletion from the Régles of the provisions banning the use of offensive words as zoological names. I recommend the retention of this provision and, therefore, the rejection of Dr. Sabrosky’s proposal. 2. The provisions which Dr. Sabrosky seeks to delete from the Régles were inserted on the recommendation of the Commission by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948 (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4:193—194). Dr. Sabrosky explains that his objections to the existing provisions are similar in some respects to his objection to the proposal banning the use of intemperate language in discussions on zoological nomenclature. 3. So far the provisions now in question have been used by the International Commission on one occasion only. This arose on applications submitted by Dr. Joshua L. Baily, Jr. (San Diego, California, U.S.A.) and Dr. Myra Keen (Stanford University, Stanford, California, U.S.A.), each of whom asked for the rejection of a generic name in the Class Gastropoda which consisted of a word which in the Lapp language, signifies the Christian Deity and is so used in translations of the Bible in the Lapp and Finnish languages. In this case the Commission came to the conclusion that the objections advanced were ‘ well founded and, accordingly, directed that the name in question (Jumala Friele) be suppressed. The decision so taken has been embodied in Opinion 469 (1957, Ops. Decls. int. Comm. zool. Nomencl. 16 : 97-128). 344 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 4. In the case referred to above the provisions adopted by the Paris Congress proved of practical value. If no such provisions had existed, it would have been necessary for the Commission, if asked to deal with such a case, to have proceeded under its Plenary Powers, a procedure which with its two- thirds majority rule was considered in Paris to be inappropriate for dealing with cases of alleged blasphemy and the like. Quite apart from this consideration, a decision to delete from the Régles a provision of ten years’ standing banning the use of offensive words as zoological names would, if taken by the London Congress in 1958, be calculated to give the impression that in this matter that Congress took a more lax view than that held by its predecessors. (Dr. Sabrosky’s alternative suggestion that the provisions decided upon by the Paris Congress, if (contrary to his advice) these were to be retained at all, should be downgraded to the status of non-mandatory Recommandations does not meet the issue involved which was not merely to deprecate the use of offensive words as zoological names but to provide a ready means for invalidating such names.) = — pS es Pe eS Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 345 DOCUMENT 1/49 (continued from page 314) Comment on the Moore/Sylvester-Bradley ‘‘ Parataxa Plan ”’ (Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 1056) By C. W. WRIGHT (London) (Enclosure to a letter received 7th December 1957) I write as a specialist in Mesozoic Ammonoidea, Echinoidea, Asteroidea and Brachyura. 2. Professor Moore kindly sent me advance copies of his applications. I have carefully considered these proposals and have concluded that they are unnecessary and open to objection. 3. The great majority of palaeontological taxa are, as Moore and Sylvester-Bradley admit, founded on more or less incomplete remains of organisms. Many of these fragmentary remains consist of discrete parts, for example the guards of belemnites, the marginalia of asteroids, the cephalothoraces of brachyurous crustacea. In the cases mentioned sufficient deductions can be made from the available evidence to allow a reasonable and useful classification to be devised. This was not always the case in these groups. Knowledge has advanced. 4, At the present day there remain a few well-known types of discrete parts of organisms which are often found isolated from other parts and which are not identifiable as to “whole-animal genera and species” in the conventional sense. The problem of these groups does not differ in principle but only in degree from that of very many, perhaps a majority, of other sorts of fossil remains. I would emphasise moreover that not all the groups mentioned by Moore and Sylvester-Bradley (paragraph 3) “ constitute a special category of zoological entities’. In particular marginalia of asteroids _ ean normally be classified in the same system as whole animals. 5. It is for those who wish to alter fundamentally the basic principle of zoological nomenclature, one name for one kind of animal, to demonstrate the necessity of change and the harmlessness of their proposals. Moore and Sylvester-Bradley have in my view, done neither. 346 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 6. Since there is no group of cases that differs in principle from those of other fossil remains I shall consider a few particular examples. Aptychi These are, at any rate in the main, the opercula of ammonites. As Moore and Sylvester-Bradley explain, the danger of instability and confusion in the nomenclature of ammonites arises because there exists a, limited, number of technically valid and available aptychus names that are prior to the names of the ammonite shell species or genera to which they are thought to belong. However, few if any aptychi can be assigned without doubt to species of ammonites founded on shells. Consequently it is impossible to determine to which taxonomic species any aptychus belongs and there is therefore a good case for regarding all aptychus names as nomina dubia and referring them to the Commission for decision. Much the same situation applies in the case of generic aptychus names since most aptychus genera can only be assigned, at the best, to groups of shell genera. In any case the difficulties can readily be resolved in a way that entirely accords with the practice of most authors for the past century on the lines recommended in his application by Dr. Arkell, by suppressing all aptychus names for purposes of zoological nomenclature. There would be no practical loss to palaeontologist or stratigrapher. The former would continue to use as technical terms or vernacular names the “genera” and “ species ”’ in the literature and attribute to species or genera of ammonites in so far as knowledge allowed. The latter could similarly use such terms in the titles of or information about the rare beds which are solely characterised by aptychi. The potential confusion in the nomenclature of ammonites must obviously be cleared up but confusion will only arise in practice if an author deliberately tries to create it. Conodonts These are discrete parts of animals of uncertain affinities. Each animal had several pairs of “ teeth’ of a variety of shapes. Every shape has been given a separate specific name and like shapes have been grouped into “genera’”’. Each individual animal included parts assigned to several “genera ”’ and “ species” (cf. Moore’s digest, paragraph 4(b’)). There is little reason to doubt that eventually it will be possible to assign to certain whole- animal species most of the “‘ form ”’ genera and species that now exist, but the process will take some years. During the transitional period, which has already begun, there will be very serious problems of nomenclature on which the Commission will have to advise, but I find it hard to believe that a system that perpetuates two independent nomenclatures could be of permanent value to palaeontologist or stratigrapher. 1 Reproduced as Document 1/15 Bulletin of Zoological Ni omenclature 347 Holothuroids Embedded in the skin of sea cucumbers are calcareous spicules or plates, of several sorts in each species. A few American authors, quoted by Moore and Sylvester-Bradley, have insisted that @ separate classification, up to family level, should be erected for each main type of spicule, since the spicules are usually found fossil only in isolation from each other. Thus they propose a family for “ wheel ” spicules and a family for “ hook ” spicules, although they were well aware that wheels and hooks occur together in living forms. There was recently described (Hodson et al. 1956, Geol. Mag., 93 : 336—344 an important fossil association of wheels and hooks, obviously belonging to one individual. Yet the wheels were referred to a new species of one genus and the hooks to a new species of another. Such a procedure cannot advance either palaeontology or stratigraphy and its justification appears to lie only in the easy cataloguing of isolated spicules. 7. In palaeontology one is often forced to resort to an open nomenclature, for example “ A-idae, gen. nov. ? te ee sp.” or “ Indeterminate crinoid brachials”. Such nomenclature determines to the limits of knowledge. So more detailed or precise than the type of open nomenclature referred to above, there are many simple ways in regular use. For example for many years the varying shapes of calyces of the small crinoid Bourgueticrinus, which are of great stratigraphical value in the English Upper Chalk, have been referred to as “ Brydone’s Form. 2 ”, etc., with no possibility of confusion and no prejudging of the hitherto unsolved question of the zoological importance of the various shape variations. 9. There are, however, certain more positive objections to these proposals, It is notorious that even now, after so many years existence of the current . System, only a small proportion of palaeontologists are thoroughly familiar with the Régles and try seriously to obey them. Indeed in France the regulations of certain national institutions still prescribe to authors practices 348 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature at variance with the Régles. The only hope for the future therefore lies in simple, clear and objective rules, such that, even to those uninterested in nomenclature, they appear reasonable, secure and straightforward. The effect of a “ parataxonomy”, whatever its safeguards and qualifications, would be to demolish the basic principle of “one animal, one name”, to introduce into nomenclature a system that is zoologically ridiculous, to confuse the student and to provide an excuse to the industrious but unintelligent for multiplying names of “ parataxa ”’ without making every effort to discover the zoological truth before burdening science with names. Any new system that allows authors to multiply names that will for ever be attributed to themselves will be abused. 10. Finally the fact that a few authors have proposed systems contrary to the Régles and to zoological common sense, need not and should not be taken to mean, as is implied by Moore and Sylvester-Bradley, that their schemes are “in current use”’. The great system of aptychus names stems mainly from one author, Trauth, and is entirely rejected by the three contributors to the Mesozoic part of the Ammonoidea volume of the Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology (Arkell, Kummel and myself). There is no desire so far as I am aware among the five living specialists on Mesozoic Asteroidea to erect a parataxonomy for isolated asteroid ossicles, nor am I aware that any living Echinoid specialist wishes to erect a parataxonomy for unidentifiable fragments or parts of echinoids. In fact I can only conclude that Moore and Sylvester-Bradley are proposing this major disturbance to the present system of zoological nomenclature primarily because of the very real difficulties in the small case of conodonts and the potential but easily removable difficulties in the equally limited case of ammonite aptychi. 141. I therefore advise that Moore and Sylvester-Bradley’s proposals be rejected and that particular solutions be found within the Régles for particular problems. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 349 DOCUMENT 1/50 Comment on the Moore/Sylvester-Bradley “‘ Parataxa Plan ”” By M. K. HOWARTH (British Museum (Natural History), London) (Enclosure to a letter dated 11th December 1957) While supporting in general the aims and purpose of the proposal to recognise Parataxa, I believe it is essential for the Commission to consider the theoretical implications that would be enhanced by recognition of this category. For the first time the Commission is proposing to depart from the whole foundation and basis of Zoological Nomenclature and give validity to certain binomial names which in some cases do not conform to any possible definition of the most fundamental unit of nomenclature, the species. Thus, when several “‘ species ” and “genera” of conodonts are found together in a distinct symmetrical orientation in a conodont “ assemblage ” (almost certainly the remains of a single invididual) it becomes objectively provable that those “ species ” and “ genera ”’ are, in fact, conspecific. Yet it is proposed to give validity to these “species ’’ and “‘ genera’ as Parataxa ; clearly this extension of the concept of Zoological Nomenclature warrants the closest attention. It is implicit in the plan (as it now stands) that species and genera of Parataxa are to be con- sidered as of the same kind as species and genera of ordinary taxa, for Taxa and Parataxa are to be united for purposes of Homonymy. Thus the plan will tend to foster the idea that species of Parataxa, being of the same kind as species of Taxa, have the same attributes as species of Taxa ; i.e. they can be used in the same way for correlation and evolution. It is, however, well established that neither is true : similar aptychi (congeneric at least) are known in association with ammonite conchs belonging to different families, and in some cases evolutionary lineages for ammonites drawn up on their aptychi alone can be proved incorrect by reference to their associated conchs ; in long distance correlation by means of conodont “ faunas” the only unit that can safely be used is the association of species or “ species list’, not the single individual “ species’ which in some cases is known to be a component of - several conodont assemblages representing different species and genera. There- fore on theoretical grounds it is indefensible to propose full validity for species and genera of Parataxa. 350 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 2. From the point of view of practical palaeontologists it is essential to stabilise the relationship between nomenclature of certain Taxa and their Parataxa, and to give validity or legality to names in both categories. The Parataxa plan is the best way to achieve this stability, with names co-ordinate for homonymy but separated for priority purposes. However, I would strongly urge the Commission to insert into the proposals a statement to the effect that “ even though nomenclature of Taxa and Parataxa are co-ordinate for purposes of homonymy, in Parataxa the groups are as paraspecies and paragenera ”’. This will then imply that in Parataxa these groups are separated in kind from species and genera of Taxa, so that the Commission will not be giving validity to ‘‘ species ” of Parataxa which in some cases are provably conspecific. It will also enable paraspecies and paragenera to be correctly and validly put into synonymy under their true species and genera, if and when these are dis- covered, thus promoting the use of these species and genera for correlation and evolution. It is to be understood that even though several paraspecies and paragenera can be validly put into synonymy under one species, they still remain valid as paraspecies and paragenera. In this way these categories in Taxa and Parataxa will be separated in kind. “A 3. The terms “ partial-species ’ and “ partial-genus ’’ have recently been proposed by Miiller (1956, J. Paleont. 30 : 1324-40) for conodont nomenclature. Unfortunately these imply that the categories they represent are necessarily smaller divisions than species and genera, and they cannot, therefore, be used generally for all Parataxa (e.g. ammonoid aptychi). Paraspecies and para- genera can be applied generally, they are non-commital as to relationship between nomenclature of Taxa and Parataxa, and they are linked etymologic- ally with Parataxa. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 351 DOCUMENT 2/18 (continued from page 254) Proposed maintenance of Copenhagen Decision 54(1)(a) (Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 835) By R. I. SAILER (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Entomology Research Branch, Beltsville, Maryland, U S.A.) (Letter dated 19th December 1957) In Volume 15, Double-Part 5/6 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, I note evidence of what might be interpreted as a ground swell of opinion against Decision 54(1)(a) of the Copenhagen Congress. The opposing views, apparently stimulated by Dr. Arkell’s strongly worded argument, are obviously based on the assumption that this decision would be retroactive. Evidently the members of the Colloquium failed to anticipate this regrettable inter- pretation of the decision. Surely this problem can be resolved by simply adopting the section of Bradley’s draft pertaining to Article 5 that states, “No new rule shall retroact in such a manner as to overturn the well. established usage of any name ”’, This will leave Decision 54(1)(a) intact and provide zoologists with a rule that will eliminate the most important cause of future instability in names for those taxons between the genus and the superfamily. 352 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature DOCUMENT 2/19 Proposed maintenance of Copenhagen Decision 54(1)(a) (Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 835) By JAMES A. SLATER (University of Connecticut, Storrs, Connecticut, U.S.A.) (Letter dated 30th December 1957) May I express my strong feeling against any attempt to weaken, change or eliminate Copenhagen Decision 54(1)(a). This decision is a definite and firm statement that cannot help but to bring about as iii cs a degree of stability in family-group names as is possible. 2. Opposition to this decision appears to be very short sighted and to miss the spirit for which the rules are in existence. Furthermore the arguments of such persons as Dr. Arkell appear to lack understanding of the, as I believe, retroactive clause involved. 3. I sincerely hope that no hasty action will be taken in this situation. Such a Decision should have been in the rules a generation ago, it would be folly to lose such stability once it has been attained. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 353 DOCUMENT 13/4 (continued from page 272) Comment on the proposed adoption of a “‘ Declaration ’’ to treat barbarous words as exempt from change in gender (Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 1064) By CYRIL F. DOS PASSOS (Mendham, N.J., U.S.A.) (Letter dated 16th December 1957) While it is unfortunate that so many modifications and exceptions to the Reégles as amended at Paris (1948) and Copenhagen (1953) are being proposed, it appears that this Declaration is necessary, and the only question in my mind is whether subdivision (2) goes far enough, whether both subdivisions could not be consolidated and whether another matter should not be covered at the same time. It is noted that subdivision (2) relates only to compound words where that word is adjectival in form and its final component is wholly Greek in form and origin. Why not when its final component is wholly “ barbarous” in form and origin ? In my opinion a further subdivision would be desirable. As Professor Grensted has pointed out in the Appendix, there are many scientific names the origin of which is unknown, uncertain or difficult to ascertain. Hrebia melas is pointed out as one example, and Professor Grensted has asswmed that Melas was taken from classical mythology, but who knows? To solve problems such as this I suggest an amendment to the Régles to be incorporated wherever it may be deemed most appropriate in words or substance as follows : Where an author in proposing a scientific name fails to indicate its origin, that name shall be presumed conclusively to be Latin or Latinized and if necessary shall be amended in accordance with the other appropriate provisions of the Régles. 354 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature DOCUMENT 13/5 Comment on the proposed adoption of a “* Declaration ’’ to treat barbarous words as exempt from change in gender (Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 1064) By G. VAN SON (Transvaal Museum, Pretoria, South Africa) (Letter dated 3rd December 1957) Many thanks for the five separates, references Z.N.(S.) 1064 (position as regards specific names consisting of partially Latinized words) . . . sent to me for commenting upon. I completely agree to the proposed recommendations concerning each one of the items dealt with, in their entirety, and hope they will be sanctioned by the International Commission. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 355 DOCUMENT 14/3 (continued from page 284) Proposed amplification of the “‘ Code of Ethies ” (Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 763) By CYRIL F. DOS PASSOS (Mendham, N.J., U.S.A.) (Letter dated 16th December 1957) This will advise you that I am in accord with the proposed adoption of a Declaration clarifying and extending the provisions of the ‘‘ Code of Ethics ” as set forth on page 176 of the 1957 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 13 : 176. Your revised text of the ‘“‘ Code of Ethics ” is a great improvement on the text adopted as Paris in 1948 (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 167). 356 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature DOCUMENT 14/4 Proposed amplification of the “ Code of Ethics ” (Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 763) By G. VAN SON (Transvaal Museum, Pretoria, South Africa) (Letter dated 3rd December 1957) Many thanks for the five separates, references Z.N.(S.) 763 (Code of Ethics) ... sent to me for commenting upon. I completely agree to the proposed recommendations concerning each one of the items dealt with, in their entirety, and hope they will be sanctioned by the International Commission. CONTENTS (continued from front wrapper) THE LONDON AGENDA PAPER (a) New Proposals Case No. 16: Draft ‘‘ Régles ’’, Article 6, Section 6(b) : form of generic names intended for palaeontology Page D.16/1 Curtis W. Sabrosky i Pe ie ie '- ve Mye2t D.16/2 Francis Hemming on “ oF AN: “ie ote ee Case No. 17: Draft “‘ Régles ’’, Article 22 : citation of dates in biblio- graphical references D.17/1 Curtis W. Sabrosky <5 ee :3 ne an a edbaae D.17/2 ~=Francis Hemming af ts Pee Ac Fie wear ek Case No. 18: Draft ‘‘ Régles’’, Article 24, Section 15(e): junior homonyms having only subjective synonyms, replacement of D.18/1 — Curtis W. Sabrosky és ar a “ 4 ie ee D.18/2 Francis Hemming sa ae sis Hs Fe AS 46) Case No. 19: Draft “‘ Régles’’, Article 26: intemperate language, condemnation of D.19/1 Curtis W. Sabrosky se ae -e zs “ Pe Ay 3) D.19/2 Francis Hemming ae oY sig oe ais oe ~ hee Case No. 20 : Draft ‘‘ Régles ’’, Article 28, Section 9(a) and Appendix : Family-Group names : grammatical formation D.20/1 J. Chester Bradley os wri ie “He a Sealer: Case No. 21 : Draft “‘ Régles ’’, Article 28, Section 11 : generic names ; gender of D.21/1 L.W.Grensted .. ae ie oy Af ae .. ddA Case No. 22: Draft “ Régles »?, Article 24, Section 11(c) : secondary homonyms : proposed repeal of challenge procedure D.22/1 Curtis W. Sabrosky ae is oe ee 3 fej eae D.22/2 = Francis Hemming ie ey . aS e3 <3: ooo Case No. 23 : Draft “ Régles ’’, Articles 6, Section 1(d) : 10, Seetion 2(a) : 23 Section 1(a)(i) : names calculated to give offence, rejection of D.23/1 Curtis W. Sabrosky ra aS Me a TA «Meal D.23/2 Francis Hemming ats ae jis oe a we es CONTENTS (continued from inside back cover) (b) Comments on previously published proposals Case No. 1 : Proposed recognition of the ‘* Parataxon ’’ concept Page D.1/49 C. W. Wright 2 as Z. ae Ay a - oe O46 D.1/50 M.K. Howarth .. as a fe Ee ag .. 349 Case No. 2: Family-group names : proposed rejection of when name of type genus is rejected as a junior synonym D.2/18 ~~‘ R. I. Sailer és zs Me as ee ie -. | (oat D.2/19 James A. Slater .. os om oe = S? .. 252 Case No. 18 : Adjectival specific names, barbarous words : liability to gender change D.13/4 Cyril F. dos Passos La a a sis has .. 353 D.13/5 G. van Son ~ Sa he a eS me as -» 354 Case No. 14: ‘* Code of Ethics ’’ : proposed amplification D.14/3 Cyril F. dos Passos gh os =e ty ss -. 355 — D.14/4 G. van Son Sr ve ae oe oa ae .. 3aa@ © 1958. THe INTERNATIONAL TRUST FOR ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Printed in England by MeTcatre & Cooper LiMiTED, 10-24 Scrutton St., London EC 2 j ; : VOLUME 15. Quadruple-Part 12/15 18th February 1958 pp. 357—488 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 a cam 5 MAR’ 1958 ice CONTENTS \z Lt Sh > ee Sixth Instalment of the London Congress Agenda Paper a, L Higt te) _ Case No. 24: Points of Difference between the Draft of the English Text of the “ Régles ’’ and existing Congress Decisions: Report by the “‘ Régles ’’ Section of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature LONDON : Printed by Order of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature and Sold on behalf of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature by the International Trust at its Publications Office, 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7 1958 Price Four Pounds, Two Shillings and Sixpence (All rights reserved) INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE A. The Officers of the Commission Honorary Life President: Dr. Karl Jorpan (British Museum (Natural History), Zoological Museum, Tring, Herts, England) President: Professor James Chester BrapLEy (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) Vice-President : Senhor Dr. Afranio do AMaraL (Sao Paulo, Brazil) (12th August 1953) Secretary: Mr. Francis Hemmine (London, England) (27th July 1948) B. The Members of the Commission (Arranged in order of precedence by reference to date of election or of most recent re-election, as prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology) Professor H. Boscuma (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) (1st January 1947) Senor Dr. Angel Caprera (La Plata, Argentina) (27th July 1948) Mr. Francis Hemmine (London, England) (27th July 1948) (Secretary) Dr. Henning Lemcue (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 Rizey (British Museum (Natural History), London) (9th June 1950) Professor Dr. Tadeusz Jaczzwski (Institute of Zoology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland) (15th June 1950) Professor Dr. Robert Mertens (Natur Museum u. Forschungs-Institut Senckenberg, Frankfurt a. M., Germany) (Sth July 1950) Professor Dr. Erich Martin Herine (Zoologisches Museum der Humboldt-Universitat zu Berlin, Germany) (5th July 1950) Senhor Dr. Afranio do Amarat (S. Paulo, Brazil) (12th August 1953) (Vice-President) Professor J. R. Dymonp (University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada) (12th August 1953) Professor J. Chester BrapLEy (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) (President) Professor Harold E. Voxss (University of Tulane, Department of Geology, New Orleans, Louisiana, U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) Professor Béla Hanx6 (Mezégazdasdgi Museum, Budapest, Hungary) (12th August 1953) Dr. Norman R. Stoxt (Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, New York, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) Mr. P. C. SytvesTeR-BravDLeEyY (Sheffield University, Sheffield, England) (12th August 1953) Dr. L. B. Hoxrsuis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) (12th August 1953) Dr. K. H. L. Key (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Canberra, A.C.T., Australia) (15th October 1954) Dr. Alden H. Minter (Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, University of California, Berkeley, California, U.S.A.) (29th October 1954) Doc. Dr. Ferdinand Pranti (Ndrodni Museum v Praze, Prague, Czechoslovakia) (30th October 1954) Professor Dr. William Kitunetr (Zoologisches Institut der Universitét, Vienna, Austria) (6th — November 1954) Professor F. S. Bopunarmer (The Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Israel) (11th November 1954) — Professor Ernst Mayr (Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard College, Cambridge, Massa- chusetts, U.S.A.) (4th December 1954) Professor Enrico TorToNESE (Museo di Storia Naturale “ G. Doria”, Genova, Italy) (16th December 1954 * Professor Esaki died on 14th December, 1957, while the present Part was passing through the press. BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Volume 15, Quadruple-Part 12/15 (pp. 357—488) 18th February 1958 PROVISIONS IN PROFESSOR CHESTER BRADLEY’S DRAFT OF THE “REGLES’’ NOT COVERED BY CONGRESS DECISIONS OR BY “ DECLARATIONS ”’ HASED SUBSEQUENTLY ADOPTED HAR 17 8 Statement prepared by the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature In the note prefixed to Professor J. Chester Bradley’s Draft of the English text of the Regles attention was drawn (paragraph 4) to the fact that at various points in that Draft Professor Bradley had either included provisions not covered by existing Congress Decisions or by Declarations subsequently adopted by the International Commission or for reasons explained in the Draft had included provisions differing from _ existing Congress Decisions. It was then intimated that it was _ proposed to publish as Part 10 of Volume 14 of the Bulletin of _ Zoological Nomenclature a Report prepared by the “ Régles ” Section of the Office of the Trust, in which the differences _ referred to above had been briefly enumerated. At the same _ time it was added (paragraph 6) that it was proposed also to _ incorporate in Volume 15 of the Bulletin appropriate references _ to the points specified in the foregoing Report, in order that, as _ arranged with the authorities of the London Congress, that _ Congress should have before it in a single volume a complete _ enumeration of the proposals for the further reform of the _ Nomencl. 14 : 3—4). = 2. Further consideration has since been given by the Trust _ to the procedure to be adopted for giving effect to the decisions _ set out above. In consequence the Trust has now taken the _ view that it would better serve the general convenience—and - in addition, would involve a lesser expenditure—if the Report _ Teferred to above were to be published in the present volume _ (Volume 15) instead of in the volume (Volume 14) in which _ the actual Draft of the English text of the Régles has been _ published. In accordance with this decision, the Report by _ the “ Régles’’ Section has been placed on the London Agenda < 358 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Paper as Case No. 24 and is being published in the present Quadruple-Part (Part 12/15). A note explaining the change in procedure set out above will be included in the next Part of Volume 14 to be published. 3. The Report now published contains particulars of two hundred and fifty separate matters affecting the wording of the Draft of the Regles, each of which will require to be considered separately by the Colloquium and the Congress in London. It is evident therefore that this Report will become the basic commentary on the London Agenda Paper to which all other comments on Professor Bradley’s Draft will need to be related. 4. The Trust is of the opinion therefore that the discussions at the London Congress will be facilitated if the above Report is printed in such a way as to enable members of the Colloquium and the Congress to annotate their copies by inserting at appropriate points notes of the Case and Document Numbers of papers published in other Parts of the present volume. It has accordingly been decided to print the Report across left- and right-hand pages as a double spread and to leave a substantial space between each of the two hundred and fifty items concerned. For the further convenience of members of the Congress making notes either of documents published elsewhere in the present volume or of other relevant matters, a black rule has been inserted between each item. 5. It is already evident that the number of items to be considered in the course of examining the Draft of the English text of the Régles will be very large and will tax to the utmost the energies both of the Colloquium and of the Congress. It is therefore particularly hoped by the Trust that in advance of the London meetings zoologists and palaeontologists who propose to attend the Colloquium will annotate their copies of the present Part in the manner suggested in paragraph 4 above, thus assisting to some extent in the avoidance of unnecessary delays when the discussion of the Draft actually takes place. FRANCIS HEMMING Managing Director and Secretary, International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature 6th December 1957. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature PROVISIONS IN PROFESSOR CHESTER BRADLEY’S DRAFT OF THE ENGLISH TEXT OF THE “ REGLES” NOT COVERED BY CONGRESS DECISIONS OR BY “DECLARATIONS” SUBSE- = QUENTLY ADOPTED BY THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ; ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 359 360 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature DOCUMENT 24/1 PROVISIONS INCLUDED IN PROFESSOR J. CHESTER BRADLEY’S DRAFT OF THE ENGLISH TEXT OF THE “ REGLES’’ WHICH ARE NOT COVERED BY EXISTING CONGRESS DECISIONS OR ARE AT VARIANCE WITH CONGRESS DECISIONS Report by the “‘ Régles ’’ Section, Office of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature In accordance with the instructions given by the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature at the time of the establishment of the “ Régles ” Section of its Office, the Draft of the English text of the Régles prepared by Professor J. Chester Bradley has been carefully compared with the text of the Régles as it existed up to the time of the Paris Congress in 1948 and with the amendments and additions made in that text both by the Paris Congress and by the Copenhagen Congress in 1953. It has been found that in almost every case Congress Decisions have been re-arranged or re-worded. In the present Report an attempt has been made to draw attention only to the more important changes noted. 2. In the light of the foregoing survey a list has been prepared in which brief particulars are given of each passage in the Draft of the Régles where the provisions inserted are either (1) provisions not covered by Congress Decisions or (2) provisions which are at variance to a greater or less extent with Congress Decisions. The number of items comprised in this list is two hundred and fifty (250). The list so prepared is given in the Appendix to the present Report. ANN WILSON Research Assistant in Charge, “ Régles”’ Section, International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature 6th October 1957. Pa ee ee ee ee “kee a dad ee Lit Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 361 APPENDIX TO DOCUMENT 24/1 Comparison of the Draft of the English text of the “ Régles ’’ with the relevant Congress Decisions and ‘‘ Declarations ’’ rendered by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature For purposes of convenience the following abbreviations are used in the present Appendix :— (1) The word “ Berlin” followed by an Article number is a reference to the English text of the Régles as compiled by the Fifth International Congress of Zoology, Berlin 1901, and as amended by successive Congresses up to and including the Twelfth International Congress of Zoology, Lisbon 1935. No official text of the Régles as they existed up to the eve of the Paris Congress in 1948 was ever published. The following unofficial (but substantially correct) English texts may be consulted :— “International Rules of Zoological Nomenclature’ published in Régles Internationales de la Nomenclature Zoologique adoptées par les Congrés Internationaux de Zoologie, Paris 1905 [exclusive of amend- ments made by later Congresses] “ International Rules of Zoological Nomenclature ’’ published in 1926 in Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington Vol. 39 : 75-104 _ (2) The word “ Paris ’’ followed by a page number is a reference to the Official } Record of the decisions taken by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948, published in 1950 in Volume 4 of The Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. (3) The word “‘ Copenhagen ” followed by a page number is a reference to the P Official Record of the decisions taken by the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology, Copenhagen, 1953, published as Copenhagen Decisions on Zoological Nomenclature, 1953. (4) The word “‘ Declaration” followed by a number is a reference to a Declaration adopted by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature and published in various volumes of Opinions and Declarations Rendered by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. The reference “B”’ followed by a volume and page number refers to the volume of The Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature in which a proposed Declaration under consideration by the Commission is to be found. 362 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Item Reference to Draft Reference to Congress Decision No. of ‘‘ Régles ”’ or to subsequent ‘* Declaration ”’ (1) Introduction Paris : 166—Conclusion 50 ee (2) Preamble Copenhagen : 22—Decision 19 a SEE EEE SEESEE SESE SES (3) I/Foreword ere ————e (4) 1/1 Paris : 144—Conclusion 16 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 363 Nature of difference from Congress Decision or from subsequent Notes by “‘ Régles ’’ Section * Declaration ”’ . insertion of draft defining the force Declaration 9 was considered unsuit- of the terms used in the Code; able for embodiment in the Code at incorporates part of Declaration 9 Paris re-words = paragraph by Compiler explaining the system to which zoological nomenclature applies drafts provision on what a name based on part of Opinion 2 which esignates was not incorporated in the Code at Paris 364 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Item Reference to Draft Reference to Congress Decision No. of “‘ Régles *’ or to subsequent ‘‘ Declaration ”’ (5) 1/2 Copenhagen : 63—Decision 114 (6) 1/3 Paris : 255—Conclusion 18(1) (7) 1/4 Paris : 364—Concelusion 10 Copenhagen : 63—Decision 113 (8) 1/5 —— ee a ee a en ac Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 365 Nature of difference from Congress Decision or from subsequent “ Declaration ”’ Notes by “‘ Régles ’’ Section _re-words with qualifying phrases introduced from other parts of the Code (old Articles 2 and 3) adds a provision that the name of an animal based on its work is only _ an available name if published before 1931 re-words the Paris Decision on names given to monsters and re- drafts in a positive form the negative Copenhagen Decision on names _ based on specimens later regarded as pathological monstrosities see items (21, (38), (39) and (51) below gives as reference the roneoed draft of the Colloquium Report (Copen- hagen MSS. 31 paragraph 75) [the wording in the Report as approved and published is similar to that in the roneoed draft, except that the last sentence, on the Colloquium being against any provision involving a subjective test of this kind does not occur in the roneoed draft] ‘new provision explicitly stating that the same system of zoological nomen- clature applies to extinct as well as to living animals suggested by Professor E. Mayr 366 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Item Reference to Draft Reference to Congress Decision No. of “‘ Régles *’ or to subsequent “‘ Declaration ** (9) 4/5 (10) 5/1 (11) 5/2 Paris : 56—Conclusion 7(2) : 292—Conclusion 10(6) (12) 5/3, 4 Copenhagen : 25—Decisions 27-29 ates: Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 367 Nature of difference from Congress Decision or from subsequent * Declaration provision not previously stated on the position of a work infracting old Article 2 (the number of words in scientific designations of animals) new provision on the retroactive application of the Rules formulates specific statement on actions which may be taken under Plenary Powers and adds a reference to the regulations governing the use of these Powers } : : ? new draft of a provision on the Principle of Conservation and the procedure necessary to conserve names under it Notes by “‘ Régles ’’ Section Compiler states this is added for completeness and clarity suggested by Professor Blake, based on the legal principle of “‘ stare decisis’? ; Compiler—“It appears to have been accepted but not formulated at Copenhagen” [see also item (36)] Compiler notes that the sentence that the Plenary Powers are subject to certain regulations and restrictions (as in the procedure to be followed in voting on cases involving Plenary Powers) is not explicitly stated by any Congress enactment, but that it is the practice; in addition the Compiler inserts a definition of the purposes of the Plenary Powers which has the effect of restricting the scope of the decision taken by the Paris Congress [see item (232)] wording not agreed at Copenhagen but a Directive issued that such a provision to be included in terms to be agreed upon by the Commission 368 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Item Reference to Draft Reference to Congress Decision No. of “‘ Régles ”’ or to subsequent ‘‘ Declaration ”’ (13) 5/4 Copenhagen : 25 —Decisions 27-29 (14) 5/5(a) Copenhagen : 24—Decision 26 (15) 6/1 Berlin. Article 25 Paris : 65—Conclusion 3 Paris : 69—Conclusion 6 Paris : 72—Conclusion 8 Paris : 175—Conclusion 67 (16) 6/1(j)(2) Berlin. Article 25(c) [added at Budapest 1927] Paris : 69—Conclusion 6(1) Copenhagen : 61—Decision 109 ao ab, se a eee ee Se ee ee 1 — o—— ey Das Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 369 Nature of difference from Congress Decision or from subsequent “ Declaration ”’ Notes by ‘“‘ Régles ’’ Section formulates as a definite Rule the procedure to be followed when the Commission is notified of a long- overlooked name and suggests limit- ing the Rule to those names which are a potential threat to stability ; _adds a provision on the action to be taken if an objection is received >. gee oe te : omits the word “ specific ” to widen the application of the provision on the suppression of nomina dubia complete re-organisation of old Article 25 (Law of Priority) into Article 6 “The Rules of Avail- ability’, Article 7 ‘“‘ What Con- stitutes Publication’’, Article 8 “The Principle of Priority: The Validity of Names” and Article 9 “Date ”’ ; old Article 25 as amended at Paris and Copenhagen -ve-worded to fit in with this re- organisation restores the wording deleted by the Paris Congress of “ a definite biblio- graphic reference ’’ which occurred ‘in one of the conditions which con- ferred availability on a name pub- lished after 1930 Compiler’s provision appears to be based on a Paris enactment (Paris : 234—Conclusion 4) rather than on the Copenhagen decisions given in reference ; it is not clear whether the suggested Copenhagen Draft is intended to replace this Paris enact- ment, on which Recommendations in the previous section [Draft 5/3] are also based causing partial dup- lication as in Recommendations 2 and 5 Compiler’s comment—‘‘ A nomen dubium may be a generic name. . even... the name of a higher taxon ”’ ‘ the distinction between an “ avail- able”? name and a “ valid”’ name [defined at Paris : 336, Conclusion 21(4)] is made in Draft 6/1 Explana- tion and Draft 8/Foreword; the definition of the terms adopted at Paris are not included in the Draft a4 the Budapest Congress’s phrase “a definite bibliographical reference ” which is retained by the Compiler was deleted by the Paris Congress on account of the strong criticisms which had been levelled against it on account of its “ritualistic ” character; the provision in the Draft is not limited to substitute names which alone were considered by the Paris Congress [see item (17)] and the point noted above does not apply therefore to cases where sub- stitute names are not involved 370 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Item Reference to Draft Reference to Congress Decision No. of ‘‘ Régles ”’ or to subsequent ‘‘ Declaration ’’ (17) 6/1(j)(3) Paris : 69—Conclusion 6(1)(a) (18) 6/1(1) and Paris : 214—Concelusion 14 6/9(c) (19) 6/2 Paris : 309—Conclusion 2(1) (20) 6/3(2) Paris : 149—Conclusion 21(a) Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 371 Nature of difference from Congress Decision or from subsequent ** Declaration ”’ Notes by ‘‘ Regles ’’ Section deletes wording “ invalid by reason of being a homonym ”’, which in the Paris provision qualified the name which is to be replaced widens the provision on names published anonymously to apply to names in general _te-words, altering the emphasis of, the provision on the status of a work dealing only with genera or higher taxa and not mentioning a _binomen , Compiler comments that the impor- tant point is that the name was proposed as a substitute and not the reason and that to prove such invalidity should not be necessary to make the replacement name available [see item (20)] applied at Paris to family-group names and names of lower taxa ‘Omits words qualifying the names to be replaced as an ‘invalid hhomonym ”’ Compiler believes that the provision “should apply to all replacements ”’ [see Draft item(17) above] 372 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Item Reference to Draft Reference to Congress Decision No. of “‘ Régles ”’ or to subsequent ‘‘ Declaration ”’ (21) 6/3(3) Paris : 255—-Conclusion 18(1) (22) 6/5(a) Paris : 152—Conclusion 26(1) (23) 6/5(c) Paris : 144—Conclusion 17 (24) 6/5(e) Sn ea SO Dito a nick er 2” y Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 373 Nature of difference from Congress Decision or from subsequent Notes by ‘‘ Régles ’’ Section * Declaration ”’ limits the provision on the work of see items (6), (38), (39) and (51) an animal counting as an indication to apply only to names published before 1931 y mentions specifically that the pro- vision on composite nominal species also applies to subspecies and infra- subspecific forms re-drafts the provision on the status of names published conditionally dds at the end a sentence further Compiler deems this inherent in old larifying the provision on names Article 27 ased on part of an animal Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 374 Item Reference to Draft Reference to Congress Decision No. of “‘ Régles ”’ or to subsequent ‘* Declaration ”’ (25) 6/6(b) Copenhagen : 65—Decision 120 (26) 6/7 Copenhagen : 63—Decision 115 (27) (28) 6/7(c) Copenhagen : 63-—Decision 115 (1) P g Copenhagen : 64—Decision 116 Ss ee wer 4s Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 375 Nature of difference from Congress Decision or from subsequent * Declaration ”’ a re-drafts provision on names in- tended for use exclusively for fossils, _re-arranging points, and adds an _ “ Explanation ” Notes by “* Régles ’’ Section re-arranges the points in the pro- vision on names published in synonymies ; amplifies to clarify and to take into account the case of the original nominal species being misidentified changes part of the provision on the unavailability of a name published without ‘“‘ an independent indica- tion”, etc., to “without the re- ‘quired data ”’ omits Recommendation against bring- into use, before the coming into force of the provision making such names unavailable, names published im synonymies which are not already generally accepted Professor Mayr believes that the Report as approved and published did not succeed in representing the consensus of the Copenhagen Col- loquium on names published in synonymy Compiler states that the Copenhagen wording does not give all the require- ments necessary to make a name published after 1930 available Compiler expresses the view that this Recommendation is contrary to the Copenhagen Decision that such a name unless it has already been brought into general use is not available (Copenhagen : 64—Decision 115[2]) 376 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Item Reference to Draft Reference to Congress Decision No. of “‘ Régles ”’ or to subsequent ‘* Declaration ”’ (29) 6/9(a) Paris : 150—Conclusion 24 (30) 6/9(b)(i) and Paris: 145—Conclusion 18 6/9(b)(ii)(4)(5) Copenhagen : 64— Decision 115 (81) 7/2(a)(i) Paris : 217— Conclusion 15(1)(a)(i)(«) (32) 7/2(b)(2) Paris : 218—Conclusion 15(1)(a)(ii)( y) Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 377 Nature of difference from Congress Decision or from subsequent ** Declaration ”’ Notes by “‘ Régles ’’ Section suggests the addition of subsequent “ citation in synonymy ” as another action which does not suffice to make a name published before 1758 avail- able restores some of the wording deleted by Copenhagen, in the Paris provision on the status of a manuscript name first published with an “indication” introduces words “ large-scale” to qualify the type of reproduction necessary to constitute ‘‘ publica- tion ” Copenhagen Decision 115 does not make it quite clear that it only replaces the part on manuscript names published in synonymy with- out an independent “ indication ” Compiler adds this qualification to exclude a few carbon copies from counting as a “ publication ” _ omits the opening qualification that _ the provision on the requirement for sale or distribution applies only where the author distributes the document to certain selected persons Compiler holds the view that his omission results in a more general statement which expresses the intent at Paris rather than the narrow wording used 378 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Item Reference to Draft Reference to Congress Decision No. of ‘** Régles ”’ or to subsequent ‘‘ Declaration ”’ (33) 7/4 Paris : 219—Conclusion (15)(1)(b) Copenhagen : 61—-Decision 108 (34) 7/4(6) Paris : 146—Conclusion 19(b) Paris : 219—Conclusion 15(I) (c)(ii) a RR A (35) 7/4(6) Second sentence (36) 8/1 Berlin. Article 25 Paris : 130—Conclusion 6 ee i ee a. aE Nature of difference from Congress Decision or from subsequent * Declaration ”’ Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 379 Notes by “‘ Régles ’’ Section _ re-drafts the provision on what does not constitute publication to cover _ the Copenhagen Decision suggests the addition of a new pro- vision to protect the status of a -separatum that was to be in a pub- lication which subsequently was not _ published 7 suggestion by Mr. dos Passos that the provision that a separatum is not counted as published until the publication containing it is issued, should only apply after a certain date I e-drafts, in accordance with the Te-arranged Artieles, the provision on _ the Bee ontan of the Law of Article 5 (Continuity and Univer- sality of Usage); the form of the 380 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Item Reference to Draft Reference to Congress Decision No. of ** Régles ”’ or to subsequent ‘‘ Declaration ”’ (37) 8/2 Recommendation Copenhagen : 67—Decision 125 (38) 8/2(b)(6) Paris : 255—-Conclusion 18(1) (39) 8/2(b) Paris : 255—Conclusion 18(2) (40) 9/Foreword Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 381 Nature of difference from Congress Decision or from subsequent “ Declaration”’ Notes by ‘“‘ Régles ’’ Section states specifically that a taxonomist acting as a First Reviser should if possible select the name that would best preserve stability adds date, 1930, to limit the period in which the description of the work of an animal constitutes an “‘ indi- cation ” Compiler makes this addition as otherwise states that this provision would be inconsistent with the further particulars required as an ‘indication ” after 1930 [see also items (6), (21), (39) and (51)] § places as doubtful the Recommenda- tion against basing a name solely upon the work of an animal this Recommendation would be super- fluous in the light of the Compiler’s interpretation given above [item (38)] adds introductory drafting to the _ Article on date of publication Item Reference to Draft Reference to Congress Decision No. of *‘ Régles ”’ or to subsequent “* Declaration ”’ 382 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature | : (41) 10/Foreword | (42) 10/1 Recommendation 4 Copenhagen : 62—Decision 110 (43) 10/1 Recommendation 5 Paris : 169—Conclusion 54 (44) 10/1 Recommendation 6 Paris : 126—Conclusion 2(2) Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 383 Nature of difference from Congress Decision or from subsequent “ Declaration ”’ Notes by ‘‘ Régles ’’ Section drafts explanatory introduction to a new Article enumerating what a taxonomist must do when estab- lishing a new taxon or name widens the Recommendation on the desirability of giving a taxonomic Species to apply to all taxa suggests that, in the provision in- dicating the method of signalising a new name, the part on inserting a comma should be omitted ; applies to names in general 4 widens provision on publicity for new names for family-group or lower axa to apply to all taxa comparison for new genera and. proposal is not altogether in accor- dance with the Recommendation adopted in regard to family-group names [Copenhagen : 35—Decision 52]; Copenhagen Decision 110 re- places Paris : 71—Conclusion 7 which Compiler nevertheless restores [see items (47) and (49)] states that the Paris Decisions were inconsistent in regard to the use of a comma [see item (50)]; applied at Paris to family-group names and names of lower taxa 384 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Item Reference to Draft Reference to Congress Decision No. of ** Régles ”’ or to subsequent “ Declaration ”’ (45) 10/1 Recommendation 9 Berlin. Article 36 (46) 10/1 Recommendation 11 Copenhagen : 62——Decision 112(1) (47) 10/1 Recommendation 13 _— Paris : 71—Conclusion 7(2)(a) (48) 10/1 Recommendation 14 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 385 Nature of difference from Congress Decision or from subsequent Notes by ‘“‘ Régles ’’ Section “ Declaration ”’ discusses omission of the example ““macrodon and microdon ’’, actually this was deleted by the Congress at Graz (1910) suggests addition of words “if possible’ to the Recommendation ‘on selecting as a type species a species with a satisfactory figure restores the Paris form of the Recom- the Paris Recommendation was re- -mendation on the desirability of placed at Copenhagen by Decision ‘giving a comparative description 110 [item (42)] indicating characters that separate a@ new genus from the most closely elated previously established taxon Suggests new examples to be added to Recommendation on the avoidance of similar specific names in the same or a related genus 386 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Item Reference to Draft Reference to Congress Decision No. of “* Régles ”’ or to subsequent ‘‘ Declaration ’’ (49) 10/1 Recommendations 18and 19 Paris : 71—Conclusion 7(2)(b)(c) (50) 10/1 Recommendation 22 Paris : 92—-Conclusion 1(8)(a) (51) 10/2(b) Paris : 255-—Conclusion 18 (52) 10/2 Recommendation 28 Paris : 223—Conclusion 17 ae p oh, , « Nature of difference from Congress Decision or from subsequent “ Declaration ”’ Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 387 Notes by ‘* Régles ’’ Section suggests omission of the part on the case of the most closely related species, if little known, not being used for comparison in the descrip- tion of a species = inserts for consistency the part on placing a comma before an expres- sion indicating that a subspecies is new, but suggests this part should be omitted new provision that it is no longer sufficient to base the description of a aew species solely on the work of an animal