THE BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL
NOMENCLATURE

The Official Organ of
THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

VOLUME 15, SECTION B

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 fon} Zoological
Nomenclature by the International Trust at its Publications Office,
41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7.
1958

(All rights reserved)

tH
Af

rar
Le A

Bae

(IIT)

INTRODUCTORY NOTE

Attention is drawn to the Foreword to the present volume
written by Lord Hurcomb, the Chairman of the Inter-
national Trust for Zoological Nomenclature. That Fore-
word applies to the volume as a whole, but for purposes
of convenience it has been included immediately behind

the Title Page for Section A.

In his Foreword Lord Hurcomb described the scope and
contents of the present volume and explained the
reasons which had prompted the International Trust to
divide the volume into two separate Sections, each

provided with its own Title-Page.

At the same time Lord Hurcomb added that on the
invitation of the Trust the preparation of these con-
cluding Parts (Parts 41 and 42) had been kindly under-
taken by Mr. Francis Hemming, as having been Secretary
to the Commission and Editor of the Bulletin throughout
the period covered by the publication of this volume.

Offices of the International Trust

for Zoological Nomenclature,
41, Queen’s Gate,
Lonpon, S.W.7.

15th October 1958.

J

her ey tana

REhTess Baessq MA:

(ey West ee

ated apit res TROT BRA 9 SAT ba ape?

*

ria Hi 53
Meg tos ee Pears As

= aon . “Ose : Shae
Saas Vt Pee

= Pyle

, vei: ?

ghey. Sct ak oep ge

na a ae
Pe wd has
Rage

TABLE OF CONTENTS

[For the portion of the Agenda Paper of the

Colloquium on Zoological Nomenclature,

London, dealing with Cases Nos. 1 to 26
See Section A of the present volume.]

CASE No. 27

Draft ‘‘ Régles ’’, Article 5, Section 3: question of the nature
and scope of the provisions to be inserted embodying the
** Principle of Conservation ’’ adopted in principle by
the Copenhagen Congress in 1953

Document 27/1.—Historial Note on the proposal to incorporate in the
Régles a provision embodying the “ Principle of Conservation ”’.
By FRANCIS HEMMING, Secretary to the Commission

Appendix 1 : The Principle of Conservation: Extract from the
Official Record of the Proceedings of the Fourteenth
International Congress of Zoology, Copenhagen, 1953

Appendix 2: The Principle of Conservation : Four Draft Proposals
submitted to the Colloquium on Zoological Nomen-
clature, yea aia 1953, and referred for later
consideration os ee a”

Annexe 1 : Draft proposed by Dr. ERNST MAYR (American
Museum of Natural History, New York) as amended
in discussion at the afternoon Session of the Collo-
quium on 31st July 1953

Annexe 2: Alternative Draft submitted jointly by Dr. CARL L.
HUBBS (Scripps Institution of Oceanography, La
Jolla) and Mr. W. I. FOLLETT ecg isle
of Sciences)

Annexe 3: Alternative Draft submitted by Mr. N. D. RILEY
(British Museum (Natural History)

Annexe 4: Alternative Draft submitted jointly by Mr. W. I.
FOLLETT (California Academy of Sciences), Dr.
ERNST MAYR (American Museum of Natural
History, New York), Mr. R. V. MELVILLE (Geo-
logical Survey and Museum, London) and Professor
ROBERT L. USINGER Sarina of ae
Berkeley)

(V)

Page

621

625

626

626

627

628

628

(VI)

Document 27/2.—Stabilization of Zoological Nomenclature by a “ Law
of Prescription”. By PHILIP HERSHKOVITZ bette Natural

History Museum)

Document 27/3.—Proposal that the ‘ Principle of Prescription ”’ fix
Intrageneric Availability for Validity as well as Validity of Specific
Names. By HOBART M. SMITH ra eae RS Illinois, ae
Illinois, U.S.A.) ‘ ;

Document 27/4.—Professor J. Chester Bradley’s proposals relating to
the ‘‘ Principle of Conservation ”’ incorporated in Article 5, Section 3,
of the Draft of the English Text of the Reégles..

Document 27/5.—The Principle of Conservation : Objection to Professor
Bradley’s Draft and Submission of a Revised Proposal. By HEN-
NING LEMCHE (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen)

CASE No. 28

Draft “‘ Régles’’ : various provisions relating to the
formation and orthography of zoological names

Document 28/1.—Note on the form of Professor Pierre Bonnet’s paper
on the homogeneity and correction of zoological names and the
procedure proposed to be adopted at the London Meetings for dealing
with the issues so raised. sale FRANCIS HEMMING, ii a to
the Commission Ee : oe, Se

Document 28/2.—Homogeneity and correction of scientific terms in
zoological nomenclature (translation from the French prepared at the
author’s request in the Office of the Commission). By PIERRE
BONNET (Université de Toulouse, France) Sse: ne SF

CASE No. 29

Draft “ Régles ’’, Article 28, Section 15 : treatment of
numerals in compound words

Document 29/1.—Proposed substitution of a revised text for Article 28,
Section 15, relating to the treatment to be accorded to numerals in
compound words. By J. CHESTER BRADLEY Bisa U iia
Ithaca, New York) ' a aie

Page

630

633

637

639

643

645

662

(VII)
CASE No. 30

Draft “ Régles ”, Article 28, Section 13: Rule governing
the gender to be attributed to infra-subspecific names,
when consisting of adjectives Page

Document 30/1.—Draft Régles, Article 28, Section 13: Rule governing
the gender proposed to be attributed to infra-subspecific names when
consisting of adjectives. By ERICH M. HERING (Zoologisches

Musewm der Humboldt-Universitat zu Berlin) 664

CASE No. 31

Draft “‘ Régles *’, Article 4, Section 4: Citation of
names of infra-subspecifie forms

Document 31/1.—Proposed substitution of Revised “ Examples ” to
Section 4 of Article 4 of the Revised Régles. By ERICH M. HERING
(Zoologisches Museum der Humboldt-Universitdt zu Berlin) .. Bf

CASE No. 32

Draft “ Régles ’’, Article 24, Section 12, and Article 28, Section 16:
specific names consisting of Latinised modern patronymics in
the genitive singular, liability of, to emendation, and
status under the Law of Homonymy of variant
Spellings with ‘i’? and “‘-ii ’’ terminations, and
liability of, to emendation

Document 32/1.—Proposed clarification of the Copenhagen Congress
Decision regarding specific names published with “i” and “ii”
terminations (a) under the Law of Homonymy, and (b) in relation
to liability to emendation. By FRANCIS HEMMING, Secretary
to the Commission is a ne ae Mi or wwe COO

Document 32/2.—On the question of the relative status of specific
names based on modern patronymics and having either the termina-
tion “ -i” or the termination “ -ii ” respectively. By W.I. FOLLETT
(California Academy of Sciences, San Francisco) My oi me fp

Document 32/3.—The Copenhagen Decision on specific names based on
modern patronymics and having the terminations “-i” and “ -ii”
respectively. By FRANCIS HEMMING, Secretary to the Commission 674

(VIII)

Document 32/4.—Views of the Committee on Nomenclature (a) of the
American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists and (b) of
the Society of Systematic Zoology on the relative status of specific

6652.99

names based on modern patronymics having the terminations “ -i
and “-ii” respectively. By W. I. FOLLETT (Chairman of the
foregoing Committee) :— ma ee Be oz iz =

Views of ROBERT R. MILLER Lpeigie se M ag a Ann Arbor,
Michigan) =

Views of JAMES A. PETERS (Bro University, Prove, Rhode
Island) of bea

Views of JAY M. SAVAGE b (Univesity e Southern Califor, Los
Angeles, California) : :

Views of HOBART M. SMITH (Oniverity a Illinois, Viton,

Illinois)

Views of W. I. FOLLETT (Calor Academy f Sciences, San
Francisco, California) 2x5

Views of CYRIL F. dos PASSOS (Ameri Museum of Natural
History, New York) F

Views of ELLSWORTH C. DOUGHERTY (Oniverity of Califor,
Berkeley, California)

Views of E. RAYMOND HALL (nies ¢ mae Hee
Kansas)

Views of CARL L. HUBBS (nivesity a Califor, La Jolla,
California)

Views of MYRA KEEN (Stanford University, Rebbe California)

Views of ERNST MAYR (Museum of re any pea at Harvard
College, Cambridge, Mass.)

Views of CURTIS W. SABROSKY (United States peti deat of
Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, kc Research
Division, Washington, D.C.) , =f P: os

COMMENTS ON PREVIOUSLY
PUBLISHED CASES

Comments on Case No. 1
(the Moore/Sylvester-Bradley ‘“‘ Parataxa ’’ Proposals)
Document 1/52 : Comment by H. B. WHITTINGTON (Museum of

Comparative Zoology at Harvard lags Cam-
bridge, Mass., U.S.A.) oa

Page

677

677
678
679
680
680
681
681
682

682
684

684

684

686

ee aerT sa ee
- “4

Document 1/53: Report of a Joint Meeting of the Palaeontographical
Society and of the Palaeontological Association
held in London on 22nd January 1958. By R. V.
MELVILLE (Geological Survey and Museum,
London) and GWYN THOMAS ne Palae-
ontological Association, London) ’

Document 1/54: Comment by ALBERTO M. SIMONETTA fone
Zoologia dell’ Universita, Firenze, Italy) --

Comment on Case No. 10

(IX)

Page

687

689

(question of the Official Language or Languages for the Régles (Code))

Document 10/3: Support for the Settlement of 7th November 1953
regarding the texts of the Régles to be accepted as
the sole substantive texts and opposition to any
attempt to re-open that Settlement. Resolution
adopted by the SOCIETE ZOOLOGIQUE DE
FRANCE at a General peices held on 14th
January 1958 £3 ; oe oe

Comment on Case No. 17
(citation of dates in bibliographical references)

Document 17/3: Citation of dates in round brackets for bibliographical
references. By ALEX TOWNSEND (Librarian,
British Museum (Natural History), London)

CASE No. 33

Draft “‘ Régles ’’ : miscellaneous drafting and
other amendments

Document 33/1.—Four minor drafting amendments. By J. CHESTER
BRADLEY (Cornell University, Ithaca, New York)

CASE No. 34
Draft “‘ Régles ’’, Article 22 : authorship of names

Document 34/1.—Proposal for the amendment of Article 21 of the
Régles (i.e. Draft Article 22) so as to make the operation entirely
objective in cases where a person other than the nominal author of
the book or paper concerned is responsible for a name and its indica-
tion, definition or description. By CYRIL F. dos PASSOS (The
American Museum of Natural History, New York) and ALEXANDER
B. KLOTS (The College of the City of New York) om

691

692

693

695

(X)
CASE No. 35

Draft “ Régles ’’ (general editorial questions) : question of
the use of initial capital letters for the names of categories
in the Animal Kingdom and of the use of hyphens
where such names consist of compound words Page

Document 35/1.—The hyphenation and capitalization of the categories
of classification. By J. CHESTER BRADLEY (Cornell University,
Ithaca, New York) ae ys ne ae ba Si ee ot

COMMENTS ON PREVIOUSLY
PUBLISHED CASES
Comments on Case No. 1
(the Moore/Sylvester-Bradley ‘‘ Parataxa ’’ Proposals)

Document 1/55: A propos de Vintroduction des Parataxons dans
la Nomenclature Zoologique. Par GEORGES
DEFLANDRE et MARTHE DEFLANDRE (Ecole
Pratique des Hautes Etudes et Centre National
de la Recherche Scientifique, Paris). . sig os 708

Document 1/56: Comment by CHARLES DOWNIE Cag a ee ke!
Sheffield) i , 725

Document 1/57: Comment by W. D. IAN ROLFE Piers a
Birmingham) . ne wf: 727

Comment on Case No. 10
(question of the Official Language or Languages for the Régles (Code))

Document 10/4: A further Note on the Language of the Substantive
Texts. By CURTIS W. SABROSKY (United
States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural
Research Service, Entomology Research Division,
Washington, D.C.) .. = ns ete oo (Mae

Note by the Secretary .. uF aS ie apo eee

Comment on Case No. 21
(gender attributable to certain classes of generic names)

Document 21/2: Comment by J. CHESTER BRADLEY pe
University, Ithaca, New York) ne ; 731

Comment on Case No. 25
(Order/Class Names)

Document 25/10: A New Proposal. By HENNING LEMCHE (Uni-
versitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen)

CASE No. 36
Draft “‘ Régles ’’, Article 28 : grammar and typography

Document 36/1.—Comments and Suggestions on Draft Article 28. By
CURTIS W. SABROSKY (United States Department of Agriculture,
Agricultural Research Service, Jape iianied Research Division, Washing-
ton, D.C.) ; : A ae =¥ - e

CASE No. 37

Draft “‘ Régles ’’, Article 22, Section 5 : citation of the
names of authors, other than original authors

Document 37/1.—Mode of citation to be adopted for citing an author’s
name subsequent to the original proposal of a zoological name. By
MYRA KEEN (Stanford University, Stanford, California, U.S.A.) ..

Document 37/2.—Comment “id FRANCIS HEMMING, ieee to
the Commission P uk he is a5 re

CASE No. 38

Draft ‘‘ Régles ’’ : proposed discontinuance of the
use of the expression “‘ transliteration ”’’

Document 38/1.—Draft Régles, proposed substitution of the word
*“* Latinisation ” for the word “ transliteration”. By L. W. GREN-
STED, Consulting Classical Adviser to the Commission. .

CASE No. 39

Draft “ Régles ’’, Article 22, Sections 1(c) and 1(d) : citation
of names published by two or more authors

Document 39/1.—Proposal for the amendment of Sections l(c) and
1(d) of Article 22 of the Draft Régles. By G. H. E. HOPKINS

(British Museum (Natural ings The oes Museum, ee
Herts.) ‘

(XT)

Page

736

741

749

751

753

775

(XII)

COMMENTS ON PREVIOUSLY
PUBLISHED CASES

Comments on Case No. 1

(the Moore/Sylvester-Bradley ‘“‘ Parataxa ” Proposals) Page
Document 1/58: Comment by PRESTON E. CLOUD, Jr. (United
States Geological Survey, Washington, D.C.) s5 SS

Document 1/59: Comment by CARL C. BRANSON (Oklahoma
Geological Survey, Norman, Oklahoma, U.S.A.) .. 760

Comment on Case No. 2
(proposed cancellation of Copenhagen Decision 54(1)(a))

Document 2/20: Comment by JEAN L. LAFFOON (Iowa State
College, Ames, Iowa, U.S.A.) ne ae wa 1 eZ
Comment on Case No. 13
(gender change and specific names consisting of ‘‘ barbarous
Document 13/6: Comment by G. H. E. HOPKINS (British Museum

(Natural History), The Zoological Museum, Tring,
Heris.) ae ies a ae % si solace

?

words)

Comments on Case No. 33
(miscellaneous drafting and other amendments)
Document 33/2: Comment by CURTIS W. SABROSKY (United
States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural

Research Service, Entomology Research Division,
Washington, D.C.) .. 3 ste ke cis,

Document 33/3: Comment by TADEUSZ JACZEWSKI (Institute
of Zoology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw).. 777

Document 33/4: Supplementary Comment by CURTIS W.

SABROSKY (see Document 33/3 above) .. 784
Document 33/5: Comment by RAYMOND C. MOORE re
of Kansas) .. 8 ; 800

CASE No. 40

Draft “Régles’’, Article 28, Section 11(e): agreement of specific
hames in gender with generic names

Document 40/1.—Objection to grant of exceptions in the application of
the Gender Rules. By K. FRIEDERICKS and seven other German
specialists .. >: = 3 ae be ia sv aia)

Note by the Secretary .. a = =e 1 <3).

CASE No. 44
Draft “ Régles ’’, Article 20 : provisions relating to neotypes

Document 41/1.—Proposed modification of existing provisions relating
to the establishment of neotypes. By P.C. SYLVESTER-BRADLEY
(University of Sheffield) si a ‘i aie nm -

Document 41/2.—Comment on the proposals submitted by Karl P.
Schmidt and P. C. Sylvester-Bradley for the inclusion in the Régles
of provisions expressly authorising the use by the Commission of its
Plenary Powers to approve neotypes in certain cases. By FRANCIS
HEMMING, Secretary to the Commission. . Oe ar om

Document 41/3.—Proposals for the amendment and correction of the
Draft Reégles concerning the establishment of neotypes. By CYRIL
F. dos PASSOS (Mendham, New Jersey, U.S.A.) - ae MS

Document 41/4.—Comments on certain points relating to the procedure
for the establishment of neotypes raised in a paper dated 2nd April
1958 [Document 41/3] submitted by C. F. dos Passos. By FRANCIS
HEMMING, Secretary to the Commission. . : uf ae et

CASE No. 42

Draft “‘ Régles ’’, Article 22, Section 5 : citation of
dates when generic combination changed

Document 42/1.—Article 22, Section 5(c)(1) and Section 6(b). By
CYRIL F. dos PASSOS (Mendham, New Jersey, U.S.A.) che si

Document 42/2.—Citation of dates when generic combinations are
changed : support for the existing provision and objection to the
proposal suggested by C. F. dos Passos. By FRANCIS HEMMING,
Secretary to the Commission + ss FE: ba rt: Se

COMMENTS ON PREVIOUSLY
PUBLISHED CASES

Comments on Case No. 1
(The Moore/Sylvester-Bradley “ Parataxa ” Proposals)

Document 1/60: Status to be accorded under the Law of Homonymy
to names for genera of “parataxa”. By

FRANCIS HEMMING, Secretary to the Commission

(XIII)

Page

812

814

816

822

824

825

826

(XIV)

Document 1/61 :

Document 1/62 :

Document 1/63 :

Document 1/64 :

Document 1/65 :

A Proposal for Form-Taxa in Zoology. By CURTIS
W. SABROSKY (United States Department of
Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Ento-
mology Research Division, Washington, D.C.)

Comment by TADEUSZ JACZEWSKI (Institute of
Zoology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw)

Alternative Methods for regulating dual Nomen-
clature. By P. C. SYLVESTER-BRADLEY
(University of Sheffield) ‘

Summary of proposals and comments concerning
Parataxa, Form Taxa, Organ Genera and Collec-
tive Groups. By P. C. SYLVESTER-BRADLEY
(University of Sheffield) ie’ “f

Comment by ERROL L. WHITE sseenine Museum
(Natural History), London) . , ,

Comment on Case No. 2

(proposed cancellation of Copenhagen Decision 54(1)(a))

Document 2/21 :

(question of the Official Language or Languages for the Régles (Code))

Document 10/5:

Comment by R. V. MELVILLE a ay ga
and Museum, London) i

Comment on Case No. 10

The Substantive Languages of the International
Rules : proposed making-good of an omission in
the Draft of the English Text. By FRANCIS
HEMMING, Secretary to the Commission .. ;

English and French texts of paragraphs 4 and 5 of
the Minute executed on 7th November 1953 by
Professor R. Spirck, President, Fourteenth Inter-
national Congress of Zoology, Copenhagen, 1953. .

Page

828

831

834

841

851

852

854

855

Comment on Case No. 19

(XV)

(ban on use of intemperate language in discussions on zoological nomenclature)

Document 19/3: Proposed relaxation of the ban on names calculated
to give personal and other types of offence. By
CYRIL F. dos PASSOS (Mendham, New Jersey,
U.S.A.) Af a 7 55 oe sh

Comments on Case No. 21
(gender attributable to certain classes of generic names)

Document 21/3: Article 28, Section 11 (gender of generic names) :
criticism of proposals in Draft Régles. By R.
Pu. DOLLFUS (Muséum National d'Histoire
Naturelle, Paris) .. as es es ae

Comments on Case No. 25
(Order/Class Names)

Document 25/11: The Designation of Official Names for higher taxa
of invertebrates. By B. G. CHITWOOD (Labor-
atory of Comparative Physiology and M orphology
of the Kaiser Foundation, U. niversity of California,
Berkeley, California, U S.A.) ve ah Me

Document 25/12: Notes on the naming of Higher Taxa, with special
reference to the Phylum (or Class) Nematoda.
By ELLSWORTH C. DOUGHERTY (Depart-
ment of Physiology, School of M edicine, and
Laboratory of Comparative Physiology and Mor-
phology of the Kaiser Foundation, University of
California, Berkeley, California, U os A: a ;

Document 25/18: Comment on the procedure for securing lists of
names for Orders and Classes recommended for
stabilisation. By P. C. SYLVESTER-BRAD-
LEY (University of Sheffield) v a es

Document 25/14: Comment on the petition relating to the date and
authorship of the Order/Class name “ Mono-
placophora”’. By L. R. COX (British Museum
(Natural History), London) at x -

Page

857

858

860

896

907

910

(XVI)

Comment on Case No. 27
(‘‘ Principle of Conservation ’’)

Document 27/6: A Critique of Professor Chester Bradley’s “ Principle
of Conservation’. By PHILIP HERSHKOVITZ

(Chicago Natural History Museum)

Comment on Case No. 33
(miscellaneous drafting and other amendments)

Document 33/6: Comment by HENRY TOWNES a af
Zoology, University of Michigan)

Comments on Case No. 38

”?

(‘‘ transliteration ’’ and “ Latinisation ’’)

Document 38/2: Comment by J. CHESTER BRADLEY pase ky
University, Ithaca, New York) :

Document 38/3: Comment by FRANCIS HEMMING, ts to
the Commission si ‘ :

CASE No. 438

Draft “ Régles ’’, Article 20, Sections 1 to 3:
terminology of type specimens

Document 43/1 .—Proposed increase in the number of categories of
type specimen recognised in the Régles. By P. C. SYLVESTER-
BRADLEY (University of Sheffield) . : ie itp

Document 48/2. —Objection to the proposal to incorporate the ex-
pression ‘“‘ paratype” in the Regles. a FRANCIS HEMMING,
Secretary to the Commission me

CASE No. 44

Draft “ Régles’’, Article 7, Section 4, Sub-Section (6) :
status of names in preprints when the paper concerned
was not published later in a regular manner

Document 44/1.—Support for the proposal included by Professor
Chester Bradley in the suggested Annexe to Sub-Section (6) of
Section 4 of Article 7 of the Draft Régles. ei CYRIL F. dos PASSOS
(Mendham, New Jersey, U.S.A.) .

Page

911

914

931

932

933

934

935

(XVIT)

Page
Document 44/2.—Proposed rejection of Professor Bradley’s proposal
in Article 7, Section 4 (6, Annexe) for the acceptance in certain cir-
cumstances of new names included in pre-prints. re FRANCIS
HEMMING, Secretary to the Commission Py : ae a, 10 936
CASE No. 45
Draft ‘‘ Régles ’’, Article 28 : compound names
of Spanish origin
Document 45/1.—Proposed correction of certain inaccuracies in Pro-
fessor Bradley’s Draft. By R. ALVARADO (Instituto José de
Acosta, Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales, Madrid) ae a Ges
CASE No. 46
Draft “ Régles ’’, Article 1, Section 1, and Article 21,
Section 2 : implications of the type concept
Document 46/1.—Comments on Article 1, Section 1, and Article 21,
Section 2, in Professor Bradley’s Draft Régles. By R. A. CROWSON
(Department of Zoology, University of Glasgow) .. ne a5 apie
CASE No. 47
Draft ‘‘ Régles ’’, Article 19, Section 7(a) :
misidentification of a selected type
species for a genus
Document 47/1.—Criticism of provision suggested in Article 19, Section
7(a) of the Draft Régles. By R. A. CROWSON Speake of Zoo-
logy, University of Glasgow) Ae .. 942

CASE No. 48

Draft “ Régles ’’, Article 13, Section 3(c) : family-group
names consisting of vernacular words

Document 48/1.—Suggested definition of the expression “ vernacular
word” as applied to family-group names. By R. A. CROWSON
(Department of Zoology, University of Glasgow) oe a .. 944

(XVIII)

Document 48/2.—Need for reducing the severity of the Copenhagen
Rule against the acceptance of family-group names consisting of
vernacular words. i FRANCIS HEMMING, ae to the

Commission ..

CASE No. 49

Draft “ Régles ’’, Article 27 : Zoological
Nomenclature Latin

Document 49/1.—Twofold problems raised by Article 27 of the Draft
Regles. By FRANCIS HEMMING, Secretary to the Commission

Document 49/2.—Specific names published in abbreviated form:
proposals published in 1957 for the adoption of a Declaration defining
status of, under the Régles :—

Part 1 : Proposed adoption of a Declaration clarifying the procedure
to be adopted under Article 14 when a ee name is Lee
in an abbreviated form . : ae : Ss

Part 2: Proposed amplification in certain respects of the suggested
Declaration relating to the procedure to be adopted under Article 14
when a specific name is published in an abbreviated form ..

Annexe 1: Correspondence between Arthur N. Dusenbury, Jr.
(Jusepin, Monagas, Venezuela) and Francis Hemming, Secretary
to the Commission :—

(a) Letter dated 4th August 1957 addressed ae ARTHUR N.
DUSENBURY, Jr. to Francis Hemming . ae >

(b) Reply dated 10th September 1957 addressed to Arthur N.
Dusenbury, Jr. by FRANCIS HEMMING.. am

(c) Letter dated 6th October 1957 addressed by ARTHUR N.
DUSENBURY, Jr. to Francis Hemming .. mis ;

Annexe 2: Support for, and proposed extension of, the Declaration
suggested by Secretary Hemming to cover the case of a name
proposed in an abbreviated form. By J. CHESTER BRADLEY
(Cornell University, Ithaca, New York) ae sk

Document 49/3.—Support for action proposed in relation to names
published in abbreviated form. By F. A. URQUHART (Head,
Division of Zoology and sis The shies Ontario sabciante
Toronto, Canada) Bic s% :

Page

945

948

950

953

954

955

956

956

957

——

ee

Document 49/4.—Views of Professor J. Chester Bradley (Cornell
University, Ithaca, New York)

Letter dated 10th February 1958 to Francis Hemming, eas to
the Commission, from J. CHESTER BRADLEY : a

Letter dated 20th February 1958 to J. Chester Bradley from FRANCIS

Letter dated 23rd March 1958 to Francis rouse from J. CHESTER
BRADLEY : : , i ae

Document 49/5.—Latinization of certain geographic and_ personal
names. By J. CHESTER BRADLEY (Cornell < auacinae Ithaca,
New York) ‘ Hi — wis a Se

Document 49/6.—Comments on J. Chester Bradley’s paper on the
Latinization of certain geographic and personal names (Document
49/5). By L. W. GRENSTED ake Classical Adviser to the
Commission) : oe ri a inf

Document 49/7.—Specific names based on the surnames of a person,
prefixed by one or more of his Fore-Name initials, with a proposal for
dealing with the situation so arising. a L. R. COX (British Museum
(Natural History), London) He Ge ee

COMMENTS ON PREVIOUSLY
PUBLISHED CASES

Comments on Case No. 1
(the Moore/Sylvester-Bradley ‘‘ Parataxa ”’ Proposals)

Document 1/66: Comment by ROBERT O. FAY (Oklahoma Geological
Survey, Norman, Oklahoma, U.S.A.) ee

Document 1/67: Comment by KOSARAJU REDDIAH (Marine Bio-
logical Station, Port Erin, Isle of Man)

Document 1/68: The Definition of the term “‘parataxon”. By P.C.
SYLVESTER-BRADLEY (University of Sheffield)

Comment on Case No. 9
(corrected and emended names, citation of)

Document 9/3: Citation of corrected and emended names. By CYRIL
F. dos PASSOS (Mendham, New Jersey, U.S.A.)..

(XIX)

Page

958
958

959

961

964

966

968

970

972

974

(XX)

Document 17/4 :

Document 26/15 :

Document 33/7 :

Document 33/8 :

Comment on Case No. 17
(bibliographical references)

Comment by CYRIL F. dos PASSOS aia
New Jersey, U.S.A.)

Comment on Case No. 26
(transliteration of Cyrillic characters)

International systems for the transliteration of Cy-
rillic characters and their modification for use in
zoological nomenclature. By P. C. SYLVESTER-
BRADLEY (University of Sheffield)

Comment on Case No. 33
(minor drafting and other amendments)

Comment by P. BASILEWSKY (Musée as du
Congo Belge, Tervuren, Belgium)

Comment by DONALD F. McMICHAEL be
Museum, Sydney, Australia) ‘

APPOINTMENTS

Statements issued by the International
Trust for Zoological Nomenclature

Appointment of Officers of the Colloquium on Zoological Nomenclature,

London, 1958

Chairmanship of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature. .

CASE No. 50

Draft “ Régles ’’, Article 28, Appendix, Table 2, Part B:
guidance as to formation of family-group names

based upon Greek words

Document 50/1.—Proposed Revision of certain entries in Part B of
Table 2 in the Appendix to Article 28. 3Y AFRANIO do AMARAL
(Instituto Butantan, Sao Paulo, Brasil) . : Ae fe

Page

975

976 .

984

990

997

998

999

a

——P es

CASE No. 51

Draft “ Régles ’’, Article 28, Section 16 : specific names based
on modern surnames, proposed adoption of a
further “ Recommendation ’”’ regarding

Document 51/1.—Proposed adoption of a Recommendation that, where
a specific name is based on a modern patronymic, it should be
formed as a substantive in the genitive case if the purpose is to
honour the collector of the type material and as an adjective in
other cases. By HOBART M. SMITH (University of Illinois,
Urbana, Illinois, U.S.A.) .. aS i B= a 2

CASE No. 52

Draft “ Régles ’’, Article 20, Section 1(b), ‘‘ Recommendation ”’
1: * Recommendation ’’ relating to the desirability of
type specimens being deposited in public
institutions

Document 52/1.—Proposed insertion in the Régles of a provision
invalidating names given to species and taxa of lower rank where
the holotype, syntypes or lectotypes are not placed in a public
institution. By P. VIETTE (Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle,
Paris) Ae 3& a oe a he + va

Document 52/2.—Objection to the insertion in the Régles of a provision
for the compulsory deposit of type material in public institutions.
By FRANCIS HEMMING, Secretary to the Commission

CASE No. 53

Draft “ Régles ’’, Article 24, Sections 8(a) and 10(a) :
relationship for purposes of the Law of Homonymy
of variant spellings of names based on geographic
terms

Document 53/1.—Request for a Ruling that any two generic names or
specific names, each based upon a word transliterated into the Latin
alphabet from a language using another alphabet but differing from
one another in the transliteration used, be treated as homonyms of one
‘another. By TEISO ESAKI (Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan) ..

(XXT)

Page

1000

1002

1004

1006

(XXIT)

Document 53/2.—Comments on certain points raised by Professor Teiso
Esaki in regard to the position in relation to homonymy of certain
names consisting of variant spellings of geographic terms. By
TADEUSZ JACZEWSKI sisi of bei: Polish per ose af
Sciences, Warsaw) iis

CASE No. 54

Draft ‘“‘ Régles’’, Article 28, Section 8: termination
to be adopted for the names of tribes and
superfamilies respectively

Document 54/1.—Information regarding the acceptability of certain
terminations for the names of tribes and superfamilies furnished to
the Copenhagen Congress of 1953 by Leonard P. Schultz bide
By FRANCIS HEMMING, Secretary to the Commission

Annexe: Results of a preliminary survey of group endings in zoo-
logical classification above the category of genus. By LEONARD
P. SCHULTZ (Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.)..

Document 54/2.—Observations on Article 28, Section 8, of Professor
Bradley’s Draft Régles. By R. A. CROWSON ener . Zoo-
logy, University of Glasgow) :

CASE No. 55

Existing ‘‘ Régles ’’ : action recommended to be taken for
the purpose of consolidating in the Revised ‘“‘ Régles ”’
the provisions appearing in Sections “‘A’’ to “E”’
of the “‘Appendice ’’ of the existing “* Régles ’’

Document 55/1.—Action recommended in regard to the provisions
included in Sections ‘‘A” to “ E” of the ‘‘Appendice ” to the existing
Régles. By FRANCIS HEMMING, Secretary to the Commission

CASE No. 56

Draft “ Régles’’, Article 19, Section 1: interpretation of
the expression “‘ type-species ”’ in relation to a nominal genus

Document 56/1.—Proposed insertion in Section 1 of Article 19 in
Professor J. Chester Bradley’s Draft of the Revised English text of
the Régles clarifying the expression “‘ type-species” of a genus. By
FRANCIS HEMMING, Secretary to the Commission 7

Page

1010

1012

1013

1016

1017

1021

(XXIII)

CASE No. 57

Draft “ Régles’’, Article 15: proposed insertion of
provisions recognising the concept “ superspecies ”’

Document 57/1.—Proposed insertion in the Régles of provisions recog-
nising “‘ superspecies ” as a special category for the classification and
nomenclature of taxa belonging to the above group as now proposed
to be defined. By 8S. G. KIRIAKOFF (University of Ghent, ich
and Z. LORKOVIC (University of Zagreb, Yugoslavia). . ‘

CASE No. 58

Draft “ Régles ’’, Article 15 : proposed insertion
of provisions recognising the concept ‘‘ semispecies ”’

Document 58/1.—Proposed insertion in the Régles of provisions recog-
nising “ semispecies ” as a special category for the classification and
nomenclature of definite groups of taxa as now proposed to be defined.
By Z. LORKOVIC (University of Zagreb, Yugoslavia) and S. G.
KIRIAKOFF (University of Ghent, Belgium) ag ‘ ;

CASE No. 59

Draft “‘ Régles ’’, Article 12 : question whether the category
** superfamily ’? should be treated as belonging to
the family-group or to the Order/Group
and of the categories with which
it should be treated as
coordinate

Document 59/1.—Proposal for the transfer of Superfamily names to the
Order/Class ee re: R. V. MELVILLE, Assistant feeiigrs to the
Commission . d a ae x ;

Annexe : Extract from a letter dated 3rd September 1955 from
GUNNAR HENNINGSMOEN (Paleontologisk Museum, Oslo)

CASE No. 60

Draft “ Régles ’’, Article 28, Section 4: Names published
with diacritic marks over individual letters

Document 60/1.—Report on communications received since the Copen-
hagen (1953) Congress on the question of the practicability of inserting
additional letters in words in place of the use of diacritic marks. By
FRANCIS HEMMING, Secretary to the Commission

Page

1024

1031

1034

1039

1040

(XXIV)

Appendix 1: The problem raised by diacritic marks over letters in
words when used as zoological names. By TADEUSZ JACZEWSKI
(Institute of Zoology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw) ..

Appendix 2: On the question of the treatment of diacritic marks for
the purpose of zoological nomenclature. By P. J. M. GEELAN

Appendix 3: On the relative status from the standpoint of the Law
of Homonymy of names differing from one another in spelling
through the presence in one case, and the absence in the other,
of a diacritic mark. By ERICH M. HERING a ae Museum
der Humboldt-Universitét zu Berlin) F ;

CASE No. 61

Draft ‘‘ Régles ’’ : relationship of, to decisions
by previous Congresses

Document 61/1.—Criticisms of the style and content of the English
Draft of the Régles. By K. H. L. KEY (Commonwealth Scientific
and Industrial Research Organisation, Canberra, A.C.T., Australia). .

Document 61/2.—Reply by Mr. Hemming to Commissioner Key’s
criticisms of Professor J. Chester Bradley’s Draft of the English
text of the Régles. Letter dated 12th March 1958 4 :

Document 61/3.—Action taken by the Office of the Commission on
Dr. Key’s Be By FRANCIS HEMMING, Secretary to the
Commission . i Be “~ 42 “8 as

CASE No. 62

Draft “ Régles ’’, Articles 5 and 6: proposed adoption of
distinction between “‘ primary ’’ and ‘“‘ secondary ”’
literature

Document 62/1.—The question of new names and other nomenclatorial
acts published elsewhere than in “ primary literature” and of the
definition of “‘ secondary literature ”’. its R. V. MELVILLE, Assistant
Secretary to the Commission 4

Page

1046

1049

1051

1053

1055

1057

1059

COMMENTS ON PREVIOUSLY
PUBLISHED CASES

Comment on Case No. 10

(question of the Official Language of the Régles (Code))

Document 10/6 :

The Substantive Languages of the International
Rules : proposal designed to ensure simultaneous
discussion by the Colloquium of English and
French amendments to Professor J. Chester
Bradley’s Draft English Text and to the French
text based on this. By R. V. MELVILLE,
Assistant Secretary to the Commission a

Comment on Case No. 15

(“Page Precedence ” and “ First Reviser ” Principles)

Document 15/3 :

On the interpretation of “ oldest ” name. By C. E.
TOTTENHAM (University Museum of Zoology,
Cambridge University) 3A iy me ar

Comment on Case 21

(gender attributable to certain classes of generic name)

Document 21/4:

Document 21/5 :

Document 25/15 :

Document 25/16 :

Proposed attribution of the neuter gender to certain
generic names consisting of compound words. By
AFRANIO do AMARAL (Instituto Butantan, Sao
Paulo, Brasil) a ate xs 2 os

Comment by R. V. MELVILLE, Assistant Secretary
to the Commission .. <s 54 on =

Comment on Case No. 25
(Order/Class Names)

Comment by L. R. COX (British Museum (Natural
History), London) .. be M bes if

Comment by G. H. E. HOPKINS (British Museum
(Natural History), The Zoological Museum, Tring,
Herts.) ie Es oe a o ne

(XXYV)

Page

1062

1063

1064

1065

1068

1069

(XXVI)

Document 25/17: Order/Class Names: the case for Bryozoa and
Ectoprocta. By JOHN D. SOULE (Allan
Hancock Foundation, University of Southern
California, Los Angeles, California, U.S.A.)

Document 25/18: Comment by JOHN O. CORLISS eaten a
Illinois, Urbana, Illinois, U.S.A.).. ‘

Comment on Case No. 27
(“‘ Principle of Conservation ”’)

Document 27/7: Draft Régles, Article 5 : Continuity and Universality
of Usage, Discussion and Proposals. By C. E.
TOTTENHAM id: Museum of Asieiks
Cambridge)

Comment on Case No. 28
(Homogeneity of zoological names)

Document 28/3: Comment by BENEDETTO LANZA and ALBERTO
SIMONETTA (Istituto di Zoologia dell’ Universita,
Firenze, Italy) sas Ht RS

Comment on Case No. 30
(adjectival infra-subspecific names, gender problems)

Document 30/2: Comment by BENEDETTO LANZA and ALBERTO
SIMONETTA (Istituto di Zoologia dell’ Universita,
Firenze, Italy) ay Sc wi

Document 30/3: Comment by TADEUSZ JACZEWSKI (Institute of
Zoology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw)

Comment on Case No. 31

(suggested insertion in the Régles of revised ‘‘ examples ”
of infra-subspecific names)

Document 31/3: Comment by TADEUSZ JACZEWSKI (Institute of
Zoology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw)

Page

1070

1073

1080

1089

1090

1091

1092

(X XVII)
CASE No. 63

Draft “‘ Régles *’, Article 24 : the question of homonymy

between names at different taxonomic levels Page
Document 63/1.—Homonymy between names at different taxonomic

levels. By R. V. MELVILLE, Assistant Secretary to the Commission 1093

CASE No. 64

Draft “ Régles ’’, Article 4: the terms “ trivial name ”’
and “ binary nomenclature ”’

Document 64/1.—Request for reconsideration of the terms “ trivial

name” and “ binary nomenclature ”’. By HOBART M. SMITH
(University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois, U Ay. a sie x2 2097

Document 64/2.—Comment on Professor Hobart M. Smith’s proposal

for the revival of the term “ trivial name ”. By R. V. MELVILLE,

Assistant Secretary to the Commission 1100

CASE No. 65

Draft “ Régles ’’, Article 29 : drafting problems

Document 65/1.—Proposal for rewording of Section 6(c) of Article 29

of the Draft Régles. By R. V. MELVILLE, Assistant Secretary to the
Commission . . oe i on ne - ae: “6 ya: BOOS

CASE No. 66

The relative merits of the adjectives “‘ nomenclatorial ’’ and
“nomenclatural ’? for use in the English text of the
* Régles ’”

Document 66/1.—Views of J. CHESTER BRADLEY (Cornell Univer-
sity, Ithaca, New York)’: ©, ae a we tte

1107

(XXVIII)

Document 66/2.—Views of FRANCIS HEMMING, pase: to the
Commission ‘

CASE No. 67

Existing ‘“ Régles’’, Section ““F’’ of “‘Appendice ”’ :
proposed consolidation of, in the revised “ Régles ”’

Document 67/1.—The provisions appearing in Section “F” of the
Appendice to the existing Régles : action proposed to be taken by the
London (1948) Congress for the purpose of consolidation of, in the
Revised Régles. By L. W. GRENSTED fa Classical Adviser
to the Commission) : 4 3 :

CASE No. 68

Draft ‘“ Régles ’’ (miscellaneous provisions), proposed
incorporation in, of provisions promulgated in
** Declarations ’’ rendered by the International
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature in
the period between the Copenhagen
Congress of 1953 and the coming

London Congress

Document 68/1.—Report on the “ Declarations”? rendered by the
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature in the period
between the Copenhagen (1953) and London (1958) Congresses :
Report prepared under the procedure prescribed by the Paris (1948)
Congress. By R. V. MELVILLE, Assistant Secretary to the Com-
Mission . = “fh * ae aa eS is :

CASE No. 69

Existing “‘ Régles’’, Section “‘G’’ of the “‘Appendice ”’ :
proposed consolidation of, in the Revised “‘ Régles ”’

Document 69/1.—Action recommended to be taken by the London
(1958) Congress for the purpose of consolidating in the Revised Régles
the provisions appearing in Section ‘‘G” of the Appendice to the
existing eee = R. V. MELVILLE, Assistant isites to the
Commission .

Page

1109

1110

1114

1146

CASE No. 70

Draft ‘* Régles ’’, Article 28, Section 10: general
provisions relating to the formation of
generic names

Document 70/1.—Proposed re-casting of Section 10 of Article 28 in the
Draft of the Revised English text of the ie ne FRANCIS
HEMMING. Secretary to the Commission ‘ ae

Appendix 1: An apparent inconsistency between Decisions 78 and 79
taken by the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology, Copen-
hagen, 1953, in regard to the formation of generic names (Minute
executed by the Sg on 13th March, 1956 and published in
Opinion 457) , = ah =

Appendix 2: Draft Régles, Article 28, Section 10 and ee mina
revised text for aa £4

CASE No. 71

Draft “ Régles ’’, Article 24, Section 12:
homonymy problems

Document 71/1.—Draft Régles, Article 24, Section 12: differences in
spelling to be ignored for the purposes of the Law of Homonymy. re
R. V. MELVILLE, Assistant Secretary to the Commission

CASE No. 72

Draft “ Régles ’’, Article 28, Section 4(a) :
the Diaeresis Symbol

Document 72/1.—The Diaeresis Symbol. By R. V. MELVILLE,
Assistant Secretary to the Commission RE “ne si ay

Annexe 1: Extract from a letter from CHARLES H. BLAKE
(Massachusetts Institute of iia SACs Mass., ap me
dated 12th October 1957 3 : Ae

Annexe 2: Extract from a letter from CYRIL F. dos PASSOS
(Mendham, New Jersey, U.S.A.) dated 16th December 1957

Annexe 3: Extract from a letter from CURTIS W. SABROSKY
(United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research
Service, Entomology Research Division, Washington, D.C.) ..

XXIX

Page

1149

1153

1154

1156

1158

1161

1161

1162

(XXX)
CASE No. 73
Draft “ Régles ’’ : “ Glossary ”’ Page

Document 73/1.—Draft Régles, the question of the status of the
“Glossary”. By R. V. MELVILLE, Assistant Secretary to the

Commission .. 2. ate ae tg mae 0 be .. 1163

CASE No. 74

Draft ‘‘ Régles ’’, Article 5, Section 1 :
the “‘ State decisis ’’ principle

Document 74/1.—Question of the aptness of the principle of stare
decisis to the Regles. By R. V. MELVILLE, Assistant Secretary
to the Commission * SE or We nie ny oS?

COMMENTS ON PREVIOUSLY
PUBLISHED CASES

Comment on Case No. 33
(minor drafting and other amendments)

Document 33/9: Comment by C. E. TOTTENHAM (University
Museum of Zoology, Cambridge) .. By! fo ee

CASE No. 75

Draft “ Régles ’’, Article 17 : provision relating to the
restriction and designation of localities for
nominal species

Document 75/1.—Comments on the insertion of regulations concerning
the revision of type localities in the Régles. By JAMES A. PETERS
(Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island, U.S.A.).. 6 2« ESS

Document 75/2.—Problems arising in connection with the determination
of type localities. By KENNETH C. PARKES ative Museum,
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, U.S.A.).. os si «kb 83

Document 75/3.—Support for the provisions relating to the restriction
and designation of localities for nominal species inserted in the
Régles by the Gee Pic of 1953. By FRANCIS HEM-
MING (London) .. on be ae -- 1195

(XX XI)
CASE No. 76

Draft ‘‘ Régles ’’ : provisions in the existing “‘ Régles ’’
omitted from the Draft English text of the
Revised “ Régles ”’ Page

Document 76/1.—Proposals for incorporating in the Revised Reégles
certain provisions in the existing Régles omitted from the Draft
prepared by Professor J. Chester Bradley. re R. V. MELVILLE,
Assistant Secretary to the Commission... Ma .. 1199

CASE No. 77

Draft ‘* Régles ’’ : dates to be fixed for certain
provisions to come into effect

Document 77/1.—The Question of the date from which certain provisions
become effective. By R. V. MELVILLE, Assistant Secretary to the
Commission . . oe Hi te “2 dis ote a .. 1203

CASE No. 78

Draft ‘‘ Régles ’’ (all Articles) : problems of drafting
arising through differences in usage of the
English language in England and
America respectively

Document 78/1.—Proposals for dealing with problems arising in con-
nection with the preparation of the English text of the Régles owing
to different usages of the English language in England and America.
By FRANCIS HEMMING, Secretary to the Commission 5 .. 1205

CASE No. 79

Draft “‘ Régles ’’, Article 29 : question of including in
the Revised ‘‘ Régles ’’ Paris provisions on the
Organic Rules of the Commission not

included in the Draft ‘‘ Régles ’’

Document 79/1.—Clauses relating to the Official Lists and Official Indexes
to the cancellation of Opinions for interpretative purposes and to the
“ Completeness of Opinions”? Rule. By R. V. MELVILLE, Assistant
Secretary to the Commission os os an = = Lo ke

(XXXII)

Document 79/2.—Proposed correction of certain errors in the Draft
of Article 29 relating to the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature and proposed rejection of certain new proposals
included (a) in that Draft and (b) in the Draft of certain other Articles
associated therewith. ae) FRANCIS HEMMING, si to the

Commission .

CASE No. 80

Draft “‘ Régles ’’ : the ‘“‘ Notification and
Challenge ’’ Procedure

Document 80/1.—The Question of the retention of the ‘“ Notification
and Challenge” Procedure adopted by the Copenhagen (1953)
Congress. By R. V. MELVILLE, Assistant Secretary to the Com-
mission Le ate ee Ys As ae :

[Note: The Case No. 81 was left unallotted.]

CASE No. 82

Draft “* Régles ’’, Article 1, Section 3: status of a name
given to a hypothetical form

Document 82/1.—Proposed exclusion from the category of a hypo-
thetical form of a nominal taxon based upon a specimen of a pre-
viously described species which has been altered or otherwise treated
so as to appear to be a new species. By FRANCIS HEMMING,

Secretary to the Commission

COMMENTS ON PREVIOUSLY
PUBLISHED CASES
Comment on Case No. 1
(the Moore/Sylvester-Bradley “ Parataxa ”’ Proposals)
Document 1/69: New Definition of Organ Genera proposed for the

Botanical Code. By P. C. SYLVESTER-
BRADLEY (University of Sheffield)

Comment on Case No. 22
(Secondary Homonyms : question of permanency of rejection of)
Document 22/3: The Status of Secondary Homonyms and the Con-
cept of Permanent Rejection. By PHILIP

HERSHKOVITZ ee Natural History
Museum) 243

Page

1214

1234

1239

1241

1242

(XX XIII)

Comment on Case No. 27
(“ Principle of Conservation ”’)

Document 27/8: Comment on the “ Principle of Conservation ”’. By
CURTIS W. SABROSKY, on behalf of the
Nomenclature Discussion Group, Washington, D.C.

Document 27/9: Objection to the introduction of a “ Principle of
Conservation” into the Régles. By R. V. MEL-
VILLE, Assistant Secretary to the Commission

Comment on Case No. 33
(miscellaneous drafting and other amendments)

Document 33/10: Miscellaneous Comments on the Draft of the Régles.
By L. W. GRENSTED, Consulting Classical
Adviser to the Commission + a a

Document 33/11: Draft Reégles, Article 28, Table 2, Part B. By R. V.
MELVILLE, Assistant Secretary to the Commission

Document 33/12: Draft Regles: proposals on nine miscellaneous
points. By FRANCIS HEMMING, Secretary to
the Commission ee ee f 22 x
CONCLUDING ITEMS
Index to authors of communications included in the Second Section

(Section B) of the Agenda Paper for the Colloquium on Zoological
Nomenclature, London, 1958 ae mn 2 stra aid ae

Corrigenda

Volume 15, Section B : Particulars of dates of publication of the several
Parts on which the present Section (Section B) of Volume 15 of the
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature was published : or a3

Instructions to Binders

Page

1244

1247

1261

1264

1265

1266

VOLUME 15. Double-Part 20/21 18th April, 1958
pp. 621-692

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

Ninth Instaiment of the London Congress Agenda Paper

(continued inside back wrapper)

HASED
24 KPR 1988

LONDON : cuig
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 and Five Shillings

(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 BraptEy (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 Hemaane (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 CaBrera (La Plata, Argentina) (27th July 1948)

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

Dr. Henning Lemons (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 Rizey (British Museum (Natural History), London) (9th June 1950)

Professor Dr. Tadeusz JaczeEwsk1 (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 Hermne (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. Dymonv (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. Voxzs (University of Tulane, Department of Geology, New Orleans, Louisiana,
U.S.A.) (12th August 1953)

Professor Béla Hawx6 (Mezogazdasdgi Muzeum, 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. SytvesTER-BRaDLEy (Sheffield University, Sheffield, England) (12th August 1953)

Dr. L. B. Hoiruvis (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)

Br ny Ferdinand Pranti (Ndrodni Museum v Praze, Prague, Czechoslovakia) (30th October

Professor Dr. William Kiunetr (Zoologisches Institut der Universitét, Vienna, Austria) (6th
November 1954)

Professor F. 8. 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)

* giginee a Esaki died on 14th December 1957, while the present Part was passing through
the Press.

BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

Volume 15, Double-Part 20/21 (pp. 621-692) a 18th April, 1958

CASE No. 27

DRAFT “ REGLES’’, ARTICLE 5, SECTION 3: QUESTION OF

THE NATURE AND SCOPE OF THE PROVISIONS TO BE

INSERTED EMBODYING THE “ PRINCIPLE OF CONSERVATION ”’

ADOPTED IN PRINCIPLE BY THE COPENHAGEN CONGRESS IN
1953

(Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 861)

(For the relevant provisions in the Draft of the Revised Régles
see 1957, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 14 : 43-45)

puRcHAs”’

24 APR i259 DOCUMENT 27/1

Historical Note on the proposal to incorporate in the “ Régles’’ a
provision embodying the “ Principle of Conservation ”’

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

(Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature)

(Note dated 29th January 1958)

The present note is intended to provide a historical background for the
proposal that there should be included in the Revised Régles a provision
designed to provide a semi-automatic mechanism for the protection of long-
established names against attack on grounds of priority from older but long-
neglected or long-overlooked names. This matter will be familiar to those
members of the London Colloquium and the London Congress who took part

PP

622 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

in the discussions at Copenhagen in 1953 but there will be many zoologists
attending the London meetings who were not present at Copenhagen and who
are not fully acquainted with the history of this matter.

2. The present problem was first placed before the Commission in 1948
in connection with the then-forthcoming meeting in Paris of the Thirteenth
International Congress of Zoology. The paper in which this matter was then
raised was submitted by Dr. Henning Lemche (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum,
Copenhagen, Denmark) who then recommended the insertion in the Régles of a
provision recognising a “‘ Law of Prescription”’. This proposal which was
the second of two proposals then submitted by Dr. Lemche was as follows :—

It is proposed that the following new paragraph (paragraph (b)) in
Article 34 of the Rules :-—

Article 34(b)—A name of a genus or species, given before the
year 1850 and not used in scientific literature since January Ist,
1850, is to be rejected in favour of such other name which has been in
general use for the genus or species in question since that date.

Dr. Lemche’s paper, to which was annexed a list of the names and addresses
of a large group of Scandinavian zoologists who supported his plan, was
published in 1950 (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 3 : 158-161).

3. Dr. Lemche’s proposal was debated at length in Paris both by the
International Commission and by the Section on Nomenclature of the Congress.
Ultimately, the Section, in agreement with the Commission, adopted the
following Resolution, which was submitted to, and approved by, the Congress
at its Final Plenary Session :—

THE SECTION agreed :—

(1) to take note (a) of the proposal put forward by Dr. H. Lemche
(Denmark) for the incorporation in the Reégles of a provision
recognising a Law of Prescription which would prohibit the
replacement, on grounds of priority, of well-known names by names
published prior to 1850 where those names had not subsequently
been used in scientific literature and (b) of the similar proposal
submitted by Professor Pierre Bonnet (France) ;

(2) to invite the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to
study the question of how to secure greater stability in zoological
nomenclature and to submit a Report thereon, with recommendations
to the next (Fourteenth) International Congress of Zoology ;

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 623

(3) to recommend that, without prejudice to the recommendations to be
submitted under (2) above, there should at once be inserted at an
appropriate point in the Régles a provision :—

(a) that, where a worker discovers that a well-known name in
common use, particularly a name of importance in medicine,
agriculture, veterinary science or other applied fields of biology,
is invalid under either the Law of Priority or the Law of
Homonymy or, in the case of a generic name, has as its type
species a species other than the species commonly accepted as
such, that worker should at once report the case to the
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature for such
action as the Commission may deem to be proper ;

(b) that in such a case neither the worker by whom the error in
accepted practice is discovered nor any subsequent worker
should change that practice by substituting some other name
for that in common use until such time as the decision on the
future status of the name in question is made known by the
said Commission.

4. In accordance with the Item (2) of the Resolution of the Paris Congress
quoted in the immediately preceding paragraph the question of the adoption
of a Law of Prescription as a means for promoting stability in zoological
nomenclature was discussed with other—but non-competitive—methods
which had been suggested for securing the above end in a paper which, as
Secretary, I prepared in the autumn of 1951 as the basis of an appeal to
specialists for comments and advice on the proposal submitted by Dr. Lemche
and on the associated (but independent) proposals received from other sources.
The paper so prepared was published on 15th March 1952 in Double-Part 5/6 of
Volume 7 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, the volume earmarked
by the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature for the publication
of the first instalment of documents submitted for consideration by the
International Congress of Zoology to be held at Copenhagen in 1953 (Hemming,
1952, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 7 : 148-188). The problem of finding means for the
promotion of greater stability in zoological nomenclature was thereupon
entered on the Copenhagen Agenda Paper as Case No. 1. The appeal issued in
1952 elicited a large number of comments from zoological institutions and
individual zoologists. The documents in question—fifty-eight in number—were
published (as Documents 1/1 to 1/58) on 25th June 1953 in Triple-Part 1/3
(: 1-108) of Volume 8 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, the second of
the three volumes of the Bulletin earmarked by the International Trust for the
publication of the Copenhagen Agenda Paper.

5. Particular attention to the proposal for the recognition of a “ Law of
Prescription ’’ was paid at Copenhagen both by the Colloquium on Zoological

624 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Nomenclature and by the Section on Nomenclature. In addition, a special
Plenary Session of the whole Congress was devoted to the consideration of this
subject. At this Session it was agreed by a majority that it was desirable that
the foregoing “‘ Law ’’—then re-christened the “ Principle of Conservation ”—
should be recognised in the revised text of the Régles “ to a limited extent”. It
was not found possible, however, before the end of the Copenhagen Congress to
reach agreement as to the nature or extent of the “ Principle of Conservation ”’
so to be recognised and the Congress accordingly invited the International
Commission to take this matter into consideration after the close of the Congress.
In view of the importance of these discussions the following extracts from the
Official Record of the Decisions on Zoological Nomenclature taken by the
Copenhagen Congress (1953, Copenhagen Decision on Zoological Nomenclature
are attached as appendices to the present paper for purposes of reference :—

(1) Decisions 27-30 entitled “‘ Recognition of the Principle of Conserva-
tion ”’ (op. cit. : 25-26) (Appendix 1) ;

(2) Four documents containing suggestions as to the possible scope of the
proposed “ Principle of Conservation ”’ submitted to the Copenhagen
Congress and referred by that Congress to the Commission for
consideration (op. cit. : 199-122) (Appendix 2).

6. Since the Copenhagen Congress four documents bearing on the question
of the “ Principle of Conservation ” have been received. These are :—

(a) a paper entitled “‘ Stabilization of Zoological Nomenclature by a ‘ Law
of Prescription’”, by Dr. Philip Hershkovitz (Chicago Natural
History Museum, Chicago, Illinois, U.S.A.), submitted under cover
of a letter dated 10th November 1954 (now placed on the Agenda
Paper as Document 27/2) ;

(b) a paper entitled “‘ Proposal that the ‘ Principle of Conservation ’ fix
intrageneric availability for Validity as well as Validity of Specific
Names”, by Professor Hobart M. Smith (University of Illinois,
Urbana, Illinois, U.S.A.), submitted under cover of a letter dated
13th October 1955 (now placed on the Agenda Paper as Document.
27/3) ;

(c) the proposals embodied by Professor J. Chester Bradley in the Draft
of the English Text of the Revised Régles (reprinted as Document.
27/4) ;

(d) objections to the plan proposed by Professor Chester Bradley and
submission of Revised Proposal: paper received from Dr. Henning
Lemche (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen), submitted
under cover of a letter dated 27th January 1958 (Document 27/5).

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 625
APPENDIX 1 TO DOCUMENT 27/1

The Principle of Conservation : Extract from the Official Record of
the Proceedings of the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology,
Copenhagen, 1953

(Reference : 1953, Copenhagen Decisions zool. Nomencl. : 25-26)

27. Recognition of the Principle of Conservation: After considerable
discussion, the Colloquium agreed, by a majority, to recommend the inclusion
in the forthcoming edition of the Régles of a provision recognising the Principle
of Conservation to a limited extent. The text of the resolution so adopted
(which was based upon a proposal first made by Dr. Henning Lemche) is
reproduced as Document 1 in Appendix 2 to the present Report. On the day
following the adoption of this Resolution an alternative draft intended
substantially to cover the same ground but to present the scheme in a rather
different way was submitted by Dr. Carl L. Hubbs and Mr. W. I. Follett ; this
draft is reproduced as Document 2 in Appendix 2. The circulation of these
documents to the Colloquium led to the submission of two further drafts ;
of these the first was submitted by Mr. N. D. Riley, while the second was a
joint proposal submitted by Mr. Follett, Dr. Ernst Mayr, Mr. R. V. Melville,
and Professor Robert L. Usinger. The text of these proposals is reproduced as
Documents 3 and 4 in Appendix 2. It was unfortunately found impossible to
secure agreement upon any of these drafts.

28. In the course of a general discussion on the question of the means to
be found for promoting stability in zoological nomenclature which took place in
a Plenary Session of the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology held on
the morning of Friday, 7th August, 1953, Dr. Carl L. Hubbs threw out a
suggestion for meeting the difficulty in a new way, namely that no further
attempt should be made to secure agreement on a detailed proposal and that
instead there should be inserted in the Report a paragraph (1) stating that it
was recommended that the Régles should include a provision limiting the
application of the Law of Priority in such a way as to preserve any well-known
name which had been in general use for a considerable period from being sunk
as a junior synonym of some much older name which had not been used more
than a small number of times in a specified recent period of considerable
length, this provision to contain also the best safeguards that could be devised
to prevent the abuse of the proposed provision by unscrupulous persons, and
(2) entrusting to the Commission the duty of preparing a definite provision
on the foregoing lines. It was part of Dr. Hubbs’ proposal that the provision
to be inserted in the Régles on the foregoing subject should be as brief and
concise as the circumstances would permit. Mr. Francis Hemming, Secretary
to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature and Chairman of
the Colloquium, then proposed that advantage should be taken of the large

626 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

attendance at that Plenary Session to obtain a general expression of opinion on
the merits of the suggestion that had been made by Dr. Hubbs. Mr. Hemming
accordingly proposed a motion in the terms set out above. After this proposal
had been seconded by Dr. A. do Amaral, Vice-President of the Commission, and
supported by Dr. Hubbs and Dr. Ernst Mayr, the motion was put to the
Plenary Session by the Chairman (Dr. B. Rensch) and was unanimously
adopted.

29. The question was further considered at a meeting held jointly with
the Section on Nomenclature of the Congress and with the International
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature on Monday 10th August 1953. The
Colloquium then agreed by a majority to recommend, and it now recommends,
the insertion in the Régles of a provision in the sense of the Resolution informally
adopted at the Plenary Session held on Friday, 7th August 1953, as recorded
in the preceding paragraph, the precise wording of this provision to be left
to be determined by the International Commission.

30. The Colloquium further recommends that, whatever may be the
form which the International Commission may adopt for giving effect to the
Principle of Conservation within the field prescribed by the Resolution adopted
by the Plenary Session of the Congress held on Friday 7th August 1953, that
scheme should include provision, by way of a Recommandation or otherwise, for
names which are rejected under the Principle of Conservation to be placed
upon the appropriate Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Names.

APPENDIX 2 TO DOCUMENT 27/1

The Principle of Conservation: Four Draft Proposals submitted to
Colloquium on Zoological Nomenclature, Copenhagen, 1953, and
referred for later consideration

(Reference : 1953, Copenhagen Decisions zool. Nomencl. : 119-122)

ANNEXE 1 OF APPENDIX 2 TO DOCUMENT 27/1

Draft proposed by Dr. Ernst Mayr (American Museum of Natural
History, New York)! as amended in discussion at the afternoon Session
of the Colloquium on 31st July 1953

Where two specific names are available for a given taxonomic unit, the
older of these names shall be the valid one for that unit, unless it is invalid as a
junior homonym or it is rejected under the procedure specified below.

1 Later Dr. Ernst Mayr participated in the submission of an alternative draft. See Annexe 4
of the present Appendix.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 627

Any specific name which has been published for not less than sixty years
and which has been adopted for a given taxonomic unit (a) in at least ten
publications, and (b) by two or more authors, shall be deemed to be worthy
of conservation in the interests of stability. Except as provided below, such a
name is not to be replaced by a senior subjective synonym where the latter has
not been applied to the taxonomic unit concerned during the preceding fifty
years. Where an author considers it desirable that such a change should be
made, he shall, when making that change, cite bibliographical references to two
occasions on which during the prescribed period the senior synonym has been
adopted for the taxonomic unit concerned by at least two separate authors.
Where an author has recorded such a name without adopting it, his action
does not qualify as a usage under the foregoing provisions.

ANNEXE 2 OF APPENDIX 2 TO DOCUMENT 27/1

Alternative draft submitted jointly by Dr. Carl L. Hubbs (Scripps
Institution of Oceanography, La Jolla) and Mr. W. I. Follett
(California Academy of Sciences)?

It is proposed that provision should be made in the Section of the Régles
applying to both genera and species for the application of the Rule of Priority
with the following limitation :—

When two (or more) available names of equal rank are regarded as
based on the same taxonomic unit, the older (or the oldest), if not a junior
homonym, should ordinarily be the valid name. The junior name,
however, will become valid if and when the following conditions are
both fulfilled :-—

(1) Evidence is published, with bibliographical references, that the junior
name is at least sixty years old and has been adopted for that
taxonomic unit by two or more authors (or co-authors) in more
than nine publications; and that the senior name has not been
applied to that taxonomic unit during the past fifty years in any
publication (nomenclators and other purely bibliographic treatises
excepted).

(2) Notice of the publication of such evidence has been presented in
the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature.

2 Later Mr. Follett participated in the submission of an alternative draft. See Annexe 4
of the present Appendix.

628 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

The junior name shall be invalidated if within two years from the
date of publication of that notice, evidence, accompanied by bibliographic
references, has been received by the International Commission that the
senior name was adopted for that taxonomic unit during the stipulated
fifty-year period in at least two publications by different authors. The
junior name may then be revalidated only by the International Commission
using its Plenary Power.

ANNEXE 3 OF APPENDIX 2 TO DOCUMENT 27/1

Alternative draft submitted by Mr. N. D. Riley (British Museum
(Natural History))

When two names are available for a given taxon, the older, unless an
invalid junior homonym, shall prevail, except that a junior synonym that has
been (a) published not less than sixty years and (b) adopted for the given taxon
by two or more separate authors, shall be conserved in the interests of stability,
and is not to be replaced by the senior synonym except under the following
conditions :—

(i) that evidence satisfactory to the Commission is submitted to it, citing
references to at least two works (nomenclators and bibliographic
treatises excepted) which demonstrate that the senior synonym
has been applied to the given taxonomic unit within the last fifty
years ;

(ii) that notification of the receipt of such evidence is published in the
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature ;

(iii) that the Commission, after a lapse of two years from the date of
publication of the notification, rules that such replacement shall
take place.

ANNEXE 4 TO APPENDIX 2 TO DOCUMENT 27/1

Alternative draft submitted jointly by Mr. W. I. Follett (California

Academy of Sciences), Dr. Ernst Mayr (American Museum of Natural

History, New York), Mr. R. V. Melville (Geological Survey and Museum,

London) and Professor Robert L. Usinger (University of California,
Berkeley)

A valid name in general current use should not be displaced by a senior
synonym which has not been in similar use during the past fifty years. The

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 629

mere citation of a name (in synonymy or in recording publications) does not
constitute use of that name in the sense of this Article.

Where an author proposes to displace a junior synonym in general current
use, he must cite bibliographical evidence to show that his intended action
would promote stability and universality of nomenclature; and must give
notice of his proposal in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, when, if
unchallenged before the end of [——] years, the proposed change shall be made.

In groups where the standard works are more than fifty years old,
specialists may apply to the Commission for an extension of the specified period
of fifty years.

630 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

DOCUMENT 27/2

Stabilization of Zoological Nomenclature by a “‘ Law of Prescription ”’

By PHILIP HERSHKOVITZ
(Chicago Natural History Museum, Chicago, Illinois, U.S.A.)

(Enclosure to a letter dated 10th November 1954)

Introduction

The Colloquium on Zoological Nomenclature held in Copenhagen in 1953
recommended that there be inserted into the Régles a provision limiting the
application of the Law of Priority in such a way that selected names for animals
would not be affected. The several suggested Laws of Prescription published
in Appendix 2 of the Copenhagen Decisions on Zoological Nomenclature (1953)
and in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (1954, Bull. zool. Nomencel.
8 (10/11) : 288-282) do not offer, in my opinion, workable solutions.

2. A Law of Prescription incorporated into the Régles should consist of
provisions freely applicable by all zoologists for the resolution of common
problems. Such a law should not be the cause of a nomenclatural upheaval,
however slight, and should not include’ provisions aimed solely at special
problems, or reserved for exclusive use by, or that delegates extraordinary
power to, a special group, exclusive of the body of the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature.

3. Apart from Zoological reasons, the most frequent cause of confusion
and controversy leading to instability in nomenclature is the deplacement
of a name that has been commonly used for a specific animal, by an older name
otherwise unknown since its introduction into the literature. Practically all
such older names were originally published within the first Linnean century,
or from 1758 to 1857, inclusive. In the vast majority of cases these older names
were published in works the technical names of which were not consistently, if
ever, cited by authors before 1858, and not cited since except for the purpose of
replacing a junior synonym or invalidating an identical name of later date.

4. In view of the fact that the science of systematics in zoology is about
to begin a third century since the adoption of the binominal system of

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 631

nomenclature, it is suggested that the present Law of Priority be emended to
incorporate another date, as follows :

Whereas the date 1758 is accepted as the starting-point of zoological
nomenclature and the Law of Priority, it is proposed that the date 1858 be
accepted as the starting point for rejection of all generic and specific names
in any zoological work published prior to 1858 if that name has not been
given currency from 1858 to 1957 according to the provisions of the
following suggested Law of Prescription.

A Suggested Law of Prescription

A generic or specific name published prior to 1858 shall not be
available to zoological nomenclature if the work in which it first appeared
has not been cited in zoological literature between the years 1858 and 1957
inclusive.

(a) For the purpose of this Law, Date of Publication shall be the year
printed on the last number of the work containing the name.

(b) A name introduced prior to 1858 in a volume or number of a serial
publication the last volume or number of which was published in
1858 or later, shall be regarded as available.

(c) A name introduced prior to 1858 and known only from the original
publication, but cited together with the original bibliographic
reference in a standard work published between the years 1858 and
1957, inclusive, shall be available.

(d) A name shall be deemed unavailable if introduced prior to 1858 and
not cited together with its original bibliographic reference between the
years 1858 and 1957 except as a nomen inquirendum or nomen dubium.

5. The proposed Law is designed for the rejection of names in any List,
Sales Catalog, Text Book, System, Narrative and other accounts with
descriptions of animals, that may have been published in the first Linnaean
century but which has been overlooked by systematists during the course of the
second Linnaean century. None of the provisions of the proposed Law trespass
into the zoological domain. None of the provisions apply to names in current
use, and no name already disposed of by application of the Law of Priority can
be revived by reason of this proposed Law. Safeguards are provided for names,
irrespective of dates, that appear in works regularly consulted by systematists.
Use of the year for unit of time as provided in (a) of the proposed Law eliminates
troublesome discussions over precise day or month of publication and actual
date of issue.

632 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

6. The above propositions may be summarized as follows: Any generie
or specific name published in the first Linnaean century (1758-1857) not cited
or otherwise carried along in the literature of the second Linnaean century
(1858-1957) is not available to zoological nomenclature after 1957.

¥ aay

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 633

DOCUMENT 27/3

Proposal that the “Principle of Prescription’’ fix Intrageneric
Availability for Validity as well as Validity of Specific Names

By HOBART M. SMITH
(University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois, U.S.A.)

(Enclosure to a letter dated 13th October 1955)

Inflexible application of the Law of Priority may possibly lead to confusion
in a number of taxonomic situations. It nowhere leads more certainly to
confusion than in preservation of validity of specific names, through seniority,
as they may be shifted from one intrageneric entity to another. Assurance
should be provided by the International Rules of Zoological Nomenclature that
confusion from such sources be reduced to a minimum.

Cases

Three examples of recent occurrence in herpetology in North America
are pertinent to this discussion.

(1) The name Thamnophis sirtalis (Linné) 1758 was, between 1913 and
1948, associated in virtually all literature with the Common Garter
Snake, and the name Thamnophis sauritus (Linné) 1766 with the
Ribbon Garter Snake. In 1948 the name sirtalis was found actually
to have been based upon an example of the Ribbon Snake ; by the
Law of Priority the Ribbon Garter Snake acquired the valid name of
T.. sirtalis, whereas the Common Garter Snake took the next available
name of 7’. ordinatus (Linné) 1766. Subsequently complete confusion
reigned, as the intention of any author using the name 7’. sirtalis
was often uncertain. The situation was further confounded when a
request for preservation of the status quo (as of the era 1913-1948)
was introduced. Even up to the present time no uniformity of
procedure exists, and only the action of the Commission is likely
to achieve unity.

634 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

The species here concerned are common, and despite the lack
of any great significance in experimental fields are of sufficient
familiarity to scientists in general that their scientific names should
have been preserved intact despite the inaccuracy of association.

(2) The name Thamnophis eques (Reuss) 1834 was, between 1907 and 1950,
applied to the Checkered Garter Snake. In 1950 that name
was discovered to apply to the Mexican Garter Snake, :
previously known as Thamnophis macrostemma Kennicott, 1860.
With the Thamnophis sirtalis-sauritus fiasco in mind, due considera-
tion was given to the propriety of requesting preservation of the status
quo through plenary action of the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature. However, it was considered that these
species are not common and that their names did not merit special
appeal to the Commission for preservation. Accordingly the switch
was made, and even though no appeal has been made to block
the switch, the confusion is such that every usage of the name eques
must be accompanied by an explanation that it is in the post-1950
sense, not the pre-1950 sense. Clear discussion pertaining to either
species involved is greatly hampered by the uncertainty of meaning
the name eques now inevitably carries. If such confusion can centre
about a switch involving two species as relatively obscure as these,
then almost any switch, after a certain period of stability and
uniformity of nomenclature, would be an equally undesirable
source of confusion.

(3) A much happier case is provided by Heterodon simus (Linné) 1766,
applied without variation since 1900 to the Southern Hognose
Snake. In 1953 it was found that this name actually is based upon
the Common Hognose Snake (currently known as Heterodon
platyrhinos Latreille, 1802) but in order to preserve the status quo
despite the relative obscurity of the species an immediate appeal
was made to the International Commission for preservation of the
name simus in its present sense. Although as yet no final decision
has been made, only assenting voices have been heard, and eventual
fixation of simus with the Southern Hognose Snake seems assured.

These examples, which could be multiplied many times, suffice to reveal
the gravity of shift of valid name, after a period of uniformity of application,
from one species to another in a single genus. No option should be allowed.

Definition of Stability

Determination of what constitutes an adequate period of stability, and
of what constitutes stability itself, is of course the chief hurdle in the path of

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 635

enactment of such a rule. The above cases would have been blanketed by a
35-year requirement, but other equally valid cases might arise after but 15
years of stability, or even less. Stability, and length of time required for
demonstration of stability, require a certain frequency of use of the given name.
The less frequently a name is used, the less quickly can its use be said to be
stable. Perhaps the number of consecutive uses by different authors offers
an approach for definition of both variables. A possibly acceptable criterion
is agreement upon a given name either (a) by a minimum percentage (say
85 per cent.) minimum number (say 8) of authors last using the name, or (b) by
a minimum percentage (say 85 per cent.) of the authors publishing the name
over the 50 years period prior to the time of discovery of the error of application.
Dubious cases could and should be referred to the Commission.

Mode of Enactment

The ‘‘ Law of Prescription’ currently under consideration can be so
phrased as to embrace the present proposal, and consideration of that
possibility is hereby requested. None of the four drafts published (1953
Copenhagen Decisions zool. Nomencl. : 119-122) have provided for fixation of
availability, however ; their concern is with fixation of validity.

In this connection, stability of nomenclature may be viewed from two
different points: (a) fixation of valid names with given taxa, thereby estab-
lishing that never can any one taxon be referred to by more than one valid
name ; and (b) limitation of availability for validity of given names for given
taxa, thereby establishing that a specific (or subspecific) name usually associated
with (valid for) one taxon cannot be transferred as a valid name (it could as
an invalid name) for another taxon in the same genus. In the latter situation,
valid names of given taxa may be changed, but the usually accepted valid name
of one taxon could not at any time immediately become the valid name of
another taxon in the same genus.

The value of separate consideration for the second view under the general
Law of Prescription is that a change of name in any one species actually is
seldom confusing or important to avoid, whereas a shift of a single name from
one species or subspecies to another in the same genus is always confusing.
With this difference in mind, it is evident that fixation of availability for
valid names may and should be practised at a lower level (within lesser time
limits) than is practical for fixation of validity for names. Conceivably a
vast literature could grow about a name within a few years (as witness Xenopus
laevis 1945-1950 when the species suddenly became popular for pregnancy
tests), and thus could merit the assurance at least that that name would be
applied to no other species, even though some other name might conceivably
be applied to the same species. Fixation of validity of a name should, as
has been generally understood, require constancy of usage over a certain

636 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

designated period of time (say 50 years), although an objective criterion of
constancy (as for example use by a given percentage, say 85 per cent., of
authors publishing on the species over the specified time period) should be added.

Summary

It is recommended that Draft No. 4* of the “ Principle of Conservation ”’
(1953 Copenhagen Decisions zool. Nomencl.: 122) be revised as follows
(proposed changes in italics) :—

Fixation of valid names: a currently valid name in general use (i.e.,
by — per cent. of the authors publishing on the species) for fifty years
should not be displaced by another name. .

Fixation of available names: no valid name in general current use (i.e.,
by — per cent. of the — authors most recently publishing on the species)
is to be regarded available as the valid name for another species in the
same genus.

Provisions. The mere citation of a name (in synonymy or in recording
publications) does not constitute use of that name in the sense of this
article.

Where an author proposes to displace a junior synonym in general
current use, he must cite bibliographical evidence to show that his
intended action would promote stability and universality of nomen-
clature; and must give notice of his proposal in the Bulletin of
Zoological Nomenclature, when, if unchallenged before the end of ——
years, the proposed change shall be made.

In groups where the standard works are less than fifty years old, specialists
may apply to the Commission for a reduction of the specified period of
50 years.

*The Document here referred to appeared under this number in Appendix 2 in the work
Copenhagen Decisions on Zoological Nomenclature. It has been reprinted as Annexe 4 to Appendix
2, to Document 27/1 (see page 628 of the present Volume).

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 637

DOCUMENT 27/4

Professor J. Chester Bradley’s proposals relating to the “ Principle of
Conservation ”’ incorporated in Article 5, Section 3 of the Draft of the
English Text of the Revised “‘ Régles ”’

(Reference : 1957, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 14 : 43-45)

Section 3. The Principle of Conservation. If a name for a taxon that
is not an invalid homonym is in general current use and has been available for
fifty years or more,* it shall not be replaced on nomenclatural grounds} by
a senior synonym, unless the latter has been widely used during some part of
the fifty years preceding its proposed substitution.

Citation of a reference, as in a recording publication, without adoption
of the name, shall be disregarded for the purpose of this Rule.

(i) Procedure. A zoologist wishing to reject permanently such a senior
synonym shall send his proposal to the Bulletin for publication
along with all pertinent bibliographical data that it is feasible to
assemble and publish. If within a period of two years after publica-
tion no protests have been received, the case shall be deemed closed,
and the names concerned shall be published on the appropriate
Official Lists. If protest is received within the two-year period,
decision shall be made by the Commission. Pending completion of
the two-year period, or decision by the Commission, the existing
usage shall be maintained.

Explanation : It is realized that interpretation of “general current use” and “ widely
used ” must necessarily be subjective. It is also recognized that complete search of the literature
for the fifty-year period would usually be impracticable.

(Discussion : Conservation. The Congress directed the Commission to phrase this section
within the framework erected by paragraph 28 page 25 of the Copenhagen Report. Accordingly
I propose the wording that I have included in my draft of the Code as a basis for consideration
by the Commission. I have endeavoured to cover all points included in the several drafts.
The only feasible method seems to be to state the mandatory Rule in general terms, then to give
practical directions as to what is to be done if a case arises. Following this the ‘“‘ Explanation ”
frankly recognizes the necessarily subjective nature of deciding what cases should come under
the provision of this section, and the impracticability of completely searching literature in con-
nection with every case. But the criteria which the zoologist should apply are stated in the

*Counted up to the time when suppression of the name comes under consideration. (Compiler.)

{Such a name could be replaced on taxonomic grounds by anyone who does not recognize
the taxonomic validity of the taxon. (Compiler.)

QQ

638 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

first Recommendation, rather than in a mandatory Rule, because in the infinite details of cases
that will arise, they must be flexible. If the judgment of other specialists concurs with that of
the proposer, conservation becomes automatic, if not the Commission must decide, in the
interests of continuity, without being bound by statistics of usage, though they should take
note of them so far as available.)

“ Recommendation’’ 1. Criteria of usage.—A zoologist in proposing the suppression of a
senior synonym under this section, should in general be guided by the following criteria: (a)
that the name to be conserved has been in use for a period of fifty or more years
preceding his proposal; (b) that the name is of sufficient importance to have
appeared ten or more times in literature, exclusive of bibliographical references ; (c) that the
senior synonym that it is proposed to suppress has not been used during the preceding fifty-year
period in more than a minor percentage of cases.

C.p. 25, par. 27-29, and p. 119-122

“*Recommendation ’’ 2. Changes in well-known names to be reported.— When a taxonomist
finds that the well-known and commonly used name of a taxon is invalid, he should at once
report the case to the Commission for such action as it may deem proper. This Recommendation
applies especially to names of importance in applied biology.

B.4 : 234, par. 4 (3a)

“Recommendation” 3. Misinterpretation of generic names.—The preceding
Recommendation applies also in case a taxonomist finds that the type-species of a nominal genus
is one not commonly referred to the taxonomic genus to which the name is cutomarily applied,
or to a segregate thereof.

B.4 : 234, par. 4 (3a)

“Recommendation ’? 4. Conservation of names.—In cases to which the preceding
Recommendations apply no one should substitute another name for the one in common use
until the Commission has decided upon the future status of the name in question.

C.p. 26, par. 30

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 639

DOCUMENT 27/5

The Principle of Conservation : Objections to Professor Bradley’s
Draft and Submission of a Revised Proposal

By HENNING LEMCHE
(Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen)

(Enclosure to a letter dated 27th January 1958)

As one of the parents of the Principle of Conservation now to be formulated
in the Revised Régles, I am very sorry to feel forced to object strongly to the
present draft which, in spite of all efforts behind the final formulation, fails to
cover the essentials of the idea as accepted in 1953 by the Copenhagen Congress.

2. A short historical survey is necessary for a clear understanding of the
case. Speaking for 63 Scandinavian zoologists (8 others did not cast any vote
or objected to my proposals) I presented to the Section on Nomenclature of the
Congress in Paris in 1948 a proposal aiming at preventing unnecessary name-
changing. The said proposal ran as follows :—

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

3. The proposal, however, did not reach the Secretary in sufficient time
to be put officially on the Agenda of the Section on Nomenclature in 1948, but
this was done for the next Congress in 1953, where the proposal was much
discussed by the Colloquium prior to the Congress. Finally, it was adopted in
principle by the Colloquium, although agreement could not be reached on its
final wording. This was the reason why several other drafts were produced by
participating zoologists, and these drafts have all been published in the
Copenhagen Decisions with the only exception that my original draft for some
unknown reason was left totally out. In the end, the draft delivered by
Dr. Mayr was accepted by the Colloquium and, as it was the only one containing
the general principle from my original proposal, I could accept and second it.

640 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

In the following Section on Nomenclature, this proposal was accepted by a
very high majority of the large audience that had arrived in order to vote on
this particular case.

4. Turning now to the merits of the present wording in the Bradley draft,
the statements in Article 5, Section 3 Principle of Conservation (: 43, line 18)
are adequate but rather diffuse. But the following paragraph (i) Procedure
(: 44, line 1) turns the whole idea upside down. Here a procedure is prescribed
by which it should become possible to retain a name in common use. But, if
there should be any prescribed procedure, it should advise how to preserve
the seniority of the neglected name in the very improbable case that it should be
wanted.

5. Name-changing at present is so very easy because everybody can
introduce an overlooked name simply by mentioning it in a paper. Then, the
shift is made legal and obligatory to others, unless someone takes the burden
to provide evidence that the change is a nuisance. All the burden of labour
is placed on the shoulders of those who do not want to go into nomenclatorial
. subleties but only wish to remain undisturbed with their common usage. This
situation is most unfortunate, but the only way out is to make it difficult to
change and easy to continue usual practice. We must impose on the name-
changers every possible duty to show their actions to be necessary, whereas
those adhering to common usage should be given all the advantages. This
view is what was aimed at by formulating my first proposal, and Prof. Mayr’s
accepted draft contains the same viewpoint.

6. However, the Bradley draft of the Revised Régles is definitely contrary
to the proposal accepted in 1953 whereas it conforms to the never accepted
ideas presented in the several rejected drafts from other members of the
Commission who, with their very best intentions, tried to assist in making the
new proposal useful.

7. I have now made an attempt to re-formulate the whole Section 3,
guided by the lay-out of the Bradley draft but covering the meaning of the
accepted Mayr proposal. Before citing its wording, I should like to make a
few comments.

8. It is important to note that, under the Principle of Conservation, an
extensive search through the literature is never needed for retaining a name.
But as soon as a change is intended, there is a burden of labour.

9. I have met with only one type of real objection to these ideas, viz. from
scientists feeling it as their duty to use in their papers only names which they

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 641

feel are the final ones. These highly esteemed zoologists make an extremely
valuable work, but I think that their opposition to the Principle of Conservation
cannot be maintained. They cannot provide us with any guarantee that their
names are really the oldest ones. The failure of the Principle of Priority, as
strictly applied, to provide us with a stable set of names during the past 60
years or more is ample proof that their good intentions are not practicable,
which is exactly the reason why the Principle of Conservation has been
proposed.

10. The differences of action between the two sets of provisions are :

(a) In the existing Régles authors had to search all possible literature
for securing that they had found the very oldest name for each taxon—
and they could never be sure that they had not overlooked a still older one.

(b) In the Draft Régles authors in general shall make no such search,
because the generally accepted name shall stand. In a very few cases
where it is uncertain whether or not there is an “established usage ”
contrasting a priority-claim from a senior name, authors wanting to be
sure of the nomenclatorial status of their names will have to search their
literature for the last fifty years to ensure that a certain name has—or
has not—been used a sufficient number of times. As soon as the minimum
number has been reached, further search is superfluous.

11. Should it be objected that the older literature is easier to go through
than the newer one will be, I should like to ask why, then, strict priority has
failed to produce stable names during the past sixty years during which the old
Rules were operating ? If, under the new provisions, some little known name
should be rejected because of the priority of a senior name, and it appeared
later that the junior name had been cited not 9, but 10 times in the period in
question, this case would be a matter of no importance. Either, the case
would in the meantime have grown too old for a change, or the change would
set in at a later date than else. Such events could not happen to any important
or more commonly used generic or specific name, and it is exactly the well-
known ones which it is important to protect—and it is exactly these same names
that have the better chance of possessing earlier and forgotten synonyms.

Draft Proposal for Article 5, Section 3
SECTION 3. THE PRINCIPLE OF CONSERVATION.

Whenever after [here insert date on which the Revised Text of the Régles
comes into force] a well established name (or a spelling not subject to automatic
correction) is found to be a junior synonym (incorrect spelling) of some older
available name (correct spelling), it shall be the duty of the author discovering
this synonymy, if changing to the older name (spelling) in some publication, to

642 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

cite also at least two different papers—written by different authors and published
less than 50 years before the change is publicly introduced—in which the
senior name (spelling) has been accepted as the valid name of the said taxon.
If he cannot produce such two references, he shall be in no right to change, and
his action, if he attempts, shall be invalid and without prejudice, the junior
synonym (spelling) to be retained in common use. Citations in synonymies or
works of reference do not qualify.

Recommendation 1 : Criterion of usage.

The term “‘ well established ” as applied in this section is recommended to
be taken to mean a name used for a taxon which is not so rarely mentioned
that the junior synonym has been used less than ten times within the 50-years
period as above explained.

Recommendation 2: Action recommended to authors
Authors detecting long-neglected senior synonyms coming under the

present Rule should at once report their find to the Commission in order to have
the case finally settled under the Plenary Powers.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 643

CASE No. 28

DRAFT “ REGLES ”: VARIOUS PROVISIONS RELATING TO THE
FORMATION AND ORTHOGRAPHY OF ZOOLOGICAL NAMES

(Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.)1299)

DOCUMENT 28/1

Note on the form of Professor Pierre Bonnet’s paper on the homogeneity
and correction of zoological names and the procedure proposed to be
adopted at the London Meetings for dealing with the issues so raised

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

(Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature)

(Note dated 7th January 1958)

The purpose of the present note is to explain the procedure proposed to
be adopted at the London Meetings next July for dealing with the issues
raised by Professor Pierre Bonnet in regard to formation and orthography
of zoological names in the paper printed below which has been placed on the
London Agenda Paper as Document 28/2.

2. Professor Bonnet’s paper is in the form of a general survey of the
theoretical and practical issues which arise in connection with the formation
and orthography of names for use in zoological nomenclature. These issues
are discussed by Professor Bonnet in the light of the provisions in regard
thereto which figured in the Régles in the period up to 1948. No account
has therefore been paid by Professor Bonnet to the decisions bearing on the
foregoing matters taken by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology
at Paris in 1948 and by the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology at

644 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Copenhagen in 1953. Professor Bonnet has informed me that he adopted
this approach because he was of the opinion that it provided a better oppor-
tunity for the orderly presentation of the issues involved than would have
been possible if he had entered into a detailed examination of the decisions in
this field taken by the Congresses of 1948 and 1953. It will be seen from
Professor Bonnet’s paper that in respect of certain matters the course of
action which he advocates has already been adopted by one or other of the
above Congresses but that in a greater number of cases Professor Bonnet is
not in agreement with the decisions taken by those Congresses.

3. In so far as Professor Bonnet’s proposals are in line with decisions
taken in Paris or at Copenhagen, the required provisions have been inserted
in the draft of the English text of the Régles (Bull. zool. Nomencl., vol. 14,
Parts 1-9) which will be considered by the London Meetings and accordingly
no special procedural arrangements are called for in connection with the
consideration of the questions so concerned. In so far however as Professor
Bonnet advocates solutions different from those adopted by the Paris and
Copenhagen Congresses, those solutions are at variance with the provisions
in the Draft of the Régles which will be considered by the London Congress.
In order to meet this difficulty, the attention of the Colloquium and the
Congress will be drawn to those passages in the Draft Régles which are con-
cerned with matters on which in his paper Professor Bonnet has advanced
alternative proposals.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 645

DOCUMENT 28/2

Homogeneity and correction of scientific terms in zoological
nomenclature

(translation from the French prepared at the author’s
request in the Office of the International Trust for Zoological
Nomenclature)

By PIERRE BONNET

(Université de Toulouse, France)

(Enclosure to a letter dated 30th November 1957)

I. Polymorphism of scientific terms

No systematist working on a group of animals over a long period, some-
times for a whole life-time, can fail to observe that a great number of generic
and specific names used have been and are differently spelled by his pre-
decessors in the field, and by his contemporaries respectively. This poly-
morphism in the names used becomes almost intolerable for the systematist
who has to ask each time which spelling is the correct one, or which spelling
to prefer, and has to decide for himself in each separate case.

2. Once the correct spelling has been established, there will be many
workers who will follow it, even if told that it would have been preferable to
use the rejected spelling ; many others, however, are open to a modification
of their viewpoint, and not knowing how to make up their minds finally and
which spelling to use, revert to the alternate usage of one spelling or the other.
Hence the necessity of making clear to such workers which one is the correct
way of spelling a name, the official spelling, as it were, to which they should
conform thereafter.

3. On the other hand I think it is evident that once an author has made
his choice as to the spelling of a word, he should conserve that spelling for all
the derivatives of the same word. E.g.: if he uses the spelling silvae for the

646 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

name for one species, then one ought to use the spelling silvae for all the species
sonamed. One should even adopt this spelling for all the other names deriving
from it like silvarum, silvestris, silvaticus, silvarus, silvicola, and consequently
reject all sylvae, sylvarum, sylvestris, sylvaticus, sylvarus, sylvicola. It would
be abnormal for an author giving a list of species to write as follows ; for
instance: Drassodes silvestris, Amaurobius sylvanus, LErigone silvatica,
Cryphoeca sylvicola. Nevertheless, this is exactly what Roewer did in his
“ Katalog der Araneae ’’—as we shall see later on.

4. It is necessary therefore for the authors to have very definite views as
regards the spelling that they adopt and which they have constantly to use.
It is evident that all workers working in the same field—and one can say all
zoologists—ought to use the same spelling ; it is not admissible, for instance,

€f 2 39

that I should always use an “i” in spelling such words as silvarum, and

ce ”
.

silvestris whilst my colleague J. Denis should constantly use a “y

5. Nevertheless, that is what has happened so far and goes on happening
—unfortunately. One cannot glance through the pages of a zoological journal
carrying papers on systematic zoology using a number of generic and specific
names without coming across these anomalies : the same name spelled in two
different ways, sometimes in the same paper.

6. When one has carried out such a formidable task as I have done,
that is to list all names of the Araneida published from 1758 up to 1939,
transcribing thus between three and four million names, one can claim, I
think, to know what one is talking about, one can even consider oneself to be
better qualified than most others to deal with the matter, and to give advice
as to how to achieve the accuracy and uniformity of zoological terms that is
so desirable for all concerned.

7. If other zoologists have made equally extensive studies on other groups,
they also could not fail to have observed, as I have done, the prodigious
diversity which exists in spelling various names ; they must have come to the
conclusion, like myself, that this polymorphism in spelling scientific terms
ought to be brought to an end, and that henceforward a given name should
be spelled in the same way everywhere, every time and at all times, irres-
pective of the person using it.

II. Original spelling
8. The polymorphism of certain scientific terms arises from the fact that

in Latin there are words which can be spelled in two different ways (e.g.
silvestris and sylvestris, sulfureus and sulphureus) and that latinised terms at

en inert alata h

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 647

the time of their creation were misspelled, the emendation having been intro-
duced at a later date, (e.g. Theridion and Theridium). The Original Spelling

Zoologique : “ Original spelling of a name must be conserved .. .” but
fortunately the Article then adds : “ unless it is evident that the name contains
a mistake in transcription, a spelling or printing mistake.” Certain authors
make a virtue of conserving the original spellings, no doubt having in mind
the first part of Article 19, and pretending to ignore the second half of same.

9. I would take this opportunity of criticising Roewer’s “ Katalog der
Araneae ” in which this author so much revealed his preference for conserving
the original spelling. Here are a few examples :

(i) Centromerus silvicola (I : 530) Lophomma sylvaticum (1 : 714)

Cryphoeca silvicola (2 : 61) Centromerus sylvaticus 6 B38)
Aranea sylvicola (1 : 792) Corinna silvatica (1 : 600)
Aranea silvicultrix (1 : 792) Thiodina sylvana (2 : 97 8)

Haplodrassus sylvestris (2:401) Izxeuticus silvanus (2 : 1369)

(ii) Lathys cambridgii (2 : 1327) Aranoethra cambridgii (1 : 895)
Conothele cambridget (1 : 146) Pseudidiops cambridgei (1 : 156)

(iii) Alopecosa simonis (2 : 220) Myrmarachne simonis (2 : 941)
Arachnura simoni (din foe) Leptodrassus simoni (2 : 405)
Comaroma simonii (1 : 604) Heriaeus simonii (2 : 866)

(iv) Myrmecium Latreille (2 : 633)

Megamyrmaekion Wider (2 : 425)
Paramyrmecion Bryant (2 : 428)

(v) Chetracanthium (2 : 476) ; Ozyptila (2 : 874) ; Synema (2 : 885)
(vi) Pellenes belligerus (2 : 1129) ; Thianioides spinimanu (2 : 1148)

(vii) Hippasa simoni Thor (2 : 312) whilst Thorell spelt simonis
Clubiona norwegica Str. (2 : 497) whilst Strand wrote norvegica
Psalmopoeus cambridgei Poe (1 : 256) whilst Pocock wrote cambridgit
Prostheclina cambridgei Pkh. (2: 1100) whilst Peckham wrote
cambridgii
Sparassus cambridgii Sim. (2 : 674) whilst Simon wrote cambridge
Xysticus cambridgii Bl. (2 : 898) whilst Blackwall spelt it cambridgei

648 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

10. As regards silvicola and sylvicola etc. some spell the word with an
“i” some others with a “‘ y ’, both these being Original Spellings and correct
ones too, thus neither form is a misspelling and yet who would not be disturbed
by seeing the word spelled both in this way and in that way at the same time ?
Even though it may satisfy our feeling that the Original Spelling should be
observed when correct, then it should always be so. But authors using such
terms as a rule no longer remember whether the original spelling had an “i” or
a ‘“‘y’’, and, often not being in a position to look up the original source (or
not even thinking of doing so) spell the word on “the spur of the moment ”
as it were. That is why out of the 175 times that the name Cryphoeca silvicola
has been cited, it was spelled 120 times with an “i” and 55 times with a “y”’.
(It is true that the original is spelled szlvicola.) Out of 141 Centromerus
silvaticus usages, there are 94 with “i” and 47 with “‘ y ” (and yet the Original
Spelling was sylvatica).

11. With regard to cambridgii and cambridgi on the one part, and simonis
and simonii on the other part, it is incongruous to adhere to these spellings
which are contrary to rules. Article 14 of the Régles which provides that :
“the genitive of a name based upon a modern patronymic is formed by the
addition of an ‘“‘i”’ to the exact and complete patronymic name ...”. Thus
it follows that both, in the case of Cambridge and in that of Simon, the correct
spelling is cambridgeit and simoni; any other spelling such as cambridgit,
cambridgi, simonit, simonis is erroneous ; and to continue to use such a spelling
would be tantamount to revolting against the Régles.

12. The spellings Myrmecium, Megamyrmaekion, Paramyrmecion seem
to me a real monstrosity. It is admissible for two different authors to spell
these names differently, but I am really surprised that one and the same
author should spell the name Myrmecium, when combined with prefixes, in
not less than three different ways. I think that he would even have used
Pseudomyrmession or Promirmecium, had someone have thought of establishing
such names.

13. As regards Cheiracanthium (1839), Ozyptila (1864) and Synema (1864)
which were all misspelled originally, these names were soon amended to
Chiracanthium (1848), Oxyptila (1869) and Synaema (1869) and have been
frequently used in their corrected forms. I find it hard to understand that
the erroneous Original Spellings should now have been resuscitated on account
of their having been thus spelt at the time of their establishment. The
resuscitation of a mistake that has already been corrected seems to me rather
odd—to put it mildly.

14. But what really is beyond my understanding is the usage of improper
grammatical concordances like Pellenes belligerus (for P. belliger) or Thionioides

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 649

spinimanu (for T'. spinimana). If it has to come to names like these, it is
better to declare forthwith that zoological nomenclature is no longer in Latin
. . . and we might as well stop formulating rules, since the conservation of
the original erroneous spelling is absolutely contrary to established rulings.

15. As a matter of fact Roewer shows himself how wrong the conservation
of the original spelling can become, resulting in loss of clarity regarding the
terms which are spelled sometimes in one way and at other times the other
way, the scientific worker being in danger ultimately of falling into serious
confusion. Roewer ended up in such a confusion, as can be seen from the six
instances quoted from his Catalogue (and, no doubt, many others could be
quoted). I for my part herewith declare that in this instance the conservation
of the original spelling is not admissible—although it may be correct in certain
cases—since in the end one simply does not know in which spelling to put one’s
trust.

16. Finally, when acting according to a principle, like the principle of
conserving in a catalogue the exact original spelling of the established names,
one has to ensure that this spelling is reproduced very exactly in conformity
with the original one. As Roewer conserved, the endings of patronymic
specific names as originally spelled (like simoni, simoniz, simonis) he should
at the same time have conserved the initial capitals of the original spellings
and should thus have used: Simoni, Simonii, Simonis. Whilst writing all
these names—according to present rulings—with a small initial letter—and
right he is too—I object to the observance of one rule and the rejection of
others.

III. Uniformity and Emendation of names

17. This criticism of the spellings used by Roewer—especially in a recent
work—illustrates the complete anarchy reigning in the spelling of millions of
names in systematic taxonomy ; hence the necessity of striving to achieve the
uniformity and correct spelling so much to be desired from every point of view.
Uniformity and correct spelling will only be achieved through rules which are
to be applied by everybody. I propose to formulate these rules later on in
the present paper. It is most important to put these rules at the disposal of
those who are in need of them. I propose also to criticise, up to a certain
point, the procedure under which the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature is required to consider separately each case, and to validate
through the vote of Commissioners such and such a name. Nothing is wrong
with this obviously, but I think that this method will not be conducive to
achieving the result desired. In fact, this method brings with it the necessity
of publishing an enormous amount of material. On the other hand a small
book of about a hundred pages, containing the rules of zoological nomenclature
which actually could be published in various langugages would enable thousands

650 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

of zoologists in all parts of the world, to have at their disposal a book at a
moderate price, with the help of which they could conveniently name an
animal—and spell its name correctly. I believe that with these rules, even
naturalists not having any Greek or Latin, could easily acquire the minimum
rudiments required to be able to name an animal and to spell names correctly.

IV. Exceptions

18. There are, in fact, terms which could not possibly be made to conform
strictly with a rule. And it is in the cases of names of this kind which were
originally misspelled and have been used in the misspelled form ever since
that the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature should intervene
in case an over-conscious zoologist wishes to apply to them such and such a rule.

19. I have had several times the opportunity to quote certain of these
cases. I would for instance mention the specific names dedicated to Linnaeus
and Fabricius which, correctly should be spelled linnei and fabriciusi, it is,
however, convenient to conserve in these cases the original spelling : linnaet
and fabricii, always used in this form. These spellings were indeed correct in
the times of these authors; the name of Linne having been latinised into
Linnaeus and that of Fabricius having been considered a Latin name like that
of Virgilius.

20. Specific names formed after modern patronymics ending with the
letter ‘‘a’’, like Racovitza, Fea, Rosca should read racovitzai, feai, roscat.
But in former times it was considered necessary to use the genitive of the
patronymic name according to the Latin genitive e.g. podae for Poda like
Cinna, Cinnae. Here also it is advisable to continue with the spelling podae
instead of podai as required by present ruling. Yet another case : The generic
name Argyroneta established by Latreille in 1804 is always in like form and has
been so used in thousands of cases ; yet the name was misspelled according to
its etymology, and it should be Argyronecta. It is, however, obvious that after
150 years of usage the originally misspelled name cannot now be emended into
the correct form. In all these cases where originally misspelled names have,
through long usage, acquired the right to be always used in their original
erroneous form, the Commission on Zoological Nomenclature should pronounce
in order to validate the original form however erroneous it may be, according
to the present rules of nomenclature.

V. Essential Rules concerning the homogeneity and emendation
of scientific names

21. It is therefore important to establish a correct and stable nomenclature
permitting names to be spelled everywhere and at all times in the same manner.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 651

For this the only thing needed is the application of certain rules, the majority
of which are already in existence today, but which to state precisely and to
extend is only right and proper.

(a) Application of Article 3

22. ‘‘ Scientific animal names are Latin or latinised names or treated as
such in case they are not of classical origin.” It is obvious, that when formu-
lating this Article, our predecessors in zoological nomenclature wanted to make
clear that the behaviour of these latinised names should conform to that of
Latin names that is, that they should be formed and should have a concordance
like the Latin names themselves. For this, it is not necessary—as some people
seem to think—to be a Latin scholar or to have studied Latin for many years.
For my part I am of the opinion that, if systematists were to have at their
disposal a small guide setting out the rules of Latin grammatical concordance
—the desired result would be obtained in a very short time.

(b) Application of Article 19

23. “The Original spelling of a name must be conserved unless it is
evident that the name contains a mistake in transcription, or a spelling or
printing mistake.” It is thus necessary to emend all names formed after
Greek words, the transliteration of certain letters of which is inaccurate.

Thus:
Cheiracanthium should be emended to Chiracanthium

Synema ‘lia » 5 Synaema
Ozyptila bed 2? 9 3” Oxyptila
Theridion+ ~ r ~ », Theridium.

24. Especially when emended names have been in usage for a long time,
there can be no question of applying a rule relating to exceptions, for the purpose
of validating an erroneous original spelling.

25. Since Article 19 appears to be in course of being reconsidered at the
present time, I take the liberty of making some comments on the subject.
I would, for instance, mention that Article 19 seems to me to have been formu-

1 The question whether in this case the Original Spelling Theridion should be retained or
whether in its place the emendation Theridium should be accepted has recently been under
consideration by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. The action to be
taken in this case was the subject of an elaborate canvass of opinion among interested specialists.
This showed a large majority in favour of the retention of the Original Spelling Theridion. In
this case therefore the International Commission rejected the application submitted that it should
use its Plenary Powers to validate the emendation Theridium. The decision so taken has since
been embodied in Opinion 517. This Opinion, which will be published as Part 3 of Volume 19
of the Opinions and Declarations Series, is now in the press and is expected to be published at an
early date. (Intl’d) F.H. 17th March 1958.

652 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

lated with common sense, since it means that a name given by an author
must be respected but that this is subject to the condition that it is spelled
correctly ; in case it is misspelled it should be emended. The nomenclaturists
of 1892 saw and understood the danger of misspelled scientific names, indeed.

26. In spite of the clear wording of this Article which leaves no doubt
about its interpretation, there are naturalists who accept the principle of the
original spelling whatever this may be, that is, even if it was originally
misspelled. As has been pointed out above with regard to the “ Katalog ” of
Roewer, so to do is vicious, even harmful, since it leads to a dreadful confusion :
no one knowing which spelling is the correct spelling of a scientific name.

27. I warn both zoologists and nomenclaturists against such an inter-
pretation of Article 19. If, exceptionally, some misspelled names continue
to be current (like Argyroneta for instance) the continued upholding of all
misspelled names is entirely inadmissible.

28. This is a serious matter, and if the scientists upholding the original
misspelling are more numerous than those wanting to emend it, I would ask
this majority to formulate a new Article 19 according to its spirit : “ The
original spelling of a name must be conserved (respected) whatever mistake
it may contain (barbarism, solecism, nonsense, lapsus calami, printing mistake).
Example : Myrmecium, Megamyrmaekion, Paramyrmecion, Pseudomirmession,
Promyrmetion.”” In addition, this new Article 19 would make it possible to
suppress all other Articles concerning the correct formation and spelling of
names, since it will guarantee all original spellings, however “ original ’’ they
may be.

29. I hope that those concerned will be wise enough to conserve Article 19
as it is now formulated and will see to its application. A few exceptions have
only to be considered, but not always in connection with names ending with
ton, ium.

(c) Article 13 (to be modified)

30. All generic names should begin with a capital letter, all specific names
(also those of sub-species and varieties) should begin with a small letter, without
any exceptions.

(d) Article 15 (to be modified)

31. All generic names and all specific names when formed of two words
should be spelled in one single word, without a hyphen, there is no such thing
as a hyphen in Latin. (Article 15 ought thus to be modified since it provides
the usage of a hyphen.)

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 653

(e) Spelling of Latin words used as specific names

32. It is proper to spell Latin words as the Romans spelled them ; their
exact and accurate spelling to be found in any Latin dictionary.

88. Polymorphism. There are, however, words with a double spelling
in the case of which the original spelling should be conserved, or sometimes
the spelling which has been most used so far. Thus I advise that the words
shown below should always be written as follows :

ancora (not anchora) ochreatus (not ocreatus)
compta (not comta) parnassius (not parnasius)
cothurnatus (not coturnatus) paululus (not paullulus)
egenus (not egaenus) paulus (not paullus)
fastuosus (not fastosus)* pirum (not pyrum)

helvolus (not helveolus) piriformis (not pyriformis)
hesperius (not hesperus) pretiogus (not preciosus)
hibernalis (not hybernalis) pyrenaeus (not pirenaeus)
incompta (not incomta) quattuor (not quatuor)
lacrimosus (not lacrymosus) silvae, arum (not sylvae, arwm)
litteralis (not literalis) silvestris (not sylvestris)
litteratus (not literatus) sollers (not sdlers)

littoralis (not litoralis) spathula (not spatula)
litturata (not litwrata) succineus (not succinus)
monstrosus (not monstruosus)* squamosus (not sguammosus)
nitelinus (not nitellinus) sulfureus (not sulphureus)
obscena (not obscaena) tescorum (not tesquorum)

33. Certainly the above list is not complete, and there is every reason
to look for other words with a double spelling, and to indicate the correct way
of spelling them.

35. There are also words which are spelled sometimes with ‘“‘ ae ’’ some other
times with ‘‘oe”. This comes from the fact that former authors could not
always distinguish the two letters which in italics look very much alike :
@ and @. But today, with the letter ae used by our printers there cannot
arise any confusion. Thus one should write :

* Normally fastosus has priority, but fastwosus has been used more often, and it is the
latter that should be maintained. With monstrosus it is the other way round, since this has been
used, though monstruosus is older.

BR

654 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

aeruginosus (not oeruginosus) daemoniacus (not doemoniacus)
caecus (not coecus) faetus (not foetus)

caecatus (not coecatus) laevis (not loevis)*

caelum (not coelum) laeviceps (not loeviceps)

caelestis (not coelestis) laevigatus (not loevigatus)
caenosus (not coenosus) maerens (not moerens)

caeruleus (not coeruleus) maestus (not moestus)

caesius (not coesius) naevia (not noevia) etc... .
amoenus (not amaenus) poenalis (not paenalis)

coenobita (not caenobita) coeptum (not caeptum), etc... ..

36. On the other hand, it is important to write the two letters joined
together, since these letters are available in printing plants, in order to
discriminate between them when they are spelled separately, e.g.: aerius,
poetica, coercitus, etc. Here, the letters ““a” and “e” are pronounced
separately, there being no need of using a diaeresis, since there is no such thing

in Latin. (See above.)

(g) Transliteration of the Latin “i”
37. There is every reason to apply the following rule :—

“7” in front of a consonant should remain “i” (lustris, imperialis,
tnornatus, . . .)

“i” in front of a vowel becomes “ j ” (juncudus, juvents, major)
(spellings like tweundus, iuvenis, maior to be rejected)

Exceptions : Io, ionicus, Iulus.

(h) Transliteration of the Latin “ v ”’

38. The same principle as above is involved here, but the rule is inversed :—

oe 29

v”’ in front of a consonant becomes “u” (urbs, manus, Hugnatha,
Euryopis, ... )

>

“~” in front of a vowel remains “v”’ (dives, evectus, Evangelia,
Evagrus, Evarcha, . . .)

(spellings like ewectus, Huagrus, Ewarcha, to be rejected)

(i) Words formed with the prefix “ sub ”’

38. With compound nouns the second part of which begins with a con-
sonant, it happens sometimes (but not always) that the final “b” of the

* The word Jevis (light) must not be confounded with /aevis (meaning polished, brilliant).

PR aire)

Pe nr re

i —

+ nd ae
te

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 655

prefix is changed into the first letter of the word that follows, and thus this
letter becomes double :

subcumbo—succumbo subfascio—sufiicio

subgero—suggero submergo—summergo

40. It appears, however, that in many cases the Romans preferred the
original spelling with “sub” ; that is why we advise the maintenance of this
spelling (with sub) :

subflavus (not sufflavus) subfuscus (not suffuscus)

(j) Spelling of modern latinised names

41. The most important question is the spelling of words in modern
languages which have been latinised, these are, of course, neologisms to which
it is convenient to give a Latin form by conserving the rules regulating the
formation of Latin words. These modern names relate mostly to patronymics
and geographical names, and they should always be spelt with Latin letters.

V. Patronymic names

42. Article 14 prescribes order for the use of patronymics for specific
names ; these names should be formed by adding to the complete name of the
person (to be spelt with a small initial letter) the Latin genitive : ‘‘i”’ for men
(cuvieri) and “ae ”’ for women (merianae) ; it is proper to add “ orum” and
“arum ” when the dedication relates to two or more people having the same
name (berlandorum for Mr. and Mrs. Berland ; bonnetarum in case of the Misses
Bonnet. It is specified that in case of the person having a name which appears
like a Latin name, that is, a name which can be translated into Latin (which
would be the case with many Italian, Spanish and French names) the rule
must be applied without exception and the names should be bosi (not bovis)
salmoni (not salmonis), I would also add pierret for a Mr. Pierre (and not
petri), poissont for Mr. Poisson (and not piscis) and it is here that we could
have sylvestret (with a “‘y”’) for a Mr. Sylvestre. Patronymics ending with
a vowel are not exempted (racovitzai, fagei, pavesii,** caporiaccot, matout,
kolosvaryi) ; on the other hand, with women’s names ending with an “a” it
is proper to substitute “ae” for “‘a’’ and not to add it (racovitzae and not
racovitzaae).

43. In spite of this rule often resulting in names sounding atrocious to
a Latin ear, it is correct, since it leaves no doubt about the correct forming

** Finally, only names ending with an “i” will form names with double “i”, line the
genitives of Latin words with “ius”’.

656 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

of such names. It is, however, obvious, that when making use of Latin proper
nouns or Christian names, these should conserve their normal genitive : plinii,
aristotelis caesaris, antonii, petri, elisabethae, etc. . . . but always starting
with a small initial letter.

Exceptions: For patronymics ending with a ‘‘q”, (Lecog, Duboseq,
Leclereq, Stereq), a ““u”’ has to be interposed (lecogui, duboscqui, leclerquae,
stercquorum) there are no Latin words in which the letter “ q ” is not accom-
panied by a “uu”.

44, There are also modern patronymies, like linnaei, fabricii podae (and
not linnet, fabriciusi, podai) which form an exception to the rule, as already
explained above.

45. Proper names with particles : the particles disappear (are suppressed)

de Lessert=lesserti, del Pino=pinoi, di Caporiacco=caporiaccoi
du Castel=casteli, van Hasselt=hasselti, von Kempelen=kempelini.

46. Proper names preceded by an article, the latter should be joined to
the name :—

Le Sueur=lesueuri, La Martiniére=lamartinieri, De la Pérouse=lapérousei.

With Dutch names “ de ” is not a particle but an article and should be treated
as such :—
De Geer ; De Haan ; Van de Poll=degeeri, dehaani, depolli.

47. Names preceded by the adjective “Saint”: in scientific names the
adjective ‘‘ Saint ”’ is joined to the name with which it forms one single word
which is spelt without a hyphen. In other words these names behave like
ordinary names :

Saint-jean Saint-Claire San Juan Santa Cruz

saintjeant sainteclairei sanjuant santacruat

It is, however, quite another matter if these names are used as geographic
names (see paragraph 50 below).

Names with diacritic marks

48. There is need to alter Article 20 stipulating the conservation of diacritic
marks, these should all be suppressed (abolished).

(a) There are no diacritic marks in Latin ; latinised names as a rule have ~
none ; and this is a very good reason for abolishing them altogether.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 657

(b) It is indeed superfluous to use—as do certain authors—a diaeresis
with the “i” of names ending in “‘ oides ” (sphaeroides), the Romans had no
such mark and as a rule pronounced it “‘ 0-ides ”’,

(c) The study of names deriving from words with a diaeresis shows that
this mark is almost never reproduced except in countries where it is normally
used. As a matter of fact, printers of other countries having no such type,
the diaeresis cannot be printed. This second point, a very practical one, is
another good reason for suppressing the mark altogether.

(d) Further, Article 20 stipulates—in a contradictory manner as it were,
the transliteration of the German “ 4”, “6,” and “ii” -into “ae Pose ARES Zs
and “ue”. When abolishing a certain mark, it is advisable to abolish

(suppress) the same mark totally.

(e) There is no inconvenience whatsoever in suppressing these marks,
since the letters having them can, as a rule, be replaced by Latin letters having
exactly the same sound :

Guérin (guerini) Bégué (beguei) Lacépéde (lacepedei)
Chatelain (chatelaini) Biche (buchei) Lhépital (/hopitali)
Lalagué (lalaguei) Theis (theisi) Laénnec (laenneci)
Babler (baebleri) Géldi (goeldi) Miiller (muelleri)
Forskal (forskoeli) Sorensen (soerenseni) Tragardh (traegoerdi)
Sanchez (sanchezi) Pérez (perezi) Colon (coloni)

(f) For marks with some difficulty in transliteration, I would suggest the
following equivalents :

(«) Spanish “fi”: After having studied the problem, I think that it
is proper to substitute for this letter the syllable “ni” as in the Latin
word Hispania

Nitfiez : nuniezi* Espafiol : espanioli

At any rate, this spelling is very much to be preferred to the spelling nunezi
or espanoli if the printer does not dispose of a type “n” with the tilde. (See :
Bull. Soc. entom. France 59 (5/6) : 84).

(£) Portuguese tilde: The normal phonetic transliteration of this
sign into “a’on ” would alter the meaning too much. It would therefore
be better to suppress the tilde altogether :

Mello-Leitao=leitaoi.

(y) French and Portuguese “ ¢”: this should be replaced by “ss”
when between two vowels, and by one single “s*’ when the preceding

* This instance given in Article 14 of the Régles reveals the difficulty inherent, since one
spells nuziezi whilst one should spell nijiezi. When wanting to respect the accents, one should
have had respect for them both !

658 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

letter is a consonant. Two hundred years ago the first nomenclaturists
already resolved this problem by writing cwrassaviensis for the adjective
formed of ‘“‘ Curacao”. On this model it is proper to spell assorensis
(for Agores), mossambicus (for Mocambique) and fransoisi (for Mr.
Francois) the latter spelt like this being anyway an old French word.

(8) Diacritic and tonal marks in Czech, Hungarian, Rumanian, Polish
and other languages : Since there are a great number of these it should
be the scientists of the countries concerned who should decide about the
official transliteration of the stressed letters.

At the present time it would be advisable to suppress the accents altogether
and for good reason :

Kulezyiski=kulezynskii Kolosvary =kolosvaryt

PI

I would, however, point out that the Czech “é” should be transcribed as

ee >

“tech” and the Rumanian “s” as “sch”:

Polatek=polatcheki Rosca=roscheat

(<) Apostrophe : in French, in Italian and in English and, no doubt,
also in other languages the apostrophe marks the omission of one or two
letters respectively, as a rule to avoid a hiatus. In France the apostrophe
is used in first names formed from common nouns preceded by the article
“l"; in the case of scientific names formed after such names the
apostrophe should be omitted and the article should become joined to
the proper name :

L’Homme, L’Héritier, L’Hermitte, De L’Ecluse, L’Hoste

lhommat, lheritieri, lhermitter, lecluset, lhostet

In English the apostrophe is found in patronymics beginning with the
particles ““ Mac” and “ Of” which are shortened into “M’” and “ Q’”
but which are inseparable from the names themselves.

For Mac whether abridged to ‘‘ Mc” or “M’” it is advisable to
re-establish the particle in its entirety, since the words spelt mccooki or
m’cooki cannot be pronounced in Latin, it is therefore necessary to spell
maccooki.

For O’, it is advisable to integrate this particle to the name proper
by suppressing the apostrophe, as with the French article “I” :
O’Connor O'Neill

oconnort oneilt

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 659

49. Conclusion: As can be seen from the foregoing, these provisions
Suppress, without any exception, all diacritic and tonal marks in all the various
languages, advocating thus a certain homogeneity of spelling of scientific
names in accordance with the Latin spelling (orthography). I firmly believe
in this being the best solution ever, and wish other workers to follow my path.

50. Geographical Names : This is a very important subject. See Biblio-
graphia Araneorum, volume 2, pp. 56-75.

91. Formation of compound scientific names : This also is a very important
question. See Bibliographia Araneorum, volume 2, pp. 77-85.

52. Formation of scientific names preceded by numerals (either numeral
letters or figures) : See Bibliographia Araneorum, volume 2, pp. 85-88.

53. Hyphen in compound names : What is required is the reverse of that
prescribed in Article 15 of the Reégles. See Bibliographia Araneorum, volume
2, p. 88.

54. Generic names with “wm” and “on’’. Transcription of the Greek final
letters ov and wv. There are a great number of scientific names ending with
-on” and “um ”.~ These two must not be confounded, and yet there are
many scientific authors who do so. Thus we get names which were originally
misspelled and were emended at a later date, that are now spelled in two

different ways :
Theridion and Theridium Myrmecium and Myrmecion

Zodarion and Zodarium Apion and Apium, ete.

55. Yet this is a simple enough question, and it would be a good thing
for naturalists to observe the following rule when using, or for that matter
creating, names with these endings. In Latin: “um” (genitive: “i”’) ig
the ending used for neuter (gender) names (templum, bellum, caecum, podium,
museum, ornamentum, etc.) and obviously there are no patronymics in this
category. “On” (genitive : “onis ’) is an ending for masculine words (aeon,
canon, ancon, andron, lycaon, eon, etc.) and there are, of course, many patro-
nymics with this ending. (Arion, Philemon, Samson, Sarpedon, Simeon, Orion,

Platon, etc.*)

* All words ending with “ -odon ” should also be considered as being masculine in gender,
For example, Mastodon, Iguanodon, etc., as well as words formed of various parts without a
Meaning and with the termination “ -on ” ( Caedmon ; Nodocion, ete.),

660 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

56. The endings ‘“‘ um ” and “on” correspond to the Greek terminations
ov and wy, as follows :

Latin Greek
masculine : on wy
neutral : um ov

Thus there is no doubt that all Greek words ending with wv should give Latinised
names with the ending “on” and take the masculine gender, and that all
Greek words with the ending ov should be latinised into “um” and take
neuter gender.

57. It is evident also, since it is only logical, that the same letters should
always be transliterated in the same manner. Thus, if yecpaydv@cov is trans-
cribed as Chiracanthium, then @yprdcov should be transcribed as Theridium.
It would be illogical to spell the latter word Theridion. I sincerely hope that
naturalists generally will be of the same opinion. Like myself, they will be
indignant that in one and the same scientific work the name Myrmecium
should even today be spelled as Megamyrmaekion and as Paramyrmecion.

58. On the other hand the fact must be faced that there are hundreds
(perhaps even thousands) of names ending in “on” and “um ”, it is of the
utmost importance that these should conform to the rule that I have just
formulated, all the more as a great number of them must have the two ortho-

graphies :

(a) If they end in “on” they must be of masculine gender
33
33 39 be) 39 “um > > 99 99 neutral 23

33

(b) If they are of masculine gender they must end in “ on
» 9 99 99 Neutral Ho ae Soc go Gp

59. Once this rule is observed, everyone will see clear in the matter, and
will at last know the correct spelling of the name used, as well as its correct
grammatical concordance. One will no longer see such names as Susarion
neglectum (for Susarion neglectus), or Apium violaceus (for Apion violaceus), or
Theridion denticulatus (for Theridium denticulatum).

60. In araneidology the three important names with two different spellings
are: Theridium (Theridion), Myrmecium (Myrmecion), Zodarium (Zodarion)
names derived from Greek words ending with ov they are therefore of neuter
gender and must be latinised into names with “um’’, There cannot be
otherwise,

a

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 661
CONCLUSIONS

61. I sincerely hope the International Congress on Zoology will adopt all
these principles set out above and will thus contribute to a certain homogeneity
in the spelling of generic and specific names in zoology being achieved.

62. It is important that on all the above questions precise and clear rules
should be formulated, and that zoologists of all countries should be furnished
with a small booklet containing these rules in their own languages. I am
firmly convinced that within a short time all naturalists—who by their very
nature like order and accuracy—will concur, happy enough no longer to have
to deal with delicate and even puzzling problems.

63. It is equally important to oppose the multiplication of individual
cases : when there are too many exceptions the rules simply disappear.

64. It is above all absolutely necessary to reject all originally misspelled
names which are not in accordance with the principles of the Latin language
and with those of rules of latinisation, small, insignificant errors must be
rejected just as well as the appalling ones.

65. Once everything is emended, everything clarified, there will be no
longer need for discussion, and that will be the end of it all. We shall have a
perfect nomenclature and a final one too—for the greater good of all concerned.

66. On the other hand, if the Congress does not formulate hard-and-fast
rules concerning the spelling of scientific names—there will be no end of trouble.
There will always be opponents, since there are always some who do not want
to conform to regularity and accuracy. And thus the greatest incoherence
will continue to exist in nomenclature.

662 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

CASE No. 29

DRAFT “ REGLES’’, ARTICLE 28, SECTION 15: TREATMENT
OF NUMERALS IN COMPOUND WORDS

(Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 1311)

(For the relevant provision in the Draft of the Revised Régles
see 1957, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 14 : 222)

DOCUMENT 29/1

Proposed substitution of a revised text for Article 28, Section 15,
relating to the treatment to be accorded to numerals in compound
words

By J. CHESTER BRADLEY
(Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.)

(Proposal received on 25th January 1958)

Correspondence with Professor Charles H. Blake of the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology has brought out the fact that the Paris enactment
(1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4:199, Minute 10) is both inadequate and in
part faulty Latin. For example, the discussion preceding that enactment
implies that ‘‘ quadri- ”’ is an ordinal, which it is not, the ordinal being quartus.
“ Quadri-”, “ quadrin-”’, or “‘ quatri-” are combining forms of “ quattuor”’
(cf. quadridens [quattuor-dens], quadringenti [quattuor-centum], quatriremis or
quadriremis [quattuor-remus]). These forms are more frequently found in
Latin in compounding words than is quattuor, which is almost restricted to the
numeral quattuordecim, For some reason, unknown to me, at least my old

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 663

edition of Andrews’ Latin Lexicon spells quattuor and all its compounds with
a single “t”’. Professor Harry Caplan assures me that quattuor is correct.

2. The use of the cardinal adjective duo in compounding is almost
restricted to the numeral duodecim, the adverb bis (combining form bi-) being
almost exclusively employed in such a connection. The second sentence of the
rule that follows, dealing with bis, could, however, be made a recommendation
if that is thought better. Both the cardinal adjective tres and the adverb
ter are used in Latin compounds, but, as each usually takes the combining
form “ tri-”’, no confusion arises.

3. After the manuscript of the Draft of the Régles had been submitted for
publication, I prepared a revision of Section 15(a) of Article 28 but by some
mischance it was mislaid in transit and I now submit as a replacement.

4. I wish to express my indebtedness to Professor Harry Caplan, Professor
of Classics in Cornell University, for verifying the correctness of the statements
made.

Revised text proposed to be adopted for Section 15(a) of Article 28
of the Draft of the Revised ‘‘ Régles °’

(a) Treatment of numerals in compounds.—TIf the first element of a
compound name is a cardinal numeral it shall be written as a word using
a correct combining form, and coalesced without a hyphen. The adverb
bis (bi-) shall replace the adjective duo.

Examples: Unicornis (not 1-cornus nor unuscornis), bimaculatus
(not 2-maculatus, duomaculatus, nor bismaculatus), trimaculatus (not
3-maculatus, termaculatus, nor tresmaculatus), quattuorguttatus or preferably
quadriguttatus (not 4-guttatus), and septendentatus (not 7-dentatus nor
septemdentatus).

oF SS en EE EE EE Se ee ee ee ee eee eee

1 In the latest (1945) impression of Lewis & Short’s Latin Dictionary this word is entered
(: 1508) as “ qguattuor, less correctly quatuor ” (intld. F, H. 27th January 1958).

664 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

CASE No. 30

DRAFT “ REGLES ’’, ARTICLE 28, SECTION 13 : RULE GOVERNING THE
GENDER TO BE ATTRIBUTED TO INFRA-SUBSPECIFIC NAMES WHEN
CONSISTING OF ADJECTIVES

(Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 1292)

(For the relevant provision in the Draft of the Revised Régles see 1957,
Bull. zool. Nomencl. 14 : 220-221)

DOCUMENT 30/1

Proposal that a provision be inserted in the “‘ Régles ’’ that
adjectival infra-subspecific names should be
cited in the feminine gender

By ERICH M. HERING
(Zoologisches Museum der Humboldt-Universitdt zu Berlin)

(Enclosure to a letter dated 16th December 1957)

It is provided in the Revised Draft of the English text of the Régles
(Article 28, Section 13) that in the matter of gender an adjectival infra-
subspecific name should be subject to the same rules as specific and subspecific
names, that is, that the gender to be used for an adjectival infra-subspecific
name, when an adjective, shall be whatever is the gender of the generic name
with which that infra-subspecific name is combined,

a's 7 Slat
i i a i i

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 665

2. I submit that this provision is misconceived and should be modified
before the text of the Revised Regles is finally approved. An infra-subspecific
name is not a name of the same category as specific and subspecific names
but is the name of an entirely different kind and is subject to a separate and
independent series of rules. Moreover, when used, an infra-subspecific name
constitutes only a qualified trinominal name (where no subspecific name is
cited) or a qualified quadrinominal name (where it is cited in connection with
a trinominal subspecific name). This qualified character is clearly—and
rightly—indicated by the provision (in Section 4 of Article 4 of the Draft)
that an infra-subspecific name, when cited, is to be separated from the remainder
of the name by the interposition of the word “ form ” preceded by a mark of
punctuation (i.e. by a comma).

dependent, being dependent upon some such Latin word as the word “ forma ”.
The word so used is in English “form”, in French “ la forme ’’, in German
“die Form ”, in Italian “la forma ” and in Spanish “la forma”. As already
noted, the Latin word now most commonly used in this context is the word
“ forma”? ; formerly, however, the Latin words “ varietas’”’ and “ aberratio ”
were widely used in this connection and are still so used by some authors.

4. The Latin words (and also the vernacular words) used to denote infra-
subspecific names have one extremely important feature in common. This
is that they are all of the feminine gender. The settled practice of those
zoologists who use infra-subspecific names is to cite those names in the
feminine gender. Thus, the use of the feminine gender for adjectival infra-
subspecific names is not only correct in itself but is also in harmony with the
practice of taxonomists.

5. I accordingly recommend that Section 13 of Article 28 of the Draft
of the Reégles should be amended to secure the above end. Sub-paragraph (1)
of Section 13 would become very involved and difficult to follow if an attempt
were to be made to introduce in it the required qualification as to the gender
in which adjectival infra-subspecific names are to be cited. I consider there-
fore that the simplest and most convenient course would be to deal with this
matter in a separate subparagraph of Section 13 of the above Article.

6. The suggestion which I now put forward is therefore :—

(1) that on page 220 the opening words of Section 13 of Article 28 should be
amended to read :-—“A specific or subspecific name shall be. . . ” -

666 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

(2) that on page 221 the following new item be inserted before the item
which now appears as “ (a) Initials’ :—

(a) Infra-subspecific names: An infra-subspecific name shall be
subject to the same rules as specific and subspecific names,
except that, when such a name consists of a word which is an
adjective, it shall be cited in the feminine gender in grammatical
agreement with the Latin word “forma”, either expressed
or understood.

(3) that the items which at present appear on page 221 as (a) and (b) be
re-lettered as (b) and (c) respectively.

a tt tte ti i a a

—

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 667

CASE No. 31

DRAFT “ REGLES ’’, ARTICLE 4, SECTION 4 (CITATION OF NAMES OF
INFRA-SUBSPECIFIC FORMS)

(Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 1313)

(For the relevant provision in the Draft of the Revised Régles
see 1957, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 14 : 41)

DOCUMENT 31/1

Proposed substitution of Revised “‘ Examples ’’ in Section 4
of Article 4 of the Revised ‘ Régles ”’

By ERICH M. HERING

(Zoologisches Museum der Humboldt-Universitat zu Berlin)

(Enclosure to a letter dated 16th December 1957)

In the existing draft of the Revised text of the Reégles (Bull. zool. Nomencl.
14 : 41) two examples are given of the method to be followed in citing infra-

subspecific names. These examples are as follows :—

Rana esculenta, form y-us

Rana esculenta marmorata, form x-us

2. Further it is provided in Section 13 of Article 28 of the Draft that
adjectival infra-subspecific names are to be cited in grammatical agreement with
the name of the genus in combination with which those names are cited. Thus,

668 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

under the rule suggested in Article 28 the “ Examples ” cited in Section 4 of
Article 4 are both incorrect, for in each case the notional infra-subspecific
name (y-uws and z-us) is cited in the masculine whereas the generic name
(Rana), with which these infra-subspecific names are combined, is feminine
in gender. For this reason alone these ‘‘ Examples ” are in need of correction.

8. In another paper which I am submitting today’ I have given grounds
for considering that the proper course—as also the course in harmony with
general usage—would be for the Congress to amend Section 13 of Article 28
of the Draft of the Revised Régles (1957, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 14 : 220-221)
so as to provide that an adjectival infra-subspecific name should be cited in
grammatical agreement not with the generic name with which it is combined
but with the word “ forma ”’, either expressed or understood. I have therefore
recommended that all such adjectives should be cited in the feminine gender.
If, as I hope, this proposal is adopted by the Congress, it would constitute an
additional but quite different reason for amending the ‘‘ Examples” which
at present appear in Section 4 of Article 4 of the Draft of the Revised Regles.

4, In order that there should be no ambiguity as to the relation of Article 4,
Section 4, to Article 28, Section 13, as now proposed to be amended, it would,
I think, be an advantage if the ““ Examples” cited in Article 4 were based
upon a case where the generic name was masculine in gender. I accordingly
suggest that in Section 4 of Article 4 the existing ““ Examples ”’ be replaced by
the following :—

(i) Section 4 (a): Parnassius tianschanicus Oberthir (C.), 1879, forma
connexa Schultz (O.), 1890 ;

(ii) Section 4 (b): Parnassius tianschanicus tianschanicus Oberthiir (C.),
1879, forma connexa Schultz (O.), 1890.

1 See Case No. 30, Document 30/1, pp. 664-667 of the present Part.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 669

CASE No. 32

DRAFT “ REGLES ’”’, ARTICLE 24, SECTION 12, AND ARTICLE 28, SECTION

16 (SPECIFIC NAMES CONSISTING OF LATINISED MODERN PATRONYMICS

IN THE GENITIVE SINGULAR) : LIABILITY OF, TO EMENDATION, AND

STATUS UNDER THE LAW OF HOMONYMY OF VARIANT SPELLINGS

WITH “-i’? AND “-ii’? TERMINATIONS, AND LIABILITY OF, TO
EMENDATION

(Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 1162)

(For the relevant passages in the Draft of the English text of the
Revised Régles see 1957, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 14 : 181 & 224)

DOCUMENT 32/1

Proposed clarification of the Copenhagen Congress Decision regarding
specific names published with “‘ -i’’ and “ -ii’’ terminations (a) under
the Law of Homonymy, and (b) in relation to liability
to emendation

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

(Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature)
(Note dated 3rd February 1958)

It will be recalled that the Copenhagen Congress in 1953 repealed a decision
by the Paris Congress of 1948, that, where a specific name based on a latinised
version of a modern patronymic of a man is formed in the genitive singular

8S

670 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

with a termination consisting of a double (“ -ii’’), such as smithii, the name
so formed should be subject to automatic correction by the deletion of the
second i”, the name smithii, for example, being thus corrected to “ smithi”’.
In place of the foregoing the Copenhagen Congress decided to insert in the
Reégles a provision that in such a case “the terminations “-i” and “ -ii”
are permissible variants, the differences between them having no nomenclatorial

significance ” (1953, Copenhagen Decisions zool. Nomencl. : 54, Decision 91).

2. Experience since the Copenhagen Congress has shown that the foregoing
decision is not satisfactory in its present form, its meaning being ambiguous
in one respect. Moreover, the decision is incomplete, in that it does not deal
with the status of variant spellings of the above kind under the Law of Homo-
nymy. It seems desirable that, when the forthcoming London Congress deals
with this subject in its examination of the Draft text of the English text of the
Revised Régles, it should take the opportunity of dealing with both the defects
referred to above.

8. The questions for decision are the following :—
(a) Does the expression “ permissible variants ”’ :—

(i) mean that it is equally correct to use either the termination
“1” or the termination “ -ii”, irrespective of which of those
terminations was used by the original author of the specific
name? In other words, if a name is published as “ smithit”
is it permissible for a later author to cite that name in the

corrected form ‘‘ smithi”’ ?
or

(ii) mean that it is equally permissible to publish a specific name
as “ smithit’”’ or as “ smithi’”’ but that, once such a name has
been published with one or other of the above terminations,
the termination so used is not subject to change by later authors
and that, if a name published as smithii is emended to smithi,
the emendation so published is an Invalid Emendation ?

(b) What is the position within a single genus of a pair of names based
on a modern patronymic and differing only in that in one case the
termination “ -i” is used and in the other the termination “ -ii” ?
Do such names rank as homonyms of one another ?

4. I have had correspondence on this subject with Dr. W. I. Follett
(California Academy of Sciences, San Francisco, California, U.S.A.), by whom
the problems at issue were brought before the Committee on Nomenclature

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 671

of the American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists and the Com-
mittee on Nomenclature of the (American) Society of Systematic Zoology.
The letters exchanged are attached to the present case as follows :—

(i) Letter from Dr, Follett dated 8th September 1956 (Document 32/2) ;

(ii) Reply by myself to Dr. Follett dated 17th September 1956 (Docu-
ment 32/3) ;

(iii) Letter dated 10th July 1957 from Dr. Follett, setting out the views
of the Committees on Nomenclature of the two Societies referred to
above (Document 32/4).

5. It will be seen from the foregoing correspondence that a majority of
the members of both Committees consider that in a case such as the present the
original form of a name, whether (say) smithii or smithi, should be retained
and that an emendation later published—say, from smithir to smithi—should
be treated as an Invalid Emendation. On the question of the position of
such names under the Law of Homonymy there was no dissent in either com-
mittee from the proposition that within a single genus names such as smithii
and smithi should be treated as being homonyms of one another.

6. I believe that the first of the above views will be regarded as reasonable
by the majority of zoologists and that all will adhere to the second. I accordingly
recommend that provision on these lines be made in the Revised Reégles
as follows :—

(1) Article 24, Section 12, Insert the following new sub-paragraph :—
(13) the terminations “ -ii’’ and “i” in the case of a specific name
based on the modern patronymic of a man ;
(2) Article 28, Section 16(b)(ii) : At end insert the following :—

. . . but once such a name has been published, the termination
then used is to be retained and shall not be liable to emendation,

672 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

DOCUMENT 82/2

On the question of the relative status of specific names based on
modern patronymies and having either the termination “-i’’
and the termination “ -ii’’ respectively

By W. I. FOLLETT

(California Academy of Sciences, San Francisco,
California, U.S.A.)

(Letter dated 8th September 1956)

Dr. William A. Gosline, of the University of Hawaii, who is the Ichthyo-
logical Editor of Copeia, has presented the following question regarding the
proper interpretation of the provision of Copenhagen Decisions zool. Nomencl. :
54, Decision 91, to the effect that ‘“‘ -i ” or “‘ -i7 ” as terminations of the genitive
singular shall be deemed permissible variants without nomenclatural
significance :

Does this provision mean that the original author is permitted to use the
termination “-i” or “-i7”’ as he may prefer, but that subsequent authors
must adhere to the usage employed by the original author, since a change from
* 4 to “‘ -i”” by a subsequent author would constitute an invalid emendation
under the provisions of Copenhagen Decisions zool. Nomencl. : 44, Decision

71(2)(a)(ii) 2

It would seem to me that if “ -2’ and “ -i2”’ are variants without nomen-
clatural significance, a change from one to the other could not constitute
an emendation, valid or invalid, and therefore that subsequent authors must
now be at liberty to change an original “ -ii ” to “‘-i” or vice versa without
transgressing the rule against invalid emendations.

My longhand notes, taken at the Copenhagen Colloquium on August 4
1953, also suggest this interpretation. They read as follows :

“Case 15: Mr. Hemming proposes that Paris enactment revoking
Opinion 8 be reversed, and that the original orthography be retained to
date. For future, a Recommendation against “ -i”’.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 673

Dr. Hubbs suggests adherence to original spellings in “-ii’’. The
mandatory provisions of Article 14 would then be restricted to sub-
divisions a, b, and c, plus barbarous words and arbitrary combinations
of letters.

99 ce

Prof. Bradley moves use of “-i”’ or “ -ii”’ permissible variant of
no significance in homonymy or any other sense.

Mr. Hemming suggests reinstating fifth paragraph of Article 14 as
a mandatory provision and then adopting Prof. Bradley’s proposal.
Approved.”

Since this question has been raised, it would seem desirable that the
forthcoming rules expressly state that a change from “-it” to ‘‘-i” is not
to be deemed an emendation.

674 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

DOCUMENT 32/3

The Copenhagen Decision on specific names based on modern
patronymics and having the terminations
“.j’? and “-ii’’ respectively

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

(Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature)

(Letter to W. I. Follet dated 17th September 1957)

Many thanks for your letter of 8th September (and also your letter of
2nd April last) on the above subject.

I am interested that you should have raised this matter, because from
quite a different point of view—namely, from that of the preparation of my pro-
jected work on palaearctic butterflies—I have myself been thinking about the
same matter.

I am of the opinion that on the basis of existing decisions, it is not possible
to give an absolutely cut-and-dried answer to the question here involved.
By way of a start, it may be convenient briefly to recall the history of this
matter, namely :—

(a) The Berlin Code of 1901 provided in Article 14 that where a specific
name is based upon a modern patronymic in Latinized form as a
genetive singular, it is to be constructed—if the person so honoured
is a man—by adding the termination “ -i ” to the exact form of that
person’s name. The Berlin Code did not, however, state explicitly
what was to be done if, notwithstanding the above decision, a name
of the above kind was incorrectly formed with a double “ -i ”
termination, i.e. if the author forming such a name were in doing
so to assume that the nominative singular of the Latinized version
of the name of the person to be honoured ended with the termination

”

‘* jus’ and not the termination “-us’’,

|
r
b

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 675

(b) In 1910 there was published an Opinion (Opinion 8) in which the
Commission ruled that a specific name of the above type, if formed
with an incorrect termination, i.e. with “-ii”, notwithstanding
the provisions of Article 14, should be retained.

(c) In 1948 the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology of Paris
repealed the Ruling given in Opinion 8, and inserted in the Régles
a provision that a name incorrectly formed as, say, smithii was to be
subject to automatic correction to smithi.

(d) Then came the discussion at Copenhagen in 1953 at which you were
present and to which you refer in your letter, the decision of that
Congress being set out in paragraph 91 of the work “ Copenhagen
Decisions on Zoological Nomenclature ”’.

In examining the Copenhagen decision cited above, we must take into
account the generality of that decision, and avoid falling into the error of
confining the argument to a particular sentence picked out of that decision.
If we view that decision in the foregoing light, we see that it provides (i) that
a specific name based on a patronymic such as Smith ought to be formed as
smithi, (ii) that if notwithstanding (i) above such a name is formed as smithit
the termination so employed, i.e. the termination “ -ii”’ is to be treated as
permissible variants of the form with the single “i” termination, and (iii)
that a Recommandation is to be inserted stating that the “7” termination
is to be preferred to that consisting of “ii”.

Several problems are raised by this decision, namely :

(1) What is the position if within a single genus there are two species,
one having the name smithi, and the other having the name smithii ?
My own view is that such names should certainly be regarded as
homonyms of one another within a single genus, and that the later
published of any two such names ought to be rejected as a junior
homonym of the other. This seems to me to be implicit in the
Copenhagen decision. It is, however, a matter which I think should
be made explicit when the final draft of the revised Code comes to be
considered.

(2) If a name is published as smithii, what is the status of the name smithi
if some later author alters the name so as to get rid of the “i”
termination ? This matter is not dealt with at all in the Copenhagen
Decisions. It seems to me, however, that it would reasonably follow
from the provision that the double and single “i” terminations are
to be treated as “* permissible variants ’’ of one another that in such

a case the Original Spelling, whether with a single “i” or with
“aw” termination, must be regarded as being the “ Valid Original

676 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Spelling’. What then is the position when a name published as
smithii is altered by a later writer to smithi? My belief is that on
the wording of the Copenhagen decision a later variant smithi of a
name originally published as smithii should be regarded as an Invalid
Emendation of smithii. I believe, however, that this conclusion
is not that which was intended by the Copenhagen Congress, see (3)
below.

(3) Under this head we come to an aspect of the problem which I have
been considering from the point of view of my own work, namely :
Is a later author—for example myself, in compiling my book on the
palaearctic butterflies—at liberty to alter “‘ «i ”’ terminations to “7”
terminations or is he not? If I had asked myself this question at
the close of the discussion at Copenhagen, I would certainly have
given the answer “yes”, basing my view on the decision of the
Congress that the single and double ‘“‘i”’ terminations are to be
regarded as “‘ permissible variants”. For the reasons explained
above I now, however, consider that the words actually employed
in the Copenhagen decision are such that the single and double “7”
terminations are to be regarded as permissible variants at the time
of the original publication of the name, but that once such a name
has been published the original spelling, whichever it may be, is the
Valid Original Spelling, and is not subject to change. This is an
important practical question from the point of view of anyone
writing books or papers, and it ought certainly to be cleared up one
way or another by the London Congress of 1958 when it comes to
consider the revised text of the Code.

I have answered your letter at some length, because I wanted to put the
various issues clearly before you in order that, as I hope, you will be kind
enough (i) to let me know whether you agree with the factual analysis set out
above, and (ii) on the basis of your view on that analysis to inform me of your
view as to the nature of the clarifications which it is desirable should be made
by the London Congress.

In order to ensure that this matter is not overlooked, I have as you see,
opened a special file for its consideration, and have in addition entered it as
an item on the agenda for the consideration of the London meeting.

ee ee eee

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 677

DOCUMENT 32/4

Views of the Committees on Nomenclature: (a) of the American
Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists ; and (b) of the
Society of Systematic Zoology on the relative status of specific
names based on modern patronymics having the
terminations “‘ -i’’ and “ -ii’’ respectively

By W. I. FOLLETT

(California Academy of Sciences, San Francisco, California,
U.S.A.)

(Letter dated 10th July 1957)

Under date of 8th September 1956, I wrote you with regard to Dr. William
A. Gosline’s query as to the proper interpretation of the Copenhagen decision
on the subject of specific names ending in “ -i” and “-+’’. You very kindly
replied at some length, and on 26th September 1956, I sent a copy of your
letter to each member of the committee on zoological nomenclature of the
American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists. In view of the
importance of the problem, I also sent a copy of your letter to each member of
the nomenclature committee of the Society of Systematic Zoology. The
following comments are now available :

1. Dr. Robert R. Miller (University of Michigan, Ann Arbor; ASIH
committee) :

The factual analysis set forth by Mr. Hemming has technical reasonability
although, as he states, the conclusion reached (that emendation of a
name originally published as smithit to smithi constitutes an invalid
emendation) is not that which was intended by the Copenhagen Congress.

I find this “ -ii”’ or “ -i”’ situation not only annoying but surely trivial,
and the sort of thing which puts the taxonomist in bad light with other
biologists. It seems to me that the importance of the first appearance
of names of this type (indeed, names in general) is greatly over-
emphasized and thereby the name attains an undeserved sanctity.
We should also guard against the vacillating practice which, particularly

678 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

in recent years, has led some colleagues to state “ Why follow the
Rules when the Commission will probably change them again at the
next Congress ?”’

Such spellings as Salmo clarki and Salmo gairdneri, for example, have now
been widely adopted in fish and fishery literature and the prospect that
we may have to return again to the original spellings of S. clarkii and
S. gairdnerti is depressing.

I therefore urge the Commission to maintain the intent of the Copenhagen
Congress that “ -ii” and “ -i ” are permissible (interchangeable) variants
(personally I would prefer to see “ -i ” as mandatory), without significance
in homonymy, and that by “ permissible variants” is meant inter-
changeable usage by both original and subsequent authors.

2. Dr. James A. Peters (Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island ;
ASIH committee) :

The most important consideration is that our committee be able to present
a uniform decision on this matter. There are currently such a multitude
of possibilities, both in actual available rules and in interpretation
thereof, that both we and the International Commission will eventually
be forced to a middle-of-the-road decision, I am sure.

The two extreme possibilities, as I see them, are first to have complete
interchangeability of “ -i” and “ -ii’, and names differing only in these
terminations have absolutely no nomenclatural significance, regardless
of when formed, used, orchanged. They are homonymous but equivalent,
and either could be used by any author. This comes close to being
the spirit of Copenhagen—at least as I read it. The opposite possibility
is absolute fixation as originally published, regardless of termination,
and no alteration is allowed at any time. The name must be left as
published. This is the apparent attitude in 1910.

I am not in favor of either extreme myself. In the interests of stability,
but also in the interests of ease of usage, I would suggest the following
points :

(1) Any original spelling prior to the publication of the new rules should
be retained, as originally published. Thus, any “-ii” spelling
could not be altered to “ -i’’, or vice versa.

(2) Any name published after publication of the new rules must be
formed from the actual name of the person plus “-i”. This
is to be true regardless of the termination of the actual name,
i.e., whether it be “‘-e”’, “-y”, or “-i”.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 679

(3) Any name published after publication of the new rules with either
an incorrect spelling of the actual name or with “ -ii”, or with both,
is to be changed in its next published form to conform with
paragraph 2.

(4) Any names differing only in the “-i” and “-ii” terminations
are to be considered homonymous, whether synonymous or not, and
regardless of time of publication before of after any or all rules.

Under these circumstances, Rana boylii remains R. boylit, Sceloporus
jarrovii remains S. jarrovii, and Alsophis vudii is still A. vudii. These
names, as perpetuated, recognize the classical nature of the scholarly
approach by our forebears.

If, however, any of these names were to be published after the publication
of the revised rules, the first would become Rana boylei, the second
Sceloporus yarrowi, and the third Alsophis woodi. These names, as
revised, recognize the absence of a classical nature and ability on the
part of most modern systematists. This latter fact is something which
we must recognize, I believe. The classical value has gone out of the
scientific name—it is now primarily a handle. Any battle to perpetuate
classical usage is likely to prove a losing one.

3. Dr. Jay M. Savage (University of Southern California, Los Angeles ;
ASIH committee) :

I am delighted to see that you have been able to get an extended report
on the “ -ii’’ versus “ -i” from Mr. Hemming. It is also refreshing to
note that he realizes some of the confusion arising from the conflicting
and contradictory rulings on this matter made at Paris and Copenhagen.
Although, I do not discern any error in his factual analysis of the history
of this problem, I do not see that the history is important. What is
really significant is a decision on how to resolve this difficult and truly
embarassing problem by sound clarification at the London Congress.
Actually, these clarifications ought to be made in the rules should they
be published before the Congress.

In any event I would like to see our Committee examine the following
points as a starting point for clarification of the situation. Some of
these agree with Mr. Hemming’s general but tentative conclusions in
his letter to you of 17th September 1956, relating to Z.N.(G) 69 and
Z.N.(8.) 1162.

(1) The valid original spelling of a patronymic must stand as the way
that it was originally spelled. This could be either “ -i ” or “ -ii”

680 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

(2) Any subsequent change in the ending must stand as an Invalid
Emendation.

(3) It should be inserted in the Rules that the “ -i’’ ending must be
used and that the double “ -ii”’ cannot be used for any name
proposed after 1958, unless it is a name like orsinii based on the
name Orsini.

(4) Finally, as pointed out to you in my letter of 7th January 1956,
these rulings should also apply to patronymics based on names

2° ce 2? ee ys
.

ending in “-e”’, “-y”’, or “-i

After a good kicking around by our Committee and with additions or
changes by us, we ought to then present our recommendations to
Hemming.

4. Dr. Hobart M. Smith (University of Illinois, Urbana; ASIH com-
mittee) :

I was very pleased to see Mr. Hemming’s discussion of the “ -ii ”’ versus
*.i” terminations. This makes it quite evident that the problem
has not yet been dealt with decisively by present criteria.

So far as the factual analysis given by Mr. Hemming is concerned, I cannot
voice reasonable objection. I think I would not independently conclude
that the wording of the Copenhagen decisions necessarily requires that
“a later variant smithi of a name originally published as smithii should
be regarded as an Invalid Emendation of smithi’’. Nevertheless,
Mr. Hemming’s interpretation clearly is a reasonable possibility, and
because of that a restatement of intent should be obtained from the
Commission at the earliest opportunity.

So far as sentiment is concerned, I still strongly prefer (a) that the “ -ii”

and ‘“‘-i” terminations be regarded as permissible variants at any

time if the original spelling is “ -ii ” (not if it is “ -i’). the latter being

a Valid Subsequent Spelling, the former the Valid Original Spelling,

and that (b) the recommendation be made that the “ -i”’ termination

is to be preferred both Originally and Subsequently.

5. Mr. W. I. Follett (California Academy of Sciences, San Francisco ;
ASIH and SSZ committees) :

When I first wrote to you on this subject (8th September 1956), I believed
that subsequent authors were at liberty to change an original “‘ -i ”
to “‘-i”’ without transgressing the rule against Invalid Emendations.
You have presented logical grounds for holding otherwise, and I am

Pt ae eee. a, ee

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 681

pleased with the result of your reasoning. It has long been my con-
tention that the original orthography affords the only criterion that is
wholly objective (Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, 10(7) : 215).
I am convinced that the uniformity attained in relatively simple cases
involving the terminations “-i” and “ -ii”’ is more than outweighed
by the uncertainty introduced in evaluating the more difficult cases
that involve those terminations, as exemplified in Dr. Hubb’s letter,
infra. I should therefore favor a clear expression of the following
rules with regard to specific names heretofore published : (1) that the
original orthography (with respect to the terminations “-i” and
“-ii”) must be retained: (2) that a change of the termination from
“.w” to “-i”, by a subsequent author, is to be deemed an Invalid
Emendation ; and (3) that such names as smithi and smithii within a
single nominal genus are to be deemed homonymous.

6. Mr. Cyril F. dos Passos (American Museum of Natural History, New
York ; SSZ committee) :

I agree with Mr. Hemming’s factual analysis of the problem as set forth
in his letter to you of 17th September.

My feeling is that it would be well in these cases to retain all original
spellings whether ending in “-ii” or “-i” without emendation, and
adopt a recommendation that authors use the “-i” ending, but when they
fail to do so in the future that the original spelling be deemed valid
and not subject to emendation.

Also, the rules should provide that the second similar name (modern
Patronymic) in a genus whether ending “ -ii” or “-i” or vice versa
shall be considered a junior homonym.

In so far as necessary appropriate amendments and recommendations
should be adopted at the 1958 London Congress.

7. Dr. Ellsworth C. Dougherty (University of California, Berkeley ; SSZ
committee) :

My own understanding of the matter is that the terminations “ -i”’ versus
“a” are simple orthographic variants without significance under the
rules and should not even arise as questions under the conception of

Valid Original Spelling. In this sense, both are “ valid original spellings ”’.

However, if there is to be any question about it, then let us have the
matter fairly resolved by the Commission,

682

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

8. Dr. E. Raymond Hall (University of Kansas, Lawrence ; SSZ committee) :
This will acknowledge your letter of 28th September 1956, requesting my

views on the “-i” versus “-ii””’ termination of the names of species
and subspecies. Yes, I agree with the factual analysis set forth in

Mr. Hemming’s letter to you dated the 17th September 1956.

My view is that the “ -i ”’ and “ -ii ” terminations are permissible variants
at the time of the original publication of the name, but that once such
a name has been published the original spelling, whichever it may have
been, is the valid original spelling, and is not subject to change.

9. Dr. Carl L. Hubbs (University of California, La Jolla ; SSZ committee) :

I have taken the view that the current status, following the Copenhagen
Decisions, is that ‘“ -2”’ and “ -i¢” are permissible variants, with “ -¢ ”
recommended as a preference. I have therefore been using “-i” and
have recommended that others do so.

Certainly there can be no reasonable doubt that specific names otherwise
identical and differing only in the single or double “ -i” should be
regarded as homonyms. Article 35 should include a definite statement
to this effect.

Your quoted longhand notes made at the Copenhagen Colloquium on
4th August 1953, carry the statement that “Mr. Hemming suggests
reinstating fifth paragraph of Article 14 as a mandatory provision
and then adopting Prof. Bradley’s proposal. Approved.” This action
on the fifth paragraph of Article 14 either escaped my comprehension
at the time or has since escaped my memory. It would seem that the
fifth paragraph of Article 14, if made mandatory, would directly conflict
with the ruling of “-i”’ and “-ii” as permissible variants. I note
that the published Decisions made no reference to the fifth paragraph
of Article 14.

Quite a few of us have thought that the permissible variant ruling was one
of the several unwise decisions reached at Copenhagen. Though I think
that vacillation in such matters is giving Zoological Nomenclature a
couple of black eyes, I am inclined to favor Mr. Hemming’s proposal
to reconsider the matter in 1958.

I fully agree with Mr. Hemming’s factual analysis as outlined in his letter
to you dated 17th September. In reference to the three problems
raised by Mr. Hemming :

(1) I have already discussed the obvious homonymy of names identical
except for the “-i”’ or “ -i2”’ ending.

(2) I cannot quite conclude that the Copenhagen Decisions did not at
all deal with the problem of the status of a name ending in “ -i ”

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 683

if altered from the same name ending by original designation in
“-ii”” [or vice versa]. The status is clearly stated to be the same,
as the two names “ are permissible variants, the differences between
them having no nomenclatorial significance ”. Therefore, neither
is, by this Decision (91), an Invalid Emendation. Mr. Hemming
states that he also believes it was not the intention of the Copen-
hagen Congress to make the “ -ii ” name an Invalid Emendation.

(3) Mr. Hemming agrees that at the time of the last Congress he would
have felt it permissible to alter “ -ij ” spellings to “-i”, but
he states that now he considers “ that the words actually employed
in the Copenhagen Decision are such that the single and double
“i” terminations are to be regarded as permissible variants
at the time of the original publications of the name, but that once
such a name has been published the original spelling, whichever
it may be, is the Valid Original Spelling, and is not subject to
change”. Although this last is the interpretation I have con-
sistently favored, I cannot Squeeze that interpretation out of the
wording of the Decision, as I recall the wording given in 1953
or as I read the published report. Certainly at Copenhagen
there was no indication that the permissible variation applied
only to original descriptions.

Since the whole matter seems rather unsettled (and perhaps debatable,
in respect to the Copenhagen Decisions), I would favor a reconsideration
of the matter in London. If the matter were to come to a vote now,
I would favor following the original spelling, as the one way to avoid
almost endless exceptional situations. Thus we would avoid worries
over such cases as :

Possible required or

Original spelling permitted emendations
smithii smithi
tanakae (3) tanakat
mariae (2) mariaae
gloriae (2) gloriaae (see Paris
Enactments)
smithianus (3) smithi

fabricitt (3) (For Mr. Fabricius perhaps fabriciusi
known to some as Mr. Smith)

scrippsi (2) but based on family name scrippsae
which is masculine

Etc., ete.—I’d like to see an inclusive set of clearly stated recommenda-
tions, but definite adherence to Valid Original Spellings (obvious or
demonstrated misprints alone excepted).

684 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

10. Dr. Myra Keen (Stanford University, California ; SSZ committee) :
I agree with the factual analysis in Mr. Hemming’s letter.

When the Copenhagen Decisions were first published I read them to
mean that automatic emendation by subsequent authors was not only
permissive but desirable. Later re-reading of the precise wording,
however, has led me to have misgivings. Hence, I feel that clarification
to this end is in order and should be sought. We have a fine illustration
of the desirability of automatic emendation in the field of West Coast
Mollusca : Conrad in 1837, in the first paper to describe a considerable
number of California seashells named several—seven, as I remember it—
species for Thomas Nuttall, the collector. For about one-half the
* ii”? termination was used, for the rest “-i’’. So, as an added
burden to memory one must remember to write Saxidomus nuttalli
but Cardium nuttallii. I therefore welcomed the supposedly permissive
emendation to a uniform nuttalli wholeheartedly, and I support the
move to have this clearly stated in the new Code.

11. Dr. Ernst Mayr (Musewm of Comparative Zoology at Harvard College,
Cambridge, Massachusetts ; SSZ committee) :

I would not speak the truth if I would say that I am particularly exercised
about the problem of the ending “ -ii” versus “-i”. There is a good |
deal of legalistic logic in Hemmings statement, yet I think it is basically
unrealistic. Bradley’s proposal at Copenhagen stemmed from a wide-
spread sentiment to get away from pedantry and ritualism in such
matters. I know that many contemporary authors shorten any “ -ii ”
ending consistently into a “ -i”’ and it places an intolerable burden on
an editor if he is to check back into the original literature to restore
what is legally correct. The only thing that is consistent in the matter
of these two alternate endings is the inconsistency of modern authors.
I know that to make a rigid ruling on these endings would be unenforcable
and I am opposed to any prohibition that cannot be enforced. It only
weakens the authority of the remainder of the law. For these reasons,
in spite of the legitimate views expressed of Hemming, I am strongly
in favor of accepting the two alternate endings as of equal status and
as strictly exchangeable. Any other decision, I am afraid, would lead
us into endless searching of the literature and loss of time. I presume
that every conscientious author of checklist, monographs, and catalogs,
who does go back to the original citations makes an effort to record
the correct endings, but I doubt that this can be enforced in the literature
in which scientific names are a side issue.

12. Mr. Curtis W. Sabrosky (Entomology Research Division, U.S. Dept.
Agriculture, Washington, D.C. ; SSZ committee) :
I agree with Hemming’s factual analysis (his points a tod). I may note
that Professor Bradley’s expression “ permissible variant’ concisely
expressed the sense of Opinion 8.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 685

Comments on Hemming’s problems :

(1) I believe that smithi and smithii in the same genus would be
homonyms, as I believe Bradley intended. I agree with
Hemming that that should be made explicit. Things left
implicit have an annoying way of implying different things to
different people.

(2) and (3) It is my feeling that Copenhagen meant “ permissible
variant ” to apply only to the original proposal, and that once
proposed, the original spelling is to be preserved. This is the
sense of Opinion 8. Incidentally, the discussion of the original
Opinion is nicely reasoned, though brief.

In view of possible confusion as to the extent to which the expression
“ permissible variant ” was intended to apply, I should not be averse
to reopening the question at London, and hearing other views. At
present, I would vote to retain the provision as is, with the meaning
made explicit as noted by Hemming, and with an even stronger
recommendation in favour of the single “i” for original proposals.
If we start to permit emendations, we shall invite the same difficulties
envisaged in the discussion in Opinion 8.

Thus, a majority of those voting, of the members of each committee

favours retention of the original orthography for names of this kind heretofore
published. There has been no dissent from the proposition that patronyms
referred to the same nominal genus, and differing from each other only in the
terminations “ -i” and “ -ii ”, should be regarded as homonymous.

686 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

DOCUMENT 1/52
(continued from page 620)

Comment on the “ Parataxa Plan ”’

(Reference : Professor Moore’s Digest reproduced as Document 1/15)

By H. B. WHITTINGTON
(Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard College, Cambridge, Mass., U.S.A.)

(Letter dated 17th January 1958)

In response to your appeal for advice regarding proposed provisions for
“ parataxa ’’, I write as follows :

All fossils are discrete parts of once-whole animals and could be deemed
unidentifiable ; therefore, it is best to leave problems such as those raised by
Trigonellites and Scottognathus in the hands of the specialists directly concerned
and to let them appeal to the Commission if they feel moved to do so. The
adoption of the present proposals would mean that all such problems must
be brought to the attention of the Commission and place an intolerable and
discouraging burden upon the Commission and Paleontologists alike, without
in any way adding to the knowledge of the particular fossils.

I am not in favor of the adoption of these proposals.

——

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 687

DOCUMENT 1/53
Comment on the Moore/Sylvester-Bradley ‘“‘ Parataxa Plan ”’

(Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 1056)

Letter dated 24th January 1958 from R. V. MELVILLE
(Geological Survey and Museum, London), covering a
Report of a joint meeting of the Palaeontographical Society
and of the Palaeontological Association held in London
on 22nd January 1958.

I enclose the report of the joint meeting of the Palaeontographical Society
and the Palaeontological Association held yesterday to discuss the Moore/
Sylvester-Bradley “ Parataxa Plan ”’.

I do not think I am going beyond my terms of reference when I add that
we have tried to keep the report brief, since it seems unnecessary to burden you
with details of the discussion that preceded the putting of the resolutions to the
vote. We have taken for granted that if the Moore/Sylvester-Bradley proposals
are accepted, this will involve acceptance not only of the safeguards written
into the proposals, but also the unwritten, but generally understood safeguard,
that the Commission would not sanction the classification of any group in terms
of Parataxa unless it had first satisfied itself that such a step had the support
of a responsible and substantial body of specialist opinion in the group concerned.

ANNEXE TO DOCUMENT 1/53

Report of a Joint Meeting of the Palaeontographical Society and of the
Palaeontological Association held in London on 22nd January 1958

By R. V. MELVILLE
(Secretary, Palaeontographical Society, London)
and

GWYN THOMAS
(Secretary, Palaeontological Association, London)

A joint meeting of the Palaeontographical Society and the Palaeontological
Association to discuss the Moore/Sylvester-Bradley “‘ Parataxa Plan’ was

688 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

held at the Geological Survey and Museum, London, on 22nd January 1958
(by kind permission of the Director, Sir W. J. Pugh). As Secretaries of the
two societies, both present at the meeting, we submit the following report on
the resolutions adopted. Forty-six members attended, of whom forty were
present when the votes were taken, and written contributions were received
from four members unable to be present. Dr. R. C. 8. Hudson, President of the
Palaeontological Association, was in the chair.

Resolution 1

This meeting resolves to request the International Congress of Zoology
to provide some means whereby the nomenclature of discrete-part fossils in
certain fields of palaeontology can be made internationally stable and uniform.

Voting : For 37
Against 3

Resolution 2

This regulation of the nomenclature of discrete parts should apply only
to groups where a dual nomenclature exists and is currently found to be a
practical necessity (for example, Conodonts).

Voting : For 34
Against 3

Resolution 3

In the opinion of this Meeting, the Moore/Sylvester-Bradley proposals
provide a suitable means of achieving the objects set out above.

Voting: For 17
Against 14
Abstained 9

Resolution 4

This meeting requests that, in the event of the Moore/Sylvester-Bradley
proposals being accepted, the names of parataxa be distinguished from those
of taxa by a prefix or by some other means.

Voting: For 32
Against 6

ES ——
RIDE LEE ORE

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 689

DOCUMENT 1/54

Comment on the Moore/Sylvester-Bradley ‘‘ Parataxa Plan ”’
(Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 1056)

By ALBERTO M. SIMONETTA
(Istituto di Zoologia dell ‘“‘ Universita’, Firenze, Italy)

(Letter dated 27th January 1958)

In connection with the proposal by Professor Moore and Mr. Sylvester-
Bradley of the recognition of “ Parataxa’’, I wish to express my support
to the advice of Prof. Pokorny (Document 1/39).

It seems to me, anyway, that some additional measures should be taken
in order to enable the “ parataxa’”’ to fulfil their object, to provide some
opportunity for disposal of the burden of names based on inadequate material,

and finally to discourage authors from bestowing new names for the sake of
name giving.

In order to obtain such results I should advise that provisions should be
included in the Rules to the effect :

(1) that Parataxa should be recognised by the Commission only (a) in the
case of discrete parts of animals, (b) in the case of isolated life
stages of animals subject to some sort of metamorphosis. Groups of
life stages and assemblages of any sort should never be dealt with in
terms of parataxa

(2) that relief from priority in the case of names either established
conditionally (Article 6, Section 5(c)) or based on parts of an animal
or on the work of animals (Article 6, Section 5(e) ; Article 8, Section
2(b)) should not require the exercise of the Commission’s Plenary
Powers, but shall need the support of the simple majority of the
voting Commissioners.

690 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

An alternative to the second of the above stated proposals might be :
that whenever the type specimen of a taxon of the species group is found to be
such as to prevent further specific identification by reference to it (and especially
when it consists of an isolated fragment of an individual or of the work of an
animal), but is not such as to prevent supraspecific identification, the
Commission, upon application by any interested zoologist, may rule that the
specific name concerned may be dealt with by any reviser wishing to consider
the type specimen concerned as conspecific with some other taxon based on
more adequate material, as a junior subjective synonym of such better known
taxon. This rule, however, should not extend to taxa of the generic or
suprageneric groups.

I am not going to state in detail the emendations and the additions to the
Rules which should be necessary in order to make the above stated principles
operating, as I feel that, should these ideas meet with the approval of the
interested zoologists, this should be done by someone with a better knowledge
of English than myself.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 691

DOCUMENT 10/3
(continued from page 215)

Support for the Settlement of 7th November 1953 regarding the texts of the
** Régles ’’ to be accepted as the sole substantive texts and opposition
to any attempt to re-open that Settlement

Resolution adopted by ‘“ Société Zoologique de France ”’
at a General Assembly held on 14th January 1958

(Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 1259)

(Letter dated 28th January 1958 from Professor L. Gallien, Secrétaire
Général de la Société Zoologique de France)

J’ai ’honneur de porter & votre connaissance que les Membres de la
Société Zoologique de France réunis, le mardi 14 Janvier 1958, en Assemblée
Générale, ont déclaré 4 l’unanimité :

1°) accepter les décisions de la Commission de Nomenclature (Copenhague,
1953 : 126-131)! selon lesquelles les Régles de la Nomenclature Zoologique
seront imprimées en anglais et en francais, les deux textes faisant foi, et que, en
cas de différend dans l’interprétation de ces régles, la Commission internationale
de Nomenclature statuerait en dernier ressort.

2°) s’opposer a toute tentative de modification de ces décisions, qui aurait
pour conséquence de rendre le seul texte anglais authentique.

1 The Decision here referred to is that taken by Professor R. Spirck in his Minute dated 7th
November 1953 published in December 1953 (Copenhagen Decisions zool. Nomencl. : 126-131).

692 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

DOCUMENT 17/8
(continued from page 324)

Citation of dates in round brackets for bibliographical references

(Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 1294)

By ALEX TOWNSEND
(Librarian, British Museum (Natural History), London)

(Letter dated 24th January 1958)

In the compilation of the Library Catalogue of this Museum we have
found that the use of round brackets is most convenient for enclosing any
information—dates, names, additional titles, or titles of appendices, ete.—
which does not appear on the title-page of the book in question.

2 For instance, if Part 2 of a series comes out a year or more before
Part 1, . ne final catalogue entry will read something like (1839-)1840-42. This
indicates that Part 1 came out in 1840, but that a subsequently numbered part
din fact, appear before Part 1 in 1839. Again, a date in round brackets,
e 1860), indicates that this date does not appear on the title-page or in the

slophon to a book, but that it is to be found somewhere else in the book—
perhaps in a note on the last page stating that the volume was printed in 1860,
and that there is otherwise no reasonable doubt at all that this is, in fact, the
date of publication. Purely conjectural dates, supplied through the detective
work of the bibliographer are, of course, enclosed in square brackets.

3. The round bracket will be rarely used, but seems to me to be a symbol
of desirable subtlety when employed correctly.

punch’
2 4 APR 1953

EG HMI
As

rx
ray

CONTENTS

(continued from front wrapper)

THE LONDON AGENDA PAPER
(a) New Proposals

Case No. 27: Draft “ Régles ’’, Article 5, Section 3: question of the

nature and scope of the provisions to be inserted embodying the

** Principle of Conservation ’’ adopted in principle by the Copenhagen
Congress in 1953

Page

D.27/1 Historical Note by the Secretary to the Commission .. oe O21

D.27/2 Comment by P. Hershkovitz as Se ii ee ean GU
D.27/3 Problem of intrageneric availability for i oe names,

Hobart M. Smith aa ah as ; “ie caer.) Ciebee

D.27/4 Proposals in J. Chester Bradley’s Draft of the Régles .. se Gat
D.27/5 Objection to J. Chester Bradley’s Draft of the es with

revised proposal. Henning Lemche .. 639

Case No. 28: Draft ‘‘ Régles’’: various provisions relating to the
formation and orthography of zoological names

D.28/1 Note by the Secretary to the Commission a R .. 643
D.28/2 Proposal by Pierre Bonnet re re sf a ./ 645

Case No. 29: Draft “‘ Régles ’’, Article 28, Section 15: treatment
of numerals in compound words

D.29/1 Substitute proposal by J. Chester Bradley 7 ait ceo ames

Case No. 30: Draft ‘‘ Régles ’’, Article 28, Section 13 : rule governing
the gender to be attributed to infra-subspecific names when consisting
of adjectives

D.30/1 Proposal by Erich M. Hering... Ae aie x .. 664

Case No. 31: Draft ‘“ Régles’’, Article 4, Section 4: citation of
names of infra-subspecific forms

D.31/1 Proposal by Erich M. Hering... rf os he stip OO

CONTENTS

(continued from inside back wrapper)

Case No. 32: Draft ‘“ Régles ’’, problems arising in connection with
i’? and ‘ii’? terminations for specific names based on modern

patronymics
Page
D.32/1 Explanatory Note by the Secretary to the Commission + 669
D.32/2—D.32/3 Correspondence between Francis Hemming and W. I.
Follett
D.32/2 Letter by W. I. Follett <4 aS 3 ns ate. Cea
D.32/3 Letter by Francis Hemming + z ae sf
D.32/4 Views of the Committees on Nomenclature (a) of the American
Society of Ichthyologists and reas | and (b) of the
Society of Systematic Zoology - 677
(b) Comments on previously published proposals
Case No. 1 : Proposed recognition of the “ Parataxon ’’ concept
D.1/52. H. B. Whittington .. ae te a aks a OO
D.1/53 Report of a joint meeting of the nee ee gee Sool
and of the Palaeontological Association es 687
D.1/54 Alberto M. Simonetta as a 5% a im 7. e888
Case No. 10: ‘* Régles ’’, substantive languages for
D.10/3 Letter from the Société Zoologique de France .. iff ha, en

Case No. 17: Citation of dates in round brackets for bibliographical
references

D.17/8 Alex Townsend... 5 4 fs > ne os Se

© 1958. THE INTERNATIONAL TRUST FOR ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE
Printed in England by METCALFE & COOPER LIMITED, 10-24 Scrutton St., London EC2

VOLUME 15. Part 22 25th April 1958
pp- 693—740

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
Tenth Instalment of the London Congress Agenda Paper

(continued outside back wrapper)

_ 5 MAY 1958
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 Ten Shillings

(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 Braptey (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 CaBrera (La Plata, Argentina) (27th July 1948)
Mr. Francis Hemaine (London, England) (27th July 1948) (Secretary)
Dr. Henning Lemoue (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 Rizy (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 Hrerme (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 BraDLEY (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 Hanx6é (Mezogazdasdgi Muzewm, Budapest, Hungary) (12th August 1953)

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

Mr. P. C. SytvesTER-BRraDLeEy (Sheffield University, Sheffield, England) (12th August 1953)

Dr. L. B. Hoirauis (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. Mauer (Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, University of California, Berkeley, California,
U.S.A.) (29th October 1954)

“r Dr. Ferdinand Prantu (Ndrodni Museum V Praze, Prague, Czechoslovakia) (30th October

954)

Professor Dr. William Ktunetr (Zoologisches Institut der Universitét, Vienna, Austria) (6th
November 1954)

Professor F. 8S. BopennEmeER (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
rn a

Volume 15, Part 22 (pp. 693—740) 25th April 1958

Me ee Cnet AIBC YOF IN ho ote
CASE No. 33

DRAFT “ REGLES ” : MISCELLANEOUS DRAFTING AND OTHER

AMENDMENTS A2\3H Mie
(Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 1329) “eeu, |)
Sk HIST?
[Editorial Note : It is proposed to group under the above Case Number all

papers received containing details of miscellaneous drafting and other
amendments, irrespective to the Articles of the Regles to which they apply.
For the purposes of convenience each such suggestion is being allotted a
Point number in a consecutive series in each paper. Further, the amendments
suggested will be listed under the appropriate Article in the Summary of the
Agenda Paper which it is proposed to compile on the eve of the Colloquium.
Intl’d F.H. 7th March 1958]

yA LED

~ oD
et

DOCUMENT 33/1

eu
Four minor drafting amendments

By J. CHESTER BRADLEY
(Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y iOS 2A.)

(Enclosure to a letter dated 16th January 1958)

The following are minor corrections, but more than mere errata, that
escaped attention in preparing the copy of the revised text of the Régles.

Since some modify the meaning of the rule involved, they will require the
attention of the Colloquium.

Point (1) (Article 5)

P. 45, line 29, after “ nullify it’ insert “ for the purpose of priority but
not of homonymy ”’.

TT

694 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Point (2) (Article 7)

P. 64, line 16, I propose to add “ This shall include offset printing, but not
reproduction by mimeograph, hectograph, or similar processes”. It should
be noted that these processes frequently blur or render illegible some letters
or parts of pages and are not really suited to large-scale reproduction.

Point (3) (Article 22)

P. 159, following line 25, the following should be inserted: “ (a) Species or
higher taxa. Change of rank between species and subspecies, genus and
subgenus, or taxa of the Family-Group or higher does not affect the author-
ship’. Paragraphs (a) and (b) should then be re-lettered ‘“‘ (b) ”’ and “ (ce) ”.

Point (4) (Article 24)

P. 183, after line 8, add “(ii)”. If two specific names within a single
genus are variant spellings of the same geographical name, the case shall be
brought to the attention of the Commission for the purpose of deciding whether
they shall be deemed homonyms.

Example : brasiliensis and braziliensis.

(If this change is made paragraph (ii) will become (iii).)

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 695

CASE No. 34

DRAFT “ REGLES ’’, ARTICLE 22 : AUTHORSHIP OF NAMES
(Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 1326)

(For the relevant provision in the Draft Régles see 1957,
Bull. zool. Nomencl. 14 : 156-157)

DOCUMENT 34/1

Proposal for the amendment of Article 21 of the “ Régles ”’ (i.e. Draft
Article 22) so as to make its operation entirely objective in cases where
a person other than the nominal author of the book or paper concerned
is responsible for a name and its indication, definition or description
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, and The American Museum of Natural
History, New York)

Introduction

Prior to the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology held at Paris
in 1948, Article 21 of the Régles read as follows :

Article 21.—The author of a scientific name is that person who first publishes the name
in connection with an indication, a definition, or a description, unless it is clear from the
contents of the publication that some other person is responsible for said name and its
indication, definition, or description.

This rule does not appear to have been construed by the Commission or passed
upon in any Opinion or Declaration.

Bull. zool. Nomencl. Vol. 15, Part 22. April 1958.

696 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

2. At the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology this rule was
revised and amplified. Although the Régles as amended at Paris have never been
published, we can obtain the substance of the amendment of Article 21 by
referring to volume 4 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. There, on
pages 565 and 566 we find the following :

*“ THE COMMISSION agreed :—

(1) to recommend that the following provisions should be added to Article 21 prescribing
the method to be followed (i) in determining the authorship to be attributed to a
name published in a book or paper written jointly by two or more authors and to a
name published by one author in a book or paper written by another author, and
(ii) in citing names so published :—

(a) Where in a book or paper written jointly by two or more authors, it is clearly
stated that one of those authors is exclusively responsible for the description of
one or more specified taxonomic units there named, the names or names so
published are to be attributed solely to the author stated to be responsible
for the descriptions thereof and not jointly to both or all of the joint authors of
the book or paper. The name of a taxonomic unit so described and named by
an author “‘ B” in a paper written jointly by himself and one or more other
authors (say, a paper written jointly by authors “ A” and “ B”’) is to be cited
as having been published by “‘ B’ in‘ A’ and‘ B’”

(b) Where in a book or paper written by one author (say author “ A’) it is clearly
stated that the description of one or more specified taxonomic units there
named has been prepared exclusively by some other author (say, author “ C”’),
the name or names in question are to be attributed to author ‘‘C”, not to
author “A”. The name of a taxonomic unit so described and named is to be
cited by later authors as having been published by “‘C’ in‘ A’”.

(2) to invite the Acting President, in his capacity as Secretary to the Commission, to report
forthwith to the Section on Nomenclature the recommendation recorded in (1) above.

(The Acting President thereupon submitted the foregoing recommendations to the Section
on Nomenclature.) ”’.

The record of the approval of the above recommendation by the Section on
Nomenclature will be found on page 119 of Volume 5 of the Bulletin of
Zoological Nomenclature.

3. At the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology held at Copenhagen
in 1953, Article 21 of the Régles was amended again. It is once more impossible
to quote the exact language of the amendment, because it has not been
published either in draft or final form. However, by referring to the
Copenhagen Decisions (1953), edited by Francis Hemming, we find the
following (pp. 58-59) :

Article 21

103. Clarification of the rules relating to the authorship to be attributed to scientific
names 30: The Colloquium considers that it is desirable that a clarification should be given
of the relationship between two decisions taken in Paris in 1948 in regard to the authorship
to be attributed to a name published by an author other than that by whom the name was
first proposed. Under the first of these decisions, which is recorded on pages 259-260 of
volume 4 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, a name which has been published as a
nomen nudum or has gained currency through being used as a manuscript is to be attributed
to the author by which it was first validly published with an indication ; under the second

——

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 697

of these decisions, which is recorded on pages 565-566 of the same volume of the Bulletin, a
name published in a book or paper by one author of the book or paper concerned makes it
clear that the other author was responsible both for the new name and for the “ indication ” or
description upon which the availability of that name rests. In addition to the need for
clarifying the relationship between the foregoing decisions, it is desirable also—in the interests
of clarity—that a small drafting amendment should be made in the second of these decisions.
The Colloquium accordingly recommends :—

(1) that words should be inserted in Article 21 to make it clear that the rule relating to the
authorship to be attributed to a name published by an author other than that by
whom it was originally proposed set out on pages 565-566 (Conclusion 49 of the
Fourteenth Meeting held by the International Commission during its Paris Session
in 1948) of volume 4 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature takes precedence over
the associated rule relating to the authorship to be attributed to nomina nuda and
manuscript names when later validly published with an indication set out on pages
259-260 (Conclusion 28 of the Ninth Meeting of the Commission during its Paris
Session) of the same volume ;

(2) that the rule set out on pages 565-566 of vol. 4 of the Bulletin should be qualified in such
a way as to make it clear that it applies only where the book or paper concerned
contains a clear indication not only that the name in question was proposed by some
author other than that by whom the book or paper concerned was written but also
that the indication, definition or description on which, under Article 25, the availability
of that name depends was written not by the author of the book or paper concerned
but by the author to whom the name is there attributed ”’.

The objection to the proposed wording of Article 21

4, This paper is concerned solely with that part of Article 21 subdivision
(2) above, which relates to a name proposed by an author other than the one
by whom a book or paper was written, when the indication, definition or
description on which, under Article 25, the availability of that name depends
was written not by the author of the book or paper concerned but by another
to whom the name is sought to be attributed. It will facilitate the study of this
problem to analyze closely the wording of (2) above by breaking it up into its
component parts. We then see that the rule set out on pages 565-566 of
Volume 4 of the Bulletin should be (italics ours) :

qualified in such a way as to make it clear that it applies only where the book or paper
concerned contains a clear indication not only that

(a) the name in question was proposed by some author other than that by whom the book
or paper concerned was written but also that

(b) the indication, definition or description on which that name depends was written
(1) not by the author of the book or paper concerned but
(2) by the author to whom the name is there attributed.

5. As the Régles are now worded—insofar as we can tell without its actual
_ text—the question is still a subjective one, as to which zoologists may reasonably

_ differ. The use of the expressions “ to make it clear ”’, and “ a clear indication ”,

both highly subjective expressions, render the proposed Article difficult of
application because what is clear to one person may not be at all clear to

698 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

another, as we shall see from an examination of the following cases which
illustrate this point :—

(1) Is the generic name “ Copaeodes ”’ to be ascribed to Edwards
or Speyer ?

This name has been ascribed usually to Edwards, 1877, but Evans (1955,
307) credits it to Speyer. The name appeared first in the “ Appendix ”
to a paper by Edwards entitled ‘‘ Catalogue of the diurnal Lepidoptera of
America north of Mexico” (1877, p. 64). It is there stated by Edwards
(p. 63) “I give the definitions of Sections and Genera of the Hesperidae as
sent by Dr. Speyer, with his notes ”’, [italics ours]. On the following page
appears ‘“‘COPAEODES, Speyer’, with a definition or description. The
question is, ‘‘ Who is responsible for the name Copaeodes?”’ It is nowhere
definitely stated that this name was proposed or suggested by Speyer. If
Article 21 contained language that both the name and indication, etc.,
must be “expressly stated’’ by the author of the paper to have been
proposed by a third party, it would be obvious in this instance that the name
could not be ascribed to Speyer. In this case there may be honest differences
of opinion on this subject, as evidenced by the fact that Edwards, until
Evans’ publication, had been treated by all American writers as the author
of Copaeodes.

(2) Is the specific name “‘ eurydice ’’ to be ascribed to Boisduval
or Brisout and Bellier ?

Colias eurydice has been ascribed usually to Boisduval with the date
28 March 1855. But the author’s attention has been called recently by
Mr. Paddy McHenry of Burbank, California, to the fact that this name with a
description was published in the minutes of a meeting of the Société
Entomologique de France, which are signed by Brisout de Barneville and
Bellier de la Chavignerie as secretaries, although in the index this note is
ascribed to Boisduval. The relevant portion of the minutes (omitting
references to other specific names which are similarly involved) is as follows :

M. le docteur Boisduval donne communication d’une lettre de M. Lorquin, qui
contient quelques détails sur les insectes qu’il a recueillis en Californie.

Le méme membre fait aussi passer sous les yeux de la Société quelques
Lépidoptéres des montagnes de la Californie, qu'il a également recus de M. Lorquin,
et qu’il regarde comme mouveaux pour la sciénce ; et il dit qu’il se propose de décrire
plus tard ces espéces avec quelques autres que lui promet encore M. Lorquin, et de les
publier dans nos Annales, ainsi qu’il a déja fait pour celles qu’il a regues précédemment.

Tels sont entre autres . . . la Colias ewrydice, la plus belle des Coliades connues ;
elle a le port et la taille de la Caesonia, et & peu pres avec le méme dessin, mais chez
cette brillante espéce le jaune est remplacé par un orangé vif, et les ailes supérieures
ont un reflet violet changeant comme dans nos Mars; . . . Commissaires-rapporteurs ;
MM. L. Brisout de Barneville et Bellier de la Chavignerie.

Here is a case where it does not appear expressly that Boisduval was
responsible for the names or their definitions or descriptions. It is possible
that Lorquin may have been responsible for both. According to the

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 699

minutes of the meeting, Boisduval merely showed the specimens to those
present and said that he intended to describe them, which he did not do
until seven years later in 1862. At that time it is true he referred to the
meeting of 1855, with a slight typographical error as to the page number,
indicating perhaps thereby that he believed he had published the names at
that time.

On the previous page of the Bulletin, which is part of the minutes of the
same meeting, we have a case where it is perfectly clear that a party other
than the secretaries of the meeting is responsible for a new name and its
definition or description. There (p. 30) the following appears :

M. L. Fairmaire fait passer sous les yeux des membres de la Société quelques
individus de l’Anisotoma picea, trouvés par M. Caulle dans les sables de Cayeux . .
En méme temps il montre quatre individus d’une espéce nouvelle du méme genre,
récemment découverte aux environs du Paris, et dont voici la diagnose :

“ Anisotoma ornata ...”’

Then follows a Latin description, and also in smaller type a history of the
discovery, collector, etc., and a comparison with another species.

Conclusion and Recommendation

6. These two cases show that subdivision (2) of Article 21, as it appears
to read at present, is too subjective to be of much help to a taxonomist. Both
of these cases could be decided in favour of Edwards or Speyer as to the first,
and Brisout and Bellier or Boisduval as to the second, but that would not be
the result if the Article were made entirely objective by adding the words
“expressly stated”. However, in that event Copaeodes and Colias eurydice
would probably be credited to individuals who might not in fact have been
their actual authors. If the London Congress wishes to attain the opposite
result, Article 21 should state in words or substance “ unless it appears by
reasonable inference from all the facts and circumstances that the names
and/or indications, etc., were proposed by a third party’. Then Copaeodes
would be ascribed to Speyer and Colias eurydice to Boisduval, a fair result.

7. Nevertheless, in order to make (2) of Article 21 entirely objective, it is
proposed that in the alternative subdivision (2) be amended so as to read as
follows :—

The author of a scientific name is that person who first publishes the
name in connection with an indication, a definition, or a description, unless
it is stated expressly in the same publication that some other person is
responsible for said name and its indication, definition, or description. If
one person is responsible for the name and another for the indication,
definition, or description, that shall constitute joint authorship.

700 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

8. If such phraseology were adopted, there could be no possible doubt
about the proper solution of the two cases heretofore discussed. Copaeodes
would be attributed to Edwards, because it is nowhere expressly stated that
Speyer was responsible for that name and Colias ewrydice (as well as the other
names proposed in the minutes of the meeting) would be ascribed to Brisout
and Bellier, because it is nowhere stated expressly in the minutes that
Boisduval was responsible for that name and its definition or description.
Perhaps—nay probably—an injustice would be done to Speyer and Boisduval,
but the problems would be decided beyond dispute. Also, the situation not
now provided for in the Régles where one person is responsible for the name
and another for the indication, definition, or description would be covered.
Such cases undoubtedly exist, although none comes to mind at the moment.

Literature Cited

Brisout de Barneville, Louis & Jean Baptiste Eugéne Bellier de la Chavignerie
1855. Seance du 28 Mars 1855. Bull. Soc. Ent. France, 3 (3rd ser.) : xxv—xxxii

Edwards, William Henry
1877. ‘‘ Catalogue of the diurnal Lepidoptera of America north of Mexico”. Trans.
Amer. Ent. Soc. 6 : 1-68

Evans, William Harry
1955-[1956]. A Catalogue of the American Hesperiidae indicating the classification and
nomenclature adopted in the British Museum (Natural History). London, British
Museum, pt. 4 (1955), vi + 500 pp., pls. 54-88 + [3] pp.; addenda and corrigenda

[1956], 4 pp.
Hemming, Francis (ed.)
1953. Copenhagen decisions on zoological nomenclature. Additions to, and modifications

of, the “ Regles Internationales de la Nomenclature Zoologique”. Approved and
adopted by the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology, Copenhagen, August,
1953. London, International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, xxx + 136 pp.,
2 pls.

Postscript

9. Shortly after the preparation of the foregoing paper the authors
received (28 December 1957) Part 1 of the draft of the revised English text
of the Reégles, which as published, is dated 29th November 1957 (Bull. zool.
Nomencl. Vol. 14, Pts. 1-6, pp. 1-190).

10. While the old Article 21 consisted of a single paragraph, the new
Article 22 consists of five main headings, as follows (: 156): ““A. DETER-
MINATION OF AUTHORSHIP”, “B. CITATION OF THE NAME OF
THE AUTHOR”, “C. CITATION OF DATE”, “D. CITATION OF
OTHER DATA ”’, and “ E. BIBLIOGRAPHIC REFERENCES”. We are
concerned only with the first of these headings which is divided into three
sections entitled : ‘‘ Section 1. General Rules’’, “‘ Section 2. New combinations ”’,
and “Section 3. Change of rank’’, and with only Section 1 thereof. This

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 701

section is further subdivided into eight subdivisions entitled: “ (a) One
among joint authors.”, “(b) Publication in minutes of meetings”, ‘ (¢)
Contributors ”’, “ (d) ‘ Nomina nuda’ or manuscript names when established 4
“(e) Rejected names when later established ”, “(f) Names published
conditionally ’’, ‘‘ (g) Valid emendations ”, and “(h) Invalid emendations ”’.
The only seemingly relevant provisions of these eight subdivisions to this
paper are (a), (b), and (c), which are now quoted in full with their annotations
and citations :

A. DETERMINATION OF AUTHORSHIP

Section 1. General rules.

(a) One among joint authors.—If a name was established in a work written jointly by two or
more authors and it is clearly stated that one of those authors is exclusively responsible for
the description or indication that made that name available, it shall be attributed solely to
that author, not to the joint authors of the work.

B. 4 : 565, par. 49 (1a)

(For citation see Section 5, b, i).

(b) Publication in minutes of meetings.—If the name of a taxon is established by publication
in the minutes of a meeting, its author shall be the person responsible for it, not the secretary
of the meeting or other reporter (cf. 7/3).

Declaration 32. Opinions and Declarations

“ Recommendation ” 1. Unpublished data not to appear in minutes.—Kditors and reporters
of meetings should not include in their published reports new names of taxa or particulars of
acts affecting the nomenclatural status of names.

Declaration 32. Opinions and Declarations

(c) Contributors.—If it is clearly indicated that the description, definition, or indication that
serves to validate (cf. Art. 6) the name of a new taxon was prepared by some one other than the
author of the work, that name shall be attributed to the author who contributed it, not to the
author of the work.

B. 4 : 565, par. 49 (1b)

(For citation, see Section 5, b).
Paragraphs (a) and (c) shall take precedence over paragraph (d) following.

C. p. 59, par. 103 (1)

11. The language of Section 1 subdivision (b) purports to incorporate the
substance of Declaration 32* into the rules but does not solve the problems
discussed in this paper, because it is still necessary to determine who is
responsible for the name published in the minutes, and that fact is clearly
governed by subdivision (c) where is found again the subjective language
“clearly indicated ”’.

pe le a

* This Declaration (1957, Opinions and Declarations, vol. 16, p- xiii), insofar as material,
reads as follows: “‘ DECLARATION :—(1) Where (a) in connection with the presentation of an
unpublished paper before a meeting of a learned society or with the exhibition of a specimen

ore such a meeting, a name is published with an “ indication ” in an abstract prepared for
use at, or in a report of the proceedings of, such a meeting, and thus acquires the status of
availability in zoological nomenclature, the name so published is to be attributed to the author
of the unpublished paper or, as the case may be, to the zoologist by whom was proposed the name
attached to the specimen exhibited and not to the author of the abstract or report ”’.

702 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

12. It will be notice from a perusal of the draft of Article 22 (existing
Article 21) that it bears very slight resemblance to the actions hereintofore
quoted as having been taken at Paris (1948) or Copenhagen (1953). In the
first place little importance seems to be attached any longer to the person
responsible for the name. Sole emphasis is given now to the indication,
definition or description, which are cut down in one place to “.. . the
description or indication ...°’ Secondly, Declaration 32 is introduced into the
picture, but fails to provide what the result is if no one appears to be responsible
for a name in the minutes of a meeting, except that it shall not be attributed
to the secretary of the meeting. Is such a name then a nomen nudum or an
anonymous name ? If the former result is to follow, in one case cited neither
Boisduval nor the secretaries of the meeting may be responsible for the names
published in 1855. It is not believed that the name Colias eurydice can be
a nomen nudum because it was published with an indication, definition or
description (see new Article 7, Section 3). Ifthe secretaries of the meeting should
not be credited with it, it must be anonymous with possibly Boisduval’s name
in brackets. But the date would remain 1855 and not become 1862.

13. It seems to the authors of this paper that before the problems herein
discussed can be settled satisfactorily, a decision must be made whether they
are to be solved objectively or subjectively. Once that decision has been
made, suitable language to express that solution can certainly be found.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 703

CASE No. 35

DRAFT ‘‘ REGLES ’’ (GENERAL EDITORIAL QUESTIONS) :

QUESTION OF THE USE OF INITIAL CAPITAL LETTERS FOR

THE NAMES OF CATEGORIES IN THE ANIMAL KINGDOM

AND OF THE USE OF HYPHENS WHERE SUCH NAMES
CONSIST OF COMPOUND WORDS

(Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 1306)
DOCUMENT 35/1

The hyphenation and capitalization of the categories of classification

By J. CHESTER BRADLEY
(Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.)

(Statement received on 20th January 1958)

In the draft of the revised English text of the Régles, editorial policy has
not followed what I believe to be the best modern usage in hyphenation and
capitalization of such terms of classification as suborder, phylum, etc. In these
matters, zoological usage need not deviate from the ordinary usage of the
English language, and there is therefore no need for special rules within the
Code dealing with them. But the text, when published, will afford examples
to which zoologists will look and therefore the Colloquium should give the
matter thought and reach a decision as to what forms shall be adopted when the
code is finally printed.

2. ““ A hyphen is a symbol conveying that two words are made into one ”’
(Fowler. A dictionary of modern English usage). A prefix is “a significent
syllable or particle used as the first element of a word. (Standard dictionary).

704 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

An inseparable prefix is a mere part, that was not a separate word in its original
language (Standard dictionary). There is no warrant in English grammar
for separating an inseparable prefix by a hyphen from the balance of the
word of which it forms a part; a hyphen so used would interrupt the unity
and continuity of the word, and would not convey the meaning that a hyphen
implies, nor any other meaning. “ Infra-’’, “ sub-’’, and “ super- ’’, although
prepositions or adverbs in Latin are only inseparable prefixes in English.
Words initiated by them are not divided by a hyphen in the Oxford, Standard,
Fowler’s, or Webster’s dictionaries. It follows that infrasubspecific, not
infra-subspecific is a correctly written, though awkward, adjective. Subspecies,
subgenus, suborder, subclass, superfamily appear in one or more of the
dictionaries mentioned, but in some cases the dividing of all syllables by
hyphens makes it difficult to tell whether a hyphen is intended unless the word
appears in the text, in which case such words are invariably without hyphens.
Such English zoologists as Huxley and Lankester hyphened and capitalized
at least the higher categories. Schenk and McMasters (Procedures in Taxonomy,
last paragraph on p. 4) as well as the dictionaries cited, use neither hyphens
nor capitals in any category.

8. The Oxford, Standard, and Webster’s dictionaries, like Schenk and
McMasters, do not capitalize the names of any category (of course they capitalize
the names of the taxa). The categories are not capitalized whether employed
generically, as genus, family, class, phylum, or specifically as genus Homo,
family HOMINIDAE, class Mammalia, or phylum Vertebrata. I can see no
logical reason for using small initial letters and no hyphens up to a certain
point in the ascending scale of classification, and above that point both hyphens
and capitals. It seems a feeble method of implying a certain grandeur to the
higher categories that is denied the lesser, on the same principle that we
capitalize the word God when referring to the deity but not in reference to the
heathen gods.

4, I accordingly propose that in the forthcoming official English text of
the Code, we employ kingdom, subkingdom, phylum, subphylum, superclass,
class, subclass, superorder, order, suborder, superfamily, family, subfamily,
tribe, genus, subgenus, species, subspecies, and infrasubspecific form, and make
the corresponding changes throughout the revised English text, including the
Glossary.

5. (The usage employed by the editors or printers of the text as published
in Volume 14 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature is Phylum, Sub-Phylum,
Super-Class, Class, Sub-Class, Super-Order, Order, Sub-Order, superfamily,
family, subfamily, tribe, genus, subgenus, species, subspecies, and infra-
subspecific form.)

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 705

DOCUMENT 1/55
(continued from page 691)

A propos de l’introduction des Parataxons
dans la Nomenclature Zoologique

(Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 1056)

Par GEORGES DEFLANDRE et MARTHE DEFLANDRE-RIGAUD

(Ecole Pratique des Hautes Etudes et Centre
National de la Recherche Scientifique, Paris)

(1) La classification morphologique (Ordo militaris de C. Croneis)
au XIIIe Congrés international de Zoologie de Paris 1948.

Liinitiative prise par Raymond C. Moore et P. C. Sylvester-Bradley
relativement a introduction des parataxons (*) dans la Nomenclature zoo-
logique nous incite & rappeler l’échec que nous avons subi en 1948, au 13,
Congrés international de Zoologie 4 Paris, lorsque nous avons précisément
proposé l’introduction dans la Nomenclature zoologique, du systeme imaginé
par C. Croneis pour classer les sclérites d’Holothurides fossiles. Ce systéme
répondait trés exactement a toutes les objections soulevées 4 l’époque et, si
nous avions été suivis, des régles eussent été alors instaurées qui auraient
évité la naissance des imbroglios liés, par exemple, au développement (relatif)
de nos connaissances sur les Conodontes.

2. Voici le texte de la communication rédigée en commun et présentée
par l’un de nous en séance de la section X, Nomenclature, présidée par
M. F. Hemming (Juillet 1948), communication intitulée “La nomenclature
des Fragments fossiles (organites et sclérites) d’Invertébrés ”’ et insérée dans
le volume des Comptes Rendus du Congrés (p. 576).

3. “ La tendance a l'utilisation, en micropaléontologie appliquée, de la
totalité des vestiges organiques contenus dans les roches sédimentaires, conduit

* Les botanistes francais ayant adopté le pluriel : des taxons (cf. H. Rabechault 1955) nous
agissons de méme pour parataxons, le changement de la désinence on en a n’étant pas une marque
correcte du pluriel dans la langue frangaise.

- Bull. zool. Nomencl. Vol. 15, Part 22. April 1958.

706 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

& un probléme de nomenclature générale, auquel Croneis a proposé une solution.
Ce probléme se pose conjointement dans les domaines zoologique et botanique :
il s’agit de la spécification et de la classification des fragments microscopiques
d’organismes : organites ou sclérites sensu lato (p. ex. machoires d’Annélides,
Conodontes, sclérites d’Holothurides, spicules divers). Un organite ou un
sclérite peut parfois caractériser une espéce et recevoir un nom spécifique
justifié. Plus souvent, il y a incertitude—ou méme certitude opposée : l'objet
considéré n’est pas spécial a une espéce, parfois pas méme a un genre (certains
spicules ou sclérites). Par nécessité pratique et en vue d’une utilisation
stratigraphique, il y a lieu de désigner ces objets en leur appliquant les principes
de la nomenclature binominale latine linnéenne. Cependant, pour répondre
aux objections motivées de certains biologistes, pour éviter aussi des inter-
prétations erronées (par ex. attribution 4 un genre, d’une ancienneté invérifiable,
& la suite de l'emploi de son nom générique pour un microfossile), il y aurait
lieu de bannir les termes d’espéces, de genres, etc., et d’éviter d’employer
inconsidérément des noms de genres actuels. Croneis a proposé (1938, 1941,
Bull. Amer, Ass. Petrol. Geol., p. 1245) de substituer aux divers termes de
la nomenclature biologique, les appellations en usage dans l’Ordo militaris
romain: & la succession hiérarchique Classe-Ordre-Famille-Genre-Espéce,
correspondrait exactement : Exercitus-Legio-Cohors-Manipulus-Centuria. En
pratique, les trois derniers termes, la Cohorte, le Manipule, la Centurie,
équivalant respectivement au rang de la famille, du genre et de l’espéce, sont
appelés a étre les plus usités. Avec Croneis, nous pensons qu'il est méme plus
commode de parler d’un manipule, que d’un genre artificiel, d’un genre morpho-
logique ou d’un pseudo-genre. Une acception restrictive de ce dernier terme est
d’ailleurs proposée d’autre part. Les appellations nouvellement introduites
seront suivies respectivement de cohors nov., manip. nov. ou cent. nov. II est
souhaitable qu’un manip nov. morphologiquement apparenté 4 un genre vivant,
prenne son nom avec la désinence tfes.

4, Dans Vordre de recherches poursuivies par lun de nous (M. D.-R.,
sclérites d’Holothurides), celui-ci propose dés 4 présent les manipules nouveaux
suivants : Chiridotites, Cucumarites, Myriotrochites, Stichopites et Synaptites
Defl.-Rig. manip. nov., dont la diagnose sera donnée ultérieurement ”’.

5. La discussion qui a suivi cette communication a été finalement &
Vorigine de la décision mentionnée dans le document 1/1 (Bull. zool. Nomenel.
15 : 6) par R. C. Moore et P. C. Sylvester-Bradley, rejetant hors de la Nomen-
clature Zoologique, le systéme de Nomenclature morphologique de C. Croneis,
dont nous préconisions l’adoption. Les termes de Croneis, que nous avions
fait nétres, considérés comme des “ termes techniques ’’, exclus du domaine
de la Nomenclature Zoologique étaient donc privés de la protection accordée
par les Reégles.

6. C’est d’ailleurs ce qui a été exprimé dans les termes suivants par
R. C. Moore, dans un Digest joint a une circulaire de F. Hemming :

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 707

‘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 regulations, thus promoting chaos in nomenclature.”

7. Il est pour le moins curieux que dans aucun des textes récents dont
nous avons eu connaissance—soit le fascicule extrait du Bull. zool. Nomencl.
15 : 1—70, soit le digest mentionné supra—il n’est fait allusion a la tentative
de C. Croneis, auteur américain 4 qui l’on doit d’avoir proposé la premiére
solution, explicitement développée dans son adresse de 1941 (Micropaleonto-
logy—Past and Future) mais qui remontait 4 1938.

8. L’un de nous (M. D.-R.) avait, dés 1950, réagi assez vivement contre
la décision de 1948, dans un travail sur les sclérites rotiformes des Holothurides
fossiles, écrivant ce qui suit (loc. cit. p. 50) :

“Notre proposition 4 la Commission de Nomenclature du XIII® Congrés
International de Zoologie a Paris, a été mise en minorité et repoussée—au moins
jusqu’au prochain Congrés—aprés une discussion qui s’est déroulée presque
uniquement en langue anglaise. Outre l’esprit naturellement hostile aux
innovations qui régne normalement dans cette Commission et qui ne pouvait
que se manifester en l’occurence, le rejet a été motivé par des critiques basées
sur le fait que certains des termes ci-dessus (comme Legio, Centuria) ont été
déja utilisés, avec des acceptions variées d’ailleurs, pour des unités systématiques
secondaires, diversement intercalées dans la classification linnéenne. Cette
objection—présentée comme fondamentale—me parait dénuée d’importance.”’

9. Dans le travail en question, comme dans un travail antérieur sur les
Synaptites, le systeme de C. Croneis a été intégralement appliqué : tous les
termes utilisés sont des parataxons au sens de R. C. Moore et P. C. Sylvester-
Bradley.

10. Nous posons alors la question suivante : pourquoi la premiére partie
de la proposition Moore/Sylvester-Bradley, créant le terme parataxon (im-
pliquant une parataxinomie)* ne comporte-t-elle pas une terminologie adaptée,
se substituant obligatoirement a la terminologie linnéenne ? Les auteurs pensent-
ils utiliser les termes espéce, genre, famille, etc. . . avec leur signification simple-
ment hiérarchique mais non linnéenne, ce qui pourrait paraitre intolérable
& beaucoup de systématiciens, ou pensent-ils proposer encore une terminologie
nouvelle avec le méme préfixe qu’ils ont choisi pour taxon : parespéce (para-

species), paragenre (paragenus), parafamille (parafamilia), parordre (parordo),
paraclasse (paraclassa) ?

* Nous disons bien parataxinomie et non parataxonomie, en vertu de la recommandation
de l’Académie des Sciences. (Séance du Ier Juillet 1957, C.R. t.245, pp. 125-127.)

708 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

11. Nous voulons espérer que, cette fois, la priorité de fait de C. Croneis
incitera a adopter définitivement, en parataxinomie, la terminologie centurie-
manipule-cohorte etc. . . qui, pratiquement, a déja acquis un certain droit
de cité par son introduction dans le Traité de Paléontologie (Edit. J. Piveteau)
et dans le Traité de Zoologie (Edit. P. P. Grassé), pour les chapitres traitant des
Coccolithophoridés (G. Deflandre) et des Holothurides (M. Deflandre-Rigaud).

x

12. Nous répétons encore que l’objection relative a l’emploi sporadique
des termes Legio et Centuria, non objectivement et légitimement définis par
certains classificateurs n’a pas lieu d’étre prise en considération. Ona d’ailleurs
fait deja remarquer que, dans la classification de Croneis, les termes hierarchique-
ment supérieurs 4 la cohorte (famille) seront rarement utilisés.

(2) Les rapports entre la classification morphologique (Parataxi-
nomie) et la classification naturelle, linnéenne (Taxinomie).
Cas des selérites sensu lato, des fragments squelettiques et
dermiques, des organes ou organites partiels ou entiers.

13. Il ne s’agit pas, dans ce qui va suivre de discuter le contenu des
Recommandations de Moore/Sylvester-Bradley (loc. cit. pp. 12-13) que nous
supposerons entérinées (avec ou sans modifications) mais d’envisager le danger
d’un divorce total, dans l’esprit, de la Taxinomie et de la Parataxinomie, vis-4-vis
des avantages évidents d’une nette séparation dans la forme.

14. Ces réflexions nous sont suggérées en particulier par le travail ‘‘ Mono-
graph of Fossil Holothurian Sclerites ” de Frizzel et Exline 1955, ot les Régles
de la Nomenclature zoologique ont été strictement appliquées 4 une classifica-
tion morphologique prise dans son sens le plus absolu. En dehors de certains
points particuliers, qui ne sauraient étre exposés ici, parce qu’ils relévent de
discussions entre spécialistes, et auxquels M. Deflandre-Rigaud a fait allusion
récemment (1957 b), il y a lieu de mettre en relief certains résultats illogiques
flagrants acceptés par Frizzel et Exline.

15. Ces auteurs ont trés honnétement présenté leur classification comme
un arrangement “non zoologique’”’, envisageant méme la substitution des
catégories de Ordo militaris, mais leur ‘‘ Systematic Catalogue’ énumére
en fait des familles (de sclérites) et des espéces (de sclérites). Il apparait évident
que les auteurs ont voulu prendre une assurance contre l’invalidation éventuelle
des termes utilisés ou créés par eux, précaution qui ne saurait leur étre reprochée.

16. Par ailleurs, ils ont généralement et équitablement réutilisés les noms - —

proposés par leurs devanciers et en particulier la majeure partie de ceux créés

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 709

par M. Deflandre-Rigaud (manipules et centuries), tout en précisant, pour
chaque nom repris, que celui-ci était 4 sa création “exclu ou hors de la
nomenclature zoologique ”’.

17. Par contre, ils n’ont tenu aucun compte des essais de M. Deflandre-
Rigaud, en vue d’une certaine harmonisation entre la classification des sclérites
et celle, naturelle, des animaux dont ils proviennent (M. Deflandre-Rigaud 1952
et 1953). Ils ne pouvaient d’ailleurs guére faire autrement puisque leur pré-
sentation générale (leurs clefs dichotomiques en particulier), leur interdisait
de penser & autre chose qu’aux seuls caractéres morphologiques. Ainsi, leur
monographie peut répondre pleinement—sauf critiques de détails—aux besoins
et aux buts des stratigraphes, mais elle ne peut qu’induire en erreur des palé-
ontologistes non diment avertis, qui tenteraient de se faire une idée de
Vévolution des Holothurides et de la chronologie de l’apparition de leurs divers

types.

18. En voici un exemple frappant :

La famille des Theeliidae Frizzel et Exline 1955 (l.c., p. 109) (Chiridotite-
sidae Deflandre-Rigaud 1957: Theelia Schlumberger invalidé) comprend les
genres Protheelia Frizzel et Exline 1955, Acanthotheelia Frizzel et Exline 1955,
Theelia Schlumberger 1890 (non Theelia Ludwig 1889) synonyme de Chiri-
dotites Defl.-Rig. 1948, Hemisphaeranthos Terquem et Berthelin emend. Frizzel
et Exline (Myriotrochites Defl.-Rig. 1948, Stweria Schlumberger 1888, non
Sturia Mojsisovics 1882) et enfin Protocaudina Croneis 1932.

19. Or les quatre premiers genres sont des sclérites rotiformes (en forme
de roues) ayant appartenu sans aucune contestation possible 4 des animaux
de Ordre des Synaptides, Super-ordre des Apoda, tandis que le cinquiéme,
Protocaudina, rassemble des sclérites disciformes, sans moyeu central et sans
véritables rayons, provenant d’animaux de 1|’Ordre des Elasipodes, super-
ordre des Actinopoda.

20. D’autre part les sclérites du genre Rhabdotites Defl.-Rig. 1952 sont

_ classés dans la famille des Stichopitidae Frizzel et Exline 1955, & cété des
_ Stichopites Defl.-Rig. 1948 emend. Frizzel et Exline 1955. Ces derniers sont
des sclérites d’Holothurides de l’Ordre des Aspidochirotes (Actinopoda) tandis
que les Rhabdotites sont liés, comme les Chiridotites, aux Synaptides (Apoda).

f.

q 21. Unautre exemple, non moins choquant du point de vue paléontologique,
est le classement dans deux familles différentes, Synaptitidae Frizzel et Exline
1955 et Calcancoridae Frizzel et Exline 1955, des sclérites en plaques et des
_ sclérites en ancres que l’on sait fort bien avoir appartenu aux mémes animaux,
du type Synapta.

VV

710 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

22. Ce n’est, bien entendu, pas l’application logique d’un systéme de
classification purement morphologique qui est critiquée ici, mais trés exactement
le rapprochement ou léloignement artificiels de vestiges d’animaux bien
caractéristiques, par l’effet de la création de familles dont le polyphylétisme
(d’ailleurs reconnu et noté plusieurs fois par Frizzel et Exline) ne se justifie pas
par l’absence de données sur la position systématique naturelle des animaux
porteurs des sclérites.

23. Nous n’avons, d’autre part, aucune critique semblable a présenter
lorsqu’il s’agit de ranger des sclérites qui, dans la nature actuelle, ne sont
caractéristiques ni d’Ordres, ni de familles, ni de genres, et parfois pas méme
d’espéces particuliéres. C’est ce que M. Deflandre-Rigaud a fait remarquer en
1952 (loc. cit. p. 4). Toutefois la création de familles ne s’imposait pas.

24. Nous pensons done qu'il est possible (et souhaitable méme) de réaliser
pour des parataxons au niveau du genre (—manipule) et au niveau de l’espéce
(=centurie) des classements dichotomiques pratiques, ol se peuvent cétoyer
des éléments morphologiquement apparentés, méme s’ils sont systématique-
ment éloignés. Mais nous estimons qu’au niveau de la famille (—cohorte)
les véritables affinités naturelles doivent étre respectées. D ailleurs, on recon-
naitra avec nous que la création de familles ‘“‘ purement morphologiques ”
n’apporte rien au point de vue de la science paléontologique : ce sont de simples
numéros de tiroirs qui n’auraient d’intérét que s ‘ils aidaient d’une facgon extréme-
ment efficace lors des déterminations. Nous n’avons pas l’impression que ce
soit le cas.

25. Des efforts doivent donc étre faits pour que la Parataxinomie (classi-
fication des parataxons) ne devienne pas une science complétement séparée
de la Taxinomie (classification des taxons) avec une tendance a oublier Vorigine
des éléments dont elle s’occupe.

26. On objectera peut-étre que, dans ce qui précéde, il n’est pas question
de Nomenclature au sens strict, mais plutot de Taxinomie ou de Parataxinomie.
Nous répondrons: 4 quoi sert-il de discuter et de chercher un accord sur le
contenant (les termes de la Nomenclature) si le contenu fait l’objet d’inter-
prétations non précisées, ou méme fondamentalement divergentes ?

27. Les remarques de principe qui ont été faites ici 4 propos des sclérites
d’Holothurides peuvent éventuellement s’appliquer a des vestiges d’autres
groupes d’animaux, microscopiques ou non, et il est possible que d’autres
auteurs aient exprimé déja des pensées analogues 4 propos de ceux qui sont
énumérés dans la proposition Moore/Sylvester-Bradley (loc. cit. p. 12) : éléments
squelettiques isolés de Spongiaires, d’Annélides, de plusieurs classes d’Echino-
dermes, Conodontes et certaines parties de Mollusques telles qu’opercules et

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 711

éléments de radula de Gastéropodes, Aptychi de Céphalopodes Ammonoides—
auxquels doivent s’ajouter les sclérites d’Alcyonaires (M. Deflandre-Rigaud
1955-1956-1957), les sclérites de Tuniciers-Ascidies (G. et M. Deflandre 1956)
et enfin les Rhynchoteuthes (W. Quenstedt, 1951).

28. Dans leur ensemble tous les éléments de la présente discussion
apportent néanmoins de tres forts arguments en faveur de la création de la
Parataxinomie en tant que science coordonnée avec la Taxinomie.

(3) Parataxinomie et Taxinomie chez les Protistes.

(a) Protistes vivants.

29. En ce qui concerne les Protistes libres l’institution d’une parataxi-
nomie se limiterait éventuellement 4 quelques cas trés particuliers. Jusqu’ici,
lorsqu’un protozoaire (ou un protophyte) a présenté un cycle évolutif comportant
des stades 4 morphologie particuliére (par exemple stade flagellé, stade rhizo-
podique, stade enkysté) l’application de l’art. 27 des Régles a presque toujours
été faite par les auteurs, et le nom le plus ancien utilisé pour l'ensemble des
stades. Il en a été de méme dans tous les cas d’alternance de génération
__ (dimorphisme et méme trimorphisme).

30. Cependant, il y a lieu de mentionner, parmi les Chrysomonadines, la
famille (ou groupe) des Chrysostomatidae (Chrysostomataceae Chodat emend.

Deflandre ; cf. Deflandre 1934*) encore que l’on ait affaire ici 4 un cas tres
spécial et dont l’origine est notoirement micropaléontologique.

31. Ils’agit en effet, d’un rassemblement artificiel, d’aprés leur morphologie,
de kystes siliceux de Chrysomonadines dont le stade végétatif (normalement
flagellé, avec un stade rhizopodique ou un stade palmelloide éventuels) est
inconnu.

32. La plupart des kystes sont caractéristiques d’espéces mais ne sont pas
_ ¢aractéristiques de genres. Si une espéce actuelle (kyste), décrite dans le genre
_ Deflandreia Freng. par exemple, était reconnue comme appartenant 4 un
_ genre véritable de Chrysomonadine, parfaitement caractérisé (déja connu ou
_ nouveau), il ne viendrait pas 4 l’idée d’un protistologue d’utiliser ce nom de
r Deflandreia sous un prétexte de priorité.

33. Ainsi le type méme du genre, Deflandreia porteri Frenguelli 1938,
trouvé sur des plantes submergées en Argentine, ne saurait étre employé,
sans créer une intolérable confusion, pour un flagellé nouvellement découvert

712 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

dont il serait le kyste. Tout se passerait donc, en fait, comme si Deflandreia
portert était un parataxon, obéissant & la Recommandation Moore/Sylvester-
Bradley, (2), alinea (c).

34. Les noms de Chrysostomatidae vivants devraient donc, pensons nous,
étre considérés comme des parataxons, non transférables dans la Classification
taxinomique. Par contre, et malgré un apparent paradoxe, les Chrysostoma-
tidae fossiles (comme aussi les Archaecomonadidae) ne relévent point de la Para-
taxinomie mais bien de la Taxinomie. En effet les genres et les espéces, fossiles,
sont les seuls stades que nous connaitrons jamais et ils sont essentiellement
caractéristiques des étres disparus qu’ils représentent. (Cf. G. Deflandre 1952,
Traité de Zoologie, Ed. P. P. Grassé I (1), p. 561).

35. Pour ce qui regarde les Protistes parasites nous sommes parfaitement
d’accord avec l’idée émise par J. Chester Bradley, rapportée par R. C. Moore
et P. C. Sylvester-Bradley p. 6. L’introduction de lanotion de parataxon
peut apporter de la clarification dans certains domaines spéciaux.

(b) Protistes fossiles.

36. Les coccolithes seuls ont été cités par Moore/Sylvester-Bradley. Il y
aura lieu de penser également aux écailles siliceuses de diverses Chrysomona-
dines (Synura, Mallomonas) dont la découverte et l'étude a l'état fossile (au
moyen du microscope électronique) dans des diatomites d’eau douce n’est
qu'une question de temps.

37. Un autre groupe de vestiges qui nous parait devoir étre traité dans le
cadre de la parataxinomie est celui des spicules isolés de Radiolaires fossiles
(plus spécialement des Collodaria), éventuellement des grandes cornes prove-
nant de Sphaerellaires inconnues dans leur intégrité. Ces restes fossiles n’ont
pas encore été étudiés! systématiquement et peu d’auteurs les ont figurés :
Bury (1860 et 1868), Tan Sin Hok (1926), Deflandre (1953 a).

38. A propos des Coccolithes trés vraisemblablement, R. C. Moore, dans
le Digest déja cité, écrit “ 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 con-
sider the published names (without regard to intent of the author) as undeniably
acceptable zoological names. Here lies confusion ”’.

39. En fait, G. Deflandre (1952, Traité de Zoologie, I (1), et 1954) a parfaite-
ment différencié, parmi les Coccolithes fossiles qu’il décrivait, ceux qu’il con-~

i AC tan

20 ad a a oe ee

—
eer

wih ory

aloe

po hp

ee |

—

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 713

sidérait comme essentiellement caractéristiques (nov. gen., nov. sp.) et ceux
qui devaient, dans |’état des connaissances au moment de leur dénomination,
étre—provisoirement ou non--pris pour des types morphologiques non essentielle-
ment caractéristiques (manip. nov., cent. nov.). C’est également la position
qu'il a conservée au cours des discussions épistolaires qu’il a eues avec E.
Kamptner (chargé de la rédaction du Chapitre dans le Treatise on Inverte-
brate Paleontology) afin d’aboutir 4 un accord sur la présentation de la classi-
fication des Coccolithophoridés fossiles.

40. Dans ces conditions, il serait absolument illogique de classer par
principe et sans discrimination tows les coccolithes isolés dans des parataxons.
C’est apparemment ce que demandent R. C. Moore et P. C. Sylvester-Bradley
dans leur proposition, page 12, ligne 1, encore que la phrase: ‘‘ Here belong
all isolated skeletal elements of coccoliths ” puisse préter 4 confusion. En
effet, elle évoque littéralement “des éléments squelettiques isolés de cocco-
lithes ’’, c’est-a-dire des fragments de coccolithes. Or l’un de nous a précise-
ment montré (G. Deflandre, 1953 b) la pluralité des éléments constitutifs des
coccolithes, ces éléments, dans beaucoup de cas, n’étant visibles qu’au micro-
scope électronique. I] est donc aujourd’hui permis de parler d’éléments squeletti-
ques isolés de coccolithes (skeletal elements of coccoliths). On peut donner
en exemple les petits segments vertébroides qui constituent les coccolithes
annelés de Syracosphaera carterae, ou les segments analogues (de moins de deux
dixiémes de micron) ainsi que les baguettes en rayons du coccolithe représenté
par la figure 7 de G. Deflandre (1953 loc. cit.).

41. Nousne pensonsévidemment pas que ce soient ces éléments squelettiques
minuscules qui sont pris en considération par les auteurs mais bien les cocco-
lithes entiers isolés. R. C. Moore et P. C. Sylvester-Bradley ont, en fait,
employé ici le terme coccolithe dans le sens d’un groupe d’animaux, alors que
ce terme s’applique strictement aux minuscules sclérites dont l’assemblage
forme la coque calcaire des Coccolithophoridés (terme zoologique, non men-
tionné dans le texte incriminé), ou Coccolithineae, Coccolithaceae, Coccolitho-
phorae, Coccolithophorinae (termes botaniques).

42. Considérant done que les auteurs ont entendu vraisemblablement
ne faire aucune discrimination entre les coccolithes isolés pouvant caractériser
des taxons et ceux auxquels est déniée cette qualité, nous nous élevons avec
force contre cette position. Les types extrémement caractéristiques auxquels
ont été donnés par G. Deflandre les noms de Stephanolithion, Sphenolithus,
Micrantholithus, Polycladolithus, Clathrolithus, Isthmolithus sont de véritables
taxons, dont la valeur systématique est, mutatis mutandis, supérieure a celle
des dents fossiles de mammiféres. En opposition, les noms de Discolithus
Kamptner, Mitrolithus Deflandre, Rhabdolithus Kamptner, Parhabdolithus
Deflandre, Scapholithus Deflandre s’appliquent 4 des coccolithes isolés dont

la morphologie n’est pas caractéristique de genres. Ce sont par conséquence
des parataxons.

714 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

43. En conclusion nous demandons que, pour les Coccolithophoridés,
il soit laissé aux spécialistes, seuls qualifiés, le soin de décider pour chaque cas,
du classement taxinomique ou parataxinomique des types découverts ou décrits,
en fonction de la valeur de leurs caractéres morphologiques.

44. D’autre part, et toujours relativement aux Coccolithophoridés, nous
tenons a préciser nos vues vis-a-vis de la derniére phrase de la Recommandation
Moore/Sylvester-Bradley. (2)(c): . . . names belonging to one category not
being transferable to other (p. 13).

45. Qu’un nom nouveau, par exemple Lophodolithus mochlophorus manip.
nov., cent. nov. G. Deflandre 1954 (p. 146) ne puisse pas devenir ultérieurement
le genre Lophodolithus Defl. et lespéce type L. mochlophorus Defl., apparait
comme un non-sens. Nous avons bien lu, p. 12, la longue procédure d’exception
reposant sur les Pleins Pouvoirs de la Commission, qui permettrait le transfert
mais nous affirmons que lhonnéte précaution prise par un auteur vis-a-vis
d’une entité nouvelle dont la valeur ne lui apparait pas immédiatement ne doit
pas étre cause d’une sorte de pénalisation.

46. Dans le cas de Lophodolithus, la découverte d'une coque entiére (cocco-
sphére auctorum) fossile composée par des coccolithes du type décrit inciterait
immédiatement le découvreur 4 considérer le microfossile comme un genre
bien tranché. Le nom de Lophodolithus (manip.) devrait-il done étre rejeté,
un nouveau nom de genre étant alors créé ?

47. Nous ne le pensons pas et nous proposons done de faire suivre la
phrase “‘les noms appartenant 4 une catégorie n’étant pas transférable dans
Vautre ~ de l’addition suivante “ excepté lorsqu’un parataxon sera reconnu
capable de caractériser 4 lui seul un taxon, et que son nom pourra étre transféré
sans inconvénient ”’, soit : ““ except when a parataxon would be recognized to be
able to characterize a taxon, his name being transferable without incon-
venience”. Il doit étre bien entendu que si le transfert visé était susceptible
de créer une confusion, il devrait étre soumis 4 la Commission, dont les Pleins
Pouvoirs trouveraient leur application.

48. Nous abordons maintenant une question différente dans son fond,
et nous la soumettons dans le cadre restreint des formes fossiles. I] s’agit
de la position, dans l’un ou l'autre des systémes de nomenclature, des genres
dits ‘ collectifs*’, ou Sammelgenera, ou encore genres “omnibus” ou
“ d’attente ’, dans lesquels sont rangées des “ espéces ” dont les spécimens
étudiés montrent les caractéres d’une famille mais n’ont pas conservé—par
suite de leur fossilisation par exemple—les caractéres permettant de déterminer
leur attribution générique.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 715

49. Un bon exemple est le genre Palaeoperidinium Deflandre 1934b qui
réunit “les Dinoflagellés & physionomie de Peridinium, dont la tabulation
quoique présente . . . ne permet pas de les classer avec sireté ” dans un genre
défini. 17 espéces de Palaeoperidinium ont été décrites entre 1934 et 1957,
deux autres espéces ont été classées sous ce nom et enfin, divers auteurs ont,
au total, publié 28 figures de Palaeoperidinium spec. ou spec. ind. pour des
spécimens considérés comme insuffisamment caractéristiques pour recevoir
un nom spécifique (échantillons uniques, ou brisés, ou déformés). Deux espéces,
a la suite de l’étude de meilleurs échantillons, ont été transférées dans d’autres
genres: P. cayeuxi Defl. 1934 devenu le type du genre Phanerodiniwm Defi.
1937 et P. spinosissimum Defi. 1938 classé en 1955 dans le genre Palaeohystricho-
phora Defi. 1934. Ce processus est normal et lié au progrés, ce qui, dans
lesprit du créateur du genre, motivait justement la création d’une appellation
attirant l’attention des spécialistes.

50. Logiquement, il nous parait que Palaeoperidiniwm devrait étre considéré
comme un parataxon : le manipule Palaeoperidinium, avec des centuries comme
P. alatum Conrad 1941, P. caulleryi Defl. 1934, P. mosaicum Downie 1957 ete...

51. Puisque la création de la Parataxinomie est justifiée précisement par
le coefficient d’incertitude attaché 4 un spécimen donné, coefficient d’incertitude
qui empéche d’en faire un taxon, le cas de Palaeoperidiniwm reléve de la para-
taxinomie.

52. Si ce point de vue est adopté, il sera nécessaire de completer la définition
de l’expression “ parataxon ”’ ainsi qu'il suit :

“un parataxon est une catégorie taxinomique comprenant des fragments
isolés, des vestiges incomplets ou des stades évolutifs d’animaux .. .”’ soit,
en langue anglaise :

“a parataxon is a taxonomic category comprising discrete fragments,
incomplete remains or life-stages of animals...”

53. A quoi nous ajoutons, bien entendu, que corrélativement, la faculté
de transfert évoquée ci-avant devra étre admise.

(4) Emploi de la Parataxinomie pour les groupes de position
systématique non définie (Incertae sedis)

(a) Cas général des organismes Incertae sedis, fossiles et actuels.

54. La réglementation de l’emploi de la parataxinomie est nécessaire et les
_alinéas d’un nouvel article (Recommandations, p. 13, (b)(i) et (ii) stipulant les
_ conditions requises sont parfaitement Eee.

716 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

55. Cependant il est un cas—relevant surtout de la micropaléontologie—
ou il nous parait qu’un spécialiste doit étre libéré de la demande d’application
et par conséquent doit pouvoir utiliser immédiatement, s’il le juge 4 propos,
les termes parataxinomiques. C’est le cas des microorganismes Incertae sedis,
des microorganismes dont la position systématique est ou complétement
inconnue, ou extrémement douteuse et discutable, que l’on ait ou non des
raisons d’espérer obtenir d’ultérieures précisions par des progrés futurs.

56. En exemple on peut proposer les genres T'ytthodiscus Norem 1955 et
Tasmanites Newton 1875, dont les affinités restent trés obscures d’aprés
A. Eisenack (1957). Ce dernier auteur pense & les classer parmi les Hystricho-
sphaeridea, tandis que Sommer (1956) a créé une famille d’Algues incertae sedis,
Tasmanaceae, pour le seul genre T'asmanites Newton emend. Schopf, Wilson et
Bentall, tout en paraissant ignorer le travail de Norem (1955) sur T'ytthodiscus.
Il y a lad matiére & discussion, d’autant plus que l’on connait, dans le Lias de
France, des microfossiles analogues, que nous avons revus. Maurice Dreyfuss
(1933) qui les a décrits, sans les nommer, voit en eux des oeufs de petites
Ammonites, hypothése qui demeure vraisemblable. I] n’en reste pas moins
que ces microorganismes Incertae sedis, devraient relever de la parataxinomie.

57. Avant d’aborder le domaine du microplancton fossile, signalons
encore l’existence, trop souvent négligée, dans le plancton de nos océans actuels,
d’un bon nombre de micro-organismes de morphologie variée, dont la place,
dans nos classifications, est ou totalement inconnue, ou seulement partiellement
soupconnée. Citons par exemple la série des genres Echinum, Polyedricum,
Sphaeropsis, Piropsis, Fusopsis, Polyasterias, Pterosperma, Glyphosperma,
Radiosperma étudiés par Meunier (1910) dans le microplancton des Mers de
Barents et de Kara.

58. Tous ces organismes Incertae sedis, dont beaucoup représentent des
stades évolutifs (Kystes ou Oeufs) d’organismes planctoniques encore indéter-
minés, ne doivent-ils pas prendre place dans une classification parataxinomique ?

59. C’est pourquoi nous proposons que :

‘la décision de la Commission ne sera pas nécessaire lorsqu’il s’agira d’un
organisme de position systématique inconnue. Le premier descripteur pourra,
s'il le juge bon, décider immédiatement de l'utilisation de la classification et de
la nomenclature parataxinomiques. Toutefois, un transfert ultérieur sera
soumis a la régle générale ”’.

L’adoption de cette suggestion nécessiterait simplement l’adjonction,
a la fin du paragraphe (b) (i) du nouvel article proposé par R. C. Moore et P. C.
Sylvester-Bradley, d’une phrase telle que :

ofan ~<A

Ded APR a A Os 0g CO

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 717

“ exceptionnellement un groupe Incertae sedis pourra étre immédiatement
admis et simplement signalé dans le Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature,
mais son transfert éventuel sera soumis a la régle générale ”’

ou, en langue anglaise :

“ exceptionally a group (of) Incertae sedis could be immediately admitted
and only inserted in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, the transfer being
nevertheless submitted to general rule ”’.

(b) Cas du groupe des Hystrichosphaeridés et des
relations avec la nomenclature botanique.

60. Les Hystrichosphaeridés constituent présentement le type parfait du
groupe Incertae sedis. Ce qui précéde leur est done parfaitement applicable.
Hormis une bréve appellation rappelant certaines affinités végétales (G.
Deflandre 1936, Les Flagellés fossiles, p. 61), la nomenclature zoologique
a été pratiquement appliquée aux Hystrichosphéres sensu latissimo, depuis
les formes du Précambrien jusqu’a celles du Tertiaire. Le grand développe-
ment de l’étude systématique des Hystrichosphéres (six genres bien établis
en 1937: AHystrichosphaera O. Wetzel, Hystrichosphaeridium Deflandre,
Micrhystridium Deflandre, Membranilarnax O. Wetzel, Cymatiosphaera
O. Wetzel et Cannosphaeropsis O. Wetzel,—une vingtaine de genres et de
nombreuses espéces en 1957) n’a pas encore apporté d’indications valables sur
la signification et la position systématique de tous les types qui y ont été
rassemblés. Il reste toujours vraisemblable que certaines Hystrichosphéres
peuvent avoir une origine végétale, ainsi des botanistes seront éventuellement
en droit de leur appliquer leurs régles de nomenclature.

61. Nous préconisons dés 4 présent l’admission des Hystrichosphaeridés
au sens de l’Ordre des Hystrichosphaerida Eisenack 1938, Hystrichosphaeridea
Hisenack 1954, compte tenu des extensions, emendations, additions publiées
depuis la derniére date) parmi les groupes auxquels seront appliquées la classi-
fication et la nomenclature parataxinomiques.

62. Ceci nous améne a évoquer a nouveau les relations entre la Nomen-
clature Zoologique et la Nomenclature Botanique.

63. Les spécialistes qui ont étudié les Coccolithophoridés depuis un demi-
siécle, étaient ou sont eux-mémes des océanographes, des botanistes, des
zoologistes et, bien entendu, des protistologues.

64. Depuis la premiére monographie de l’océanographe Lohmann (1902),
les principales mises au point qui ont été publiées sont l’oeuvre du botaniste

718 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

et hydrobiologiste J. Schiller (1930: Coccolithineae in Rabenhorst’s Krypto-
gamen-Flora), du protistologue et micropaléontologiste G. Deflandre (1936,
in Les Flagellés fossiles—et 1952 in T'raité de Zoologie, éd. P. P. Grassé, I, fase. 1),
la prochaine devant étre celle de l’algologue et paléobotaniste E. Kamptner
(in Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology).

65. Grace aux relations confiantes et suivies entretenues par ces deux
derniers auteurs la nomenclature des coccolithes fossiles a été réalisée dans de
bonnes conditions, évitant en particulier d’inutiles synonymies, malgré les
tendances de l’un & s’en tenir d’abord & la nomenclature botanique, et celles
de l'autre A tenter d’harmoniser nomenclature zoologique et nomenclature
botanique.

66. Mais cet accord particulier ne saurait dispenser de la recherche d’un
accord général entre zoologistes et botanistes et dans le cas présent de la
Parataxinomie il serait hautement désirable qu’il fit réalisé dans le plus bref
délai. ;

67. L’exemple concret suivant peut étre cité 4 l’appui de ce voeu.

x

68. L’un de nous pense depuis fort longtemps a instaurer (ou a faire
instaurer par un collaborateur) une classification des “‘ spores’ ou “ endo-
cystes ’ des Diatomées marines les plus anciennes (Crétacé et Eocéne inférieur).
Il s’agit 14, indubitablement, d’objets parallélisables avec les spores de crypto-
games et les pollens de phanérogames, et qui devraient donc étre gouvernés

selon les régles parataxinomiques.

69. Aussi nous suggérons dés maintenant, consécutivement & ladoption
de la Proposition R. C. Moore/P. C. Sylvester-Bradley sur la nomenclature
des parataxons qu’un voeu soit émis tendant 4 :

“la création d’une Commission mixte composée de zoologistes et de
botanistes, chargée de réaliser une harmonie dans la nomenclature des para-
taxons par l’adoption de régles communes ”.

Résumé

(1) Rappel de la proposition faite par les auteurs au 13° Congrés Inter-
national de Zoologie en 1948, de ‘introduction d’un systéme de nomenclature
morphologique dans la Nomenclature Zoologique, et de son échec en Com-
mission. Priorité de l’Ordo militaris de C. Croneis sur toute autre terminologie
a utiliser en parataxinomie.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 719

(2) Danger d’introduction de parataxons d’ordre hiérarchique supérieur
au genre, en faisant totale abstraction de la classification taxinomique et des
relations naturelles des parataxons d’ordre générique ou spécifique. Utilité
et commodité des clefs dichotomiques, inutilité de la création de familles
(cohortes) purement morphologiques.

La Parataxinomie ne doit pas devenir une science compléetement séparée
de la Taxinomie, tendant a oublier l’origine des éléments classifiés.

Néanmoins tous les cas discutés apportent de trés forts arguments en
faveur de la création de la Parataxinomie en tant que science coordonnée
avec la Taxinomie.

(3) Protistes vivants libres: certaines Chrysomonadines (Chrysostoma-
tidae) relévent d’une classification parataxinomique.

Protistes fossiles :

— Devraient étre classés dans des parataxons: les écailles siliceuses
fossiles de diverses Chrysomonadines, les spicules et les cornes isolées de
Radiolaires.

— Devrait étre laissée aux spécialistes, pour les coccolithes fossiles isolés,
la faculté de décider du classement taxinomique ou parataxinomique de chaque
type considéré, en fonction de la valeur de ses caractéres morphologiques.

— L’exemple de certains coccolithes conduit a proposer le transfert sans
procédure parataxon-taxon, et l’addition dans le nouvel article : . . . n’étant pas
transférable dans l’autre “ excepté lorsqu’un parataxon sera reconnu capable
de caractériser 4 lui seul un taxon et que son nom pourra étre transféré sans
inconvenient ”’.

— Devraient étre classés dans des parataxons les genres dits “ collectifs ”’,
“ omnibus ’’, “ d’attente’”’, ““Sammelgenera ’’, o& sont rangés des spécimens
montrant les caractéres d’une famille mais non ceux, caractéristiques, d’un
genre (cas de certains Dinoflagellés fossiles). Addition proposée & la définition
du parataxon : .. . des fragments isolés, ‘‘ des vestiges incomplets ”’,...

(4) Devraient étre classés immédiatement dans des parataxons, sans
nécessiter l’avis de la Commission, les organismes Incertae sedis (vivants ou
_ fossiles) lorsque leur premier descripteur le juge nécessaire. Addition proposée :
“exceptionnellement, un groupe Incertae sedis pourra étre immédiatement
admis et simplement signalé dans le Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature,
mais son transfert éventuel sera soumis a la régle générale ”’.

720 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

— Les Hystrichosphaeridés, type parfait du groupe Incertae sedis sont
proposés & l’admission dans la Nomenclature et la Classification para-
taxinomiques. Les affinités végétales de certaines Hystrichosphéres, celles
de divers groupes de Flagellés (Phytoflagellés), comme les Coccolithophoridés,
rendent désirable un accord entre zoologistes et botanistes. I] est proposé
qu’un voeu soit émis, tendant a “‘ la création d’une commission mixte composée
de zoologistes et de botanistes, chargée de réaliser une harmonie dans la
nomenclature des parataxons par l’adoption de régles communes ”’.

Bibliographie

Bury, P. 8. (1860-1868), “‘ Polycystins figures of remarkable forms in the Barbados
chalk deposit’. London 1860. 2 d. ed. by M. C. Cooke, 1868

Croneis, C. (1938), “ Utilitarian classification for fragmentary fossils”’, J. of
Geology 46 : 975-984

—— (1941), “‘ Micropaleontology — Past and Future”. Amer. Assoc. Petr.
Geol. Bull. 25 : 1208-1255, text-figs. 1-16

Deflandre, Georges (1934a), ‘‘ Sur l’abus de l’emploi, en paléontologie, du nom
de genre Trachelomonas et sur la nature de quelques ex-Trachelomonas
siliceux (Chrysomonadines) tertiaires et quaternaires”. Ann. de
Protistol., Paris 4 : 151-185, 10 fig.

—— (1934b), ‘‘ Sur les microfossiles d’origine planctonique conservés 4 l'état
de matiére organique dans les silex de la craie”. C. R. Acad. Sc.
199 : 966-958, 11 fig.

—— (1936a), “Les Flagellés fossiles, Apergu biologique et paléontologique.
Role géologique’”’. Actual. scient. et ind. Paris, Hermann 335 : 1-98,
135 fig.

—— (1936b), ‘‘ Microfossiles des silex crétacés. Premiére partie. Généralités*
Flagellés. Ann. Paléont. 25 : 151-191, 10 pl.

— (1937), ‘‘ Phanerodinium, genre nouveau de Dinoflagellé fossile des
silex”’. Bull. Soc. franc. Microsc. 6 : 109-115, 5 fig.

—— (1952), “ Classe des Coccolithophoridés ” in Traité de Zoologie, éd. P. P.
Grassé, Masson et Cie, Paris I(1) : 439-470, 27 fig.

—— (1953a), “‘ Radiolaires fossiles ” in T'raité de Zoologie, éd. P. P. Grassé,
Masson et Cie, Paris I(2) : 389-436, 38 fig.

—— (1953b), ‘“‘ Hétérogénéité intrinséque et pluralité des éléments dans les
coccolithes actuels et fossiles”. OC. R. Acad. Sc. 287 : 1785-1787,
7 fig.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 721

Deflandre, Georges et Deflandre-Rigaud, Marthe (1948), “‘ La nomenclature
des fragments fossiles (organites et sclérites) d’Invertébrés””. XJIJI@
Congrés Int. de Zool. Paris, Comptes-Rendus : 576

—— (1956), “ Micrascidites manip nov., sclérites de Didemnidés (Ascidies,
Tuniciers) fossiles du Lutétien du Bassin parisien et du Balcombien
d’Australie”’. C.R. Som. Soc. Géol. Fr. 4 : 47-48, 5 fig.

Deflandre, Georges and Cookson, Isabel C. (1955), “ Fossil microplankton from
Australian late Mesozoic and Tertiary sediments”, Austr. J. Mar.
Freshw. Res. 6(2) : 242-313, 58 fig., 9 Pl.

Deflandre, Georges et Fert, Charles (1954), “‘ Observations sur les Coccolitho-
phoridés actuels et fossiles en microscopie ordinaire et électronique ”’.
Ann. Paléont. 40 : 115-176, 127 he 15 Et,

Deflandre-Rigaud, Marthe (1950), “ Les sclérites rotiformes des Holothurides
fossiles”’. Ann. Paléont. 36 : 1-45, 110 fig., 1 Pl.

—— (1952), “Contribution 4 la systématique des sclérites d’Holothurides
fossiles”’. Bull. Inst. Océanogr. Monaco 1012 : 1-12

—— (1953), ‘‘ Classe des Holothurides” in T'raité de Paléontologie, éd. J.
Piveteau, Masson et Cie, Paris 8 : 948-957, 3 fig.

—— (1955), “Sur les sclérites d’Alcyonaires fossiles et leur classification.
Micraleyonarites manip. nov. du Miocéne moyen d’Australie ”, C.R.
Acad. Sc. 244 : 1327-1329, 16 fig.

—— (1956), “ Les sclérites d’Alcyonaires fossiles. Eléments d’une classification ”’.
Ann. Paléont. 42 : 1-24, 4 Pl.

—— (1957a), “A classification of fossil alcyonarian sclerites ”, Micropale-
ontology N.Y. 3(4) : 357-366, 2 Pl.

—— (1957b), “Sur Vinvalidité du genre Theelia Schlumb. synonyme de
Chiridotites Defl.-Rig. (sclérites d’Holothurides fossiles) ’’. Bull. Mus.
Nat. Hist. Nat., 2° Série 29 : 353-355

Dreyfuss, Maurice (1933), “ Découverte de nodules phosphatés & jeunes
Ammonites dans le Toarcien de Créveney (Haute-Saéne)”’. C.R. Som.
Soc. Geol. Fr. 14 : 224-226

Hisenack, Alfred (1938), ‘ Hystrichosphaerideen und verwandte Formen im
baltischen Silur”’. Z. f. Geschiebeforsch. 14 : 1-30, 7 fig., 4 Tfln.

—— (1954), “ Mikrofossilien aus Phosphoriten des samlandischen Unter-
oligozins und iiber die Einheitlichkeit der Hystrichosphaerideen ”’.
Palaeontographica 105 (Abt. A) : 49-95, 8 fig., 6 Tfln.

—— (1957), “ Mikrofossilien in organischer Substanz aus dem Lias Schwabens
(Stiddeutschland) ”. Neues Jb. Geol. uw. Paldont., Abh. 105(3) : 239-
249, 2 fig., 2 Tfln.

722 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Frenguelli, Joaquin (1938), “* Deflandreia, nuevo genero de Crisostomataceas ”’.
Notas Museu La Plata 3 (Botanica N° 18) : 47-54, 2 fig.

Frizzel, D. L., and Exline, H. (1955), “Monograph of fossil Holothurian
sclerites ”. Bull. Univ. Missouri School Mines and Metall. 89 : 1-204,
19 fig., 11 Pl.

Kamptner, Erwin (1948), “‘ Coccolithen aus dem Torton des inneralpinen
wiener Beckens’”’. Sitz. Ber. Oest. Akad. Wiss., Abt. 1 157 : 1-16,
2 Fi.

— (1955), ‘‘ Fossile Coccolithineen-skelettreste aus Insulinde”. Verh. k.
nederl. Akad. Wet. Afd. Nat. 2d Ser. 50(2) : 1-87, 141 fig.

—— (1956), “‘ Zur Systematik und Nomenklatur der Coccolithineen”’. Anz.
Oest. Akad. Wiss. math.-naturw. Kl. 1956 1: 4-11. (Importante mise
au point et emendation opus 1955)

Lohmann, H. (1902), “* Die Coccolithophoridae ’’. Arch. f. Protist., 1 : 89-165,
3 Tfln.

Meunier, Alphonse (1910), ““ Microplankton des Mers de Barents et de Kara”’,
in Duc d’Orléans Camp. arctique de 1907, Bruxelles, 1910 : 1-355, 37 PI.

Newton, E. T. (1875), ““ On Tasmanite and Australian white coal ’’, Geol. Mag.
2(8) : 337-342

Norem, W. J. (1955), “‘ Tytthodiscus, a new microfossil genus from the
California Tertiary ”. J. Paleont. 29 : 694-695, 1 PI.

Quenstedt, Werner (1951), ‘ Tabula stratigraphica (geohistorica) Mesozoici
Achentalensis (Tirolis)”’. Biotropia, Innsbruck-Mimnchen I : 1-12

Rabechault, H. (1955), “ Pour une simplification et une normalisation des
diagnoses’. Taxon, Utrecht 4 : 86-90

Schiller, Josef (1930), “‘Coccolithineae’’. Rabenhorst’s Kryptogamenflora
10(2) : 89-267, 137 fig.

Sommer, F. W. (1956), “South American paleozoic sporomorphae without
haptotypic structure ”. Micropaleontology N.Y. 2(2) : 175-181, 2 Pl.

Tan Sin Hok (1926), ‘‘ Over de samenstelling en het ontstaan van Krijt- en
mergel gesteenten van de Molukken”’. Jaarb. v. h. Mijnwesen-Verhand
3 : 1-165, 2 fig., 16 Pl.

Wetzel, Otto (1933), ““ Die in organischer Substanz erhaltenen Mikrofossilien
des baltischen Kreide-Feuersteins mit eimem sediment-petrographischen
und stratigraphischen Anhang”. Palaeontographica 77 : 141-186 ;
78 : 1-110, 15 fig., 7 Tfln.

~]
bo
ow

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

English Translation of the ‘“‘ Resumé ”’ to Professor and Madame
Deflandre’s paper prepared at their request in the
Office of the Commission

Summary

(1) Recalling the proposition made by the present authors to the
Eighteenth International Congress of Zoology in 1948 to introduce a morpho-
logical system of nomenclature into zoological nomenclature and how the
proposition was defeated by the Commission. Priority of C. Croneis’s Ordo
militaris over any other terminology to be used in parataxonomy.

(2) Risks of introducing parataxa higher than the genus category without
taking into consideration the taxonomic classification and the natural relation-
ship of generic and specific parataxa. Utility and convenience of dichotomic
keys, uselessness of creating purely morphological families (cohorts).

Parataxonomy must not become a science completely detached from
Taxonomy with a tendency to forget the origin of the classified elements.

However, all the cases discussed furnish very strong arguments in favour
of creating Parataxonomy as a science co-ordinated to Taxonomy.

(3) Free living Protists: certain Chrysomonadins (Chrysostomatidae)
come under parataxonomic classification.

Fossil Protists: The following should be classified in parataxa : fossil
silicon scales of various Chrysomonadins, the spicules and isolated horns of
Radiolaria.

As regards the taxonomic or parataxonomic classification of isolated
fossil coccoliths, this should be left for specialists to decide, and each type
under consideration should be decided according to the value of its morpho-
logical characteristics.

The example of certain coccoliths leads to the suggestion of the parataxon-
taxon transfer, without proceedings, and the addition to the new Article of :

. not being transferable into the other “‘ with the exception of a parataxon
being admitted as characterising on its own a taxon, when its name could be
transferred without any inconvenience ”’.

Genera called “ collective’, “ omnibus”, “ temporary ’”’ and “‘ Sammel-
genera’ should be classified in parataxa, these containing specimens showing
characteristics of a family, but not those of a genus (the case of certain fossil

724 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Dinoflagella). Suggested addition to the definition of parataxa:. . . isolated
fragments, “‘incomplete remains”...

(4) Organisms of Incertae sedis (living or fossil) should be classified in
parataxa immediately, without seeking a decision from the Commission,
if their original author thinks it necessary. Suggested addition : “‘ exception-
ally, a group of Incertae sedis could be admitted without delay and merely
published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, but its eventual transfer
to be subject to the general rule ”’.

It is suggested that Hystrichosphaerida, being perfect types of the group
of Incertae sedis, should be placed in the parataxonomic nomenclature and
classification. The vegetal affinities of certain Hystrichospheres, namely
those of various groups of the Flagellata (Phytoflagellata), like the Cocco-
lithophorida, call for an agreement between zoologists and _ botanists
respectively. It is suggested that a Resolution should be formulated to “ call
into existence a Mixed Commission consisting of both zoologists and botanists,
with the view to creating harmony in the nomenclature of parataxa through
the adoption of common rules ”’.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 725

DOCUMENT 1/56

Comment on the Moore/Sylvester-Bradley “‘ Parataxa’’ Plan

(Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 1056)

By CHARLES DOWNIE
(University of Sheffield, Department of Geology, Sheffield)

(Letter dated 8th February 1958)

Mr. Sylvester-Bradley has asked me to write to you repeating what I had
already said to the Palaeontological Association concerning parataxa. The
following is extracted from a letter which was read to the meeting.

2. A dual nomenclature has long been used by students of fossil coccoliths
and coccolithophores. The practice has been to use the taxa “ species’ and
“genera” for complete tests. Each test is, however, composed of a number
of small plates (coccoliths) and it is much more common to find isolated plates
than whole tests. The taxa used to classify the coccoliths are the “ centuria ”
and “ manipules”’ of Croneis (1941). Since this classification has not been
accepted by the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, all the
names used are invalid. Nevertheless workers in this field, almost without
exception, continue to use these illegal taxa because a dual nomenclature is
necessary. Among recent papers using Croneis’s classification and introducing
new “ manipules ” are those of Deflandre (1954) and Noel (1956).

3. Because :—
(1) coccoliths of different shape make up a single coccolithophore
test ;

(2) coccoliths indistinguishable in shape occur in different species of
coccolithophore ;

(3) many varieties of coccolith are known that have never been seen
in a complete test,

ww

726 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

many coccoliths cannot be given a species name without the risk of error
or causing confusion at a later date. The situation parallels that in the
conodonts and it is quite clear that a dual nomenclature is required. Unless
an “ official” one is provided the outlawed system will continue to be used.

4, The system of parataxa suggested by Moore and Sylvester-Bradley
appears to be suitable for application to coccoliths. Names already introduced
for “‘manipules” and “ centuria” could easily be transferred without causing
confusion.

5. I therefore wish to support the incorporation of parataxa in the Inter-
national Rules of Zoological Nomenclature.

References

Croneis, C., 1941. Bull. amer. Ass. Petr. Geol. 25 : 1208-1255
Deflandre, G., 1954. Ann. Paléont. : 115-176 (40)
Noel, D., 1956. Pub. Serv. Carte Geol. Alger. Bull. 8 : 303-345

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 727

DOCUMENT 1/57

Comment on the Moore/Sylvester-Bradley “‘ Parataxa Plan ”’
(Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 1056)

By W. D. IAN ROLFE

(University of Birmingham, Birmingham, England)
(Enclosure to letter dated 12th February 1958)

I have followed the deliberations of the Palaeontographical Society and
the Palaeontological Society over the parataxa problem with some interest,
having recently been examining some isolated scolecodonts from the Silurian
of Lanarkshire. The Moore/Sylvester Bradley proposals (1957, Bull. zool.
Nomencl. 15 : 5-13) for the employment of a parataxon concept in the case of
conodonts have been amply proved, but perhaps less so in the case of
holothurian spicules and ammonite aptychi (P. C. Sylvester-Bradley, zbid :229
and J. S. Hampton, zbid: 245-246). From a study of the literature, however,
the problem of taxonomic nomenclature in the scolecodont group appears to
be at least as acute, if not more so, than that in the conodonts, indeed I believe
that Professor Rhodes discussed scolecodonts at the recent Joint Meeting,
but that no Resolution was passed concerning them.

2. The earliest workers on this group recognized the existence of such
taxonomic problems many years ago (e.g. G. J. Hinde, Quart. J. geol. Soc.
35 : 387), but only recently has any attempt to resolve the dualism of
neontological and palaeontological species concepts been made. F. W. Lange
(1949, Bull. Amer. Paleont., 33 (No. 134) : 1-102) states the problem quite
clearly, but repudiates any “ artificial and transitory taxonomy ”’ as the “ basis
for a valid systematics ’’, while nevertheless admitting the ‘“‘ excuse ’’ for its
employment to be of ‘“‘ importance for stratigraphic correlation’ (tbid: 54).
His list (: 53) tentatively groups nine of these genera established on isolated
elements, into his one new, true genus Paulinites. Obviously we have here an
exactly analogous situation to that analysed by the parataxa plan proposers
(Bull. zool. Nomencl. 15 : 16-18) in the case of the conodont genera Duboisella
and Scottognathus Rhodes.

8. The use of some such distinct category as envisaged by the Moore/
Sylvester-Bradley proposals would thus allow the no less than twenty-six
“species” of the nine pseudo-genera Diopatraites, Marphysaites, Nereidavus,
Leodicites, Ildraites, Oenonites, Eunicites Eller, Arabellites Hinde and the

728 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Lumbriconereites of Stauffer (Lange’s “ form-genera ” : 53) to be tentatively
regarded as parataxa of the true genus Paulinites established much later by
Lange in 1947 (Arq. do Mus. Parana. 6 (art. 5) : 161-230) in defiance
of all present rules of Priority.

4. Thus both the stratigrapher and the taxonomist would be satisfied ;
the former would be more forcefully reminded of the inadequacy of his material,
and the limitations of it, if he had to record his forms not as a Linnean genus, but
with the stigma of a prefix as recently proposed, to distinguish his parataxa
from more respectable genera. It would seem better to suffer this stigma
rather than to positivistically procrastinate, as Hinde himself did in 1879, in the
forlorn hope that all discrete-part nomenclatures will eventually be disposed
of. To condone the present system which seems likely to encourage further
spasms of genus-creation appears to be rather a defeatist attitude ; some such
prefix as suggested would serve as a constant reminder to those employing the
fossil of its doubtful nature.

5. The undoubted existence of ontogenetic, as well as inter-individual
variation, in the number of teeth present in a plate, complicates the scolecodont
problem even further. Until many more specimens have been adequately
described then, we cannot hope to know their stratigraphic value; it seems
essential to give them some form of appellation and yet most modern,
conscientious palaeontologists would now be too chary to risk erecting even a
new species for such elements, if the term species is to convey any non-
morphological (i.e. biospecific or ‘‘ evolutionary plexus”) sense whatever
(v. P. C. Sylvester-Bradley, 1956, in The Species Concept in Palaeontology : 2).

6. The provision of a parataxa terminology would thus be a boon to those
wishing to describe forms in order to obtain and provide comparisons with
forms of similar age and appearance, and yet not endowing the particular
individuals with the immutable status of a Linnean taxon.

7. It would seem further that the very use of such unsatisfactory terms as
pseudo-genera and “species ’’, as employed above, in order to adequately
express Lange’s solution of one particular scolecodont problem argues for the
introduction of some para-taxic terminology—it is not mere tautology.

8. A vicious circle is thus being set up ; unwilling to create species for such
morphologically-determined elements, the palaeontologist must under existing
nomenclatorial rules omit to describe them, yet if they remain undescribed
their true specific or generic status cannot be ascertained. It seems that the
proposals must be adopted for the scolecodont situation, which in Lange’s
well documented case is completely comparable with Rhodes’s conodont
assemblage-genera, if any clarification of the situation is required.

a MnO tn aI inatiatal at

os

Whe ree "ern.

—_—s

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 729

DOCUMENT 10/4

(continued from page 691)

A further note on the Language of the Substantive Texts
(Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 1259)

By CURTIS W. SABROSKY

(Entomology Research Division, Agricultural Research Service, U.S. Department
of Agriculture, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.)

(Enclosure to letter dated 25th February 1958)

The historical survey of this question, published as Document 10/2 by
_ Mr. Hemming following my proposal in 10/1, incorrectly (par. 3, p. 215) presents
the substance of my proposal, and thus, regrettably, places it in an unfortunate

light.
.

» I did not and do not recommend that the French text (which must
inevitably be compiled from, and certainly should be an exact translation of
whatever English text is adpoted at London) “ shall rank as ‘ an official French
translation ’ and not as a ‘ substantive text ’”’, as Mr. Hemming has phrased
it. My proposal (cf. Bull. zool. Nomencl. 15 : 211, par. 4) uses different words
than Professor Sparck’s Minute on the Subject (cf. Copenhagen Decisions
_ z00l. Nomencl. : 128, last three lines), but the meaning is exactly the same :
_ that both the French and English texts are to be regarded as substantive
texts, i.e., they shall have equal force. Stated in another way, my proposal is
e- that the London Congress approve and adopt for the new Code the direction

Note by the Secretary : I much regret if in my Historical Survey

proposal submitted by Dr. Sabrosky in his letter of 17th October 1957 (repro-
f “ae in Document 10/1 on pages 210-211). I certainly supposed that the

730 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

expression “the official French translation ’’ used in conjunction with the
expression “ the Congress-approved English text’ was intended to suggest
that, althouth both texts were to “ have equal force’, the English text, as
being ‘‘ Congress-approved ’’, was in some way to be superior to the “ official
French translation’. I am very glad now to learn that this was not Dr.
Sabrosky’s intention and that the purpose of his original paper was to
recommend the endorsement by the London Congress of the directions
contained in the Minute executed by Professor Spirck as President of the
Copenhagen Congress under which “ the French text is the substantive text
of the Rules and so also is the English text” (see page 128 (English text of
Professor Sparck’s Minute) and 129 (French text of that Minute) in Copenhagen
Decisions on Zoological Nomenclature (int’ld F.H. 10th February 1958).

d
.

:

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 731

DOCUMENT 21/2
(continued from page 336)

Draft ‘‘ Régles ’’, Article 28, Section 11 (gender to be attributed to
certain classes of generic names): certain amendments in wording
and arrangement suggested

(Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 996)

By J. CHESTER BRADLEY
(Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.)

(Enclosure to a letter dated 15th January 1958)

In a paper dealing with the grammatical formation of family-group names,
I have embodied some suggestions made by Professor L. W. Grensted, involving
a correction to Decision 50(1)(a) of the Copenhagen Congress (1953, Copenhagen
Decisions zool. Nomencl. : 34). These suggestions apply equally to the gender of
generic names, and reference should be made for details to the paper which
I have submitted on this subject.?

2. Accordingly I drew up a draft of the present paper proposing some
necessary changes in Decision 84 of the Copenhagen Congress.? I submitted it
to Professor Grensted for his criticism, and received his unqualified approval ;
but in the same mail I received (as a commissioner for voting) a proposal
from the Secretary of the Commission for a Declaration involving part of the
same matter. I have, therefore, found it necessary to revise my paper in order
to bring it into conformity with the purport of the proposed Declaration,
which I hope will be adopted.®

8. I therefore now suggest that in Section 11 of Article 28 of the Draft
of the Revised Régles the passages embodying Decision 84 of the Copenhagen
Congress should be modified to the extent now seen to be necessary as indicated
below.

1 The paper here referred to has been placed on the London Agenda Paper as Document
20/1. See pp. 331—333 of the present volume.

2 For the text of the decision by the Copenhagen Congress here referred to see 1953,
Copenhagen Decisions zool. Nomencl. : 49-51.

3 The proposal here referred to was approved by the Commission on 16th June, 1957 and
_ published as Declaration 36 on 24th January, 1958 (Ops. Decls. int. Comm. zool. Nomencl.
: i—xii)

732 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

4. The Greek word #% (Ops): Professor L. W. Grensted, Consulting
Classical Adviser to the Commission, writes that & ¥ (Ops) involves a complicated
story as to its gender. It is mostly masculine, once neuter, and, by a medieval
grammatical conjecture only, given as feminine in spite of the classical evidence.
It is given as feminine in Liddell & Scott’s Greek Lexicon, but reference is also
made to its usage in the masculine and neuter genders. These facts have led
me to insert a provision under which it can be accepted in any gender.

5. Latinization versus transliteration : It should be noted that “ cheilus ”
is not a transliteration of the Greek XeiAos but is a Latinization of it, as pointed
out by Professor Grensted in Document 21/1. The transliteration of xetAos
is cheilos. Appendix F of the old Rules is misleading in stating that the table
of which it consists indicates the manner in which Greek words should be
transliterated, when it should say Latinized. Transliteration, for example, of

final “ov” is “on”, of “os”, “os”, but their Latinization is respectively
ce um 99 and ce us ?

Proposed Amendment of Article 28, Sect. 11, of the Revised English
Text of the “ Régles ’’ (Bull. Zool. Nomenel. 14 : 208-215)

P.208, line 7, replace with : (a) Classical nouns with unaltered case-endings.
—If the name consists of or terminates in a Greek or Latin word without
change in its nominative case-ending

P.209, following line 5, insert :

(b) Classical nouns with altered case-endings—If a Greek or Latin
word used as a generic name has been modified by the substitution
of a different case-ending, the gender shall be that appropriate to
the case-ending.

Example : Names ending in the Greek neuter word “ -o70u« ”’ (stoma)
are neuter in gender, but if the Latin nominative case-ending “ -us ” has been
substituted for “-a”, then the name becomes a Latin second declension
masculine noun.

P.209, line 6, for “ (b) ” read “ (c)”.
P.210, line 14, for “ (c) ’”’ read “ (d)”.

P.211, line 5, for “ (d) ” read “ (e)”.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 733

P.211, add after line 21 :

(A) Masculine names.—The following names, among others, are to be
treated as masculine :

(«) Any name the final part of which is a Greek word that has
been Latinized by the substitution of a masculine Latin
nominative case-ending for the original Greek ending, even
though the Greek word was of another gender. But this
shall not apply to Greek words that were Latinized by the
Romans, and that are given another gender in Latin lexicons

(cf. paragraph (a)(ii) preceding).

2

Examples: “ -cheilus”’ and “-cheila” from the neuter word yxeiAos
{cheilos); “-gnathus”’, from the feminine word yvados (gnathos); “‘-rhamphus’’,
from the neuter word paydos (rhamphos) ; “-rhynchus’”’, from the neuter
word puyxos (rhynchos); and ‘‘-stethus”’ from the neuter word 0770s (stethos).

P, 211, line 22, read: (8) Compound Latin nouns terminating

P, 212, after line 6, add .

(y) Words terminating in “ -dps ” from the Greek word wy (Gps),
face (but not in “-ops” from o¥, cf. subparagraph B (y).
However, names ending in “-dps” from wy, shall be
accepted in whatever gender their author establishes them,
preference being given, in case of uncertainty, to the
masculine gender.

P. 212, line 7, for “ (ii) ” read ‘“‘ (B) ”.
P. 212, after line 9, add :

(«) A Greek word that has been Latinized by the substitution of a
feminine Latin nominative case-ending for the original
Greek ending, even though the Greek word was of another
gender. But this shall not apply to Greek words that were
Latinized by the Romans, and that are given another
gender in Latin lexicons (cf. paragraph (a)(ii) preceding).

(8) A name terminating in a Greek feminine noun without
changed nominative case-ending.

Examples: “-gaster” from yaoryp (gastér); “-gnathos”’ (but not

_ *gnathus”’) from yvd8os (gnathos); and “ -lepis”’, from Aezis (lepis).

734 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Here belong also names such as Chlorops that terminate in “-ops”’,
coming from the feminine Greek noun 6¢ (ops), voice (but not ordinarily
the much commoner names that terminate in “ -dps”’ from wy (dps), face,
cf. subparagraph A(y) preceding), and those that terminate in “ -opsis ”
from the feminine Greek noun 6ys (opsis), appearance.

P. 212, line 10, for ‘‘ (1) ” read “ (y) ”.
P. 212, line 18, for “ (2) ” read “(8)”.
P. 212, delete lines 22 through 29.

P. 213, for lines 1 and 2 substitute :

(C) Neuter names.—The following names, among others, are to be
treated as neuter: Any name the terminal element of which is

(«) A Greek word that has been Latinized by the substitution
of a neuter Latin case-ending for the original Greek ending,
even though the Greek word was of another gender. But
this shall not apply to Greek words that were Latinized
by the Romans, and that are given another gender in Latin
lexicons (cf. paragraph (a)(ii) preceding), or

P. 213, line 3, for “(1)” read “(B)”’.
P. 218, line 7, for “‘ (2) ” read “ (y)”.
P. 213, line 13, for “(e) ” read “ (f) ”.
P. 214, line 5, for “‘ (f) ” read “ (g) ”.
P. 214, line 22, for “ (g)”’ read “ (h)”’.
P. 215, after line 9, add :

(j) Authority of the Commission.—In order to conserve established
usage the Commission shall have authority, without recourse to
its Plenary Powers to fix the gender of any particular name that
it adds to an Official List, even contrary to the preceding rules, if
that be necessary.

Ear oe DON Hees kee

a rae

a atopy
ere

Gere;

Pitmle. Bod Dea treeas tf PB Beat i

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 735

6. Copenhagen Decision 84(3) reads: “ Where a Greek or Latin word
has . . . 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)’. I have discussed
the difficulties in interpreting this paragraph, particularly in view of the
inappropriate examples used. In the paragraph entitled “ Discussion : Gender
of generic names ” annexed to Section 11(b) of Article 28 of the Draft of the
Revised English text of the Regles (1957, Bull. zool. Nomencel. 14 : 209, line 1,
to 210, line 7), I endeavoured in the provision inserted as Section 11(c)
(: 210) to interpret what the framer of the resolution appears to have intended
to convey. The matter has subsequently been clarified in a further note by
myself which has been published in the London Agenda Paper as Document
20/1 (1958, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 15 : 332, paragraph 4) and also by Professor
Grensted in the Report on the gender of generic names which forms Document
21/1 (1958, ibid. 15 : 334-336). The amendments proposed in the present
document are intended to put into effect the facts that Professor Grensted has
pointed out, namely :—

(a) If the word is taken over from Greek into Latin without change in the
nominative case-ending it retains the gender that it had as a Greek
word.

(b) If the word has been Latinized by substitution of a Latin case-ending,
the gender of the new Neo-Latin name becomes the gender indicated
by the new Latin nominative case-ending.

7. In the note entitled “ Explanation and examples dealing with com-
pound nouns, the final element of which is a classical noun ” inserted in the
Draft of the Revised Regles at the end of Section 11 of Article 28 (1957, Bull.
zool. Nomencl. 14 : 211 et seq.), it has been necessary to re-word the paragraphs
dealing respectively with masculine, feminine and neuter names to bring them
into accord with the principles above stated.

8. Finally, necessary changes in the examples have been introduced to
accord with facts pointed out by Professor Grensted, particularly as regards the
Greek words “ 64” and “ op”,

736 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

DOCUMENT 25/10

(continued from page 556)

Order/Class Names : A new proposal

(Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 1242)

By HENNING LEMCHE

(Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen)

(Note :—Previous communications from Dr. Lemche on this subject
have been included in the Agenda Paper as Document 25/8 published on pages
553 and 554 of the present volume.)

Since the proposal and consequent acceptance by the Congress in
Copenhagen in 1953, of a Ruling that names of higher taxons shall be defined
by the type method, I have given much thought to the problems involved, but
it is not until now that I feel to have reached a suitable formulation of Rules
to cover the case. To facilitate discussion on the Colloquium and Congress in
London, I have added a diagram of a purely theoretical case which I think
should prove useful. The main point is that different systems based on
different characters must use different names for their groups if confusion
is to be avoided, as explained in some detail below in advance to the proposals
found at the end of this paper.

2. Within each taxonomic system, the principle of Priority works quite
well. Increasing knowledge causes the removal of one family or another to
some other order or class but, in terms of the diagram, the groups I, II, II, and
IV remain unchanged in concept, although not in content. I suppose that the
advocates of Priority in Class/Order Names think exclusively of such changes.

3. When, however, we turn to the other type of advance in systematics,
matters are totally different. This happens when a new system is established
on entirely new characters. Such revolutions in systematics are not too rare.
The fishes are liable to still more of this sort, and even birds and mammals
cannot be guaranteed against such happenings, not to speak of almost every
invertebrate group. May I give briefly an example out of my own experience.

Bull. zool. Nomencl. Vol. 15, Part 22. April 1958.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 737

4. In 1925 Martynov (Zs. Morph. Okol. Tiere 4) divided the winged insects
(Pterygotes) into Palaeoptera (the Odonata and the Ephemeroptera) and
Neoptera (all the other Pterygotes) because of differences in the wing structure.
In 1940 Lemche (Vid. Medd. Dansk Naturh. Foren, 104) proposed to divide

his colleagues to think that Neoptera Martynov sensu Lemche differ
fundamentally from Neoptera Martynov sensu Martynoy in being based on
totally different characters ? Readers will turn to Martynov to see what is
covered by the terms used. The Ephemeroptera which, under Martynov’s
definition, are agreed to belong to the Palaeoptera Martynov, will under
Lemche’s definition belong to the Neoptera Martynoy sensu Lemche.

clear-cut statement whether it is correct or not. If such an author were to

‘use the character of the wing-pads, he would not employ Martynov’s names

but those of Lemche, simply stating that the Ephemeroptera because of their
backward-directed wing-pads should be referred to the Opisthoptera and not

shall be by putting changing concepts into stable names, thereby making these
names indeterminate and _ useless. Instead, they should afford the same

such a way that, when employed at all, each of them shall always cover one
and the same concept.

738 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

7. On several occasions, I have chanced to be involved in problems of
managing Class/Order Names, and in very different groups. The first time
was (as mentioned above) in connection with insects, a group for a long time
regarded by many scientists to be in the main classified according to a rather
stable system, although specialists in several insect groups were aware of the
underlying uncertainties. Second, I have met the problems in the Opistho-
branchs, a group of molluscs still very far from having acquired a stable and
suitable system. Recently, also, I became involved in the problems concerning
the group-name Monoplacophora. The problem here was partly nomen-
clatorial, as it is at present provided that a group-name shall be dated from
some author and shall be defined by type-principles which are forerunners of
giving priority to such names. The problem is, however, also in part
taxonomic and scientific, and the definition now given to that name will
determine its later fate. If the present systematic ideas were to hold good,
the name would stand, but if they were to be rejected at some future date, it
would inevitably be necessary to reject the name too—by analogy with the
case of the names in the insect system of Martynov and Lemche as discussed
in paragraph 4 above.

8. Finally, I have now been confronted with the immense problem of
re-grouping the fossil (and partly recent) groups including at least the Annelids,
the Arthropods, and the Molluscs. On this re-organisation, the Principle of
Priority will by necessity distract me from my purposes by imposing on me
restriction after restriction in my thinking, as I am required to use old and
unsuitable tools—viz., the existing names with their priorities—for a treatment
where the first and all-important thing to do is to break away from all accepted
dogmas in an attempt to reach a new and better systematic arrangement. If this
does not have an impact upon taxonomic freedom and practice, I do not
know what does.

9. It should be noted that almost all the foregoing discussion is concerned
not with nomenclature as such, but with the disastrous consequences in the
field of systematics of unhappy rulings on matters of nomenclature. I trust
that the preceding paragraphs have shown that I have some experience in the
field. Also, I have for many months given the most careful consideration to the
problem involved, and I have discussed it with many colleagues. I feel bound,
however, to say that the more I have penetrated into the whole topic, the more
have I been convinced that the Congress made a serious mistake on the day
in 1953 when it accepted the type method for the higher taxa and introduced
mandatory Official Lists and Official Indexes for them.

10. There are a very few cases where the Commission could assist in these
matters, viz., when two competing names have come to cover almost the same
concept. A clear-cut example of this sort is the dualism between Lamellibranchs
and Bivalves. In such a case, the Commission could recommend one of the
names for acceptance and the other for rejection, but such action should be

ret

PEP LEE MIR BT 8 A atid Nn Sal Pal ie nea

<

Ny

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 739

in the form of a recommendation only, to the effect that the accepted name
should be used as long as taxonomic ideas remained unchanged, but that
authors should still be free to introduce new systems with new names
whenever they proposed new ideas of classification. In general, a name should
live no longer than the system to which it belongs.

11. Another case for intervention by the Commission would be homonymy
between names for different groups, e.g., the Decapoda in the Mollusca
Cephalopoda, and in the Crustacea Malacostraca. Again, the Commission
could recommend that the above word be used in one of the groups only,
specifying a substitute name for the other—to be used as long as the accepted
system remains unchanged.

12. To make a long story short, I am hereby proposing a totally new
formulation of the Rules concerning names of taxons of higher value than the
family-group level—here termed simply “names of higher taxa ’’—to be
inserted in the Code to substitute as explained below for the proposals in the
draft published in Volume 14 of the Bulletin :—

Reference to
Bradley Draft.

6/m (p. 51 line 22-26) To be deleted in its entirety.

8/1 (p. 70 line 2) Insert the words “of the family-group level or below ”
after the first word ‘“ taxon ”’.

12 (p. 92-94) The whole.article to be redrawn as follows :
“ NAMES OF HIGHER TAXONS

(1) Names of higher taxa shall not be subject to the Rules
of Priority. They shall be regarded as purely theoretical
concepts defined by the diagnostic characters in the
taxonomic system employed.

Recommendation.

Where two names for higher taxa have developed so as
to become virtually synonymous and competing within
one and the same system of classification, the case may
be brought before the Commission for their reeommenda-
tion of a solution. The Commission’s conclusion shall not,
however, be binding for authors using other systems of
classification than that on which the judgment was based ”’.

740 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

18/ (p. 117 line 15) The words “ of a higher group ” should be substituted by
“ of a family ”’.

18/2 (p. 117 line 28) The words “ or higher ” to be deleted.
18/3 (p. 118 line 2-15) The whole section to read :

“ Names of higher taxa shall not be defined by the type
method ”’.

24/5 (p.173) - Between lines 14 and 15 to be inserted :
“ Changes in the diagnosis on transference to an emended
system shall not be taken to create any case of

homonymy ”’.

Line 15-17 to be substituted by :

«

"

Recommendation.

Where homonymous names are in general use at the same
time for two different higher taxa, the case of their
homonymy should be placed before the Commission for
consideration. Their conclusion in the case should be
expressed as a decision to introduce the preferred name
on an Official List of Recommended Names of Higher
Taxa in Zoology and the name found less suitable on the
corresponding Official Index.”

29/e (p. 266) Lines 7-10 to be substituted by :

“ (i) Official List of Recommended Names for Higher Taxa
in Zoology” and the numbering of items iii-v to be
changed accordingly (to ii-iv).

Line 14-17 to read :

“(v) Official Index of Non-Recommended Names for
Higher Taxa in Zoology” and the numbering of items
viii-xii to be changed accordingly (to vi-x).

(p. 267) Line 7-8 to be deleted.

Line 9, the words “ through x ” to be deleted.

fe tn Sh BIACHAGED
( y a> *s a ny $s, Rae
S52 U ) = URY 1958

\ ore ot
Nips, pist~

\'o

CONTENTS

(continued from front wrapper)
THE LONDON AGENDA PAPER

(a) New Proposals

Page
Case No. 33: Draft “ Régles’’, miscellaneous drafting and other
amendments

D.33/1 J. Chester Bradley a ee sis rc a .- 693
Case No. 34: Draft ‘“ Régles ’’, Article 22 : authorship of names
D.34/1 — C. F. dos Passos and A. B. Klots as ye 7 .. 685
Case No. 35 : Draft ‘“‘ Régles ’’ : miscellaneous editorial questions
D.35/1 J. Chester Bradley “e ¥ 2 ie - my |

(b) Comments on previously published proposals
Case No. 1 : Proposed recognition of the “ Parataxon ’’ concept
D.1/55 Georges et Marthe Desflandre .. ae - ai .. 705
D.1/56 C. Downie .. A = Wee = a = -. tee
DAlsi — WD. eRelies - 2. Kg He es ae s <a) 2 ee
Case No. 10 : Question of the substantive language for the “‘ Régles ”’
D.10/4. C.W.Sabrosky .. ae a at sei Pe 25 ee
Case No. 21 : Gender of generic names
D.21/2 J. Chester Bradley Be xe i < re ee
Case No. 25: Order/Class Names

D.25/10 H. Lemche a es re is He x5 > 736

© 1958. THE INTERNATIONAL TRUST FOR ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE
Printed in England by METCALFE & Cooper LiMiTED, 10-24 Scrutton St., London E C2

VOLUME 15. Double-Part 23/24 - 9th May 1958
pp. 741—808

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
Eleventh Instalment of the London Congress Agenda Paper

(continued inside back wrapper)

LONDON :
Printed by Order of the International Trust for ip OW
Zoological Nomenclature TAL BIS
and ;

Sold on behalf of the International Commission on Zoological —
Nomenclature by the International Trust at its Publications ers
41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7
: 1958 .

Price Two Pounds, Two Shillings and Sixpence '

_ (AU 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 Hemmyna (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 Lemon (Universitetets Zoologiske Musewm, Copenhagen, Denmark) (27th July 1948)
Professor Pierre Bonnet (Université de Toulouse, France) (Yth 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 Hurine (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 BRaDLEY (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. Sroun (Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, New York, N.Y., U.S.A.)
(12th August 1953)

Mr. P. C. SYLVESTER-BRADLEY (Sheffield University, Sheffield, England) (12th August 1953)

Dr. L. B. 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)

i Alden H. Mrxier (Museum‘of Vertebrate Zoology, University of California, Berkeley, California,
U.S.A.) (29th October 1954).

Doe. Dr. Ferdinand PrantTL (Nérodni Museum v Praze, Prague, Czechoslovakia) (30th October
1954)

Professor Dr. Wilhelm Kitanett (Zoologisches Institut der Universitat, Vienna, Austria) (6th
November 1954)

Professor F. S. Bopunaummer (The Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Israel) (11th November 1954)

Professor Ernst Mayr (Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard College, Cambridge, Massa-
chusetis, U.S.A.) (4th December 1954)

Professor Enrico TortonEsE (Museo di Storia Naturale ““G. Doria”, Genova, Italy) (16th
December 1954)

BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

Volume 15, Double-Part 23/24 (pp. 741-808) 9th May 1958

CASE No. 36

DRAFT “ REGLES ”’, ARTICLE 28 (GRAMMAR AND TYPOGRAPHY)
(Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 1332)

(For the relevant provision in the Draft of the Revised Régles -

see 1957, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 14 : 193 et seq.) fe “
— /
aH ASEO DOCUMENT 36/1
its } c “i Up, ,
9 (MRE? —

Comments and Suggestions on Draft Article 28

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 12th February 1958)

Point (1)

Article 28, Section 2(e) (: 197) : The present wording applies only to the
first example. In the second example, the apparent forename, in the
combination Soos Arpad, is the actual surname and does not have to be
“treated as though it were ”. Incidentally, the correct spelling is Tansathit,.
not Transahit. [See proposal to omit this whole paragraph, under the heading
“Surnames vs. Personal Names ”.]

Point (2)

Article 28, Section 2(f) (: 198): I question that the Copenhagen
Colloquium’s misimpression of what was done at Paris justifies the tacit
assumption that the Colloquium intended to make it mandatory. Perhaps, in
the belief that it was decided at Paris, it was accepted in the absence of any

xx

742 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

real consideration. As indicated earlier in discussion of Article 24, Section
4(a), I would vote to have this confined to specific names, and might even
question it there if different people were involved [¢f. Article 24, Section 12(11)].
Certainly, in the light of past confusion as to what was done at Paris and
Copenhagen, the provision and its possible effects should be scrutinized
carefully. If this is not left as a mandatory provision, the Recommendation
on p. 216, lines 14-19, could stand.

Point (3)

Article 28, Section 2(h) (: 199): Recommendations 11 and 12 seem
unnecessarily detailed for the Code. I favor omitting both. Ordinarily,
authors will follow the name as it is customarily used, regardless of
Recommendation. I would expect vanderwulpi oftener than wulpi, for example.
And no great harm will be done by saintclairi instead of clairi, or doamarali
instead of amarali.

Point (4)

Article 28, Section 3 (: 200) : This impresses me as being one facet of the
Law of Priority, and not belonging in an Article on Grammar and Typography,
in which the reader would expect to find directions on formation of names,
suffixes, gender, etc. There are two possibilities: (1) that the Section be
placed somewhere in Article 8, or (2) that it be worked into Article 11, Section 1,
which is very close to being the same thing. If the latter is done, and perhaps
even if it is not, the title of Article 11 should reflect the fact that it includes
more than emendations, e.g., “ The Status of Original Spellings, Emendations
and Errors”, or ‘Status of Original and Erroneous Spellings and Emendations”’,
or “ Original and Subsequent Spellings’. Incidentally, Article 28, Section 1(a)
may also belong with Section 3, to be treated as above. Its “ shall not be
subject to change ” is only a phase of maintaining the original spelling.

Point (5)

Article 28, Section 11(b) (: 209): What about suffixes that do not in
themselves show gender, such as the common “ -oides” and “ -opsis”’ (the
latter in its adjectival use of “like”, and not the noun “ opsis”’, which is
feminine) ? Dr. R. W. Brown, author of “ Composition of Scientifie Words ”
recommends that such derivatives take the gender of the noun with which
they were combined, which would agree with the first part of paragraph (b).
Because such names are common, it might be well to use some of them as
Examples for this paragraph.

Point (6)

Article 28, Section 11(b) (: 209), Discussions on p. 209, lines 29 and 30:
It is stated here that there is no such masculine noun [as “ -stomus ”’] in either

:
i
Fj

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 743

Greek or Latin. However, on p. 211, the Example lists Cyclostomus “ used
as a masculine noun’’, in this case an adjective used as a noun (= “the
round-mouthed one ’’). Perhaps this situation was what Copenhagen Decision
84(3) was intended to cover.

Point (7)

Article 28, Section 11(e) (: 213): I propose that paragraph “‘(e)” be
deleted. If classical usage clearly gives a certain gender for a certain ending,
generic name, or type of name, let us have uniformity in zoology (and
presumably, then, uniformity throughout biology) in the gender to be
recognized for it. No serious harm will be done to usage. The form of the
generic name will not be affected, and almost always only one or two letters
at the end of the specific name. Subparagraph (ii) is particularly objectionable ;
this provision, proposed here to form part of our basic Code, aids and abets
confusion. It could mean varying usage for an ending like “ -rhynchus”
within the same animal group.

Point (8)

Article 28, Section 13(1) (: 221) : Dr. Yochelson has called my attention
to the fact that, except possibly for this section, there is no clear statement
anywhere in the Code that when a specific or infra-specific name is transferred
from one genus to another, the ending of such name must be changed (if
appropriate to do so) to agree in gender with the generic name with which it is
newly combined. The words “ with which it is at any time combined ” imply
the above, but it is a most obscure way to state this important fact. I suggest
a distinct Section for it. It might also be noted in Article 11, Section 1(a).

Point (9)

Article 28, Section 13 (: 221) : Should some note be made of the occasional
specific names compounded of a noun as first part and an adjective as second
part, with the adjectival ending dependent on the gender of the noun with which
it is combined and not on the generic name? Examples: Melanoplus
femurrubrum, a grasshopper; Desmometopa M-nigrum, a fly. In the first
binomen, the generic name is masculine; in the second, feminine. Both
specific names show a neuter ending (‘‘-wm”’) because the nouns with which
they are combined are neuter.

Point (10)

Article 28, Section 16(c) (: 225) : I am not sure that dropping the final
vowel is wise, even if made merely permissive. The old Code (Article 14)

744 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

stated that the “ genitive is always formed by adding, to the exact and complete
name... an ae if the person is a woman”. This had the advantage of
simplicity and uniform treatment, and it preserved clearly the basis of the
name. The name “ gurae”’ is not as clear as “ guriae’’, from the name Guri.
Various pairs of women’s names would result in the same spelling, under the
present version: Names dedicated to Maria and Marie would yield mariae ;
to Loa and Lou, loae ; to Ann and Anna, annae.

Surnames vs. Personal Names: In a number of places in Article 28,
“surname ”’ is used, but I believe that the provisions should be broadened to
apply also to forenames. All relevant provisions (except 16(d)) can and should
apply to both kinds of names. I propose therefore, for all cases except one
where “surname” is used in Article 28, that either ‘“ personal name” or
“name ” (whichever is appropriate) be substituted. “Surname ”’ is properly
used in Section 16(d) (composed only of Recommendation 25). The following
uses are involved (suggested substitute given, plus any comments in brackets) :

Point (11)
* Recommendation’? 6 (: 195): For ‘‘surnames”, read “ personal

names”. [Undoubtedly usually surnames, but restriction not really
necessary. |

Point (12)
“ Recommendation ’’ 7 (: 196): For “surnames” and “surname ”’,

read “‘ personal names” and “ personal name”. [Why differentiate between
Eugrimmia and Euhelena, for example ?]

Point (13)

Section 2(c) (: 196): For ‘surname ’”’, read “ personal name’”’. [Names
compounded with “Saint ” are occasionally used as forenames.]

Point (14)

“ Recommendation ’’ 8 (: 196) : For “surname ”’ read “ name ”’.

Point (15)

Section 2(e) (: 197) : This paragraph can be omitted entirely, if we do not
differentiate between surnames and forenames. If I named a species after my
friend, Dr. Arpad Soos, I should be free to choose either arpadi or soost.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 745
Point (16)
** Recommendation ’’ 10 (: 197): The bracketed sentence can be omitted
(lines 24-25).
Point (17)
“ Recommendation’? 12(«) (: 199): Examples: Omit “surnames”,
end of line 3.
Point (18)
* Recommendation ’? 22 (: 216): For “surname [or forename]”’ read
“personal name ”’.
Point (19)

Unnumbered “ Recommendation ”’ (: 216, lines 14 ff.) : Dr. Bradley has
proposed that this be omitted, but its fate will be determined by decisions on
Section 2(f) and (h). If retained, change the title (line 14) from ‘“‘ Surnames ”’
to “ Personal Names ”’, and change “ surname ”’ to “ personal name ”’ in each
of lines 26 and 30.

Point (20)

Section 16 (: 223, line 2): For “Surname” read “ personal name”.
[The use of surname here was applied to the whole section, but some examples
were of personal names (e.g., p. 226, lines 5 and 13)].

Point (21)

Section 16(a) (: 223): [Example of adjective formed from a forename :
Hrioptera mabelana Alexander (a tipulid fly, named after Mrs. Alexander)].

Point (22)
Section 16(b) (i) (: 223): For “surname”, read “name’’. [Example,

based on a forename: Wyeomyia alani Lane & Cerqueira (a mosquito, named
after Alan Stone)].

Point (23)

Section 16(b)(iii) (: 224) : For “ surname ”’, read “‘ name ”’.

746 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Point (24)

Section 16(b)(iv) (: 225): For “surname’’, read “name”. [Possibly
the names coming under this provision are, for the most part, surnames, but
certainly there are some classical names used occasionally as modern fore
names, e.g., Claudius and Cassius. Incidentally, mébiusi was used as an
example in Article 14 of the old Code. Does it come under this provision
or under 16(b) ? How does one tell without a lot of useless bibliographical
research ? Do modern Scandinavian names ending in -ius all come here ?
If mobiusi does fall under this provision, it would mean that we should have to
correct (under 16(f)) an example from the old code. I wonder if this provision
should be mandatory or should really only be a Recommendation. Are we
being too pedantic 2]

16(d) and “ Recommendation ’’ 25: Surname is properly used in this

part, because the reference is to a specific usage for Linnaeus, Fabricius and
Poda.
16(e) : For “surnames” read ‘“‘ personal names’’. [There have been a

number of examples of forenames used without the genitive ending, such as
elizabeth].

Contraventions

Paragraphs or statements regarding contravention of the mandatory
provisions of this Article appear in ten different places in the Article, in
Sections 2(i), 4(a)(i), 6, 9(c), 10(a), 13(b), 14, 15(b), 16(f), and 17(a). I have
analyzed all of those, the Sections to which they refer, and the Sections for
which no such statements appear. I believe that the Article could be shortened
considerably, much repetition avoided, and simplicity gained by combining
all of them into a single provision, to be the very first provision in Section 1
of the Article. The following is suggested :

Section 1. Name-formation in general.

[(a) Contraventions.—A name established in contravention of any of
the mandatory provisions of this Article must be corrected, but attributed
to its original author and date (cf. Article 11).]

Contrary to the usual plan, I would place this first under the general
rules, to catch the eye immediately, and also put a similar provision in Article 11.

The ten separate paragraphs on “Contraventions” have different
wordings, and it is not evident why that should be. Even if the above proposal
be rejected, I believe some uniformity of wording would be desirable. Four
Sections of Article 28 (13(b), 14, 15(b), 16(f)) say “must be corrected ”’
[= compulsion, Introduction, p. 31]; two Sections say ‘‘ when noted”, and

_— ~— = ” > a b= *4 a PRR SA
+ semaine ea eg a INE NT REET GO CNS ae se

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 747
two “when noticed”, but this difference is unimportant. Three Sections
(6, 9(c), 10(a)) say “shall be corrected” [= mandatory]. One (4(a)(i)) says
“shall be . . . automatically corrected ’’ [= mandatory, automatic ?]. Two
Sections (2(i), 17(a)) say ‘‘ shall be subject to correction” [= mandatory ?
Or does the wording imply that they might be left uncorrected ?]. There
really seems to be little fundamental difference between a change from terrae-
novae to terraenovae (Article 28, Section 15(b): ‘‘ must be corrected ”’),
meclayi to macclayi (Article 28, Section 2(i): ‘‘ shall be subject to correction ”’),
and Tabani to Tabanus (Article 28, Section 10(a): ‘shall be corrected ’’).
The last named example should certainly fall in the “‘ must be corrected ”’
category ; a generic name cannot be in the plural. To conclude: If mandatory

provisions are contravened, should not all corrections be a ‘‘ must” (ice.,
compulsion) ?

In two instances (Sections 10(a), 13(b)) it is specified that the corrected
name shall be attributed to the original author and date. Should not all
corrections be treated thus? Indeed, since these corrections are valid

emendations (Article 11, Section 1(c)), they all do take the original date and
authorship (Article 11, Section 4(b)).

An important question remains: What effect would making this provision
all-inclusive have on the Sections where there are at present no items on

“Contraventions’’ ? These are analyzed as follows (Recommendations, not
being mandatory, are ignored) :

Point (25)

Article 28, Section 1 (: 193) : 1(a) is a “ not subject to change ”’ provision.

Point (26)

Article 28, Section 3 (: 200): It is proposed (cf. elsewhere) that this

section be to either Article 8 or 11, preferably to a revised or at least re-titled
version of the latter.

Point (27)
Article 28, Section 5 (: 202) : Only contains Recommendations.

Point (28)

Article 28, Sections 7 and 8 (: 203) : Correction would work alright with the
proviso of course that corrections in Section 8 would not extend to all the old
names in the history of family-group names (formed with “ -acea”, “ -ina”’,

“ -ides””, etc.) unless and until they were brought into present day use.

748 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Point (29)

Article 28, Section 11 (: 208) : The wording is now mandatory, in most
paragraphs. If this is meant to be retroactive, and I assume it is (cf. Article 11,
Section 1(d)), required correction would be proper.

Point (30)

Article 28, Section 12 (: 215) : 12(b) is only informative. 12(a) says that
certain words are “invalid ’”’ as names (should it have said “ unavailable ”’ ?).
The reference is to Article 6, on Availability ; incidentally, it should be Article
6, Section 1(c), not Section 1(d). If Section 12(a) means invalid but available,
then there should be provision for correction ; if it really means unavailable,
should it not be changed to provide for availability, and correction ? Example :
Muscina and Potamida are good generic names; if they had first appeared
in plural form, they would have been Muscinae and Potamidae. Would not
these names be available, but to be corrected, under Article 28, Section 10(a) ?
If it was the intent here in Section 12 (and in Article 6, Section 1(c)) to rule
such names as unavailable, I raise the question whether this should be
reconsidered, and such names be considered correctable under Article 28,
Section 10(a).

Point (31)
Article 28, Section 18 (: 229).: Contains only prohibitions.

Conclusion: The proposed substitute for Section 1(a) will not adversely
affect any of these sections. On this point, then, there would be no difficulty
in making one general paragraph for ‘‘ Contraventions”’, to apply to the
entire Article 28.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 749

CASE No. 37

DRAFT “ REGLES’’, ARTICLE 22, SECTION 5 (CITATION OF
THE NAMES OF AUTHORS, OTHER THAN ORIGINAL AUTHORS)

(Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 1331)

DOCUMENT 37/1

Mode of citation to be adopted for citing an author’s name subsequent
to the original proposal of a zoological name

By MYRA KEEN
(Stanford University, School of Mineral Sciences, Stanford, California, U.S.A.)

(Enclosure to a letter dated 10th March 1958)

In the Journal of Paleontology for May 1957 (Vol. 31, no. 3, p. 672), the
editors, Erwin C. Stumm and Robert V. Kesling, under the title “ Citations
and references in the Journal of Paleontology” give the following as a
recommended form for synonymies :

Beyrichia sussexensis Weller, 1903, p. 253, pl. 23, figs. 3, 4.
Beyrichia perinflata Weller, 1903, p. 254, pl. 23, fig. 6.

Kloedenia sussexensis Ulrich & Bassler, 1908, p. 302, pl. 38, figs. 19, 20.
Bassler & Kellett, 1934, p. 366. Swartz & Whitmore, 1956, p. 1064-1065,
pl. 106, figs. 7-12.

2. As I interpret it, this falls into the pattern of synonymy cited by
Schenck and McMasters in Procedure in Taxonomy as undesirable ; for example,

750 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

their example no. 1 on page 22 of either the revised edition (1948) or the third
edition (1956) :

Ellipsonodosaria verneuili (d’Orbigny)

Dentalina verneuili d’Orbigny, Foram. Foss. Bass. Tert. Vienne, 1846,
p. 48, pl. 2, figs. 7, 8.

Nodosaria verneuili Nuttall, Quart, Jour. Geol. Soc., vol. 84, p. 81,
pl. 4, figs. 14, 15.

3. I am informed by zoologists that the practice of citing the names of
subsequent authors’ names—in connection, especially, with the name of a
species—without the repetition of the name of the original author, is not only
common but is accepted practice in many fields of zoology. The excuse seems
to be that it is time-saving and also economical, by avoiding additional printing
costs. This would seem to be poor economy, for what may be saved initially
is negligible in comparison to the time and effort that must be expended by
later workers in determining whether each such reference was an original
proposal of a name or merely a subsequent citation.

4. The new draft text of the Code carries what appears to be an implicit
solution of the problem, needing only the explicit statement of a corollary to
one of the present sections, Article 22, Section 5(a) [page 161], which now
reads as follows :

The name of the author, when cited, shall follow the name of the taxon
without interposition of any marks of punctuation.

5. I should like to suggest that a subsection 5(a)(i) should be added :

The name of the taxon, when cited in connection with the name of
any other or subsequent author, should be separated from that author’s
name by some mark of punctuation or otherwise.

6. This would permit workers who do not wish to keep repeating in a long
synonymy the name of the original author to replace it by a punctuation mark
of some sort. I had suggested a comma or a period, but Dr. Curtis Sabrosky,
with whom I have discussed the problem, feels that a semicolon or a colon
would be preferable, as being easier to detect when reading proof. In any
case, this seems an opportunity for discouraging an apparently growing tendency
among some systematists to take a short-cut that leads to ambiguity.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 751

DOCUMENT 37/2

Proposal for the insertion in the “ Régles ’’ of a provision prescribing
a method for distinguishing the name of a later user of a zoological
name from the name of the original author of that zoological name

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

(Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature)

(Statement dated 13th March 1958)

Dr. Myra Keen and Dr. Curtis Sabrosky have raised the question whether
there should be inserted in the Régles a’ provision prescribing a method for
distinguishing the name of a later user of a zoological name from the name of
the original author of that zoological name.

2. I wish strongly to support the condemnation expressed by Dr. Keen
of the practice of placing after a specific name without comment the name not
of the original author of that specific name but the name of some later user of
that name. This practice is not only incorrect but is in addition highly
misleading. For example, there is, in my opinion, nothing whatever to be
said in favour of such an entry as A-us b-us Smith, 1900, which implies that
this binomen was published as the name for a new nominal taxon by Smith in
1900, when in fact the name was first published by (say) Brown in 1850, the
name as employed by Smith in 1900 being no more than a later usage by
Smith of the name published by Brown fifty years earlier. Fortunately, this
type of citation, though formerly very common and in some groups at least
almost universal is now much rarer, though even now it persists here and
there and gives rise to unnecessary confusion.

3. While it would today be difficult to find many who would be prepared to
defend the obsolete and objectionable method of citation discussed above, it
seems desirable nevertheless that words should be inserted in the Régles which
would have the effect of rendering this method of citation definitely incorrect.
It appears to me that the logical course would be to treat this matter in two
stages. The first would consist of a mandatory provision under which the
above method of citation would be declared to be incorrect. The second

752 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

which would be non-mandatory would take the form of a Recommandation
which would give guidance as to a method of citation which would be regarded
as being acceptable.

4, The mandatory provision I suggest should take the form of an addition
to Section 5(a) of Article 22 of the Draft Régles (1957, Bull. zool. Nomenel.
14.:161). Under this suggestion the existing Section 5(a) would become
5(a)(i), the new provision becoming 5(a)(ii). The provision which I would like
to suggest for consideration would read as follows: “ The name of a later user
of a zoological name is not to be cited immediately after that zoological name
without some indication that the author in question was not the original author
of the name ”’.

5. If the foregoing proposal finds favour, it will be necessary to consider
what would be the most appropriate method to be adopted for the purpose
of giving the indication referred to above. Of the suggestions put forward
in Dr. Myra Keen’s letter of 10th March 1958 (Document 37/1), my feeling is
that a colon would be greatly preferable to a semicolon, both because it is
more distinctive and more readily legible and because a semicolon might
easily be misread for a comma. The last-mentioned mark of punctuation
would, I consider, be most undesirable in view of the fact that formerly most,
and even now some, zoologists place a comma between a specific name and the
author’s name, notwithstanding the fact that this is not in accordance with the
provisions of the existing Régles. The use of a comma for the special purpose
now under consideration would be likely to create confusion and to defeat the
purpose of the proposed new provision.

6. For the reasons explained above I favour the adoption of the colon
as the symbol to be recommended for the present purpose. I think it very
important, however, that the wording to be employed should not be such
as to rule out a more self-explanatory and more readily intelligible formula
in cases where the author considers this necessary for the sake of clarity, e.g.,
the use of the formula ‘‘ A-ws b-us Brown, Smith, 1900, nec Brown, 1850”
which is the only formula which gives all the information which may be
required in such cases. I accordingly suggest that the proposed Recommandation
be on the following lines: “ Where it is desired to cite in connection with a
zoological name the name of some author other than the original author, this
may be done by citing the name of the later author immediately after the
zoological name concerned but separated from it by a colon, in those cases
where it is not considered necessary to cite also the name of the original author
of the zoological name in question ; where, however, it is desired to cite the
original author’s name, that name should precede the name of the author of the
later usage and be separated therefrom by a comma ”’.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 753.

CASE No. 38

DRAFT “ REGLES *” : PROPOSED DISCONTINUANCE OF THE
USE OF THE EXPRESSION “ TRANSLITERATION ”

(Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 1334)
DOCUMENT 38/1

Draft “ Régles ’’, proposed substitution of the word “ Latinisation ”
for the word “ transliteration ”’

By L. W. GRENSTED

(Consulting Classical Adviser to the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature)

(Letter dated the 2nd March 1958)

I think that a great deal of the trouble which we are having in regard to the
wording of various parts of the draft of the revised English text of the Régles
is due to confusion between the concept “transliteration” and the concept
“ Latinisation ”. This confusion no doubt arises from the misuse of the word
“ transliteration ” in Section F of the Appendice (Appendix) to the existing

Reégles. The table there given is one for the Latinisation of Greek words and
not for their transliteration.

2. The confusion of thought so involved is at present obscuring the whole
discussion, for example, that in connection with words having the terminations
“ -cheilus” and “ -rhamphus”’. Professor Chester Bradley is, I think, on the
right lines in his discussion of the grammatical formation of family-group names
in his paper Document 20/1 (1958, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 15 : 331-333). I
consider, however, that Section F of the Appendice ought to be reconsidered

754 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

at least to the extent of substituting the word “ Latinisation ” for the
misleading word “ transliteration ”’.

3. My proposal is that the word “ Latinisation ”’ be substituted for the
word “ transliteration ” in the main body of the Régles, wherever the context
so requires. As regards Section F of the Appendice, the change recommended
may involve some minor alterations and perhaps some additions. Any necessary
proposals under this head will be submitted later.

eer

iE CLO ELLA EAE

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 755

CASE No. 39

DRAFT “ REGLES’’, ARTICLE 22, SECTION 1(c) AND 1(d):
CITATION OF NAMES PUBLISHED BY TWO OR MORE AUTHORS

(Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 1335)

DOCUMENT 39/1

Proposal for the amendment of Section 1(c) and 1(d) of Article 22 of
the Draft ‘‘ Régles ”’

By G. H. E. HOPKINS

(British Museum (Natural History), The Zoological Museum,
Tring, Herts, England)

(Statement received on 25th February 1958)

Article 22 Section l(c) of the Draft Régles seems to me to be unworkable
and not wholly in accordance with the Paris resolution on which it is based.
The reference to this latter is given as Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 565, but the
relevant subparagraph is on p. 566 and reads as follows :—

(b) Where in a book or paper written by one author (say author “A”’) it is clearly
stated that the description of one or more specified taxonomic units there named has been
prepared exclusively by some other author (say author “‘ C ’’), the name or names in question
are to be attributed to author “C’’, not to author “A”. The name of a taxonomic

unit so described and named is to be cited by later authors as having been published by
oe Cc ” in “ce A ao

2. The relevant subparagraph of the Draft Régles differs essentially from
the Paris resolution by the omission of the word “ exclusively ’’, and this, to
my mind, renders it unworkable. Let us consider some hypothetical instances,

all of which would be readily converted by examination of the literature into
genuine ones :—

(i) “A” asks “C”’ to compare specimens of a supposed new species
with the holotype of its nearest described relative. “‘C”’ replies, pointing out

756 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

certain differences and sending “A ’”’ paratypes from which “ A” is able to
find many more differences. ‘‘A” gives proper acknowledgment for “C” ’s
help but himself provides the name and most of the description.

(ii) ‘‘C” provides ‘‘ A” with a complete description which “ A” uses
and acknowledges, but ‘“‘ A” provides the name and calls the new species
“O,..atc...t” in recognition of “ C ”’’s help.

(iii) ‘“C”’ has provided the description but has told ‘‘A” not to trouble
to acknowledge his help and “‘ A’”’ therefore makes no reference to it.

(iv) ‘‘ A” states that the description has been provided by “C”’, but
actually it has not, since “‘A’”’ has completely reworded it and distorted
it to such a degree that it is no longer recognizable as ‘“‘C” ’s work.

(v) Author “ A ” considers that the differences between an undescribed
species and its nearest described relative are best shown by illustrations. He
therefore employs a professional artist or photographer to provide illustra-
tions and contents himself with some such statement as “ The differences
between X...us y.. .i and its nearest known relative are better shown
by contrasting Fig. 1 with Fig. 2 than by any verbal description ”.

3. The first point to be noted is that, as the clause stands in the Draft
Régles, it would be quite impossible to decide at what point the authorship
passes from “‘ A” to “‘C”’, since the latter’s help may range through all degrees
from a casual remark that in the genus concerned certain specified structures
provide the best characters, through notes of all grades of completeness as to
what the differences are, to a full description which “‘ A’ may or may not para-
phrase. The question of authorship would depend almost wholly on the generosity
of “A” ’s acknowledgment ; the more generous this is, the more probable it
becomes that “A” will forfeit the authorship of the name he is proposing.
We must all agree with the statement in the Foreword to Article 22 (Bull.
zool. Nomencl. 14:156) that no particular credit should attach to the
authorship of a name, but none of us would desire to penalize generosity in
acknowledging (or even over-acknowledging) help. It seems to me essential that,
for the clause to be workable, the word “ exclusively ’ must be restored, as in
the Paris resolution.

4, But would even this change, which would bring the clause into
conformity with the Paris resolution, make it workable and desirable ? In
my hypothetical case (ii) the authorship would still have to be attributed to
“©”, who would be put in the invidious position of having named a genus and

PERO Eprery

acacia tered

=

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 757

species after himself, while in case (iv) there could be endless arguments as to
whether the degree of paraphrasing is sufficient to make the description not
exclusively ““C”’’s. In example (v) it is beyond all doubt that the indication
was exclusively provided by someone other than the author of the name,
but it would be a startling innovation to transfer the authorship from the
latter to the artist or photographer (the former often anonymous and the latter
generally so), no matter how much they may deserve it. I agree with the
Foreword in considering that the main object of authorship is to form an
abbreviated literature-reference, but the name of the artist or photographer
would certainly not help this object. But throughout Section 1(c) the emphasis
is entirely on the apportionment of the supposed credit derived from authorship
of new names rather than on the usefulness of the author’s name and date of
publication as an abbreviated bibliographical reference. This (for which the
responsibility lies with the Paris Congress, not with the drafter) is entirely
contrary to the spirit of the Foreword.

5. Moreover, it seems to have been overlooked that the effect of Section
1(c) would, even if the word “exclusively” be restored, be to change the accepted
authorship of a large number of names, and that there is a serious inconsistency
in principle between Section 1(c) and 1(e). Under Article 25 of the old Rules
(Proc. biol. Soc. Wash. 39 : 81) authorship was not dealt with, but it is
customary (at least in the groups with which I am concerned) to attribute the
authorship of substitute names to the author who first published them ; this
principle is followed in subparagraph l(e). But if we apply Section 1(c), either
as contained in the Paris resolution or in the draft Article 22, we are faced
with the absurdity that if the original author gave a taxon an appellation not
in accordance with Article 6 Section 1 of the Draft Régles (see Bull. zool. Nomencl.
14 : 49), if, for instance, he used for it a single letter or number or a name which
is a primary homonym, the authorship of the available name subsequently
applied to it is to be attrituted to the author who published it (Article 22,
Section 1(e)), whereas if the earlier author gave the taxon no name or appellation
at all, he is deemed to be the author of the replacement-name, regardless of
the facts that he never heard of it and that his name is not to be found as its
author in the work in which it was published (contrast the Foreword of the
Draft of Article 22, especially the second sentence). Much more serious,
because applying to a much larger number of names, is the inconsistency
between the treatment to be accorded, under Section 1 of Article 22, to
substitute-names for primary homonyms and secondary homonyms. Since
primary homonyms were unavailable at the time they were published substitute-
names for them come under the provisions of Section I(e) and are to be
attributed to the author who first published them. But secondary homonyms
were available at the time they were published and therefore replacement-
names for them come under Section l(c) ; unless their proposer has gone to the
often unnecessary and sometimes even undesirable (cf. Article 19, Section 4(b)
of the Draft Régles, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 14 : 127) task of redescribing the taxon,
these names must be attributed to the author of the homonym.

758 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

6. I therefore propose the following amendments to Section 1 of Article 22
of the Draft Régles :—

(1) That subparagraph (c) be rejected and be replaced by the following :—

(c) Contributors. If it is clearly indicated in the work in which a
name was first validly published that the name and the
description, definition or indication which serves to validate
it were prepared exclusively by some one other than the
author of the work, that name shall be attributed to the
author who contributed the name and its description, definition
or indication, not to the author of the work.

7. If the above amendment should be approved, the second portion of
Section 1(d) (the first seven lines on p. 158 of the Draft Régles) becomes
redundant and should be deleted. If the amendment should be rejected, or
only approved so far as concerns the restoration of the word “ exclusively ”,
I propose :—

(2) That the second portion of Section 1(d), comprising the first seven lines
on p. 158 of the Draft Rules, should be amended to read as follows :—

But if the author who first published it as a nomen nudum, or
an author who had used it in manuscript, was exclusively
responsible for the description, definition or indication which
gave it validity, and that fact is made clear therein, then the
authorship of the name shall be attributed to the said author.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 759

DOCUMENT 1/58
(continued from page 728)

Comment on the Moore/Sylvester-Bradley “‘ Parataxa ’’ Plan

(Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 1056)

By PRESTON E. CLOUD, Jr.
(U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.)

(Letter dated 25th February 1958)

Although I am not unfamiliar with the problems of nomenclature for
parts of organisms and the distinctive works of organisms I find no relief for
these problems in the proposals made. In my view, therefore, these proposals are
not appropriate for the paleontological needs they purport to serve. We will
always be faced with the problem of naming distinctive objects or marks of
unknown or doubtful affinity in paleontology and I feel that on the whole we
are best left to work out this in the most practicable way available at the time.
The confusion inherent in the disaggreation of organisms cannot be legislated
away, and to appear to do so would remove one of the strongest incentives
toward the restoration of natural relations.

I can visualize no safeguards that will render the scheme innocuous
from the viewpoint of whole-animal nomenclature. The scheme proposed is
really a new system of nomenclature and once the “ parataxonomists ” are
given the proposed charter they will probably ignore whole-animal taxonomy.

760 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

DOCUMENT 1/59

Comment on the Moore/Sylvester-Bradley “‘ Parataxa Plan ”’

(Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 1056)

By CARL C. BRANSON
(Oklahoma Geological Survey, Norman, Oklahoma, U.S.A.)

(Enclosure to letter dated 6th March 1958)

There is no present need for recognition of conodont parataxa. The current
system of recognition of genera and species subject to the Régles works well.
The belief of a few workers, first, that they have recognized assemblages,
second, that these assemblages represent unit apparatus (certainly not whole
animals) is doubted by myself and other experts. Much evidence indicates
that the “‘ assemblages ” are change coprolite associations.

2. The names of “ assemblages’, said to be natural genera, should be
suppressed as unnecessary, premature, and hypothetical. The names are
Duboisella Rhodes, Jllinella Rhodes, Lochriea Scott, Lewistonella Scott,
Scottognathus Rhodes, Westfalicus Schmidt.

3. The names of conodont genera should be left as names of true taxa
until such time as it is scientifically demonstrated (if it is) that these genera
occur in association ; at which time, the Law of Priority should be strictly
applied to conserve the first name as that of the whole animal genus.

4, Recognition of parataxa should (if given at all) be confined to names
in groups where such are clearly (and, it is hoped, temporarily) needed. These
groups would seem to be aptychi, otoliths, sponge and holothurian spicules.
No parataxial names are needed for pelinatozoan stem ossicles, for vertebrate
partial skeletons, for scolecodonts, for bradyodonti and their relatives, or for

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 761

Ceratopea. The true status of the generic names used is recognized by all and
the nomenclature is revised according to the rules when material is found that
clarifies the morphological association.

5. The recognition of names of parataxa as names separate from those of
taxa is opposed, strongly so for conodonts. The need is for strict application
of the rules in recognition of the fact that zoological nomenclature is being
built for the centuries and millenia of the future. Mere inconvenience of this
generation of zoologists is not a valid reason for wholesale relaxation of rules
nor for recognition of numerous exceptions to the rules.

762 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

DOCUMENT 2/20
(continued from page 352)

Proposed maintenance of Copenhagen Decision 54(1)(a)

(Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 835)

By JEAN L. LAFFOON
(Iowa State College, Ames, Iowa, U.S.A.)

(Enclosure to letter dated 4th March 1958)

Documents already published in regard to Case 2 on the London Congress
Agenda indicate dissatisfaction with Copenhagen Decision 54(1)(a) on two
grounds: (1) An interpretation that the decision is retroactive and therefore
would require revival of certain names long carried as junior synonyms of
family-group names; (2) The requirement of the decision that in certain
cases family-group names be used even though their stems are those of generic
names considered to be junior synonyms.

The Commission could easily remove the first objection by a clear statement
that the decision is not retroactive and will apply only after a stated date.
The importance of the second objection must be weighed against the desirability
of incorporating into the Rules a feature which would prevent most future
changing of family-group names. If it is insisted that family-group names must
be changed whenever names of their type-genera become junior synonyms,
then we must resign ourselves to numerous future changes in family-group
names (or hosts of appeals to the Commission to avoid the changes). If
Decision 54(1)(a) is allowed to stand, there will be far fewer future changes, but
we will have some family-group names based on generic names which are
junior synonyms. I strongly prefer the latter course.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 763

DOCUMENT 13/6
(continued from page 354)

Support for the proposal that partially Latinised words should be
treated as barbarous words and therefore exempt from change in
gender

(Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 1064)

By G. H. E. HOPKINS

(British Museum (Natural History), The Zoological M: useum,
Tring, Herts, England)

(Enclosure to a letter dated 19th February 1958)

I wish to support strongly Mr. Hemming’s suggestion that partially
Latinised specific names in adjectival form should be exempt from changes in
gender ; my support extends to any other proposals directed to simplifying
the Rules in this respect. Now that so many zoologists know (like
Shakespeare) “little Latin and less Greek ” it seems to me to be questionable
whether we should attempt to keep up the pretence that the language we use
in zoology is Latin in any true sense or to try to apply Latin rules of grammar
to it, and to be beyond doubt that if we are to continue to do this we must
simplify the application of these rules by every possible means which will not
give really serious offence to classicists. For this reason such suggestions as
(Draft Régles Article 28, Section 11(d) second example, Bull. zool. Nomencel.
14 : 211) that a particular sort of name “ may be more nicely treated ” in a
particular way than in another (presumably in supposed accordance with
classical usage) or (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 15: 271, line 18) that “ several specialists
of mediaeval Latin” need to be consulted on a nomenclatorial point fill me
with dismay.

The sole purpose of Rules of Zoological Nomenclature is to ensure that,
subject to inevitable taxonomical differences of opinion, we should all use the
Same name for the same animal. The use of correct forms in Greek or Latin
(whether classical or mediaeval) is utterly outside the purpose of the Rules
unless incorrect forms would be so offensive to the minority of zoologists who are
also classicists as to tempt them to use classically correct but zoologically
incorrect alternatives.

764 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

DOCUMENT 33/2
(continued from page 694)

Miscellaneous Comments on the Draft of the ‘* Régles ”’

(Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 1329)

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 12th February 1958)

In the following comments, words or phrases suggested as replacements
are underlined; suggested additions are in brackets. Proposed omissions
will be so stated, or will be obvious in the short quotations given.

The number of comments should not be interpreted as dissatisfaction. I
feel that the Draft is a remarkably well done job on an exceptionally difficult
task. But the ramifications seem endless, and need the utmost in attentions and
testing in this formative stage.

Point (1)

Article 4, Section 2 (: 40): I suggest that the “Explanation” be
incorporated in the Section as follows: ‘“ The designation of a species shall be
binominal [, consisting of its uninominal specific name preceded by the name
of the genus to which it is attached, the two forming a binomen. Citation of a
subgeneric name is an optional matter, and is parenthetical, not affecting the
binomen (or the trinomen in Section 3) in any way.] ”’.

Point (2)

Article 6, Section 3(3) (: 53): I dislike the extension of the meaning of
** indication ’’ to cover these names. Indication, as defined in Opinion 1, was
concerned with method of publication, not with what was being named. I
believe, however, that we must follow long and customary usage and accept
names founded on the work of animals, but I think it should be a provision of
Section 1, without recourse to calling the description an indication. It is

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 765

appropriate here to refer also to Article 8, Section 2(b)(6) and Bradley’s
discussion. The Paris action was probably an oversight ; it is not clear that
they intended to throw out such names proposed after 1930, and indeed their
adoption of a Recommandation against the practice suggests otherwise.
However, by construing a description of the work of an animal as an
“indication ”’, they trapped themselves, I believe, therefore, that in Article 8,
Section 2(b)(6) on Pp. 72, line 26, the words “ prior to 1931 ” should be eliminated,
and Bradley’s proposed Recommendation be adopted.

Point (3)

Article 6, Section 6(a) (: 57) : Under “ Extranomenclatural names | was
it the intent to include names which clearly apply to zoological taxa, but which
the author stated were not so proposed ? I was under the impression that the
passage was intended for hypothetical names (‘“ Pithecanthropus ” Haeckel,
1866, and the “ Quisnam sexcaudatus ” referred to in the Draft. But it does
include names such as the following: <“ T{ipula] angelica spec. nov.
Mannheims in litt.”, “7. engeli spec. nov. Theowald in litt.”, and other similar
names published by Theowald (1957) with description and figures but with
the note: “Es ist nicht meine Absicht mit dieser Beschreibung der Puppe
den Namen angelica [or engeli, or etc.] fiir den Gebrauch in der zoologischen
Nomenklatur festzulegen (vgl. : Copenhagen Decisions on Zoological Nomen-
clature, art. 114,1)2”

Point (4)

Article 6, Section 7(a) (: 58) : As worded here, this would mean that a
generic name published in a Specific synonymy, as part of a binomen, the
second part being either an already established species or one validated in the

Point (5)

Article 6, Section 7(a) (: 58, lines 17-19): (“data required to give it
availability under the provisions of Section 1 for names of its date’’). This
Section appears to be a case of circular reasoning with no end-point to give the
taxonomist a final answer. The wording refers us back to the provisions of
Section 1. In that Section, paragraphs “a” through “h” will ordinarily
_ be satisfied and paragraphs “j” and “k” will not apply. That leaves

766 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

paragraph ‘“‘i” for names prior to 1931. Under this paragraph, names are
available if accompanied by an indication, and we are referred to Section 3.
Of the eight parts of Section 3, the only relevant one is number (5): Citation
in synonymy. But, for “ the conditions under which the first publication of a
name only in a synonymy constitutes an ‘indication’, cf. Section 7”. And
back we are at Section 7, without ever having found out what are the data
required to give it availability.

Point (6)

Article 6, Section 9(d) (: 63) : Suggested rewording, for brevity ; “If an
author spells out in Latin a Greek or barbarous letter or cardinal numeral
intended to be the name of a taxon, he thereby makes that name available,
other requirements having been met ”’.

Point (7)

Article 7, Section 2(a)(i) (: 64): I assume that this includes mimeo-
graphing. Dr. Rehder has suggested that the status of mimeographed work
should be made clear, because it is a question so often raised. Recommendation
2 certainly implies validity for documents reproduced by some means other than
printing presses.

Point (8)

Article 7, Section 4(1) (: 66) : What of such practises as the Smithsonian
Institution’s deposit of its publications in public and institutional libraries, or
journals such as the Transactions of the American Entomological Society which
send to a specified list of libraries in order to establish date of publication ?

Point (9)

Article 8, Section 2(b)(6) (: 72) : See previous discussion under Article 6,
Section 3 (3) (Point 2).

Point (10)

Article 10, “ Recommendation’? 5 (: 79): The method of signalizing
involves differences in taste, habit, and editorial practice, the latter usually
beyond control of the taxonomist. Let us not be too specific. I would omit

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 767

reference to a comma, and would not specify an abbreviation. Suggestion :
“ He should clearly indicate that the name of the taxon is new, either by words
or by an appropriate abbreviation, such as “ new genus ”’, “ sp. n.’’, etc.”’.

>

Point (11)

Article 10, “‘ Recommendation ”’ 6 (: 79), second paragraph, lines 26-28) :
Why not transfer this to Article 15, Recommendation 1, where it properly
belongs, and set up the statement there in the same form as in Rec. 6, first
paragraph ? See comment below on Article 15, Recommendation 1.

Point (12)

Article 10, “ Recommendation’? 8 (: 80): Is this Recommendation
necessary in the new Code? After 1930, a diagnosis is required for a new
taxon [cf. Article 6, Section 1(j)].

Point (13)

Article 13 (: 95): Family-group names as we know them today were
first used under a variety of categories and suffixes, and not always as what
we would call a family-group today. For example, the earliest use of a family
ENDOCERATIDAE in paleozoology was apparently as an order, called
Endoceratoidea. It might be well to insert, perhaps as a new paragraph in
Section 3, a provision like the following : ‘“‘ [Eligibility for the family-group.—
Use of the basic stem of an included generic name in forming the name of a
supra-generic taxon shall be construed as ipso facto giving the latter name
availability and priority in the family-group, regardless of what category name
its author applied to it.] ”

Point (14)

Article 13, Section 3 (: 96) : I suggest a rearrangement of the paragraphs
in this Section. The rules for priority (present paragraphs (b) and (c)) should
logically precede that for ‘Relief from priority”. The following order
is suggested, to include also the new provision proposed above :

(a) The suffix immaterial to priority.
(b) Vernacular names.

(c) Eligibility for the family-group.

768 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

(d) Relief from priority.

The title of the new (a) [or (b) if not moved] should be changed. As it stands, it
is a weak and negative description of only one small part of the most important
statement in Article 13.

Point (15)

Article 14, Section 4 (: 102) and Article 15, Section 6 (: 109): (Invalid
Emendations) I suggest that both these passages be omitted. All emendations
are covered by Article 11. A taxonomist who wonders about the status of an
Emendation will go to that Article, not to these passages.

Point (16)

Article 15, Section 2(c) (: 106): If a name for a fossil is proposed now
(1958) as ‘“ Xus albus smithi var. n.”, is it or is it not “ expressly stated ”
(by the “ var. n.”’) that this is an infra-subspecific form (cf. the first clause of
“¢” with the wording of “a” for pre-1951 names) ?

Point (17)

Article 15, “ Recommendations’? 1 and 2 (: 109): I have several
suggestions here :

(a) Reverse the order of the two. We should first signalize, and then
publicize (which is the order in Article 10, Recommendations 5 and 6 ;
see p. 79).

(b) Write out the recommendation for publicity in the same form as that of
Article 10, Recommendation 6, and omit the cross reference to the
latter.

(c) Transfer the second paragraph of Article 10, Recommendations 6 to
this Recommendation on Signalizing, and combine the two. I should
also like to see a Recommendation that these changes be marked, as
we suggest (in Article 10, Recommendation 5) for proposing taxa.
We recommend that marked copies be sent to recording publications ;
why not “‘ mark ”’ the changes in print, to assist recorders, cataloguers,
and also taxonomists? I suggest the following wording for
Recommendation 1 (new number, as noted above) :

** Recommendation ’’ 1. Signalizing change of rank.—An author who
first [changes an established form to a different rank, whether higher or lower,

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 769

should clearly indicate that the change is new, either by words or by an

appropriate abbreviation, such as “ new status ”’, “ n. comb.’’, etc.].

Point (18)

Article 19, Section 1 (: 120): I propose that consideration be given to
substituting the word “ generitype ” for type-species. It has the following
advantages : (a) It resembles “ genotype ” and will be only a slight change for
taxonomists ; (b) it utilizes the regular combining form of the word genus, and
suggests in itself the real meaning “type of the genus”; (c) it avoids the
hyphenated form “ type-species ’’, which will often be written as two words
anyway, and will be changed by some editors (I have already had this happen) ;
and (d) it avoids adding the word species to sentences which may already
use the word one or more times, creating awkward-sounding sentences.

Point (19)

Article 19, Section 2(a) (: 121) : Could this be placed first in the Article,
and written to explain that wherever “ genus ”’ is used in this Article, the words
“or subgenus ” are to be understood ?

Point (20)

Article 19, Section 4(e) (: 129) : Dr. Rehder raises the question of whether
this should apply to cases in which a generic name is based on a figure
[cf. Article 6, Section 3(7)], where the identity of the included species is known ?
It would seem incongruous, for example, to accept a round species as type
when the original figure showed an identifiable square species.

Point (21)

Article 19, Section 5(b) (: 130, second paragraph): The words “in
establishing a genus ”’ (lines 15-16) should be deleted, to agree with the second
sentence in the paragraph. In the case of genera proposed without included
species, the first author to associate name(s) of species with that genus (hence,
the “ original author ” as defined in the second sentence) is not the one who
established the genus.

Point (22)

.. Article 19, Section 5(d)(ii) (: 182) : It seems to me that this subparagraph
_ Should be deleted. If such species were not included after 1757, they are not

770 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

eligible under Section 5(a). Even if it is desired to keep the subparagraph
in the Code, its place should not be under paragraph (d), concerned with rigid
construction of type-selection.

Point (23)

Article 20, ‘“‘ Recommendation’? 2 (: 139): (Labelling of Paratypes) :
It is proposed that the following sentence be added to Recommendation 2 :

[Each remaining specimen (if any) of the type series should be
conspicuously labelled a paratype, in order to identify clearly the
components of the original type series. ]

Although paratypes do not directly affect the nomenclatural fate of
names, they are nevertheless often of significant interest to taxonomists. It is
considered good practice to be careful and precise in marking the original
type series. I believe that the Code of Nomenclature should help to further
this practice by recommending it. I fear that failure to mention paratypes
will encourage laxity or disregard for labelling them.

Point (24)

Article 20, Section 3(a)(i) (: 142): (On selection of a lectotype). It is
suggested that the principle of agreement with previous valid restriction should
be stated positively, by adding the following words to the first sentence (lines
20-22) :

... [, provided it is consistent with the (if any) first valid restriction
and any valid successive restrictions. ]

Such a provision would contribute to stability by preventing upsetting
changes in nomenclature. The principle was recognized in the neotype plan
[cf. Article 20, Section 5(a)(v)], but apparently was overlooked at the
Copenhagen Congress in connection with lectotypes, though fully as important
there.

Point (25)

Article 20, Section 3(b) (: 144): The expression en masse is subject to
misinterpretation. Various workers have raised the question whether papers
that contain a number of lectotype designations (e.g., recent papers by Stone
and Knight on lectotypes of mosquitos) fall under the meaning of en masse.
If it is not intended to include such papers, perhaps the wording should be
modified to make it clear that it applies only to cases of blanket statements,
like that in the Example. It is suggested that the first clause be amended
to read ‘* Lectotypes shall not be selected by general or sweeping statements,
but, ete.”

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 771

Point (26)

Article 20, Section 4 (: 145) : (General rules for neotypes): It was the
consensus and the intent of the Copenhagen sessions, as expressed in
Copenhagen Decisions, Decision 34, to “ play down” neotypes and to keep
their use to a minimum of cases that seemed reasonable. In the light of this
intent, Dr. Bradley’s version of Purpose (paragraph (a)) is not acceptable. It
weakens the position taken on neotypes. The following revision of paragraphs
(a), (b), and (c) is proposed :

[(a) Purpose.—The purpose of a neotype shall be to establish in certain
limited cases a criterion by means of which a typeless nominal species or
lower taxon may be objectively defined.

[(b) Limitation.—A neotype shall be designated only in connection with
revisionary work and then only in exceptional circumstances when it is
desirable in the interests of stability. The words “exceptional circum-
stances ”’ refer to those cases in which it is essential to [possible alternative
for “ essential to”: ‘‘ more essential than restriction in ”’] solving a confused
zoological problem, such as the confused or doubtful identities of closely
related species for which holotypes or lectotypes are no longer extant.

[(c) Prohibition—A neotype shall not be established merely for its
own sake, or as a matter of curatorial routine, or for a nominal species the
name of which is not in general use.]

Point (27)

Article 20, “‘ Recommendation ’”’ 16 (: 151) : This weakens Section 5 too
much. I would prefer to see this eliminated, or worded so as to suggest that
the same specimen be selected unless it is not consistent with the mandatory
requirements.

Point (28)

Article 22, “‘ Recommendation ”’ 2 (: 160) : In my opinion, this does not
correctly reflect the consensus of the Copenhagen Session, which wished to
“play down ”’ as much as possible the use of author’s names, for higher groups.
Copenhagen said that authors’ names “need not be cited, except, where so
desired, in . . .” (Decision 69). The Recommendation here goes far beyond
that and says “should cite”. If anything, a Recommendation at this point
should say “should not ordinarily cite the name of the author ”, or at least
“need not cite’. I propose the following :

[Recommendation 2. Limited use of author’s name.—Authors should not
ordinarily cite the name of the author of a name of a supra-generic taxon,

772 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

but they may do so, where desired for historical or nomenclatural purposes
in such works as catalogues or discussions of the validity of competing
group-names. |

Point (29)

Article 22, ‘“‘ Recommendations ’”? 5 and 7 (:.162, 165): I suggest that
these be omitted. Taste, habit and editorial practice will govern the use of
abbreviations.

Point (30)

Article 22, “‘ Recommendation ’’ 10 (: 165) : Dr. Yochelson suggests that
provision should be made for a double citation, e.g., 1956 [1957], for cases where
a date is stated, but is not the correct one, from external evidence.

Point (31)

Article 24, Section 4(a) (: 172) : I suggest that this provision be confined
to specific names, and possibly not even there (cf. discussion under Article 24,
Section 12). If it is, it would also eliminate the exception from Section 8(a) :
“except as specified in Section 4”’.

Point (32)

Article 24, Section 6(d) (: 175) : This is not the way in which genera are
treated, if found to be based on misidentified type species. Why not have
uniform treatment in the Code? I oppose the paragraph as it stands. It
might involve us in a great deal of trouble with synonyms proposed between.
the original use of a name and its valid (under this provision) use.

Point (33)

Article 24, Section 8(a) (: 176) : See discussion under Article 27, Section 1
(Point (37)).

Point (34)

Article 24, Section 11(b) (: 178, line 25): Dr. Yochelson has pointed
out that it would be desirable to state more positively and definitely (more than
in the phrase “ but under no other circumstances’) that junior secondary

re Fee

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 773

homonyms no longer considered congeneric with their seniors are not to be
renamed. It is important that this be clearly understood.

Point (35)

Article 24, Section 12 (: 181) : A troublesome element seems to have been
introduced in this Section, which takes the place of a portion of Article 35
of the old Code. That old Article provided that specific names of the same
origin and meaning were to be considered homonyms if they differed only by the
spellings listed there. All examples given were, within each pair, of the same
origin and meaning. The inference is clear that if two names were of different
origin and meaning, though differing only in the spellings mentioned, they
would not be homonyms.

In the new version, however, there is a departure which is a potential
troublemaker. Apparently names of different origin and meaning are to be
considered homonyms if they differ only by the letters given in the list on
pp. 181-182 (cf. second Example under “ the use of, ei, i, or y” : smithi and
smythi, based on names of different persons, and part (11) if different persons
were involved in names using the prefixes Mac, Mc, or M’). This may be
dangerous, and should, I believe, be reconsidered. For example an actual case
in the fly genus Chrysops: calidus Walker (from South Africa) and callidus
Osten Sacken (from the U.S.A.), which are Latin adjectives of different meaning.
Surely smithi and smythi are just as distinct as thompsoni, tompsoni, thomsoni
and thomseni, all of which, on the basis of this present section, could appear in the
same genus without being homonyms under any of its provisions.

Perhaps the words in lines 8-9 (‘‘ that would be homonyms if spelled
alike ’?) were intended to meet this, but if so the smithi-smythi example should
not have been introduced, and number 11 might be questioned.

From considering the above potential dangers, I propose :

1. That the introductory wording of Section 12 be strengthened, as in
the old Code, by clear reference to “‘ names of the same origin and meaning ”’ ;

2. that the smithi-smythi example be deleted from subsection (2) ;

3. that the merit of including subsection (11) [the Mac, Mc, M’ names]
be critically re-examined ; and

4. that if the preceding changes are made, a Recommendation be added
calling attention to the undesirability of introducing names which, although
technically acceptable because of different origin and meaning (such as
calidus-callidus) are nevertheless confusing.

ZZ

774 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
Point (36)

Article 24, Section 13(a)(i) (: 183) : Should a similar provision be written
into the Code for differences in transliteration from languages that do possess
alphabets ? Example : pawlowi (German transliteration) and pavlovi (English
transliteration) from the Russian. Two of the special cases listed in
Section 12(a) are of this class.

Point (37)

Article 27, Section 1 (: 191) : Should a provision (c) be added, to consider
“4” and “v” as the same Latin letter (permissible variants) in names such
as Cryptonevra or Cryptoneura? Both of these spellings have been used in
Diptera, and the former has been emended to Cryptoneura. Are the two
homonyms ? A current problem also involves Macronevra Macquart (1834) in
Diptera, and Macroneura Walker (1837) in Hymenoptera. Are the two
homonyms? As interesting sidelights, the dipterous genus was emended to
Macroneura and the hymenopterous genus to Macronevra. Macroneura
would be awkward if validated in Hymenoptera because of another and well-
known hymenopterous genus with similar sound: Macronura. Article 24,
Section 8(a) will also be affected by a decision on this point.

Point (38)

Glossary (: 274) : Cotype: Possible addition “ [because of some usage in
the sense of paratype] ”’.

Point (39)

Glossary (: 276) : Group, collective group: The explanation here is not
correct as far as the status of specific names is concerned, as used in parasitology.
Note must also be taken that some collective group names (e.g., Cercaria)
were first proposed as good generic names, but later, by general agreement
and customary practice, came to be used as collective group names.

Point (40)

Glossary : Should nomen nudum be defined? Many people regard a
manuscript name as the real nomen nudum—a bare name, nothing else.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 775
Point (41)

Glossary : It has been suggested that the Glossary be expanded to include
definitions of “ objective ” and “ subjective ” as they are used in the Code, and
also any specialized definitions of words used in a special sense. ““ Homonym ”’
is defined, but “synonym ” is not. See also my comment at the end (below)
on “ designation’ and “ selection ”.

Point (42)

Glossary : The desirability of cross-indexing has also been suggested, so
that a term like “ primary homonym ”’ would appear in its proper alphabetical
position with cross reference to the discussion under “ homonym ”’.

Point (43)

Glossary : ‘“‘ Nom. nov.” and “nom. mut.” (from Article 21, Section 4)
should be defined, especially the former, to be sure it means substitute name and
not in the sense of “n. sp.” nor “sp. n.”.

Point (44)

Glossary : Define “invalid name” as well as “‘ valid name ”’ and define
“valid ”’, “available ’’, “‘ occupied ”’.

Point (45)

General Comment on terminology: General comment (especially for
Articles 19 and 20, but used elsewhere).—Is it worthwhile to make a fine
distinction between “‘ designation” and “ selection’? Some taxonomists do
not distinguish. Others see no need to distinguish. The old Code used
“ designation’ in places where the Draft uses “selection’’, e.g., in the
expression “‘ type by subsequent designation ’. It seems to me that to change
the established usage, there should be some very good reasons for doing so.
At present, these escape me ; it seems like hair-splitting. One term, instead of
two, would contribute its mite toward simplicity. Unless some cogent reasons
are brought out, I would suggest that the appropriate term for the formal,
published, nomenclatural action be ‘“‘ designated”’. If it is decided to give
“designation” and “selection ”’ certain special meanings for nomenclatural
purposes, those should be defined in the Glossary.

776 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Point (46)

Index : I suggest that an Index would be useful, in addition to the Table
of Contents. It could be printed in the smaller sized type used for the
‘* Discussions ’’, and two columns to a page. Page reference only, not the
details of Article, Section, etc., unless perhaps an indexed item appeared in
more than one place on a given page. Subject index only, without mentioning
names of taxa used as Examples. There are many individual subjects for which
a reader might pick up the Code and want to turn quickly to the page, or
want to be sure that a particular passage was the only section on that subject,
without searching through the Table of Contents. Examples of such items :
Tautonymy, pre-Linnaean names, cotypes, nomen nudum, connective vowel,
etc. For brevity, words or expressions that are defined in the Glossary could
be starred without giving the page number in the Glossary, e.g., *emendation,
nomen nudum, *stem, etc.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 777

“— aan

DOCUMENT 33/3

Miscellaneous Comments on the Draft of the “ Régles ”’

(Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 1329)

By TADEUSZ JACZEWSKI
(Polish Academy of Sciences, Institute of Zoology, Warsaw, Poland)

(Enclosure to a letter dated 19th February 1958)

Point (1)

Article 3, Section 2 (: 39, line 15) : At the end of the sentence it seems
desirable to add the following words: “and shall be subject to the Rules of
zoological nomenclature ”’.

Point (2)

Article 6, Section 1(g) (: 49, lines 24 and 25) : To cover all possible similar
cases in the future it seems desirable to replace the words “ the genitive case ”’
by “a case other than the nominative case”. The same corrections should be
made also on p. 56, line 20, and p. 230, lines 16 and 17.

Point (3)

Article 13, Section 4(a) (: 97 and 98): Copenhagen Decisions 54(1)(a)
should be rescinded as contradictory to the type-principle in zoological nomen-
clature. Otherwise we shall have valid family-group names derived from

_ invalid and rejected generic names, a situation plainly absurd.

Point (4)

Article 14, Section 5 (: 103, line 2) : The words “ and not counted as part
_ of it” do not seem absolutely necessary.

778 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Point (5)

Article 15, Section 7 (: 110, line 14) : The words “ a comma and ”’ could be
cancelled ; there seems to be no good reason to use a comma in such cases.

Point (6)

Article 16, Section 2(a)(i) (: 112, line 25) and Section 2(a)(iii) (: 113, lines
14 and 15): The example “ Capra hircus X Ovis aries” is particularly ill
chosen as such crosses result in abortions (cf.: F. Cavazza, Atti Soc. Ital. Sc.
Nat., Milano, 78, 1939, pp. 467-473 ; R. O. Berry, Journ. Hered., Baltimore,
29, 1938, pp. 343-350; A. I. Lopyrin and N. V. Loginova, Usp. Sovr. Biol.,
Moskva, 36, 1953, pp. 227-235). It would be better to give the “ classical ”
example of Equus caballus x Equus asinus or vice versa.

Point (7)

Article 19, “‘ Recommendation ’’ 4 (: 135, line 7): There should stand
a colon at the end instead of a full-stop.

Point (8)

Article 22 (: 156, line 3): The words “or authors” should be added
following the word “ author ’’. Many names have been established jointly by
two or even more authors.

Point (9)

Article 22, Section 4 (: 160, line 24) : It should be “ species” instead of
““ subspecies ” at the end of this sentence.

Point (10)

Article 22, “‘ Recommendation ” 4 (: 161) : It should be added that the
abbreviation “anon,” is to be used when the anonymous author remains
unknown ; this follows only indirectly from the wording on p. 162, lines 12-14.

Point (11)

Article 22, “‘ Recommendation ’’ 6 ( : 165, line 2) : The words “never be
applied after its original establishment ”’ should be replaced better by “ be

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 779

given only in the original publication establishing that taxon ; in particular,
if a taxon is being established as new in a preliminary note published in advance
of the full paper or work, it is admissible to treat it again as new in this
subsequent publication ”’.

Point (12)

Article 22, ‘“‘ Recommendation ’”’ 10 (: 165, line 23): The words “in
parentheses or in brackets ” should be added following the word “ enclose ”’.

Point (13)

Article 23, Section 1(a)(ii) (: 168) : The matter should be illustrated by
appropriate examples.

Point (14)

Article 24, Section 6(d) (: 175, line 17): It should be “ type-genus ”
instead of “type-species”’ in the first place where this expression occurs
in this line.

Point (15)

Article 24, Section 9 (: 177) : An explanation should be added concerning
the invalid selection by various authors of type-species of genera, other than
the valid type-species under the Rules, and the establishment in this way of
junior homonyms of the corresponding generic names.

Point (16)

Article 24, Section 10 (: 177, line 21): ‘Smith ” should be printed in
Roman type.

Point (17)

Article 24, Section 12 (: 181) : In my opinion points (1)-(7) can apply
only to names derived from Greek or Latin (classical) words; the example
of “ smithi”’ and “ smythi ” given in connection with point (2) is not appropriate,

] _ strictly speaking these two names are not homonyms, but there can be no

doubt that a recommendation to avoid such cases would be highly desirable.

780 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Point (18)

Article 24, Section 12(9) (: 182): Point (9) is difficult to understand
without appropriate examples.

Point (19)

Article 24, Section 12(a) ( : 182, lines 21 and 23) : The pairs “ saghalinensis,
-e and sakhalinensis, -e’’, and “‘ tianshanicus, -a, -um” are only particular
cases of the general problems dealt with on p. 183, in Article 24, Section 13(a)(i) ;
these cases have been already decided by the Commission ; a corresponding
shifting of the whole point (a) from Article 24, Section 12 to Article 24, Section
13 would seem more appropriate.

Point (20)

Article 24, Section 13(a)(i) (: 183, line 3): The words “that uses an
alphabet other than the Latin or” should be inserted following the word
“ language ”’.

Point (21)
Article 26 (: 190) : Is Article 26 necessary at all ?

Point (22)

Article 28, Section 2(a) (: 195, lines 3 and 4) : There does not seem to be
sufficient reason for a different treatment of modern (barbarous) personal
names ending in “q’” and for the insertion in such cases of the letter “u”
between ‘“‘q”’ and the ending. In other words I am in favour of “ leclercqi”’
not “leclerequi”’; any unnecessary complication of the Rules should be
avoided. : ;

Point (23)

Article 28, Section 2(h) (: 199, line 15) : Following the word “ prefixes ”’ it
seems desirable to insert, between commas, the words “ even if they are former
nobiliary particles’. The examples given in line 17 represent just such cases.

Point (24)

Article 28, Section 4(a)(i) (: 201, lines 24-26) : The words “ represented
by .. . Schedule ” should be replaced simply by the word “ omitted’. In this

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 781

connection I should like to refer to a communication on this subject which I
addressed some time ago to the Office of the Commission setting out the official
opinion of the Polish Group for Questions of Zoological Nomenclature.*

:
4
>
4
,

Point (25)

Article 28, Section 12(b)(3) (: 217, line 24 and : 218, line 1) : It should be
“ privative ” instead of “ privitive ”’.

Point (26)

Article 28, Section 16(b) (: 223, lines 22 and 23): It would be useful to
add the following examples as well: “ scopolit (from Scopoli) ; chrostowski
(from Chrostowski) ; esakii (from Esaki) ”’.

Point (27)

Article 28 (: 234, line 15): It should be “‘ anrarmpaE”’ instead of
** AETATIDIDAE ”’.

Point (28)

Article 29, Section 7(aa) (: 263, line 20) : The words “ using an alphabet
other than Latin or ” should be inserted following the word “ language ”’.

Point (29)

Glossary (: 273, lines 3 and 4) : A publication in which its author is hidden
_ by a pseudonym or by mere initials is, strictly speaking, not ‘‘ anonymous ”
but “ cryptonymous ”.

Point (30)

: Glossary (: 275, line 14): Would it not be better to replace the word
_ “precise ” by “ special ” ?

1 The communication here referred to has been earmarked for inclusion in the group of

_ papers relating to the treatment of names, letters in which bore diacritic marks when first

blished, which will constitute the documentation for the consideration by the coming London

] ittiscccen when dealing with the problem of diacritic marks in relation to zoological names. It is

planned that this group of papers should appear in an early Part of the present (Agenda) volume.
Tintl'a) F.H. 19th March 1958.

782 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Point (31)
Glossary (: 275) : It seems desirable to add the entry “ editor ”’.

Point (32)

Glossary (: 275, lines 20 and 21) : A full-stop should be put in both places
following the abbreviation “e”’.

Point (33)

Glossary (: 276, line 16): The word “and” should be replaced by a
comma, for it is not a full list of the possible examples.

Point (34)

Glossary (: 277, lines 32-40) : Both taxonomic and non-taxonomic forms
seem to be mixed up in this paragraph. Seasonal, sexual and caste forms are
in my opinion non-taxonomic forms as they are unable to constitute taxonomic
and non-taxonomic infrasubspecific forms, but it seems that the matter should
be explained in the Glossary in a manner as clear as possible.

Point (35)
Glossary (: 278, line 13) : The words ‘‘ the dipthong ”’ should be cancelled.

Point (36)

Glossary (: 278) : It seems desirable to add the entry “‘ manuscript name ”

Point (37)

Glossary (: 280) : It seems desirable to add the entries ‘‘ nomen nudum ”’
and “ preliminary note ”’.

Point (38)

Glossary (: 281, line 3) : Following the word “‘ with”’ the words “ editor
and with ”’ should be inserted.

:
i

?

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 783
Point (39)

Glossary (: 281, line 7) : I am in favour of the omission of the words “ and
comma ”’.

Point (40)

Glossary (: 281, line 26): The singular is “species inquirenda”’, the
plural “ species inquirendae ”’.

Point (41)

Glossary (: 281, line 28): ‘“‘Sedis incertae’ is correct both for the
singular and for the plural of species.

Point (42)

Glossary (: 283, line 15): Holometabola does not seem to be a good
example, as it is often considered at present to be an artificial group ; it could be
given instead : Palaeoptera or Neoptera.

Point (43)
Glossary (: 284, line 34) : It should be “ subspecies ”’ instead of “ species ”’.

Point (44)

Glossary (: 285, line 1) : I am in favour of the omission of the words “ and
comma ”’.

784 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

DOCUMENT 33/4

Miscellaneous Comments on the Draft of the “ Régles ”’

(Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 1329)

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 7th March 1958)

>

For brevity, expressions like “I suggest’ or “I propose ’
omitted, and the suggestion is stated positively in a concise form.

are usually

Point (1)

Article 1, Forward (: 35, line 8) : Substitute “ animals ” for “‘ organisms ”’.

Point (2)

Article 1, Forward (: 35, line 9): Substitute “paleozoology”’ for
** paleontology ”’.

Point (3)

Article 1, Section 4 (: 36, line 25 and : 37, line 1-2) : The bracketed words
seem unnecessary because of “ as such ”’ in line 23, page 36.

Point (4)

Article 1, Section 5 (: 37, line 8): Substitute “paleozoology versus
neozology ” for “ paleontology versus neontology ”’.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 785:
Point (5)

Article 3, ‘“ Recommendation ’’ (: 39, line 8): For consistency, and
precise reference, should Recommendations be numbered even where there is
only one ?

Point (6)

Article 5, Section 1 (: 42, lines 18 and 19): Substitute “any action or
name ”’ for “ any action or usage of a name’. The association of “‘ usage ”’
with “ valid’ seems undesirable. There may also be conflicting “ usages ”’.

Point (7)

Article 5, ‘“‘ Recommendation ’’ 2 (: 45, line 8): Should we add “by
virtue of synonymy ” to the clause ending “ is invalid ” ? Or was it intended
to include here even primary homonymy ? The latter question applies also to
Recommendation 4. It is true that these Recommendations follow Section 3,
which emphasizes synonymy, but if only synonymy was intended to be covered
by “ Recommendations” 2 and 4, it would be better to include words to make
that clear, to avoid the possibility of having the Recommendations quoted
out of context.

Point (8)

Article 6, Section 1(c) (: 49, lines 5 and 6) : Note the reference to Article
28, Section 12(a). What if a name like Potamida had been published in the
plural form “ Potamidae”’, would this not be correctable under Article 28,
Section 10(a) ?

Point (9)

Article 6, Section 1(g) (: 49, line 23) : Add “in Latin ” to “ spelled out ”’.
This compares with Article 28, Section 18(c).
Point (10)

Article 6, Section 1(m) (:51, line 25): Substitute “citation” for

“establishment”. The latter gives the effect of requiring a new genus.

Point (11)

Article 6, Section 5(c) (: 55, line 8): Substitute ‘“ published” for

“established”. The connotation of the latter word does not fit ‘“ condi-
tionally’; it was not really established, but just nomenclaturally available.

786 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Point (12)

Article 6, Section 6 (:57, line 1): Substitute “that” for “ which” ;
cf. comparable structure in the title to Section 5.

Point (13)

Article 6, Section 7 (: 59, line 25): Delete “ established” or substitute
some other word. Its use here would imply that the taxon was already
established.

Point (14)

Article 6, Section 7 (: 59, lines 27-29) : It did not work this way in the
case of Halicampus grayi. The claimed misidentification (line 5 above) is based
on esoteric information, and is not consistent with the ipso facto stated here.

Point (15)
Article 6, Section 8(c) (: 61, line 2) : Delete “‘ but ”’.

Point (16)

Article 7, Section 4(3) (: 67, line 8) : Suggest ‘“‘ publication ” in place of
*‘ appearance in print ”’.

Point (17)

Article 7, Section 4(6) (: 67, lines 14-17): At one period it was quite
common to have author’s preprints. In the case of preprints from the
Proceedings of the U.S. National Museum, they were set by a different printer
and thus are actually different in physical form from the Proceedings article
though the same in content (cf. Blackwelder, 1952, Systematic Zool. 1 : 86-89).
These have always been accepted as the earliest publication for the names
involved.

Point (18)
Article 7, Section 4 (: 67, line 25) : 1873, not 1813.

ee ee

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 787
Point (19)

Article 8, Section 1(4) (: 70, line 10) : Should there not be cross-references
here, e.g., to Article 11 ?

Point (20)
Article 8, Section 1, Limitations (: 70, line 18) and Section 2, Limitations

(: 71, line 25): It would make reference easier if these were numbered or
lettered in some way.

Point (21)

Article 8, Section 2 “‘ Recommendation’? (: 72, line 7): Suggested
insertion, after “ of this sort ’’, “‘ or has no special appropriateness ”’.

Point (22)

Article 9, Section 1(f) (: 76, line 2) : Why not the “ earliest ” date, if it is
compatible with the evidence ?

Point (23)
Article 9, ““ Recommendation ”’ 1 (: 76, line 7) : Because of the many slips

in “ best-laid schemes ’’, printing schedules, etc., I am always suspicious of
days of publication that are printed in the same issue.

Point (24)

Article 10, “‘ Recommendation ”’ 9 (: 80, lines 21-22) : The “‘ Poly-’’ names
actually seem quite distinct. The Calandra/Calendra example is the better one.

Point (25)
Article 10, “ Recommendation ”’ 9, footnote (: 80, line 24): Substitute

“ Generic and subgeneric names ” for ‘‘ Words’, and substitute “ for a short
period ” for “‘ at one period ”’.

Point (26)

Article 10, “‘ Recommendation ’’ 12 (: 81, line 24) : Substitute “its” for
“ the oe

Point (27)

Article 10, “‘ Recommendation ’’ 12 (: 81, line 26): Substitute “ The
latter’ for ‘‘ This ”’.

788 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Point (28)

Article 10, ‘‘ Recommendation ’’ 23 (: 84, lines 8-10): The title is
confusingly suggestive of ‘‘ replacement names’. The provision should also be
stated positively: “he should designate it ‘sp. n.’ or its equivalent. The
expression ‘nom. nov.’ or its equivalent should be restricted to substitute
names’. In line 9, should it not be “‘ specimen ”’ rather than “ type ”’ ?

Point (29)

Article 10, “‘ Recommendation ’’ 24 (: 84, lines 12-16) : Should it ever
be done this way ? Should not the renaming of a homonym be pre-eminent,
after which the name can be applied zoologically to the material at hand ?
I propose the deletion of this Recommendation.

Point (30)

Article 10, ‘“‘ Recommendation ’’ 28 (: 86, lines 14-16) : I question this.
Is not a key a worthy diagnosis, with the characters differentiating the species
from its relatives ?

Point (31)

Article 11, Section 1(a) (: 88, line 2) : The title should be broader ; as for
example: ‘Original Spellings, Emendations and Errors”’, or ‘“ Original,
Emended and Erroneous Spellings of Names” (last two words might be
deleted).

Point (32)

Article 13, Section 3 (: 97, between lines 19 and 20) : Suggest the addition.
of a new subsection : “ (d) Homonymy.—If homonymy in family-group names
should arise from similar but homonymous names of type-genera, the solution
shall rest with the Commission (cf. Article 24, Section 6(b)) ”.

Point (33)
Article 15, Section 5(d) (: 109, line 21) : comma after “ date ”’.

Point (34)

Article 15, Seetion 7(b) (: 110, line 14) : Suggest omission of the words “a
comma and ’’, as being unduly ritualistic. It would be violated, ignored or
overlooked about as often as followed.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 789

Point (35)

Article 17 (: 115-116) : This seems much too long. I would suggest
combining (a) and (b) into one section. Section (a)(1) hardly needs stating ;
of course the labels on the holotype (or lectotype) have precedence (subject
to relatively rare cases when they can be proved to be in error). Subsection
(2) and (3) really belong with (b), or at least could be combined with it under
the title ‘‘ Corrected or restricted typical localities ”’.

Point (36)

Article 18 (: 117, line 2): The title is somewhat misleading, because it
does not include all types. This suggests a possible rearrangement to put all
provisions for types in the same article. The order would then be:

Foreword
Sections 1 and 2

. Phylum-Group, etc.
. Family-Group
. Genera

Ss Qn Pp

. Species and Lower Categories

The above is the logical arrangement, but may be objected to because of the
length of C and D (now Articles 19 and 20). If these are kept separate, then the
title of Article 18 should be changed to be more descriptive.

Point (37)
Article 19, Section 3(b) (: 125, line 6): Add “or relationship” after
“identity ”’.
Point (38)

Article 19, Section 3(b) (:125, line 8): Add “‘, including infra-specific
names” after “cited”, to eliminate any question about included subspecies.

Point (39)
Article 19, Section 4 (a) (2) (: 127, line 10): Add “or relationship ”
after “identity ”’.
Point (40)

Article 19, Section 4(e)(iii) (: 129, lines 21-22) : It is suggested that this
relatively common “method” be referred to as “Type by Subsequent
Monotypy ”’, this expression to be added, within parentheses, at the end of the
provision.

AAA

790 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Point (41)

Article 19, Section 5(c)(iv) (: 132, lines 6 and 11): Not a Rule, but an
Opinion.

Point (42)

Article 19, Section 5(d)(iii) (: 133, line 3) : Use of “ designation ” here is
inconsistent with use of “ type-selection ” in the title of Subsection (d) and
Section 5.

Point (43)

Article 19, “‘ Recommendation ’’ 3v (: 135, line 1) : Substitute “ Position ”

for “ Page ”’.
Point (44)
Article 20, ““ Recommendation ”’ 3 (: 139, line 12) : Omit “any or”.

Point (45)

Article 20, Section 1(d) (: 140, lines 6 and 8): “type”, not “types”
(line 6) ; change to “ of a different type-specimen ”’ (line 8).

Point (46)

Article 20, ““ Recommendation ”’ 5 (: 140, line 11) : The title “ replacement
species ’’ may confuse by being dangerously suggestive of ‘‘ replacement names ”’

Point (47)

Article 20, ““ Recommendation ”’ 6 (: 140, line 24) : Add “except where
necessary in citations of literature or labels on specimens ”’.

Point (48)

Article 20, Section 3(a)(i) (: 142, line 23, : 143, line 1): For stability I
strongly favor the bracketed provision, but I should prefer to see it made a
positive provision. I suggest therefore, that there be added to line 22, after
“ lectotype ’’, the words “‘ provided it is consistent with the (if any) first valid
restriction and any valid further restrictions ”. If this is adopted, the bracketed
words “if not .. . revisers ’ would then be deleted.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 791

Point (49)

ela

Article 20, Section 5(a)(viii) (: 147, line 12) : Insert “ geological ”’ before
‘horizon ’’, and omit the asterisk and associated footnote.

Point (50)
Article 20, Section 5(b) (: 148, lines 11-15): Suggest deletion of this

paragraph, as unnecessary. It can always be done by Plenary Powers,
mentioned or not.

Point (51)
Article 20, Section 5(c) (: 148, lines 17-20) : As worded, this sounds as if
it applied to all neotypes, both past and future. The past ones are treated in

Section 7. This should somehow be worded to apply to the future, perhaps
with a stated date.

Point (52)

Article 20, Section 7 (: 150, lines 19ff.) : Should not Section 7 precede the
present Section 6? The latter affects 7 as well as the earlier ones.

Point (53)

Article 21, Section 2(a)(ii) (: 152, lines 21-24) : The sentence beginning
“No describer’”’ is grammatical, but seems awkwardly involved.

Point (54)

Article 22, Section 5(c)(ii) (: 162, line 30) : Omit “‘ or absence ” ; presence
is the critical point.

Point (55)
Article 22, Section 5(c)(ii) (: 162, line 31) : “ affect’ not “ effect”.

Point (56)

q Article 22, Section 5(e)(iv) (: 163, line 17) : The date, being irrelevant to the
point of the paragraph, would better be omitted.

792 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
Point (57)

Article 22, “‘ Recommendation ’’ 9 and Discussion (: 165, lines 14-17) :
Use of ‘‘taxonomist” would not remove popular articles written by
taxonomists. Nor would it remove faunal lists, biological papers and minor
notes, in which such complete references are irrelevant and wasteful of space.

Point (58)

Article 22, ‘‘ Recommendation ’’ 10 (: 165-166): It seems pedantic to
try to differentiate between (1956) and [1956]. I suggest that alpha and beta
be combined, using the statement now under alpha plus the words “, or if
it can be ascertained from other evidence in the volume in which it was
published (e.g., signature dates, or dates on the covers) ”’.

Point (59)

Article 24A (: 169) : Should there be a general statement on the relative
priority of a substitute name and synonyms of the preoccupied name which it
replaced ? The problem is especially acute where a synonym older than the
substitute name is discovered long after the proposal of the latter.

Example : In the dipterous family asmipax, Hristicus Loew was proposed
in 1848, was found to be preoccupied and was renamed Neoeristicus by Osten
Sacken in 1878. Much later, Hicherax Bigot (1857) was found to apply to the
same genus.

Point (60)

Article 24, Section 1(i) (: 170, lines 4-10): Suggest omission of this
paragraph, as unnecessary. If used, in line 8 substitute “is necessary to
validate ’’ for “results in validating ”’.

Point (61)

Article 24, “ Recommendation ’’ 1 (: 170, lines 13-15) : Suggest omission
of Recommendation 1. This is too much note work. Rename it, call it to the
attention of the author, or send the item to someone interested in the group.
involved.

Point (62)
Article 24, Section 10(a) (: 177, line 8) : For simpler wording, substitute

“equally to” for “ without distinction between”, to correspond with the
wording in Section 7 (: 175).

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 793

Point (63)
Article 24, Section 10(c) (: 178, lines 1-2): In the title, substitute

“ Parenthetical Nature ” for “ Irrelevance”. Omit the words “ or absence ” ;
the presence of a subgeneric name is the point of issue.
Point (64)

Article 24, Section 11(b)(i) (: 179, lines 1ff.) : Does rejection include both
the adoption of a substitute name to replace the homonym, and adoption of the

next available synonym to replace the homonym ? Whether only the first
was intended, or both, will it be clear to readers 2

Point (65)

Article 24, Section 11(b)(iii) (: 179, lines 20-24) : I agree with Dr. Bradley
that this paragraph should be repealed.

Point (66)
Article 24, Section 13(a) (: 182, line 26): Suggest “Specific and/or
subspecific names ”’,
Point (67)

Article 24, Section 13(b) (: 183, line 18) : Might add the cross-reference
“ [ef. Section 10(b)] ”.

Point (68)

Article 24, Section 13(c) (: 184, lines 1-9) : I agree that this should be
repealed.

Point (69)

Article 25, Section 1 (: 188, lines 4-5) : Substitute “can” for “shall”
in each line. This is more than mandatory ; it is impossible.

Point (70)

Article 25, Section 1, Examples (: 188, line 12) : For clarity and quicker
comprehension, insert ‘‘ Gmelin, 1790” after Taenia ovilla.

794 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
Point (71)

Article 27, Section 1(b) (: 192, line 7): Substitute “are considered as
Latin letters for the purposes of this Code ”’, for “‘ may be used in zoological
names ”’.

Point (72)

Article 28 (: 193, line 2) : Suggested title : ‘‘ Grammar, Orthography and
Typography ”’.

Point (73)

Article 28, Section 1 (: 193, line 4) : Suggest “ Name-formation ” instead
of ‘‘ Word-formation ”’.

Point (74)

Article 28, Section 1(a) (: 193, lines 5-7): This paragraph should be
omitted. The sense is contained in Article 11, Section 1(a), which is the Article
to which one would turn if he sought to know whether he should change an
inappropriate connective vowel.

Point (75)

Article 28, Section 2(b) (: 195, lines 9-16) : Should this not be revised and
expanded to include any compound subject treated as a unit, as “terrae novae”’,
“ quercus albae ”’ (a plant host), ete. ? (Cf. old Article 15, and Opinion 50.)

Point (76)

Article 28, “‘ Recommendation ’’ 6 (: 195, lines 20-25) : Suggest addition
to line 23: “ or the more distinctive”. In the example, from Bethune Baker,
bethunei would have been a far better choice ; there are too many Bakers. In
the example from Guérin-Méneville, I suggest using the generic name Guerinia
as an example, particularly because the provision has now been broadened to
include generic names.

Point (77)
Article 28, footnote (: 195, line 27) : “second ”’, not “ first’.

Lanes Ps

a i
.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 795
Point (78)

Article 28, footnote (: 195, lines 28-31) : The name was dedicated to
Lynch, using one of his names, not to Lynch’s mother. Why should it not be
corrected to arribalzagai ? My Christian name is my mother’s family name,
but I would not expect a name dedicated to me to be spelled curtisae.

Point (79)

Article 28, ‘‘ Recommendation ’’ 11, Examples (: 199, line 17) :

vanderhoecki and Vanderhoek are not consistent.
Point (80)

Article 28, ‘‘ Recommendation ’’ 12 (: 200, line 10): Jherminieri not

Vherminieri (cf. Section 4(b), if approved).
Point (81)

Article 28, Section 3(a)(1) (: 201, line 1): Transfer “ (cf. 11/1, a)” from
line 8 to line 1 to follow “ error ”’.

Point (82)
Article 28, Section 11(a) (: 208, line 14) : Italicize Piesma.

Point (83)
Article 28, Section 11 (: 213, lines 11-12) : Suggested example: Piesma,
to avoid the possible impression that neuter nouns end in -noma.
Point (84)

Article 28, footnote (: 213) : Also the “‘-noma’’ nouns, from the Latin
feminine noun, noma.

Point (85)

Article 28, Section 12 (a) (: 215, line 13) : Reference should be Section 6(1)(c)
not Section 6(1)(d).

Point (86)

Article 28D (: 220, line 20): Omit the “Sub”. Should read “ Infra-
Specific ’’.

796 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Point (87)

Article 28, Section 14 (: 222, lines 5-7) : What about specific names such
as M-nigrum, so named specifically because the color pattern resembled a
capital “M”. A small initial letter destroys the effectiveness of the
comparison.

Point (88)
Article 28, Section 18 (: 229, line 23): Suggested title: “ Forbidden
and unavailable names ”’.
Point (89)
Article 28, Section 18(b)-(f) (: 230, lines 2, 8, 22): Would “ available ”
be better, nomenclaturally speaking, than “ admissible ” ?
Point (90)

Article 28 (: 238-242): I suggest adding pous, podos (foot)—PODIDAE.
So many names involve this word, and the “stem” for forming the family
name has been disputed. In this table, it would appear to fall in number 27,
but that would be an incorrect conclusion.

Point (91)

Article 28 (: 238, line 7) : Need two commas: “ Greek nouns, if a vowel,
ae

Point (92)

Article 29, Section 2 (: 245, line 13): Suggest “ clarification” for
“ elaboration ”’.

Point (93)

Article 29, Section 3(b)(v) (: 246, lines 19-27) : This should read that the
Commission is responsible for considering the needs of such fields. As one of
my colleagues has expressed it, it is “ utterly silly ” for such fields as veterinary
medicine and horticulture to have representation.

Point (94)

Article 29, Section 3(e)(iv) (: 248, lines 4-6) : The first sentence could be
omitted, as duplicating the statement under (e).

a eee ee

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 797
Point (95)

Article 29, Section 6(a) (: 253, lines 4-8): This should never be done
without previous publication notice of the proposal, and opportunity for
discussion.

Point (96)

Article 29, Section 6(c)(i)(1) (: 254, line 10) : Suggest insertion of “ at
least ’’ before “‘ two other serials ”’.

Point (97)
Article 29, Section 6(c)(ii) (: 254, line 30) : ‘‘ did not consistently apply ”’.

Point (98)

Article 29, Section 6(c)(iii) (: 254-255) : This is a pitifully small proportion
for an action as important as Suspension of the Rules. See also page 269,
lines 14-17 (Article 29, Section 12(a)(3)).

Point (99)

Article 29, Section 7(a)(v) (: 258, line 27) : ‘“‘ rendered ”’ or “ published ” ?
I should think the latter would be better.

Point (100)

Article 29, Section 7(e) (: line 16-18): This is now stated in a very
mandatory way. Preferable: “It shall be the duty of the Commission to
consider the status of long-overlooked names that threaten stability, and to
decide whether to annul them under its Plenary Powers ”’.

Point (101)

Article 29, Section 12(a)(1) (: 269, lines 8-11) : This could conceivably
permit a mere handful, even two or three, to pass an Opinion. Surely some
minimum number should be fixed, or better, a rule that no Opinion can be
presented and passed at a Congress without opportunity first for the entire
Commission to vote on it. I would apply this to the entire Section 12, not
merely (a).

798 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Point (102)

Article 30 (: 271): A statement on the text or texts to be considered
substantive should be included. There should also be included a definite
statement with regard to the right of quotation, similar to the statement in
Copenhagen Decisions : 123-124. This is a minimum. Actually, I am opposed
to copyright of material which should rightfully belong in the public domain.
If the price for the Code is reasonable, no one is going to pirate an edition,
simply because of its size and the relatively limited audience for that type of
work.

Point (103)

Article 30, Section 2(a) (: 271, lines 12-13): I propose to strike out subsection
(a). There must always be a Section on Nomenclature at a Congress, and there
should be no loophole to make it possible to evade having one. Congress
members are not admitted to Commission meetings, and the Plenary Sessions
of the Congress are not an appropriate open forum for discussion of details
of nomenclature.

Point (104)

Glossary (: 273, line 17): My dictionary gives ‘“ binominal” as an
adjective, not as a noun. The noun is binomial.

Point (105)

Glossary (: 275, line 20) : The “q.v.” is misleading. One logically looks
for “‘ automatic correction” either under “a” or under “c”’, but finds
nothing. I finally found it under “ spelling ”’. ;

Point (106)

Glossary (279, lines 29-30) : Is not this what most zoologists call nomen
conservandum ? Is|the distinction necessary ? It seems to me both pedantic
and confusing.

Point (107)

Glossary (: 281, line 4): Quadrinominal is an adjective. The noun is
quadrinomial.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 799

Point (108)

Glossary (: 281, line 7): Suggest omission of “‘and comma”. This is
pedantic and will often be ignored, overlooked, or deleted by editors.

Point (109)
Glossary (: 284, line 35) : Trinominal is an adjective ; the noun form is
trinomial.
Point (110)
Glossary (: 285, line 1): Suggest omission of “and comma”. Same
comments as in Point (108).
Point (111)
Glossary (: 285, lines 41 and 42) : This should be a Foreword, on page 273.

800 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

DOCUMENT 33/5

Miscellaneous Comments on the Draft of the “ Régles ”’

(Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 1329)

By RAYMOND C. MOORE
(University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas, U.S.A.)

(Statement dated 1st March 1958)

Following are statements of suggested changes in the draft of the
Zoological Code (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 14: 11-285) with accompanying
comments. They are circulated for advance consideration by participants in
the Colloquium scheduled to be held during July 1958 in London and by others
who may wish to express opinions. The presently formulated suggestions are
additive to those recently offered by Curtis W. Sabrosky, with virtually all of
which I concur.

In portions of Articles here considered (serially indicated for reference as
Point (1), Point (2), etc.), quotations from the draft prepared by J. Chester
Bradley are indicated by quotation marks, suggested deletions by the use of
brackets, and new wording by the use of small capital letters. Comments are
intended only for readers of this Circular and not at all as additions to the
draft suitable for publication, such material being given in the draft as
** Explanation ”’.

Point (1)

Article 1, Foreword (: 35): Foreword: Zoological nomenclature [is]
CONSISTS PRIMARILY OF the system of names applied to taxonomic groups of
[organisms] ANIMALS (taxa) known to occur in nature, whether living or as
fossils. [Palaeontology] PALAEOZOOLOGY has no separate system. SECONDARILY
AND SUBORDINATELY, ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE CONSISTS OF NAMES APPLIED
TO groups OF ANIMALS AND ANIMAL-FORMED PRODUCTS that [are] MAY BE
without taxonomic significance. [may bear Latin names that simulate those of

NS SS

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 801

zoological nomenclature but they form no part of it.] Systems of names applied
to special disciplines of zoology, such as anatomy, ecology, or genetics, do not
come within its scope.

(Comment: Revision of wording to include, rather than exclude,
assemblages that are not or may not be taxonomic in character seems urgently
needed on the grounds of long-accepted practice, utility, and logic. Does
necessity require or wisdom impel excommunication from zoological nomen-
clature of many hundreds of what actually are “ form-genera ” and thousands
of what actually are “ form-species ”’, including “collective groups ”
recognized by parasitologists, named assemblages of conodonts, ammonoid
aptychi, holothuroid sclerites, etc., and ‘“ work of animals ” (acceptable under
the Rules if published before 1931)? Botanical nomenclature is not
embarrassed by names (“ form-genera’”’, ‘ organ-genera ”, ‘‘ form-species ”’,
“ organ-species ’’) employed by palaeobotanists for parts of fossil plants.
Surely it would be harmful, especially to palaeozoology, if the scope of
zoological nomenclature should be limited to units for which taxonomic
definition and relationships are presumed to be known. Moreover, some “‘ form-
genera”? and “ form-species ” may actually comprise taxonomic groups.
Probably least important nontaxonomic units are fossils consisting of the
described and named “ work of animals ” (currently 244 genera, of which 176
published before 1931 are acceptable in zoological nomenclature and 68
published subsequent to 1930 are presently not accepted)).

Point (2)

Article 1, Section 1 (: 35, line 14): What a name designates: A
zoological name is the designation by which is known :

(a) Some taxonomic assemblage of actual [organisms] ANIMALS (TAXON) ;

(b) SOME ASSEMBLAGE OF ACTUAL ANIMALS BELONGING TO AN IMMATURE
GROWTH STAGE (COLLECTIVE GROUP), NOT NECESSARILY CONSTITUTING
A NATURAL TAXONOMIC UNIT > AND

(c) SOME ASSEMBLAGE OF DISCRETE PARTS OR THE WORK OF ACTUAL
ANIMALS (PARATAXON), NOT NECESSARILY CONSTITUTING A NATURAL
TAXONOMIC UNIT.

EXPLANATION: A ZOOLOGICAL NAME IS APPLICABLE ONLY TO SPECIFIED
ACTUAL OBJECTS, NOT TO A CONCEPT OF THEM (ef 1/3)”.

(Comment: In addition to names employed for taxa, those used to
designate collective groups and parataxa must also be classed as zoological
names, unless they are rejected from recognition by zoological Rules on the
ground that lack of definability as taxonomic assemblages is judged to exclude

802 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

them. To restrict zoological nomenclature to units classifiable as natural
taxonomic assemblages is unnecessary and would be harmful to zoological
science, because demands of practical utility cannot be met wholly in terms of
units defined as taxa.)

Point (3)

Article 1, Section 3 (: 36, line 7) : Hypothetical designations : The name
of a hypothetical concept shall have no status in zoological nomenclature.

Example: Pithecanthropus .. .

(i) Names based on the work of animals.—Notwithstanding the
preceding paragraph, the description of the work of an animal,
even though the latter is unknown, may serve to make
available a name that was published prior to 1931 (cf. 6/3).
SUCH NAMES PUBLISHED SUBSEQUENT TO 1930 ARE ELIGIBLE
FOR RECOGNITION AS PARATAXA, INASMUCH AS THEY MAY
HAVE DISTINCT VALUE IN PALAEOZOOLOGY.

(A) COLLECTIVE GROUPS AND PARATAXA: A COLLECTIVE GROUP OR
PARATAXON, WHICH MAY OR MAY NOT COMPRISE A NATURAL
TAXONOMIC ASSEMBLAGE, SHALL NOT BE CONSIDERED TO CONSTITUTE
A HYPOTHETICAL ConcEPT”. (See J. Chester Bradley, Bull. zool.
Nomencl. 15 : 244.)

Point (4)

Article 1, Section 5 (: 37, line 8) : [Palaeontology] PALAEOZOOLOGY versus
[neontology] NEOZOOLOGY.

Point (5)

Article 6, Section 1 (: 48, line 9) : How names become available: The
name of a taxon, COLLECTIVE GROUP, OR PARATAXON shall have status in
zoological nomenclature and shall be available for use if it meets the provisions
of this Section.

Explanation : Whether an available name is the valid name of a taxon,
COLLECTIVE GROUP, OR PARATAXON is determined by the provisions of Article 8.
(Priority : The validity of names).

Comment: The suggested additions seem needful if those of RCM-1,
RCM-?2, etc., are accepted.)

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 803
Point (6)

Article 6, Section 1(i) (: 50, line 2):

(i) Requirements: If the name was published prior to 1931, it must
have been accompanied by a definition or description, or by an
indication [(cf. Sect. 3)]; THIS STIPULATION APPLIES EQUALLY TO
TAXA, COLLECTIVE GROUPS, AND PARATAXA.

EXPLANATION: PRIOR TO ADOPTION OF THE PRESENT CODE, THE
DESCRIPTION OF THE WORK OF AN ANIMAL, EVEN UNACCOMPANIED BY A
DESCRIPTION OF THE ANIMAL, WAS CONSTRUED TO CONSTITUTE AN “ INDICATION ”’
THAT CONFERRED AVAILABILITY ON THE NAME FOR RECOGNITION AS A TAXON IF
THE NAME WAS PUBLISHED BEFORE 193]. THUS, MANY KINDS OF GALL-INSECTS
WERE VALIDLY NAMED BEFORE 1931 FROM THE GALLS THAT THEY PRODUCE, THE
GALL-MAKERS BEING UNKNOWN, WHEREAS ‘“ PALAEOBUPRESTIS MAXIMA ”
WALKER, 1938 (DESCRIBED FROM CHANNELS, CUTTINGS, AND CASTINGS IN
PETRIFIED TRIASSIC TREES, ASCRIBED TO ITS LARVAE) WAS NOT AN AVAILABLE
NAME. CURRENTLY AND IN FUTURE, ALL SUCH NAMES BASED ON DESCRIPTION
OF THE WORK OF AN ANIMAL, WHICH ITSELF IS UNKNOWN, ARE ACCEPTED
WITHOUT REFERENCE TO THE DATE OF PUBLICATION AS AVAILABLE FOR
PARATAXA,

(Comment : If reasons exist for retaining distinction in the status of names
based on the work of animals, according to whether publication of the names
was before 1931 or after 1930, they are not evident to me. The number of
living forms affected is not known by me, but among fossils there are 176
pre-1931 genera in this category and at least 68 post-1930 genera.)

Point (7)
Article 6, Section 1(i) (: 50) :

(i)(a) PARATAXA : A NAME THAT MEETS REQUIREMENTS OF SECT. (1)(i) SHALL
BE AVAILABLE AS THE NAME OF A PARATAXON IF IT IS BASED ON A
SPECIMEN OR ASSEMBLAGE (‘ FORM-GENUS’ OR ‘ FORM-SPECIES )
CONSISTING OF :

(A) THE APTYCHUS OF AN AMMONITE OR APTYCHI OF AMMONITES ;
(B) A CONODONT OR GROUP OF CONODONTS :

(C) A HOLOTHUROID SCLERITE OR GROUP OF SUCH SCLERITES ;

(D) THE WORK OF AN ANIMAL; OR

(BE) ANY EXPLICITLY DELIMITED CATEGORY OF DISCRETE PARTS OF
ANIMALS DESIGNATED BY THE COMMISSION.

804 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

(Comment: This Section relative to availability of names published before
1931 for designation of parataxa is considered to be appropriate, especially
subparagraph (e), and is not in conflict with procedure announced (Bull. zool.
Nomencl. 15 : 14, 35) for dealing by the Commission with names of conodonts
and ammonoid aptychi referred for decision in Documents 1/2 and 1/3.)

Point (8)
Article 6, Section 1(j) (: 50, line 7) :

(j) Requirements: If the name was published subsequently to 1930, it
must be either (1) accompanied by a statement intended to give
differentiating characters of its taxon, COLLECTIVE GROUP, OR
PARATAXON, or (2) accompanied by...

(Comment: Addition of reference to collective groups and parataxa is
desirable, unless these are excluded from zoological nomenclature. Among
assemblages definable as parataxa, 150 or more generic units and at least
1,900 specific units based on description of discrete parts of animals (all fossils,
chiefly conodonts) and 68 generic units based on description of the work of
animals (all fossils) have been introduced since 1930.)

Point (9)
Article 6, Section 1(k) (: 51, line 7) :

(K)(a) PARATAXA : A NAME THAT MEETS REQUIREMENTS OF SECT. (1)(j) AND
sEcT. 1(k) SHALL BE AVAILABLE AS THE NAME OF A PARATAXON
IF IT IS BASED ON A SPECIMEN OR ASSEMBLAGE BELONGING TO GROUPS
PROVIDED FOR IN SECT. 1(i)(a).

(Comment: This provides for names published subsequently to 1930 and
prior to 19... (cf. RCM-10).)

Point (10)
Article 6, Section 1(n) (: 52, line 1) :

(N)(a) PARATAXA : A NAME THAT MEETS REQUIREMENTS OF SECT. 1(j) AND
SECT. 1(k) SHALL BE AVAILABLE AS THE NAME OF A PARATAXON
BELONGING TO ANY GROUP OF ANIMALS IF AT THE TIME OF PUBLICA-
TION THE AUTHOR EXPLICITLY DESIGNATES THE NAME AS THAT OF A
PARATAXON, EXCEPT THAT NEW NAMES PUBLISHED AFTER 19... FOR
A SPECIMEN OR ASSEMBLAGE BELONGING TO GROUPS PROVIDED FOR
IN SECT. 1(i)(a) AUTOMATICALLY SHALL BE DESIGNATED AS PARATAXA.

feng Ten

a i ne ee ee

we ated

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 805

(Comment : This provision is appropriate in allowing freedom to zoologists
(especially palaeozoologists) without necessity of appeal to the Commission,
which, however, should exercise control of classifying names published before
19... as parataxa.

Point (11)

Article 6, Section 3(3) (: 53, line 8) : Delete in entirety subsection (3) of
Section 3, Article 6, together with citation of examples (cf. RCM-6).

Point (12)
Article 6, Section 5(e) (: 55, line 27) :

(e) Names based on part of an animal: A name is not made unavailable
because it is based on :

(1) Any part of an animal, [except the aptychus of an ammonite]
(2) any stage in the life-history of an animal,

(3) one sex of an animal,

(4) any of dissimilar generations of an animal,

(5) any form of a polymorphic animal.

Such a name MAY BE APPLICABLE TO A COLLECTIVE GROUP OR PARATAXON
AS CIRCUMSTANCES INDICATE AND shall compete in synonymy with other
similar names, as well as those for the entire [species] TAXON, or those bestowed
on the stage, sex, or form more usually used as the basis of a name, EXCEPT
THAT NAMES ASSIGNED TO PARATAXA SHALL COMPETE IN SYNONYMY ONLY WITH
THOSE OF OTHER PARATAXA (cf. 8/2, b).

(Comment: Provisions of this Section are construed to relate to the
availability of names for taxa, as well as those suitable for recognition as
collective groups and parataxa, according to circumstances, but names accepted
for parataxa, being secondary and subordinate to those for taxa, should not

compete with them in synonymy but only in homonymy (cf. RCOM-14 on validity
of parataxa).)

Point (13)

Article 8, Foreword (: 69, line 29): Foreword: Among the competing
available names for a taxon (cf. the Rules of Availability, Article 6) only one
can be the valid name in given taxonomic circumstances. Usually, but not

806 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

always, this is determined by the Principle of Priority, which holds that
precedence in time establishes precedence in right (cf. Glossary). The provisions
of this Article regulate the selection of the valid name. WHEREVER THE
WORD ‘“ TAXON ”’ IS EMPLOYED IN THIS ARTICLE, IT SHOULD BE UNDERSTOOD
THAT THE PROVISION REFERRING TO IT APPLIES EQUALLY TO A COLLECTIVE
GROUP OR PARATAXON, EXCEPT WHERE INAPPROPRIATE OR DISTINCTLY
EXCLUDED BY THE PURPORT OF THE PROVISION.

(Comment: Cf. J. Chester Bradley (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 15 : 244) ;
insertion of suggested addition, referring to both collective groups and
parataxa, seems preferable here rather than at end of 8/2b.)

Point (14)
Article 8, Section 2(b) (: 71, line 11) :

(b) Names based on any part or form of an animal, or on its work: The
Principle of Priority shall obtain and consequently the oldest
available name shall be retained :

(1) When any part of an animal is named before the animal itself,
EXCEPT FOR NAMES ACCEPTED AS PARATAXA (cf. 6/5, 14/24),

(2) when any stage...

(6) prior to 1931, when the work of an animal is named before the
animal itself, EXCEPT FOR NAMES ACCEPTED AS PARATAXA
(cf. 6/5, 14/2a).

Point (15)

Article 10, Section 2(b) (: 85, line 17) :

(b) The work of animals: A taxonomist may no longer validly base the
description of a new species or [lower] OTHER taxon solely upon the
work of an animal (cf. [6/3,] 6/1), ALTHOUGH HE MAY INTRODUCE
A NEW NAME OR NAMES FOR PARATAXA BASED ON SUCH DESCRIPTION(S)
(cf. 14/2a).

(Comment: Although very good reasons can be advanced for opposing
recognition of taxa of animals, living or extinct, on the basis of their works,
these lack force if the names (already 244 nominal genera and considerably
larger number of described species) are designated as parataxa. The
importance of providing for admission of such parataxa in zoological
nomenclature chiefly concerns palaeoecological aspects of palaeozoology. This
does not apply to rejected nominal genera, including 62 judged not to represent
work of animals and 89 classed as unrecognizable.)

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 807

Point (16)

Article 14, Foreword (: 100, line 3): Foreword: Whether a taxon of
this category . . . by those whose judgment concurs. WHEREVER THE WORD
‘* TAXON ”’ IS EMPLOYED IN THIS ARTICLE, IT SHOULD BE UNDERSTOOD THAT THE
PROVISION REFERRING TO IT APPLIES EQUALLY TO A COLLECTIVE GROUP OR
PARATAXON, EXCEPT WHERE INAPPROPRIATE OR DISTINCTLY EXCLUDED BY THE
PURPORT OF THE PROVISION.

(Comment: Cf. J. Chester Bradley (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 15 : 244).)

Point (17)

Article 14, Section 2 (:101, line 12): Section 2. Collective groups.
Certain [biological] zooLogicaL groups, PREDOMINANTLY not taxonomic in
character, that 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] GENERITYPES [and their names do not
enter into zoological nomenclature].

(Comment: Cf. RCM-1.)

Point (18)

Article 14, Section 2 (:101): smoTION 2(a) PARATAXA. CERTAIN
ASSEMBLAGES DESIGNATED AS PARATAXA, PREDOMINANTLY NONTAXONOMIC IN
CHARACTER, COMPRISING (A) DISCRETE PARTS OF ANIMALS DISTINGUISHED BY
THEIR MORPHOLOGICAL RESEMBLANCES TO ONE ANOTHER (SO-CALLED ‘‘ FORM-
GENERA’) AND (B) TRACES REPRESENTING THE WORK OF ANIMALS MAY BE
TREATED AS IF THEY WERE TAXA, SUCH ASSEMBLAGES CORRESPONDING TO
GENERA BEING WITH OR WITHOUT GENERITYPES.

(Comment: Seemingly, such a Section should be incorporated in this
Article of the Code, unless provision for parataxa is rejected.)

Point (19)

Article 15 (: 111) : secTION 9. PARATAXA. THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION
2(a) OF ARTICLE 14 AS APPLIED TO ASSEMBLAGES OF GENERIC AND SUBGENERIC
RANK, WITH APPROPRIATE MODIFICATION IN SCOPE (AS FOR SO-CALLED “ FORM
SPECIES’ OF DISCRETE PARTS OF ANIMALS AND OF OBJECTS COMPRISING THE
WORK OF ANIMALS) SHALL BE APPLICABLE EQUALLY TO ASSEMBLAGES TREATED
AS SPECIES AND SUBSPECIES.

808 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Point (20)

Article 19, Foreword (: 120): Because the earliest . . . of its original
publication. WHEREVER THE WORDS “ NOMINAL GENUS OR SUBGENUS ’”’, OR
“* NOMINAL GENERA ”’ ARE EMPLOYED IN THIS ARTICLE, THEY SHALL BE UNDER-
STOOD EQUALLY TO APPLY TO PARATAXA, EXCEPT WHERE INAPPROPRIATE OR
DISTINCTLY EXCLUDED BY THE PURPORT OF THE PROVISION.

Point (21)

Glossary (: 279) : Suggested additions to Glossary :

NOMEN CORRECTUM (NOMINA CORRECTA pl.). Correct name, most commonly
used for notation of emended form of incorrectly published family-group
name (as ‘“‘ Komaspididae ’’. NOM. CORRECT. Henningsmoen, 1958, PRO
‘* Glyptaspidae ’’ Kobayashi, 1935; ‘“‘ Ptychopariidae ”’, NOM. CORRECT.
Richter, 1932, Pro ‘‘ Ptychoparidae ’ Matthew, 1887; etc.).

NOMEN TRANSLATUM (NOMINA TRANSLATA pl.). Transferred name, commonly
used to record assignment of family-group taxa to rank other than
originally published (as Superfamily ‘“‘ Ilaenacea”” Hawle & Corda, 1847,
NOM. TRANSL. Jaanusson, 1957, Ex “‘ Illaenides ”” Hawle & Corda, 1849, =
‘* Tilaenidae ’’ Hawle & Corda, NoM. CoRRECcT., Angelin, 1954).

9he< Sr-acw

ee

dec inls s Snle ae ae eT oe

So EE ays

iP OOS

CONTENTS
(continued from front wrapper)

THE LONDON AGENDA PAPER

(a) New Proposals

Page
Case No. 36 : Draft “ Régles ’’, Article 28 : grammar and typography
D.36/1 Curtis W. Sabrosky 0 a ay ie oS sony 0, WEL
Case No. 37: Draft ‘‘ Régles ’’, Article 22, Section 5: citation of the j
names of authors, other than original authors
D.37/1 Myra Keen a os ep oe <n e i
D.37/2 Francis Hemming re rr Me os Py Prey ii) |
: a Case No. 38 : Draft “ Régles ’’ ; Proposed discontinuance of the use of
; the expression “ Transliteration ”’
Peta. LW erent fe dee 5 e em AL Lh 988

\ i Case No. 39 : Draft “‘ Régles ’’, Article 22, Section 1 (c) and 1 (d) : citation
. of names published by two or more authors

z D.39/1 G. H. E. Hopkins cs ay ee a of: -- 755

CONTENTS

(continued from inside back wrapper)

THE LONDON AGENDA PAPER

(b) Comments on previously published proposals

Case No. 1 : Proposed recognition of the ‘‘ Parataxon ’’ concept eS
D.1/58 Preston E. Cloud, Jr. .. at es me Me APs |
D.1/59 Carl. Branson .. oa #3 a e be. Pays
Case No. 2 : Family-group names : proposed rejection of when name of

type genus is rejected as a junior homonym
D.2/20 Jean L. Laffoon .. on zt sit se ve c. egies
Case No. 13: Adjectival specific names, barbarous words : liability

to gender change
D.13/6. G. H. E. Hopkins | fap a aes eae Bee ag eae ae
Case No. 33 : Miscellaneous comments on the Draft of the “ Régles ”’
D.33/2 Curtis W. Sabrosky vs aE cn BE i ..) ae
D.33/3 Tadeusz Jaczewski ef ae iy! a : a
D.33/4 Curtis W. Sabrosky es rd a st ia .. 784
D.33/5 Raymond C. Moore cn Ras - Bid se ime

© 1958. THE INTERNATIONAL TRUST FOR ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE ¢
Printed in England by MetcaLre & Cooper Limrtep, 10-24 Scrutton St., London E C2

; VOLUME 15. Quadruple-Part 25/28 23rd May 1958
‘ pp. 809—932

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
Twelfth 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 Three Pounds, 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 Amanat (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 Z )

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

Senor Dr. Angel Caprera (La Plaia, 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 Pierre Bonnet (Université de Toulouse, France) (9th June 1950)

Mr. Norman Denbigh Ruxzy (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 Merrens (Natur Museum u. Forschungs-Institut Senckenberg, Frankfurt
a. M., Germany) (5th July 1950)

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

Senhor Dr. Afranio do Amanat (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) a

Professor Béla Hanx6 (Mezégazdasdgi Museum, Budapest, Hungary) (12th August 1953)

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

Mr. P. C. Sytvester-Bravuey (Sheffield University, Sheffield, England) (12th August 1953)

Dr. L. B, Hortuuis (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. Mitter (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) q

Professor Dr. Wilhelm Kitunett (Zoologisches Institut der Universitat, Vienna, Austria) (6th
November 1954) 3

Professor F. 8. Bopenaumrer (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 q
December 1954)

oe

PI PETER AEE

BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

Volume 15, Quadruple-Part 25/28 (pp. 809—932) 23rd May 1958

CASE No. 40

DRAFT “ REGLES ”’, ARTICLE 28, SECTION 11(e) (AGREEMENT
OF SPECIFIC NAMES IN GENDER WITH GENERIC NAMES)

(Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 1345) at
euncl aseD

e aR
4 1a eee
a fp wer wr ees

DOCUMENT 40/1

~

Objection to grant of exceptions in the application of gender Rules

Communication by Professor Dr. K. FRIEDERICKS and
eight other German zoologists

(Letter received on 9th April 1958)

Ich beehre mich, die folgende Erklérung zu Ihrer Kenntnis zu bringen :

Ich protestiere heftig gegen die geplante Fassung des Artikel 14 der
Nomenklaturregeln, wonach das Geschlecht des Speziesnamens nicht mit
dem des Gattungsnamens in Ubereinstimmung gebracht werden soll, wenn der
Gattungsname wechselt. Diese Bestimmung wire eine Barbarei und lauft
einem gesunden Sprachempfinden zuwider. Es mag gewisse opportunistische
Griinde fiir die vorgeschlagene Fassung geben, besonders zu Gunsten derjenigen,
welche nicht in der Lage sind, im einzelnen Fall das Geschlecht des Spezies-
namens zu entscheiden. Aber diese sollen sich von denen informieren lassen,
die solche Fragen entscheiden kénnen bezw. nomenklatorische Kataloge zu
Rate ziehen, die zu diesem Zweck (und auch mit Hinweisen auf die richtige
Betonung jedes Wortes) geschaffen werden miissen. Wir kénnen nicht
ungestraft die Grundlagen unsere geistigen Entwicklung ausser acht lassen.
Es ist wahr : Die Anhaufung differenzierten Wissens zwingt zu einer gewissen
Nachsicht. Aber jene Regel geht zu weit. Es gibt Informationsquellen.

810 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Ich wiirde jener Bestimmung niemals folgen und bin sicher, dass auch viele
andere dies mit ihrem sprachlichen Gewissen nicht vereinigen kénnten.

Dr. K. FRIEDERICKS
emer. 0. Professor der Zoologie,
Ehrenvorsitzender der Deut. Gesellschaft fiir angewandte Entomologie,
Ehrenmitglied der American Association of economic entomologists,
Mitglied der Deutschen Akademie der Naturforscher, und
der Russischen Entomologischen Gesellschaft

Prof. Dr. F. SCHWERDFEGER
Niedersichs. Forstliche Versuchsanstalt,
(20b) Gottingen, Konigsallee 221, Geb. 84

_ Dr. phil. WALTER THALENHORST,
Niedersiachs. Forstliche Versuchsanstalt,
(20b) Gottingen, Konigsallee 221, Geb. 84

Prof. Dr. HANS PIEPHO,
Zoologische Institut der Universitat, Gottingen

Dr. rer. nat. BERNHART OHNESORGE
Dr. rer. nat. FRIEDRICH SCHUTTE,
Niedersichs. Forstliche Versuchsanstalt,
(20b) Gottingen, Konigsalleii 221, Geb. 84

Dr. SIEGFRIED BOMBOFF,
Institut fur Pflanzenpathologie und Pflanzenschutz,
Gottingen

Prof. Dr. F. STELLWAAG-KITTLER
Institut fiir Pflanzenkrankheiter, Geisenheim a/Rh.

Prof. Dr. F. STELLWAAG

Translation furnished by Professor Friedericks and his colleagues

“T have to honor to bring to your knowledge the following declaration :

“T protest strongly against the planned conception of the Article 14 of
the rules of nomenclature, following to which the gender of the species name
not shall be squared with the generic name, if the genus name changes. This
rule would be a barbarism and is contrary to a sound linguistic instinct and thus
unnatural. There may be some opportunistic reasons for the proposed con-

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 811

ception, especially in favour of those which in the single case are not able to
decide themselves the sex of the Species name, These however may ask for

right accentuation of every name) have to be written. We cannot unpunished
despise the bases of our spiritual development. Who falsely speaks and
writes, thinks falsely. It’s true: The accumulation of differentiated science
enforces to a certain indulgence, But that ordinance goes too far. There are
sources of information.

“T never would follow to that rule, and I am sure that many others too
cannot conform it with their linguistic conscience.”

Note by the Secretary :

The representations submitted in the immediately
preceding communication (Document 40/1) are not fully
understood. The provision enshrined in Article 14 of the
existing Régles by which it is provided that an adjectival
Specific name is to be cited in grammatical agreement with
the name of the genus to which the Species concerned is
assigned has been reproduced in Section 13(1) of Article 28
of the Draft Régles (1957, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 14 : 221).
The proposal relating to the possible grant of exceptions which
appears in Section 11(e) of the same Article has been inserted
by the compiler for the purposes of discussion, and it is
assumed that it is this suggested provision that Professor
Friedericks and his colleagues object to. F.H., 9th May 1958.

812 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

CASE No. 41

DRAFT “ REGLES”’, ARTICLE 20 (PROVISIONS RELATING TO
NEOTYPES)

(Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 1337)

DOCUMENT 41/1

Proposed modification of existing provisions relating to the
establishment of neotypes

By P. C. SYLVESTER-BRADLEY
(University of Sheffield, Sheffield, England)

(Enclosure to a letter dated 20th March 1958)

The Draft Code, Article 20, Section 5 (b) includes, at the suggestion of the
late Dr. Karl P. Schmidt, a paragraph not authorised by the Copenhagen
Congress setting out the Commission’s powers in regard to establishing neotypes
(cf. D.24/1, item 121).

2. The Copenhagen Decisions detailed a somewhat lengthy procedure for
establishing neotypes, which have been embodied in the Draft Code as Article 20,
Sections 4-7. In point of fact, since the recognition of the category neotype
in Copenhagen in 1953, not one application has been published in the Bulletin
in accordance with the Copenhagen procedure. On the contrary, the Com-
mission has been requested to establish neotypes by use of its Plenary Powers,
and to date a number of such neotypes have been established in this way. The
advantage of establishing neotypes by use of the Plenary Powers is that an
immediate and final decision is reached, whereas the Copenhagen procedure
would demand a waiting period of five years after publication. During this
period, it would only be tentatively accepted, and would be liable to challenge.
The disadvantage of using the Plenary Powers for this purpose is that the
safeguards invented at Copenhagen to prevent abuse are partly or completely

ED ee et Te ee ne ee

=

SEF 8 OR NRE til itt

ni ID iat ta

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 813

dispensed with, and the period during which objection can be lodged is reduced
to a minimum of six months. It is in consequence of considerations such as
these that I have felt it my duty as a Commissioner to vote against each and
every proposal that a neotype should be established by Plenary Powers. That
my opinion is not shared by other Commissioners is quite evident, however,
as I have often been alone in my opposition.

3. Recently Dr. D. V. Ager has proposed use of the Plenary Powers in
establishing a neotype for the species Terebratula lineata Young & Bird (Bull.
zool. Nomencl. 13 : 251—253) and I note that in this case Professor J. C. Bradley

has entered a general objection against the Commission being asked to confirm
neotypes by Plenary Powers.

4. In view of the considerations set out above, I wish to propose a modifica-
tion in the paragraph added to the Draft Code at the suggestion of Dr. Karl P.
Schmidt, a modification which, if accepted, will give a clear direction to the
Commission as to the desire of the Congress in this matter. The revised
wording that I propose for this paragraph of the Code is as follows :—

Action by the Commission : Acting under its Plenary Powers in the interest
of stability and uniformity the Commission may either :

(i) designate a neotype that, although it does not accord with all of the
provisions of Section 5 (a), shall nevertheless be granted the status
of a designated neotype as set out in Section 5(c) ; or

(ii) establish a neotype that, although it does not accord with all the
above provisions, shall not be liable to the challenge procedure
set out in Section 5(c), (d) and (e), but shall be granted the same
status as a neotype validated according to Section 5(e).

814 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

DOCUMENT 41/2

Comment on the proposals submitted by Karl P. Schmidt and P. C. Sylvester-
Bradley for the inclusion in the “‘ Régles ’’ of provisions expressly author-
ising use by the Commission of its Plenary Powers to approve neotypes
in certain cases

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

(Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature)
(Note dated 25th March 1958)

I should like to offer certain comments on the proposal which on the advice
of the late Dr. Karl P. Schmidt (Chicago Natural History Museum, Chicago,
Illinois, U.S.A.)! Professor J. Chester Bradley has embodied in Article 20,
Section 5(b) that there should be included in the Régles a provision formally
placing on record that, where the Commission thinks it proper in the interests
of stability and universality in nomenclature, it may use its Plenary Powers
to approve or validate a neotype that does not conform with all the detailed
provisions laid down under the notification-and-challenge procedure. More
recently Mr. P. C. Sylvester-Bradley has submitted a modified proposal on the
same lines.”

2. I fully share the majority view of those present at the Copenhagen
Congress that neotypes should be designated only sparingly and should be con-
fined to cases where an officially approved neotype is necessary in the interests
of nomenclatorial stability. I must say, however, that I very much doubt
whether the “ notification-and-challenge ” devised at Copenhagen provides
a satisfactory or even workable method for providing a valid basis for a neotype.
In most cases where a neotype is really required, the delay of five years imposed
under the “ notification-and-challenge ” would be extremely prejudicial to the
interests of stability in the nomenclature of the group concerned. Moreover,
the limited nature of the information, the supply of which is prescribed under
that procedure is such that, if during the five-year period, objection were to be
taken to the neotype in question and it became necessary therefore for the
matter to be considered by the Commission in detail, a considerable further
period would inevitably elapse while the required information was being
collected and placed before, and considered by, the Commission. In my view,

1 See 1957, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 14 : 148.
2 See Document 41/1.

ern Sant ee ce ny AN Pasta VA

hel en elle:

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 815

therefore the procedure under consideration is so dilatory in character as to be
open to strong objection from the point of view of any worker anxious to
promote stability in his own group by means of the neotype method.

3. In several important cases which have come before the Commission
since the Copenhagen Congress the Plenary Powers have been used to validate
an admittedly invalid neotype, that being the only method by which a valid
basis for the continued use of the name concerned could be assured. Among
the first of the cases of this kind was that of the nominal species Coluber sirtalis
Linnaeus, 1758, for which in Opinion 385 the Commission used its Plenary
Powers to validate the designation as the neotype of a specimen of the Eastern
Garter Snake of North America. This action secured the maintenance of this
name for this well-known snake and was in fact the only action which could
have achieved that end, for the “ notification-and-challenge ” could not have
done so, since, as specialists were agreed, the above name was originally given
by Linnaeus not to the Eastern Garter Snake but to the Eastern Ribbon Snake.

4. It was in fact the above case—on which the sole negative vote cast was
that of Mr. Sylvester-Bradley—which prompted Dr. Schmidt to suggest the
addition to the Régles of the provision now embodied in Section 5(b) of Article 20
of Professor Bradley’s Draft of the Régles giving express authority to the Com-
mission to use its Plenary Powers in such cases. I would certainly support
this proposal or any appropriate modification of it if I felt satisfied that a pro-
vision of this kind was necessary or would be helpful. I must say, however,
that I feel that proposals of this kind overlook the essential nature of the
Plenary Powers which, as their name implies, are completely unfettered,
provided that in the words of the Preamble added to the Régles hy the Copen-
hagen Congress (1953, Copenhagen Decisions zool. Nomencl. : 22) they are
employed to promote “the primary purpose of the Régles ’’, namely, to ensure
that the names given to animals “‘ shall be both stable and universally accepted ”’.

5. I would therefore urge the Congress to consider carefully whether it
would not be better to omit the proposed provision, notwithstanding its excellent
intention and the merits which it would undoubtedly possess if it could be
judged in isolation from other parts of the Régles. I urge this because every
time that an unnecessary provision of this kind is inserted in the Régles, the
effect can only be to throw doubt upon the generality of the “ plenary ”
character of the “‘ Plenary Powers” and to lend support to the idea that the
use of the “ Plenary Powers ” would be appropriate only in relation to portions
of the Régles to which were attached provisions—such as those now under
consideration—which expressly authorised the use of those Powers.

816 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

DOCUMENT 41/3

Proposals for the amendment and correction of the Draft “ Régles ”’
concerning the establishment of neotypes (Article 20)

By CYRIL F. DOS PASSOS
(Mendham, New Jersey, U.S.A.)

(Enclosure to letter dated 2nd April 1958)

Introduction

Neotypes were first recognized officially at Copenhagen in 1953. The
provisions relative thereto are to be found in the Copenhagen Decisions on
Zoological Nomenclature edited by Francis Hemming (1953) part 2, pages 28-32,
paragraphs 32-42. While it would be convenient in connection with the study
of this matter to have those provisions in full before the reader, they are so
lengthy that it is believed best to quote only those parts that are relevant to
the present paper. These read as follows:

35. Conditions for the establishment of neotypes: The Colloquium
recommends that there should be inserted in the Reégles a provision defining
as follows the conditions requisite for the establishment of neotypes :—

Where the provisions prescribed as to the purpose for which
neotypes may be established are satisfied, an author may designate
a neotype, provided :—

(5) that evidence is provided that the specimen designated as
the neotype is consistent :—

(b) with action taken by previous revisers ;

36. ““Recommandation”’ to authors, before designating neotypes,
to satisfy themselves that this would not arouse objections : The Colloquium
recommends that there should be inserted in the Régles a Recommandation

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 817

that, before an author designates a neotype, he should satisfy himself that
such a designation would not arouse objections from the majority of
fellow-workers in the same group.

The Draft “ Régles ’’

The draft Régles, insofar as they deal with these subjects, will be found
in Article 20, Sections 4-7 (1957, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 14 : 145-151) and need
not be quoted in full because they will be before the members of the Colloquium
when the questions hereinafter raised will be decided.

In these Régles Professor Bradley has included in Sections 4~7 seven
** Discussions ” concerning neotypes. They will be found on the following
pages : 145, lines 11-14, 24-25 ; 147, lines 18-22 ; 148, line 16 ; 149, lines 16-20 ;
150, lines 9-15 ; 151, lines 7-9.

The author of this paper approves nearly all the recommendations con-
tained in the aforementioned “ Discussions’. However, in the writer’s opinion
there are still some objectionable provisions in the draft of Article 20, Sections
4-7. These cannot all be charged against the drafter of the Régles but rather

to the action taken at Copenhagen which Professor Bradley naturally felt
obliged to follow.

Three objectionable provisions contained in the draft “‘ Régles ”’

The first objectionable provision of Article 20, is to the last clause of
Section 5 (v) entitled ‘Suitability’. This paragraph, insofar as material,
requires that “‘ The author must provide evidence that the designated neotype
is consistent... (2) with action taken by the first reviser, possibly modified
by successive revisions’. As we shall see later when a neotype is properly
designated the facts may show that the works of the first reviser and all

subsequent revisers were erroneous. The final paragraph of subdivision (v)
should be stricken out.

The next objectionable provision is ‘‘ Recommendation” 12, which
appears under Section 5 (xi). The action taken at Copenhagen on this subject
is quoted above. This provision provides that, “... Before designating
a neotype a taxonomist should satisfy himself that such a designation would
not arouse objections from the majority of workers, if any, in the group
involved”. Such a provision appears to the writer to be impractical, unduly
restrictive upon an author’s freedom of action, and entirely beyond any legiti-
mate need. If followed, it would involve a plebiscite each time it were proposed
to designate a neotype, the counting of noses, where it could well be found that
the minority in favour of the designation was better qualified to solve the
problem than the majority against it. What then would an author do, who

818 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

could easily have wasted a year in correspondence, about designating a neotype ?
The provision should be stricken out as unnecessary and impracticable.

The final objectionable provision is to be found in Section 5(a)[(iv)] which
is contained in brackets to show that it is not based upon anything done at
Copenhagen but is suggested as new matter and reads, in so far as material :
“[. . . A neotype that replaces a lost holotype or lectotype must be chosen
from existing type material, if there is any, ...].”’ This language must be a
lapsus on the part of the drafter, because a type chosen from existing type
material would not be a neotype but a lectotype. It would seem best to strike
out this entire paragraph as not being based upon any action heretofore taken
and at least improperly included under the heading “‘ Neotypes ”’.

Two recent cases involving the establishment of neotypes wherein the
authors did not comply with the rules and recommendations
adopted at Copenhagen

In this inquiry the present author restricts himself to the literature con-
cerning Palearctic Rhopalocera, and even then he may not have seen all
designations of neotypes that have been made since 1953, but two important
cases have come to his attention. No criticism of the five authors hereinafter
mentioned for designating neotypes is intended, but attention is called thereto
to show that a rule requiring designated neotypes to be consistent with the
action taken by previous revisers and a recommendation requiring an author
to consult other taxonomists before designating a neotype are unnecessary,
impractical and unduly burdensome. If the present author had been in the
place of these five authors, he would have done exactly as they did, because
it was entirely unnecessary to consult anyone concerning the designation of
the neotypes and impossible to follow in all cases any first or other reviser
in the circumstances therein revealed. These provisions of the Régles will
seldom be complied with, hence it is best to omit them entirely.

1. The case of “‘ Papilio adippe ”’

To understand the proceedings in the Papilio adippe case it is important
to follow the chronological sequence of the events that lead up to the designation
of a neotype. On 29th November 1949 the original application to solve the
problem of the proper scientific name to be used for the ‘‘ High Brown Fritil-
lary ” was filed with the Commission by Hemming, Riley, and Verity. On
11th May 1950 a supporting application was filed by Grey, Klots, and the present
author. In 1953 the Copenhagen Congress for the first time recognized neotypes
officially and provided rules and recommendations for their establishment.
The wording of the action of that Congress, in so far as material, appears above.
On 26th June 1954 the Secretary of the Commission declared that the Commission
had acted favourably on the application, thus fixing the name Papilio adippe
[Denis & Schiffermiiller], 1775 as the name to be used for the ‘‘ High Brown

ro its aa ae Ho Febsoe

‘
:

Be PRET OEE AIO re

ee

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 819

Fritillary ”’. In May 1955 the original applicants filed with the Commission
a designation of a neotype for Papilio adippe.

There is no evidence in the published report of this case (Opinion 501)
that the applicants consulted any taxonomist concerning the designation of
this neotype. In fact it is quite clear that they did not do so in spite of the
Copenhagen Decision now included in Aeticle 20, Section 5 (xi) ‘‘ Recom-
mendation’”’ 12. Furthermore there is no showing that these authors supplied
any “. . . evidence that the designated neotype [was] consistent .. . (2) with
action taken by the first reviser, possibly modified by successive revisions ”’.
In fact their action was contrary to the action taken by the first reviser.
modified by successive revisers as will now appear.

Just who was the “ first reviser ’’ of Papilio adippe is not easy to determine,
as is so often the case when searching for that elusive individual. Perhaps
it is unnecessary to decide that question because the point is that no reviser
was followed by Hemming, Riley, and Verity and no revision was entirely
consistent with any other revision. In any event one of the applicants (Verity)
was certainly a reviser in 1913 when he discovered that the name Papilio adippe
Linnaeus, 1761 could not be used for the “ High Brown Fritillary ” and
proposed the name Argynnis espert for that species. He was also a reviser
in 1929 when he reversed his previous action and used the name Argynnis
phryxa (Bergstrasser), 1783 for the species. In 1930 he reversed himself again
and claimed that the correct name was Papilio adippe Rottemburg, 1775,
but six years later in 1936 he added Schiffermiiller to the authorship.

It appears in Opinion 501 (: 24) that in their original application to the
Commission twenty-one specialists were consulted respecting the solution of
this problem, and while not using the word “ neotype”’, not then officially
recognized, the Commission was requested (p. 19) :

** (ce) to direct that the specific trivial name adippe [Denis & Schiffer-
miiller], 1775, as published in the combination Papilio adippe, as validated
in (b) (i) above, be applied to the species figured under that name by
Esper in 1777 as fig. 1 on pl. 18 of the work entitled Die Schmetterlinge in
Abbildungen nach der Natur.” :

Later realizing that the Esper specimen selected as a criterion of the
species did not come from the type locality of Papilio adippe [Denis & Schiffer-
miiller] as that name was proposed to be used, a specimen taken in the neigh-
bourhood of Vienna, was designated the neotype. It does not appear from
this supplemental application that any specialist was consulted about the
proposed neotype.

2. The ease of “ Papilio nise ’’

The second case is to be found in a paper by Klots and Heineman (1957)
concerning the identity of Papilio nise Cramer, 1779, [1776], wherein a neotype
was designated for this nominal species on pages 212-213. As in the previous
case the authors say not a word about having consulted any specialists before

820 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

designating the neotype. If they had it is a question when, if ever, their paper
would have appeared in print, because so many taxonomists have written on
this subject that there could well have been differences of opinion concerning
the designation of a neotype. Also these authors did not follow the first or any
other reviser. At least fourteen authors are cited on pages 207 and 208 of
their paper in which they admit “.. . that there has been a great lack of
uniformity in the use of the name nase ever since Boisduval in 1836 first cast
doubt upon the accuracy of Cramer’s figure and questioned the occurrence of
a concolorous species in Jamaica”. In the circumstances disclosed in this
case, it was impossible to follow any previous reviser and attain the correct
result.

Some suggestions concerning neotypes submitted by Mr. Sabrosky for
publication in Volume 15 of the “ Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature ”’

Mr. Curtis W. Sabrosky has kindly furnished the author with a copy of
a paper entitled “Comments on the draft of the Code ” which will appear
doubtless in Volume 15 of the Bulletin. The suggestions therein contained are
listed under the new Articles and Sections of the draft Régles and thus are
easily found. The present author disapproves of the suggestions listed under
“Article 20, Section 4 (General rules for neotypes) ” and suggests the adoption
of Professor Bradley’s language. This position evidences a struggle between
those who believe in strict and those who favour liberal interpretations of the
neotype concept. The present author favours the latter interpretation as found
in the draft Régles, which in his opinion, express the spirit of Copenhagen, if
not the actual language. Indeed, he sees no harm in treating neotypes more
liberally than has been done.

Conclusions

As we have seen, the rules respecting neotypes adopted at Copenhagen
are entirely too strict and in some respects impracticable. The present author,
therefore, urges that—

First, the language proposed in Professor Bradley’s draft of the Régles
(Article 20, Sections 4-7) and in brackets in Section 4(a) be adopted, and

Secondly, that Section 5(a) [(iv)] and (v) (2) be omitted and that
“Recommendation ”’ 12 be eliminated. In brief, it is proposed that all of
Professor Bradley’s suggestions as found in his “‘ Discussions” be approved,
except as above stated. If such action is taken, the rules respecting neotypes
will still be sufficiently strict but they will at least be workable, and a majority
of taxonomists will endeavour to comply with them.

: Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 821
Literature cited

Hemming, Francis (ed.), 1953. Copenhagen Decisions on Zoological Nomen-
clature. Additions to, and modifications of, the ‘‘ Regles Internationales
de la Nomenclature Zoologique’’. Approved and adopted by the Fourteenth
International Congress of Zoology, Copenhagen, August 1953. London :
International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, xxx + 136 pp., 2 pls.

Hemming, Francis, Riley, Norman Denbigh & Verity, Roger, 1958. ‘‘ Designa-
tion of a neotype for the nominal species ‘ Papilio adippe’ [Denis &
Schiffermiiller], 1775 (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera) and request
that the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature should
give a direction under the Plenary Powers that the above nominal
species be interpreted by the foregoing neotype instead of (as previously
proposed) by reference to a previously published figure and a specified
type locality. Application supplementary to an application submitted
in 1949 for the validation and interpretation under the Plenary Powers
of the name “ Papilio adippe”’ [Denis & Schiffermiiller], 1775.”
Opinions and Declarations rendered by the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature, 18 : 55-64, pls. 1-3

Klots, Alexander Barrett & Heineman, Bernard, 1957. ‘‘ The identity of
Papilio nise Cramer, 1775 (Lepidoptera: Pieridae) and a neotype
designation for this nominal species.’”’ Proc. R. ent. Soc. Lond. (B)
26 : 206-213, pl. 1 (col.)

Verity, Roger, 1913. ‘‘ Revision of the Linnean types of Palaearctic Rhopalo-
cera.” J. linn. Soc. Lond. (Zool.) 32 : 173-191

——, 1929. “Races de l'Europe occidentale de l’Argynnis phryxa Bergstr.
qu’on nomme, a tort, adippe L. [Lep. Nymphalidae].”’ Bull. Soc. ent.
France 29 : 277-280

_ ——, 1930. “According to the rules of nomenclature the name of Argynnis
adippe is of Rottemburg (nec L.), and that of Melitaea dictynna, Esp.,
must be replaced by diamina, Lang.” Ent. Rec. 42 : 149-152

——, 1934-1936. “The lowland races of butterflies of the Upper Rhone
Valley.” Ibid. (suppls.) : 1934, 46 : (1-40) ; 1935, 47 : (41-76) ; 1936,
48 : (77-90)

822 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

DOCUMENT 41/4

Comments on certain points relating to the procedure for the establish-
ment of neotypes raised in a paper dated 2nd April 1958
submitted by C. F. dos Passos

By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E. (London)

(Note dated 10th April 1958)

I had not proposed to offer to the Congress any further comments! on
the Rules relating to the establishment of neotypes adopted by the Copenhagen
Congress and the amplified version of those Rules included by Professor J.
Chester Bradley in Article 20 of his draft of the English text of the Régles,
but in view of the paper on this subject recently submitted by Mr. Cyril F. dos
Passos* I feel bound to submit the following observations.

2. In his paper Mr. dos Passos recommends, inter alia (1) that the
provision in Article 20, Section 5(a)(5)(2) (requiring that neotypes should be in
harmony with any action taken by a First Reviser) should be deleted and (2)
that Recommendation 12 (enjoining consultations with other specialists before
neotypes are established) should also be omitted from the Régles. I feel it
necessary to record my objection to both of the foregoing proposals and to
affirm my support for the proposals submitted in Professor Bradley’s Draft.

3. It seems to me very desirable that under what may be termed the
‘normal neotype procedure ”’ with which we are here concerned it should be
provided that neotypes when established should be in harmony with any action
validly taken by First Revisers. From time to time however the observance
of this principle, far from promoting stability in nomenclature, would have the
opposite result. Whether or not a case fell in this special class is not however
a matter which could appropriately be left to the judgement of individual
specialists, for by reason of the nature of the issues involved it would be

1 See Document 41/2.
2 See Document 41/3.

A:

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 823

impossible to ensure in any given case that all interested specialists would at
all times take the same view on those issues. Accordingly, the reasonable
course seems to be that action by previous First Revisers should be followed
in choosing a specimen to be a neotype, but that, where the adoption of this
principle would lead to name-changing and instability the case should be laid
before the International Commission with a request for action under the
Plenary Powers. It is an inherent feature of the form of procedure here
suggested that the fullest possible information as to the wishes of specialists
should be made available to the Commission before it takes action in such a case.

4, In his paper Mr. dos Passos cites as an example the case of the neotype
for the nominal species Papilio adippe [Denis & Schiffermiller], 1775, recently
provisionally designated by Mr. N. D. Riley, Dr. Roger Verity and myself,
and later approved by the International Commission under its Plenary Powers.
It is, I agree, an instructive case, but not in the sense suggested by Mr. dos
Passos. As will be seen from the associated documents reproduced in the
Commission’s Opinion 501, this was a case where, in the opinion of the six
applicants, the normal provisions of the Régles not only were incapable of
providing a result in harmony with accustomed usage but could not even
provide a definite result of any kind owing to the existence of older names
treated by some specialists as senior subjective synonyms of recognisable names
and by others as nomina dubia. It was for this reason that the applicants
(who included Mr. dos Passos and myself) invited the Commission to use its
Plenary Powers for the purpose of validating and interpretating the name
Papilio adippe [Denis & Schiffermiiller]. Exceptional efforts were made to
obtain the views of specialists on these proposals and ultimately comments
were obtained from twenty-one (21), or when account is taken of the applicants,
of twenty-seven (27). It was on the basis of this very extensive canvass that
the Commission took its decision on the major issues involved in this case.
At the time when the foregoing proposals were submitted to the Commission
the neotype concept had not been recognised by the International Congresses
of Zoology and it was for this reason alone that in the application submitted
the Commission was not asked to use its Plenary Powers to validate a neotype
for the above species. The proposal which was then submitted—and which
was the subject of the extensive canvass of opinion discussed above—was,
however, substantially equivalent in substance, though not in form, to a request
for the recognition of a neotype, and accordingly when the neotype concept was
approved by the Copenhagen Congress, the form of the proposal was modified
to conform with the neotype model in the supplementary application submitted
by Mr. Riley, Dr. Verity and myself. The change so recommended to, and
approved by, the Commission was purely formal and did not affect in any
material respect the decision already taken by the Commission under its
Plenary Powers.

824 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

CASE No. 42

DRAFT “ REGLES ”’, ARTICLE 22, SECTION 5: CITATION OF
DATES WHEN GENERIC COMBINATION CHANGED

(Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 1344)
DOCUMENT 42/1
Article 22, Section 5(c)(i) and Section 6(b)

By CYRIL F. DOS PASSOS
(Mendham, New Jersey, U.S.A.)

(Letter dated 14th April 1958)

I do not agree with the method of citing the dates in the examples given

in the above Sections. Below are given both examples and the manner in which
I believe the dates should be cited :—

Dibothriocephalus latus (Linnaeus, 1758) ; D. latus (Linnaeus), 1758

Limnotis nilotica (Savigny, 1820), Moquin Tandon, 1826; L. nilotica
(Savigny), 1820, Moquin Tandon, 1826.

In new combinations the author’s name only should appear in parentheses
and not the date. In such circumstances the date remains unchanged and
placing it in parentheses with the author’s name is confusing, because sometimes
a date goes in parentheses or brackets for special reasons.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 825

DOCUMENT 42/2

Citation of dates when generic combinations are changed : support for
the existing provision and objection to the proposal
suggested by C. F. dos Passos

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

(Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature)

(Note dated 21st April 1958)

The present note is prompted by the proposal submitted by Mr. C. F. dos
Passos in his letter of 14th April 1958 that, when a specific name is cited in
combination with a generic name, other than that in which it was originally
proposed, the name of the author but not the date of publication of the name
should be cited in brackets (parentheses).

2. If this provision had been adopted by the Berlin Congress when in 1901
it approved the present Régles, there would have been much to be said in its
favour on grounds of logic. But the Berlin Congress took a different view,
including in the Régles a provision (Article 23) that, where a given specific name
is cited in combination with a generic name different from that in combination
with which it was cited when first published, brackets (parentheses) are to be
placed round both the author’s name and the date of publication of the specific
name concerned.

3. The Berlin Rule has been in force now for nearly sixty years and
names have been cited in accordance with its provisions on countless thousands
of occasions. It seems to me therefore that no advantage—indeed, quite the
contrary—would be served by making the change suggested by Mr. dos Passos.

ccc

826 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

DOCUMENT 1/60
(continued from page 760)

Status to be accorded under the Law of Homonymy to names for genera
of “ parataxa ”’

(Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 1056)

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

(copy of a letter dated 26th March 1958 addressed to P. C. Sylvester-Bradley
(University of Sheffield))

Ever since the plan for the recognition in the Régles of the concept of
the parataxon was put forward by Professor Raymond C. Moore and yourself,
I have taken the view that, if palaeontologists engaged on certain types of
work are of the opinion that the inclusion in the Régles of provisions on this
subject would be of help to them, their wish should, if possible, be met, subject
to the over-riding condition that, whatever form the scheme might take it
should be such as would not cause embarrassment or inconvenience to zoologists
in applying the existing system of zoological nomenclature in what you and
Professor Moore termed the “ whole-animal ”’ field.

2. With this idea in mind I put forward for consideration in my letter
to Professor Moore of 5th July 1957 the idea that it might be possible to devise
for the naming of “ part-animals ” (parataxa) a system on the lines of that
adopted for the naming of infra-subspecific forms (of “‘ whole-animals ”’) by the
Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology in Paris in 1948. As I explained
in my letter to Professor Moore, the situation in regard to the naming of infra-
subspecific forms resembled that arising in connection with the naming of
parataxa, in that (1) some specialists wanted to see the introduction of a
scheme, while others would find no practical use for such a scheme in their
own work and (2) it was generally agreed that, if there were to be provisions
in the Régles regulating the giving of names to infra-subspecific forms, that
scheme must be such as would not interfere with—or impinge upon—the
existing system for the naming of species and subspecies. To secure this end,
it was decided by the Paris Congress that the Régles should provide for the

11 For the text of the letter here referred to see Annexe 1 to Document 1/16 ( : 107-111).

~~

f
4
f
j

a Seer ae rr eeeeeeiaed Pi got Solow

ait

a eee

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 827

existence of two independent systems, one for the naming of infra-subspecific
forms, the other for the naming of species and subspecies, the only connection
between the two systems being the provision of bridges by means of which a
name given to the first of these classes of taxa could be moved over into the
system governing the naming of the other class and vice versa.

3. The great merit of the scheme adopted in Paris lay in the fact that
zoologists who were not concerned with infra-subspecific forms could safely
ignore names given to such forms, since such names were excluded from
consideration in connection with the names for species and subspecies, not only
from the point of view of the Law of Priority but also from that of the Law
of Homonymy. It would therefore have been of great advantage if it had
been possible to devise for the naming of part-animals (parataxa) a parallel
system which would have ensured that names so given did not impinge on—or

get in the way of—names given to ‘“ whole-animal ” taxa (i.e. to species and
subspecies).

4. I realise now, however that a scheme of the kind discussed above
could not be applied to the naming of parataxa because in this case it is desired
to provide means for the naming of “ genera”’ of parataxa as well as for the
naming of “species”’ of parataxa. In these circumstances it appears to me
to be essential that in any plan for the naming of parataxa it should be provided
that generic names published for “ genera’ of parataxa should rank equally
with generic names for the purpose of “ whole-animal” taxonomy. No
other system would, I believe, be practicable, for such names would certainly
find their way into “ Nomenclators ” and similar works and it would lead to
great confusion if some, but not all, generic names included in such works
were to rank for the purpose of the Law of Homonymy and so invalidate the

later use in “‘ whole-animal ’’ nomenclature of names consisting of the same
words.

5. For the reasons set out above I therefore now withdraw the suggestion
put forward in my letter of 5th July last that generic names published for

parataxa should not rank for the purposes of the Law of Homonymy vis-a-vis
names published for “ whole-animal ” genera.

828 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

DOCUMENT 1/61

A Proposal for Form-Taxa in Zoology

(Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 1056)

By CURTIS W. SABROSKY

(Entomology Research Division, Agricultural Research Service,
United States Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.)

(Enclosure to a letter dated 27th March 1958)

The following plan is offered as an alternative to the Moore and Sylvester-
Bradley proposal for parataxa (cf. Bull. zool. Nomencl., 15; Case No.1). The
exact place or places in the draft Code have not been specified, because there
must first be agreement in principle on what is to go into the Code. It may
even be that a separate Article on Form-Taxa will be found desirable.

2. At the moment I see no practical advantage in distinguishing between
Form-Genera and Organ-Genera, as does the Botanical Code. Their nomen-
clatural treatment, as nominal form-genera, would be the same under my
proposal.

3. Names proposed for the work of animals are not included here because
I take the view that all such names have been and should be accepted, although
recommended against (cf. my comment on Article 6, Section 3 (3) of the Bradley
Draft in my “‘ Comments on the Draft of the Code ’’).

A Plan for Form-Taxa in Zoology

Form-genus : A form-genus (sew collective group) is an artificial taxon for
grouping species represented only by dissociated parts or immature stages,
that lack intrinsic or currently recognized evidence of natural affinities, but
for which binominal nomenclature is desirable.

oll AGP OED REED AY Bt. 5S

Veer Peo

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 829

Examples : (a) Genera based on discrete fragments (all in paleozoology) :
Hindeodella and Prioniodus in conodonts*, Aptychus and Trigonellites for the
aptychi (opercula) of ammonites ; (b) genera based on immature stages
(helminthology) : Cercaria and Sparganum.

Form-taxa higher than genus: Because form-genera are artificial con-
veniences for naming and handling species, they do not therefore lend themselves
to grouping into natural higher categories. In large groups, however, with
numerous form-genera already named, form-taxa of higher rank may be useful.

Application of Rules : The names of form-genera and higher form-taxa
are subject to all Rules regulating names applied to natural taxa, except that
they shall not compete with such names under the Law of Priority nor be
available for use as the names of natural taxa. Names of form-taxa are
coordinate with those of natural taxa for purposes of homonymy.

Form-type-species : According to established practice in each animal
group concerned, a form-genus may or may not have a form-type-species.
If one is used, it is only an artificial means for allocation of species to form-
genera, or for determination of Synonymy of form-genera among themselves.
This use does not affect the status of the specific name as representing a natural

species whose true identity and zoological affinity might eventually be deter-
mined.

Explanation : In zoological groups which employ form-genera, there are
two kinds of situations : (a) Groups with only a few broad form-genera (e.g.,
Cercaria) which are “ catch-alls ” and do not need type-species ; and (b) groups

. with numerous, limited form-genera (e.g., Hindeodella, Prioniodus, etc. in cono-

donts) which were proposed before the adoption of the above plan, and in which
form-type-species are necessary for proper assignment of Species and of form-
generic synonyms. Form-genera operate best, particularly in avoiding specific
homonymy and in obviating the complications inherent in a system of type-
Species, when only one or a very few large genera are used in each zoological
group. The generic name serves as a necessary half of a binomen rather than
as a distinctive term per se ; because of its artificial nature, a form-genus need
serve no other purpose.

The species in form-genera : The species described in form-genera are
natural species, or treated as such. Their names are subject to all Rules

regulating specific names, including both the Law of Priority and the Law of
Homonymy.

* Names for conodont and scolecodont assemblages (paleozoology) are to be considered as
natural genera,

830 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

(1) Limitation : If a species which has functioned as a form-type-species
in a form-genus is subsequently transferred to a natural genus, another species
shall arbitrarily be selected to replace it as form-type-species, with proper
consideration for maintaining stability and universality in the form-genus.

(2) Limitation : If zoological evidence indicates that a nominal species
in a form-genus does not refer to a single species but from the nature of the
material may include homologous parts of two or more species, specialists in
that group would be justified in not applying the name to any natural taxon.
Example : Names for aptychi of ammonites (Paleozoology).

Implementation : Specialists in each group shall propose to the Commission
a list of nominal genera that are to be considered form-genera. The lists shall
be published by the Commission, and a year waiting period allowed for protest.
If a protest is received, the Commission shall decide. Names not protested
during the prescribed period shall be placed on an “ Official List of Form-
Genera in Zoology ”’.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 831

DOCUMENT 1/62

Comment on the Moore/Sylvester-Bradley “ Parataxa ’’ Plan

(Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 1056)

Statement furnished by TADEUSZ JACZEWSKI under
cover of a letter dated 25th March 1958

At a meeting of a group of Polish zoologists, the names of whom are
annexed to the present paper, organised in Warszawa on March 14th 1958
by the Institute of Zoology, Polish Academy of Sciences, an account was
given of the ‘‘ Parataxa Plan ” put forward by R. C. Moore and P. C. Sylvester-
Bradley, of the development of discussion on this plan being published in the
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, and of the opinions expressed by several
of the Polish zoologists interested. After discussing the foregoing, those
present unanimously decided to declare themselves not in favour of the plan
to introduce “ parataxonomy ”’ to neo-zoology, and to adopt a critical attitude
to its introduction into paleozoology. The arguments put forward by the
members of the meeting against the Moore/Sylvester-Bradley plan were as
follows :—

1. Artificiality of the division of specimens examined into ‘“ whole
animals ’’, “fragments’’, or “‘stages’?: A greater or lesser degree of
fragmentariness is a feature not only of paleozoological, but also of neo-
zoological material. Every preserved specimen is in a certain sense incomplete
by reason of the changes taking place in it, which obliterate certain features
exhibited by the living organism. In modern systematics, the concept of a
“whole animal” includes not only the external morphology of the adult
form, but also the macroscopic and microscopic internal morphology, including
cytology, and even the ontogenesis of the animal, its physiology, ecology and
ethology. In many cases the morphology or ecology of the earlier stages of
development may have a higher taxonomic value than the morphology of the
adult stage, which is often insufficient to enable a differential diagnosis of the
species to be established. From this point of view, for instance, names of
many species of insects, described solely on the basis of the external structure
of the imagines, could equally well be accepted as names of parataxa, as names

832 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

based only on the larval stages of parasites with an unknown cycle of develop-
ment, or on the traces of feeding left by the larvae in plants. In order to
distinguish between the many sibling species in the animal kingdom, not only
their cycle of development and their ecological niche must be known, but
often also a study of experimentally-reared populations and cytogenetic and
biometric investigations based on population material are required. On this
account even apparently complete specimens of animals are not as sure a
basis for describing and identifying species as is often accepted. Since we have
constantly to deal with fragmentary material, there is no necessity for its
division into ‘less fragmentary’ and “more fragmentary”’, nor for the
introduction of two separate systems of nomenclature for these artificially
established categories.

2. Danger of strengthening the “ purely-descriptive ’’ trend in systematic
zoology : Systematic zoology as a science, in addition to its function of
describing and segregating heterogeneous and innumerable fragments of the
structure and life of animals, performs the function of fitting together and
elucidating these fragments, since only by means of an “entire” and
multilateral approach to an animal is it possible correctly to distinguish and
separate species, and discover their phylogenetic relationships. It is, however,
essential to take into account the fact that a certain number of taxonomists
not only content themselves with reaching that introductory function of the
science, but even consider it as an end in itself, a certain influence being
exercised here by their tendency to describe new forms under their own
authorship. The rules of nomenclature in force are somewhat of a curb on
these activities. On the other hand, there are grounds for fearing that the
possibility of endowing unidentified fragments, stages or traces of animals
with separate names will even further reduce the efforts made by many authors
to elucidate these fragments, and discover their connection with defined
species or taxonomic groups, and in this way contribute to a profusion of
thoughtless descriptive labelling in zoology. Research in the same sphere of
phenomena may be either of value or valueless to science depending on whether
a search is made for the links between these and other phenomena, or whether
they are treated as completely detached from other phenomena.

3. Danger of over-development of problems of nomenclature in comparison
to those of taxonomy: The introduction of the system of “ parataxonomy ”’
independently of the taxonomic system, as though parallel to it, will bring
about not only an influx of numerous names, which from the scientific point of
view will be merely ballast, but also the separation of “ parataxa ”’ from taxa
among names already in existence. Such “sifting” of “ parataxa’’ may
become the special occupation of systematists with formalistic tendencies, and
may form a jumping-off ground for new pseudo-problems of nomenclature,
which will obscure the proper problems of taxonomy and phylogenetics.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 833

ANNEXE TO DOCUMENT 1/62

Members of the group of Polish zoologists who attended the meeting
organised by the Institute of Zoology, Polish Academy of Sciences
on 14th March 1958

Member’s Name Speciality
Wladyslaw Bazyluk Entomology
Ryszard Bielawski Entomology
Boleslaw Burakowski Entomology
Zygmunt Fedorowicz Theriology
Stanislaw Feliksiak Malacology
Kazimierz Galewski Entomology
Antoni Goljan Entomology
Tadeusz Jaczewski Entomology
Maria Jahilnicka Hydrobiology
Maciej Mroczkowski Entomology
Janusz Nast Entomology
Jakub Tomasz Nowakowski Entomology
Bohdan Pisarski Entomology
Adolf Riedel Malacology
Wlodzimierz Serafinski Theriology
Henryk Szczepanski Entomology
Zbigniew Swirski Ornithology
Teresa Zablocka Ornithology

834 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

DOCUMENT 1/63

ALTERNATIVE METHODS FOR REGULATING DUAL
NOMENCLATURES

(Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 1056)

By P. C. SYLVESTER-BRADLEY
(University of Sheffield, Sheffield, England)

(Enclosure to a letter dated 7th April 1958)

At a recent joint meeting of the Palaeontographical Society and the
Palaeontological Association held in London specially to consider the Parataxa
Plan, a large majority voted in favour of requesting the International Congress
to provide some means of regulating “ dual nomenclatures ” (D.1/53, Resolu-
tions 1 and 2). A majority (but a small one) also felt that the Parataxa Plan
provided a suitable means for such a purpose, but a minority of 14 apparently
felt that some alternative scheme should be sought. No such alternatives
were put forward at the meeting, but Mr. N. F. Hughes suggested that the
London Congress would do well to study the plural nomenclatures of palaeo-
botany before coming to a conclusion with regard to the Parataxa Plan, and
I reported that I had been informed by Mr. Curtis W. Sabrosky that our
Washington colleagues have been thinking along the same lines. The present
paper is an attempt both to summarise the regulations introduced into the
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature for dealing with Organ Genera
and Form Genera, and to compare them with the proposals now placed before
the London Colloquium for dealing with Parataxa and Collective Groups.
Mr. Sabrosky’s proposals concerning Form Taxa (as set out in D.1/61) are also
discussed below.

2. Form Genera have been used in palaeobotany since 1828. The following
Rules, abstracted from Appendix II (“Special provisions concerning fossil
plants ’’) of the 1956 edition of the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature
(Regnum Vegetabile 8 : 55), pertain to the categories Organ Genera and Form
Genera.

“Article PB. 1

Since the names of species, and consequently of many of the higher taxa
of fossil plants are usually based on specimens of detached organs and since

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 835

the connection between these organs can only rarely be proved, organ-genera
(organo-genera) and form-genera (forma-genera) are distinguished as taxa within
which species may be recognized.

An organ-genus is a genus whose diagnostic characters are derived from
single organs of the same morphological category or from restricted groups of
organs connected together.

A form-genus is one that is maintained for classifying fossil specimens that
lack diagnostic characteristics indicative of natural affinity but which for
practical reasons need to be provided with binary names. Form-genera are
artificial in varying degree.

Note 1. Organ-genera based on detached parts may be distinguished not only
by morphological characters, but also by reason of different modes of preserva-
tion.

Note 2. It is necessary to distinguish both organ-genera and form-genera
since the former are held to indicate a certain degree of natural affinity, while
the latter may—and in many cases do—include species belonging to different
families or even groups of higher rank, e.g. ferns and pteridosperms. But
form-genera have been recognized as pertaining to a special morphological
category since 1828 (Adolphe Brongniart). Since that time they have been
constantly used in taxonomic and morphological literature and they are quite
indispensable.

Article PB. 2

The general rules applicable to the naming of recent plants apply also
to the names of fossil plants and to those of organ-genera and form-genera.”

Of the General Rules, Article 7 is specially relevant. The following is an
extract (Regnum Vegetabile 8 : 14-15) :—

“Article 7

The application of names of taxa of the rank of order or below is determined
by means of nomenclatural types. A nomenclatural type (typus) is that con-
stituent element of a taxon to which the name of a taxon is permanently
attached, whether as an accepted name or a synonym.

Note 5. The typification of organ genera, form genera, genera based on plant
microfossils (pollen, spores, etc.), genera of imperfect fungi, and any other
analogous genera or lower taxa does not differ from that indicated above.”

Lanjouw, in his preface to the 1956 edition of the Botanical Code, says :
“Appendix II (Special provisions concerning fossil plants) is cared for by the
Committee for Palaeobotanical Nomenclature. This Committee has decided
to undertake a wholesale revision of the Appendix on the occasion of the
Ninth International Botanical Congress to be held at Montreal in 1959. The
present text is the same as the 1952 one ” (Regnum Vegetabile 8 : 8). However,

836 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Dr. Sergius H. Mamay, Secretary of the Committee of Palaeobotanical Nomen-
clature, informs me that no proposals for modification have in fact yet been
submitted (letter dated 4th March, 1958).

3. The distinction between Organ Genera and Form Genera is particularly
important for the understanding of the problems in animal nomenclature now
being examined. Form Genera are closely analogous to Parataxa as defined
by Moore and Sylvester-Bradley ; in them, no attempt is made at a phylo-
genetic classification. Organ Genera, on the other hand, may exhibit diagnostic
characters which permit the taxa recognised to be compared with those of the
phylogenetic classification. They are based on such organs as leaves or fructi-
fications. Sometimes they act as “ holding-grounds”’ for species awaiting
discovery of further organs for complete identification and transference to
normal taxonomy. They are analogous not to Parataxa but to “ Collective
Groups ” as used in parasitology and dealt with by J. C. Bradley (D.1/42:
242-244) but not as defined in the Glossary to the Draft Code (Bull. zool.
Nomencl. 14 : 276).

The most important distinction between Organ Genera and Form Genera
is that the species recognised in Organ Genera are likely to be more or less
co-extensive with those of natural genera. The only reason that they cannot
be assigned to a natural genus is the lack of diagnostic characters provided
by the type material. Frequently the later discovery of additional material
permits the species to be transferred to a natural genus, when the specific
name retains its original priority and authorship. The species recognised
within form genera, on the other hand, are not ordinarily co-extensive with
natural species. No amount of increased knowledge can therefore fit them
for transfer to natural genera, for to do so would alter the whole concept applied
to the name.

4. It will be evident that certain of the animal groups which have been
discussed in the various documents relating to Case 1 fall readily into the cate-
gory of Organ Genera or Collective Groups, whereas others can only be classed
with Form Genera or Parataxa. Amongst the former are the otoliths (see,
for example, Pokorny, D.1/39) ; amongst the latter are the conodonts and the
aptychi (D.1/2, D.1/3). Sabrosky (D.1/61), in his proposals on form taxa
has recognised the fact that species assigned to Collective Groups and “‘ Form
Genera ”’ sensu Sabrosky (= Organ Genera as here understood) are normally
transferred to natural genera if and when their natural taxonomic position is
discovered. He has also recognised that it is not possible to adopt the same
procedure with, for example, conodonts, without introducing confusion. But
the mechanism he proposes to distinguish between Form Genera whose species
compete in priority with natural genera, from Form Genera whose species do not
so compete, appears to me to lack precision to an extent that would, if adopted,
introduce grave ambiguity. For example, he states: “the species described —

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 837

in form-genera are natural species, or treated as such. Their names are subject
to all Rules regulating specific names, including both the Law of Homonymy
and the Law of Priority”’. This statement appears to me to be admirable
in its application to Collective Groups and Organ Genera as here understood,
but not to Form Genera or Parataxa. Sabrosky’s mechanism for dealing with
the situation in conodonts and aptychi is given as follows: “ If zoological
evidence indicates that a nominal species in a form genus does not refer to a
single species but from the nature of the material may include homologous
parts of two or more species, specialists in that group would be justified in not
applying the name to any natural taxon.” The decision of whether to apply
the Law of Priority or not is thus left to individual specialists, and disagreement
amongst them would certainly cause confusion. I believe it would be preferable
to recognise two distinct procedures for the two cases, and I propose to deal
with each in turn in the following paragraphs.

5. Despite the fact that I personally consider the distinction between
Organ Genera and Form Genera to be fundamental to an understanding of
the nomenclatural problem, and despite the fact, also, that palaeobotanists
have long recognised the two categories, I should perhaps mention that not all
botanists are convinced that the present definitions of the Botanical Code are
unambiguous. Dr.C. A. Arnold, Chairman of the Committee of Palaeobotanical
Nomenclature, informs me that he is himself considering proposing certain
changes in these definitions.

Organ Genera and Collective Groups

6. Organ Genera and Collective Groups are analogous in the sense that
many of the species in each category correspond with natural species, although
their classification in terms of genera and higher taxa is temporarily or
permanently unknown. But, as Mr. R. V. Melville has pointed out to me
(in litt.), a “‘ genus ” in which the components consist of whole animals (larval
stages) is not in other ways comparable to one in which the components consist
of single organs or groups of associated organs. For, as Mr. Melville says :
“ parasitologists would seem to have every chance of disposing of their Collective
Groups in a reasonable space of time, by working out the complete life-cycles
of the parasites. With otoliths, on the other hand, there will always be many
cases, especially among Mesozoic forms, where the whole-fish species is unknown
and where the nomenclatural problem is therefore permanent’. There seems
to be considerable value in retaining both terms (“‘ Collective Groups” and
“ Organ Genera ’’), although controlling them with identical procedure.

7. Several of the animal groups which supporters of the Parataxa Plan
have suggested might be classed as Parataxa do not, in my view, justify such
treatment, in that there is no problem of dual nomenclature to be solved.
Of those that present a problem of dual nomenclature, some are limited in that

838 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

this problem affects assignment to genus or higher taxon only ; these groups
are in my view better classed as Organ Genera than as Parataxa or Form
Genera. The otoliths provide a clear example of such groups.

8. Some authors have suggested that the work of animals could suitably
be treated under the Parataxa Plan (e.g. D.1/34, D.33/5, Point 15). It would
seem to me that there may be some cases in which such works could suitably
be dealt with using the same procedure as that advocated for Organ Genera or
Collective Groups (e.g. in some galls). However, in many cases I believe
they would be more suitably dealt with as natural taxa. Possibly certain
fossil trails of unknown affinity might warrant consideration as Parataxa.
The work of animals embraces so diverse a collection of entities that each case
needs consideration on its own merits. No general stipulation assigning the
work of animals to Organ Genera or to Parataxa would seem to me wise.

9. The botanical method of defining an Organ Genus differs in one important
respect from the proposals for the recognition of Collective Groups. Organ
Genera are defined in botany by reference to a type-species, as are natural
genera, whereas the resolution of the American Society of Parasitologists
specifically states that “collective groups . . . require no type species ”
(D.1/14: 89), and such a statement has long been embodied in the Reégles
(Article 8, first Rec.) and is incorporated in the draft Code, 1958 (Article 14
Section 2).

Whether or no it is desirable to define Collective Groups by reference
to type species is a matter of some moment. The advantages of introducing
objectivity into their definition are surely as great as those that have led us
to modify the Code so that all taxa are now required to be based on types
(Code 1958, Article 18). I am not clear what disadvantage would accrue from
adopting the same procedure with Collective Groups, except that parasitologists
would need to choose types for names of Collective Groups which at present have
none.

It may be mentioned in parenthesis that not all palaeobotanists are agreed
that the Botanical Code is wise in its stipulation that names of Organ Genera
and Form Genera should be based on type species. The point of view of those
that feel that this is a mistake has been explained to me by Professor Tom M.
Harris, and is set out in the following example. An Organ Genus X-us has
a type species X-us a-us whose true taxonomic position is not at first known.
Later this species is found to be referable to the natural genus Y-us. The
Botanical Code does not specifically state the principle “ once an Organ Genus,
always an Organ Genus ”’, so that there is, in Professor Harris’s view, a danger
that a botanist might regard X-us (originally an Organ Genus) as in com-
petition with Y-us (a natural genus). If such a transfer is made, and X-us
is regarded as a natural genus, the original Organ Genus is left without a name,

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 839

and there is a temptation to introduce for it a new name (Z-us). Thus a
confusing and unnecessary set of name-changes might result— Y-us becoming
X-us and X-us becoming Z-us. If, however, suggests Professor Harris, no
type species had ever been assigned to X-us, it would not be available for transfer
to a natural genus, and these difficulties would not arise.

In my view, a simpler and more satisfactory method of avoiding the
difficulties envisaged by Professor Harris would be achieved by stipulating
that names given to Collective Groups, Organ Genera and Form Genera are
not to be regarded as available as those of Natural Genera. In such a case
a species might be type of an Organ Genus (X-us a-us) and also type of a natural
genus (Y-us a-us), retaining the same specific epithet, but occurring in alterna-
tive binominal combinations. In fact this suggested stipulation is common
to all the proposals placed before the forthcoming Congress, being incorporated
in the proposals of Moore and Sylvester-Bradley (D.1/1), J. C. Bradley (D.1/42)
and Sabrosky (D.1/61), but Sabrosky suggests that the subsequent transfer
of the type species of a Form Genus (= Organ Genus as here understood) to
a natural genus would necessitate the designation of a new type-species.
Sabrosky is therefore in disagreement with me in that he is not in favour of
a single species being regarded at the same time both the type of an Organ
Genus, and a member of a natural genus.

10. The modification in the Rules necessary to allow recognition of Collect-
ive Groups and Organ Genera has been adequately covered by J. C. Bradley
(D.1/42) and Sabrosky (D.1/61).

Parataxa and Form Taxa

11. The customary procedures for dealing with Form Genera in palaeo-
botany, although not yet enumerated in the Code, seem to be comparable to
those proposed for Parataxa. The term “ Parataxon’’ was coined in the
first place to avoid confusion with the botanical ‘‘ Form Taxon ”’. However,
in view of the fact that some of the documents submitted have proposed that
the Parataxa Plan should be brought to bear on groups that are sometimes
considered animals, sometimes plants, and sometimes protists (e.g. cocco-
liths, D.1/55 and 1/56), it seems that the Colloquium might usefully consider
whether the proposed “ Parataxa ” would be better designated ‘‘ Form Taxa ”’.
The abolition of the word “ parataxonomy ” might also afford relief to those
who consider this discipline undesirable.

In my view, the two terms are alternatives, and the decision on which
term to use would not affect the proposed procedure.

12. The modifications in the Rules that would be necessary for the
recognition of Parataxa or Form Taxa have been set out by Moore and

840 - Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Sylvester-Bradley (D.1/1) and Moore (D.33/5). They cover only the cases
envisaged by Sabrosky (D.1/61) in the second limitation of his proposed regula-
tion concerning “ species in form-genera ”’.

Summary

13. It is proposed that the Rules be modified to recognize two categories
of artificial taxa :—

(a) those comprising Collective Groups and Organ Genera. Although
taxa higher than genera are not normally recognized, they should
be permitted if individual taxonomists wish to employ them. The
species in this category would be regarded as nomenclaturally co-
ordinate with normal species, and would be subject to both the
Law of Priority and the Law of Homonymy.

(b) Those comprising Form Taxa or Parataxa, the Congress to decide
which is the preferable term. The species in this category would be
form-species (or paraspecies) and would not be available for transfer
to natural genera.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 841

DOCUMENT 1/64

Summary of proposals and comments concerning Parataxa,
Form Taxa, Organ Genera and Collective Groups

(Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 1056)

Report prepared at the request of the Secretary
to the International Commission

By P. C. SYLVESTER-BRADLEY
(University of Sheffield, Sheffield, England)

(Enclosure to a letter dated 7th April 1958)

Introduction

At the request of Mr. Francis Hemming, made in his capacity as Secretary
of the International Commission of Zoological Nomenclature, I have prepared
the following summary of the documents which have so far been received
commenting on Case No. 1. This summary is intended to form an objective
appraisal of the opinions and view-points of all those who have expressed
them, and does not represent my own opinions, except in so far as these are
included as those of one of the contributors to the discussion. I have not
included in this summary viewpoints concerning the detailed proposals relating
to conodonts and aptychi (D.1/2 and 1/3) as these are not immediately concerned
with the general matters under discussion, and are not, indeed, to form part
of the agenda at the London meetings. Dr. Trauth’s important contribution
(D.1/41) falls into this category, and is therefore not included in the present
summary. If, apart from such matters, I have omitted to record any author’s
view-point, or have misrepresented anything that has been written, such
errors are unintentional, and I hope will be excused, for the subject has become
excessively diffuse, and has not been easy to condense in as logical a form as
I could have wished.

2. Of those who oppose the Parataxa Plan, a few consider the scheme
premature (e.g., Branson, D.1/25), but almost all feel that the situation disclosed
in the Application needs some action by Congress or Commission, even if the

DDD

842 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Parataxa Plan itself be unnacceptable. In some cases such alternatives have
not been clearly formulated, and I have not found it possible to summarise
them. For example, Bassler (D.1/22) suggests “any name based upon an
aptychus can remain until the whole shell is known, whereupon the aptychus-
name can go in parenthesis labelled as the operculum”. Again, Wright
(D.1/49, para. 6), speaking of Conodonts, says: “ During the transitional
period, which has already begun, there will be very serious problems of nomen-
clature on which the Commission will have to advise”. Apart from such
rather vague suggestions, the alternatives that have been proposed (each of
which is subsequently considered in a separate section of this summary) are
as follows:

(1) Parataxa ; (4) Organ Genera ;
(2) Collective Groups ; (5) Technical Terms ;
(3) Form Taxa; (6) Plenary Powers.

The formal proposals of D.1/1 (para. 13) include a statement, added at the
suggestion of Professor J. C. Bradley (see D.1/24) to cover “ life-stages of ani-
mals’. Subsequent discussion has shown that this inclusion has little if
any support, even from the promoters (Moore and Sylvester-Bradley ; see
D.1/14, annexes 4-6, pp. 90-91). Although the Colloquium may wish to discuss
the possibility of combining provisions dealing with Parataxa with those
dealing with Collective Groups, this suggestion is not proceeded further with
here.

3. Before proceeding with a formal summary of proposals dealing with
each of the sections enumerated in the previous paragraph, it will be helpful
to define the section-headings in such terms as might be set out in the Glossary
of the Code if the proposals concerning them were approved by Congress.
Such definitions have not yet, in all cases, been formally proposed, and the
following is my own attempt at expressing the intentions of the various
authors :—

Parataxa : artificial taxa, ranging in rank from Order to subspecies, based on
material inadequate for diagnosis of natural taxa, and classified on arbitrary
morphological grounds, without regard to relationships. Para-orders, para-
families, paragenera and paraspecies may be recognized (see para. 8 below).
Species assigned to paragenera are paraspecies, and are not necessarily co-
extensive with natural species. The names of either category do not enter
into competition with those of the other.

Form Taxa (sensu Sylvester-Bradley) : as for Parataxa. Form Species, Form
Genera and Form Taxa of higher rank may be recognised.

Form Genera (sensu Sabrosky) : as for Organ Genera and Collective Groups.

Organ Genera : artificial taxa of generic rank based on species represented by
disassociated parts derived from single or grouped organs of the same morpho-

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 843

logical category that temporarily or permanently lack diagnostic characters
indicative of natural affinity. Species assigned to Organ Genera are natural
species, or are treated as such, and their names are subject to all Rules govern-
ing the names of species assigned to natural genera.

Collective Groups : artificial taxa of generic rank based on species represented
by immature stages that lack diagnostic characters indicative of natural
affinity. Species assigned to Collective Groups are natural species, and their
names are subject to all Rules governing the names of species assigned to natural
genera.

Section 1. Parataxa

4, Apart from the questions of Collective Groups (see para. 2 above),
general support (in some cases subject to certain conditions) or general opposition
to the Parataxa Plan has been expressed as follows :-—

Supporting the Parataxa Plan Opposing the Parataxa Plan

17 British palaeontologists (D.1/53, | 56 members Washington Discus-
Res. 3) sion Group (D.1/35)

R. C. Moore (D.1/1) 14 British palaeontologists (D.1/53,

Res. 3)
ES 5 econ (D.1/1) 4R. S. Bassler (D.1/22)
W. J. ell (D.1/6) 7C. C. Branson (D.1/25 ; 1/59)

D. L. Frizzell (D.1/7 ; 1/17) +R. O. Fay (D.1/26)

Harriet Frizzell (D.1/7 ; 1/17) *O. H. Schindewolf (D.1/31)
*E. Basse (D.1/8) E. Voigt (D.1/36)

J. Brookes Knight (D.1/9) E. L. Yochelson (D.1/48)

*C. W. Wright (D.1/49)
H. B. Whittington (D.1/52)
P. E. Cloud (D.1/58)

+H. Schmidt (D.1/10)

Curt Teichert (D.1/11)
*D. T. Donovan (D.1/13)
7S. P. Ellison, Jr. (D.1/18)
tJ. W. Koenig (D.1/20)

Dr. Whitely (D.1/21)

R. V. Melville (D.1/23)

Jean Roger (D.1/27)

M. F. Glaessner (D.1/28)

O. M. B. Bulman (D.1/29)

844 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

F. M. Swain (D.1/30)
*+A. K. Miller (D.1/32)
*;W. M. Furnish (D.1/32)
G. Ubaghs (D.1/33)
E. M. Hering (D.1/34)
Leif Stormer (D.1/37)
7W. H. Haas (D.1/38)
Vladimir Pokorny (D.1/39)
J. S. Hampton (D.1/43; 1/51)
TK. J. Miiller (D.1/44)
R. E. H. Reid (D.1/45)
A. N. Dusenbury, Jr. (D.1/46)
7F. H. T. Rhodes (D.1/47)
*M. K. Howarth (D.1/50)
A. M. Simonetta (D.1/54)
Georges Deflandre (D.1/55)
M. Deflandre-Rigaud (D.1/55)
Charles Downie (D.1/56)
W. D. I. Rolfe (D.1/57)

* Specialist in Ammonoidea ;
+ Specialist in Conodonts.

Thus 36 individuals are in support of the proposals, 9 are in opposition. To
these must be added the votes given at the meetings of the Washington Dis-
cussion Group and the British palaeontologists respectively. The former were
unanimously in opposition (56 to nil) ; the latter had a slight majority in favour
(17 for ; 14 against). Both meetings included a few persons who have also
expressed an opinion as individuals. Leaving out of account the resulting
duplication of votes, the totals are: 53 for, 79 against. The expression of
specialists in ammonoids and conodonts respectively is as follows :

Ammonoids
Conodonts

Sabrosky (D.1/61) proposes the recognition of Form Taxa as a counter proposal
to both the Parataxa Plan and the recognition of Collective Groups (see para. 14
below).

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 845

5. In D.1/1, it was proposed that the Parataxa Plan should only apply to
certain groups of animals, and that, in the event of the Plan being approved
by the Congress, only groups specifically recognised by the Commission were
: to be admitted as eligible for the creation of Parataxa. Detailed applications

in respect of Conodonts and Aptychi were submitted as Documents 1/2 and 1/3
respectively. Subsequent discussion has revealed three viewpoints :—

(a) some strongly support the safeguard that Parataxa should only be
: eligible in groups approved by the Commission (e.g., Melville, 1/23 ;
Ubaghs, 1/33 ; British palaeontologists, 1/53) ;

(b) some suggest that all names originally proposed as Parataxa should
be admitted as such, without prior reference to the Commission
(e.g., Hemming D.1/16, Annexe 1, para. 4 ; Moore, D.33/5, Point 10) ;

(c) some propose that the erection of Parataxa within an animal group
(both retroactively and presently) be permitted without prior
reference to the Commission, but, if subjected to protest within a
specified time, be referred to the Commission for decision (e.g.,
Frizzell and Frizzell, D.1/17 ; Koenig, D.1/20).

6. No detailed proposals for the recognition of Parataxa in groups other
than aptychi and conodonts have yet been submitted, but the following groups
have been named as possibly suitable for the application of the Parataxa
Plan :—

coccoliths (D.1/1; 1/55; 1/56) ;

sponge spicules (D.1/1; 1/45) ;

Pre A,

4
©
5
e

aleyonarian spicules (D.1/1) ;
holothurian spicules (D.1/1; 1/17; 1/43; 1/49; 33/5);
crinoid ossicles (D.1/1) ;

cystoid ossicles (D.1/1) ;

blastoid ossicles (D.1/1) ;

echinoid ossicles (D.1/1) ;
asterozoan ossicles (D.1/1) ;
scolecodonts (D.1/1; 1/57) ;
gastropod radular elements (D.1/1) ;
gastropod operculae (D.1/1) ;
cephalopod mandibles (D.1/11) ;
cladoceran ephippia (D.1/30) ;

846 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

the works of animals (D.1/34; 33/5, Pt. 15) ;
otoliths (D.1/39) ;

radiolarian horns (D.1/55) ;

chrysomonadin scales (D.1/55) ;
hystrichospheres (D.1/55).

Some of the references in the above list support the recognition of Parataxa
in the group in question, some oppose it, and some are non-committal. It is
evident that many of those who support the Parataxa Plan would oppose its
application in detail to many of the above groups. Those who oppose the
Parataxa Plan in principle would probably contend that the fact that it is
possible to draw up such a list is an indication of how widely “ parataxonomy ”
could spread if allowed to get out of control. It has been suggested that a guide
as to whether or no parataxa should be permitted in a particular group might
be provided by stipulating that the Commission should recognise Parataxa
“only in groups where a dual nomenclature already exists and is currently
found to be a practical necessity ”’ (D.1/53, res. 2).

7. The suggestion made by Dr. Hering (D.1/34), that the Congress should
direct that the classification and nomenclature of the works of animals should
be in terms of Parataxa, merits separate consideration, as it involves the question
of whether a name based on the work of an animal is available for zoological
nomenclature. According to J. C. Bradley’s interpretation of the Paris
decisions (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 255, paragraph 18), the description of the
work of an animal may serve to make a name available if published prior to
1931, but not if published since 1930 (see Draft Régles, 1958, Article 1, Section 3 ;
Article 6, Section 3(3); Article 8, Section 8(b)(6) ; Article 10, Section 2(b) ;
also Doc. 24/1, items 6, 21, 38, 39 and 51). Professor Bradley makes it clear
that he doubts whether this was the intent of the Paris Resolution, and adds :
“Tf names based solely on the work of animals, and proposed subsequent to
1930, are to be held valid, further enactment by the Congress is necessary ”
(Bull. 14 : 73) (see also D.33/5, Point 15).

8. Certain of those who support the Parataxa Plan have suggested amend-
ments. Amongst these is the proposal that, in addition to the term “ Para-

taxon ”’, it is necessary to coin terms other than “genus ”’, “ species ”’ etc.,
for the parataxa themselves. Four suggestions have been made :
(a) “‘paragenus’’, ‘‘ paraspecies’”’ etc. (Pokorny, D.1/39; Howarth,

D.1/50) ;

(b) “ progenus”’, ‘‘ prospecies ”’ ete. (Dusenbury, D.1/46) ;

ee adie eee

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 847

(c) terms in the “military classification ’’ of Croneis: ‘‘ manipulus”’,
“ centuria ”’, etc. (Dusenbury, D.1/46) ;

(d) “form genus”, “form species”’ etc. (Sylvester-Bradley, D.1/63) ; this
suggestion is considered further in Section 3 below.

9. Another amendment suggested is that binomina denoting Parataxa
should be differentiated from those denoting natural taxa by a prefix, or in
some other way (D.1/39, para. 13; 1/44, para. 4; 1/53, resolution 4). Two
specific suggestions for such prefixes have been made :

‘ 29 “ce

(a) the prefix “pg.” placed before the name of a “ paragenus”’, “‘ ps.”
before the name of a “ paraspecies ” (Pokorny, D.1/39 ; the indication
of a “‘ paraspecies ’’ would only be necessary if a paraspecies were
to be placed in a natural genus, a combination which does not appear
to be possible according to any of the proposed schemes) ;

(b) a degree sign preceding the name of the “‘ paragenus ”’ (Miiller, D.1/44).

10. It has been suggested that if Parataxa are to be recognized, it is not
appropriate that their names should be recorded in the Official Lists and
Indexes of the names of natural taxa, but that new Lists and Indexes should
be opened in the names of Parataxa (Dusenbury, D.1/46).

11. Mr. Hemming at one time suggested that the names of Parataxa
should be independent from those of natural taxa both for the purposes of the
Law of Homonymy as well as for those of the Law of Priority (D.1/16, Annexe 1,
paragraph 7). The original proposals, on the other hand, stipulate that they
shall only be independent for the purposes of the Law of Priority (D.1/1).
Mr. Hemming’s suggestion was opposed by Sylvester-Bradley (D.1/16, Annexe 2),
Moore (D.1/16, Annexe 3), Melville (D.1/23) and Howarth (D.1/50) and has
since been withdrawn (see D.1/60).

Section 2. Collective Groups

12. In the present Régles, Collective Groups are recognized in the first
Recommendation of Article 8. In the Draft Code this Recommendation is
not incorporated ; the names of Collective Groups are ruled to be unavailable,
and they are defined with this meaning in the Glossary (Draft Régles, 1958,
Article 14, Section 2 ; Glossary, p. 276 ; also Doc. 24/1, item 67). The American
Society of Parasitologists, however, propose that Collective Groups should be
recognized in the Code, and should rank with genera for the purposes of the
Law of Homonymy (D.1/14, Annexes 3 and 9), the resolution being supported

848 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

unanimously at a meeting of the Society estimated to number over 200 (D.1/14,
p. 98). Subsequently these proposals were formalised by J. C. Bradley (D.1/42)
in a set of proposals for alterations to the Draft Regles.

13. The proposals for Collective Groups drafted by the American Society
of Parasitologists (D.1/14) include the statement “‘ they require no type species ”’.
This principle was also stated in the old Régles (Article 8, first Recommendation)
but has not been made clear in J. C. Bradley’s new proposals (D.1/42).
Sylvester-Bradley (D.1/63) has suggested that the question of whether Collective
Groups should be based on type species or not is worthy of reconsideration.
On this question the following may be quoted from McIntosh (D.1/14, Annexe 7,
p. 93):

“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 of 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.”

Sylvester-Bradley, on the other hand, maintains that “the advantages
of introducing objectivity into their definition are surely as great as those
that have led us to modify the Code so that all taxa are now required to be
based on types” (D.1/63). Sabrosky (D.1/61) suggests the designation of
type species might be made optional.

Section 3. Form Taxa

14. It has been suggested that Form Taxa as used in the Botanical Code
might have a certain advantage over Parataxa, and proposals to this effect
have been made by Sabrosky (D.1/61) and Sylvester-Bradley (D.1/63).

Sabrosky (D.1/61) suggests that no distinction should be made between
Parataxa, Collective Groups, Organ Genera or Form Taxa, but that all should
be referred to by the latter name. The Rules would regulate the names in the
way recommended by others for Collective Groups and Organ Genera, in which
the species would be regarded as natural species, and would keep their original
priority if transferred to natural genera. An escape clause is inserted, however,
which excepts such groups as conodonts and aptychi from these provisions.

ee

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 849

This clause states that specialists in groups in which the nominal species do not
refer to natural species “ would be justified in not applying the name to any
natural taxon’’. Sabrosky makes the designation of type species for form
genera optional.

Sylvester-Bradley (D.1/63), on the other hand, proposes to limit the term
“ Form Taxa ”’ to the groups elsewhere referred to as Parataxa, and suggests
that Sabrosky’s “form taxa” are better referred to as “‘ Collective Groups ”
or “‘ Organ Genera ”’ as the case may be. He approves Sabrosky’s proposals
so far as they deal with Collective Groups or Organ Genera, but is opposed to
the “‘escape clause’, believing it would lead to ambiguity in interpretation.
He suggests no new procedure for dealing with Form Taxa, regarding the
term merely as an alternative to that of “ Parataxa’’. He makes the point,
however, that the abolition of the word ‘‘ Parataxonomy ”’ might afford relief
to those who find its practice philosophically repugnant.

Section 4. Organ Genera

15. Organ Genera, long recognised in palaeobotany, are proposed by
Sylvester-Bradley (D.1/63) as an alternative name for the Form Genera of
Sabrosky (D.1/61), to be regulated by exactly the same procedure as Collective
Groups. The distinctive difference between Organ Genera and Form Genera,
according to Sylvester-Bradley’s scheme, would be that the former would
consist of natural species, the latter of form species. Otoliths are cited as an
example of the former, conodonts of the latter.

Section 5. Technical Terms

16. At the Paris meeting of the Congress it was decided that names given
to “sclerites ”’ and other animal fragments should be treated as technical
terms, and ruled unavailable as zoological names (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 :
293-294). This decision has never been implemented, partly owing to the
difficulty that arises in fixing objectively whether or no a particular name is
that of a fragment within the sense of this provision, or within the sense of
Art. 27, subsection (a), which states that ‘‘ the oldest available name is retained
when any part of an animal is named before the animal itself ’’ (see footnote
to D.1/1, p. 6).

17. Arkell’s first proposal regarding aptychi (reproduced as D.1/4) was
similar in nature to the above paragraph, but limited the provision to the
exclusion from zoological nomenclature of “ any generic or specific name based
solely upon the aptychus of an ammonite”. This stipulation was opposed
by Moore, Sylvester-Bradley and others, and Arkell now supports the Parataxa
Plan (D.1/6), but Wright (D.1/49) still favours the plan of rating names given to
aptychi as extra-nomenclatural technical terms.

850 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
Section 6. Plenary Powers

18. Schindewolf (D.1/31), the Washington Discussion Group (D.1/35),
and (by implication) Branson (D.1/25) contend that either the aptychus problem
or the whole problem of dual nomenclatures (“‘ in those few cases where strict
application of the rules would cause really significant confusion ” : D.1/35)
could be solved by recourse to the Plenary Powers of the Commission. Detailed
proposals are not available for the conodonts, but D.1/5, para. 8 (2) and (3)
deals with the more flagrant examples of aptychi in a form which could imme-
diately be adapted to Plenary action.

19. Branson (D.1/59) suggests that names given to conodont assemblages
should be suppressed (presumably by Plenary Powers) as “‘ unnecessary, pre-
mature and hypothetical’. We have here, of course, a case of disagreement
amongst specialists, Rhodes (D.1/47, paras. 5 and 6) listing evidence which he
claims leaves “little reasonable doubt that the assemblages are natural (as
opposed to coprolitic or fortuitous) associations ”, whereas Branson maintains
that “‘ much evidence indicates that the ‘ assemblages ’ are chance coprolitic
associations ”’.

Branson’s proposals make an interesting parallel to those at one time put
forward by Arkell for the suppression of names given to ammonoid aptychi
(D.1/4 ; see para. 17 above). In Arkell’s case, however, the names suggested
for suppression were those which Moore and Sylvester-Bradley would refer to
Parataxa, whereas in Branson’s case, the names suggested for suppression are
those which Moore and Sylvester-Bradley would rate as natural taxa.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 851

DOCUMENT 1/65

Comment on the Moore/Sylvester-Bradley “‘ Parataxa Plan ’’

(Reference : Professor Moore’s Digest reproduced as Document 1/15)

(Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 1056)

By ERROL I. WHITE
(British Museum (Natural History), London)

(Letter dated 8th April 1958)

I can answer your circular letter of the 8th July 1957, very briefly by saying
that I am dead against special provision for Parataxa in the Régles.

852 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

DOCUMENT 2/21
(continued from page 762)

Support for Dr. W. J. Arkell’s proposal for the withdrawal
of Copenhagen Decision 54(1)(a)

(Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 835)

By R. V. MELVILLE
(Geological Survey and Museum, London)

(Enclosure to a letter dated 27th March 1958)

Of the modifications to the Berlin Code of Zoological Nomenclature made
over the last ten years, or proposed for discussion at the forthcoming London
Congress, some reinforce logic and principle as giving moral force to the Rules
while others are based on common sense and established practice. The
broadening of the application of the type-concept is one of the strongest
examples of the former kind.

2. It will be difficult to produce a revised code in which the operations
of logic and of usage are clearly segregated, and still more difficult to apply
one in which this segregation is obscure. In those parts of the Code where the
type-principle prevails it is therefore important that the force of logic should
not be unnecessarily weakened by the introduction of other ideas.

3. In the case of names of the family-group that have to be changed
because of a change in the name of the type genus, logic demands that the
same treatment be given to cases where the name of the type-genus is found
to be a homonym or an objective synonym of an earlier nominal genus. I
follow Hopkins (1958, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 15 : 247-248) in regarding different
treatment of names that have to be changed for either of these reasons as
illogical. There is not only logic, however, behind the request for the repeal
of Copenhagen Decision 54(1)(a) ; the Rules have always stated that the name
of a family must be based on the name of the type-genus (Berlin, Article 5)
and they have been faithfully followed in this by a large proportion of zoologists
and, so far as I am aware, by all palaeozoologists.

ae

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 853

4. Those who wish to maintain Copenhagen Decision 54(1)(a) work in
fields where Berlin Article 5 has been consistently violated. They not only
expect other zoologists to give a spurious legality to their breaches of the Code,
but they go so far as to suggest (e.g. Slater, 1958, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 15 : 352)
that is it they who have been right and the Berlin Code and its adherents who
have been wrong ever since 1905. If this has been so, why could not these
zoologists have proposed an amendment to the code earlier? If they had
had a true regard for either the stability and universality of nomenclatural
practice or for the moral standing of the Code, they would have amended their
own wrong practice.

5. It is wrong to suppose that Copenhagen Decision 54(1)(a) is not retro-
active. The Rules must provide means for dealing with existing nomenclatural
problems as well as means whereby the creation of new problems can be avoided.
Since only logical rules can provide a common fundamental basis, and a
convincing one, for dealing with the mistakes of past authors, those parts of
the Code that are based on logic, including those calling for application of the
type-principle, are all retroactive. The modifications based on usage are not,
and these are expressly designed in the interests of the future.

6. I therefore base my support of Dr. Arkell’s proposal for the rejection
of Copenhagen Decision 54(1)(a) on the following arguments :—

(i) where logic is the basis of any article in the Code, its force should
not be weakened ;

(ii) the type-principle is one of the strongest examples of the use of logic
in the Code ;

(ili) the only logical application of this principle in the present case is in
terms of Berlin Article 5 ;

(iv) apart from logic, those who seek to maintain Copenhagen Decision
54(1)(a) seek to legalise breaches of the Code ; and since this decision
is by its nature retroactive, they can do this only at the expense
of those zoologists who have adhered to the Code.

7. It seems to me impossible to govern by rule those cases where the
type genus of a family-group taxon is thought to be a subjective synonym of
an earlier nominal genus. This is because it is impossible to prevent zoologists
from proposing new family-group taxa in such cases and equally impossible
to ensure universal acceptance of the names for these taxa. Cases of this
kind can surely only be subject to a Recommendation. In my view, this
Recommendation should advise authors to use names for family-group taxa
that are based on the name of the type genus.

854 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

DOCUMENT 10/5
(continued from page 730)

The Substantive Languages of the International Rules: proposed
making-good of an omission in the Draft of the English Text

(Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 1259)

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

(Statement dated 26th March 1958)

The purpose of the present note is to draw attention to an aspect of the
question of the languages to be accepted as the substantive languages for the
International Rules of Zoological Nomenclature which has hitherto escaped
attention and which requires to be considered at the forthcoming London
Meetings.

2. The problem which the present note is concerned to raise is the need
for complying with certain directions issued in this matter by Professor Ragnar
Sparck, when, as President of the Fourteenth International Congress of
Zoology, Copenhagen, 1953, he executed a Minute on 7th November 1957
giving his decision regarding the languages to be accepted as the substantive
languages of the International Rules of Zoological Nomenclature. By
directions given on the same occasions the Minute so executed by Professor
Spairck was incorporated in the Official Record of the proceedings on
nomenclature of the Copenhagen Congress and as such was published both in
English and in French in December 1953 (Copenhagen Decisions zool. Nomencl. :
126-131). The aspect of this question which has formed the subject of
discussion in the papers so far placed on the London Agenda Paper (Documents
10/1 to 10/4) has been whether the directions given by Professor Spirck on the
question of the languages to be accepted as the substantive languages for the
International Rules should be adhered to in their entirety or whether they
should be modified in some, and if so in what respect.

8. The provision in Professor Spirck’s Minute which has so far escaped
attention is that embodied in the concluding paragraph (paragraph 5) of that
Instrument. That paragraph as drafted refers back to the preceding paragraph
(paragraph 4) in which Professor Spirck had given directions as to the
languages to be accepted as the substantive languages for the International
Rules. Accordingly, for the sake of clarity the English and French Texts of
paragraph 4 as well as those of paragraph 5 of Professor Spirck’s Minute are
quoted in full in the Annexe to the present note.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 855

4. The point which has here to be noted is that in paragraph 5 of his Minute
Professor Sparck gave directions that the decisions in regard to the languages
to be accepted as the substantive languages for the International Rules given
in paragraph 4 of that Minute, together with his direction as to the procedure
to be adopted for reconciling any differences between the substantive texts
which it might later be alleged to exist, should ‘“‘ be incorporated in each of the
substantive texts of the Rules as revised and approved by the Copenhagen
Congress ”’ under his Presidency.

5. The foregoing important decision by the President of the last Congress
appears to have been overlooked by Professor Chester Bradley when preparing
his draft of the English text of the Régles which contains no provision on this
subject. In the form in which that Draft has been prepared it would appear
that Article 30 would be the appropriate point at which to embody the
provision required to give effect to the directions given by Professor Sparck
in paragraphs 4 and 5 of his Minute of 7th November 1953. This provision
would naturally become Section 1 of the foregoing Article, the existing Sections
following immediately thereafter, these Sections being renumbered, the Section
now numbered (1) being renumbered (2) and so on.

6. I accordingly recommend that effect be given to Professor Sparck’s
decision by incorporating it in the Régles in the manner indicated in the
immediately preceding paragraph.

ANNEXE TO REPORT BY THE SECRETARY
DATED 26TH MARCH 1958

English and French Texts of paragraphs 4 and 5 of the Minute executed
on 7th November 1953 by Professor R. Sparck, President, Fourteenth
International Congress of Zoology, Copenhagen, 1953

(Reference : Copenhagen Decisions Zool. Nomencl. : 128-131)

English Text French Text
4. I am satisfied that a solution on 4. Je suis convaincu que la solu-
the following lines will be acclaimed tion suggérée ci-dessous est conforme
by zoologists in all countries. I have a Vintéret général, et sera applaudie
therefore authorised and instructed par les zoologues de tous les pays.

Mr. Hemming to include with the J’ai done prié M. Hemming d’ajouter
Official Report of the decisions on au procés-verbal des décisions sur
nomenclature taken by the Four- la nomenclature prises au XI Véme
teenth International Congress of | Congrés International de Zoologie
Zoology, Copenhagen 1953, the (Copenhague, 1953) la minute ci-
present Minute directing that, subject aprés, valable sous réserve de l’en-

856 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

to the undertaking given by the Inter-
national Trust for Zoological Nomen-
clature that it will arrange for the pre-
paration and publication of a French
text of the revised Rules, identical in
substance and in form with the Eng-
lish text,immediately afterthe English
text has been finally approved :—

(1) The French and English texts
of the International Rules of
Zoological Nomenclature, as
revised by the Thirteenth
International Congress of
Zoology, Paris, 1948, and as
further revised and expanded
by the Fourteenth Inter-
national Congress of Zoology,
Copenhagen, 1953, prepared
in the manner agreed upon
by the last-named Congress
and published by the Inter-
national Trust for Zoological
Nomenclature are both au-
thentic, that is, the French
text is the substantive text of
the Rules and so also is the
English text.

(2) In the event of its having been
alleged at any time that on a
due construction of the words
employed there is a dif-
ference of meaning in any
provision as between the two
substantive texts, the matter
is at once to be laid before the
International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature,
whose decision shall be final.

5. I further direct that, in order
to prevent any misunderstanding in
this matter the foregoing decisions be
incorporated in each of the substantive
texts of the Rules as revised and
approved by the Copenhagen Con-
gress under my Presidency.

gagement pris par 1’International

“Trust, de faire préparer at publier

un texte francais des Régles révisées,
identique au texte anglais, et par
le contenu, et par la forme, aussitot
aprés l’approbation définitive du
text anglais :—

(1) Les textes francais et anglais
des Régles Internationales
dela Nomenclature Zoolo-
gique, révisées par le XI1éme
Congrés International de
Zoologie (Paris, 1948); re-
visées a nouveau et deé-
veloppées par le XIVéme
Congrés; préparées con-
formément aux décisions de
ce dernier Congrés ; et
publiées par |’International
Trust, sont tous deux au-
thentiques, c’est-a-dire que
le texte francais fera foi, et
que le texte anglais fera
également foi.

(2) Si quelgu’un alléguait qu’une
interprétation légitime des
mots employés puisse donner
lieu & une différence de
sens entre les deux textes,
la question serait aussitot
portée devant la Commission
Internationale de la Nomen-
clature Zoologique, dont la
décision sera sans appel.

5. J’ordonneen outre qu’afin d’éviter
toute méprise sur ce point, les
décisions précédentes figurent sur
lun et l’autre textes officiel des
Régles révisées et approuvées sous
ma présidence par le Congrés de
Copenhague.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 857

DOCUMENT 19/3
(continued from page 330)

Proposed relaxation of the ban on intemperate language

(Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 1296)
and

DOCUMENT 23/3

(continued from page 344)

Proposed relaxation of the ban on names calculated to give personal
and other types of offence

(Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 1297)

By CYRIL DOS PASSOS
(Mendham, New Jersey, U.S.A.)

(Enclosure to a letter dated 22nd March 1958)

It is noted that Mr. Sabrosky has suggested the elimination of the
consideration of intemperate language from Article 26 of the draft Régles and
also of names calculated to give offence from Article 6, Section 1(d), Article 10,
Section 2(a), and Article 23, Section 1(a)(i), and that his remarks, as well as
your comments thereon, are published in 1958, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 15 : 328-
330 and 341-344.

While these matter do not seem of great importance to me, being of such
exceptional occurrence, it is nevertheless true that provisions respecting them
have been in the Régles for some years, and by some it may be assumed by
their elimination at this time that zoologists have come to feel differently about
them, which of course is not true.

In the circumstances it seems to me that such matters could be treated
with equal effectiveness by omitting them from their present positions in the
Régles and incorporating them in the Code of Ethics. After all, these provisions
relate to general rules of human conduct rather than to the restricted sphere of
nomenclature.

EEE

858 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

DOCUMENT 21/3
(continued from page 735)

Draft “‘ Régles ’’, Article 28, Section 11 (gender of generic names) :
criticism of proposals in draft

(Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 996)

By R. PH. DOLLFUS
(Muséum National d’ Histoire Naturelle, Paris)

(Enclosure to a letter dated 8th April 1958)

Le Rédacteur de l’article 28 est mal informé au sujet de la formation des
mots composés grecs. Par exemple, il écrit (p. 209) que “ stomus ”’ est incorrect
et que ce mot n’existe pas en grec. Il est évident que, en grec, ce mot n’existe
pas “isolé ”’, mais il existe en composition. D’aprés ce que croit le rédacteur,
quand un mot composé a son deuxiéme composant tiré de ordua il doit se
terminer par stouw« (stoma). C’est complétement inexact, quand les grecs
tiraient de oroua« le 2e composant, ils le changeaient en ctopos, sauf si le
premier composant était une préposition* ; ils disaient, par exemple, Sicropos,
TploToMos, TETpacTOMOS, xpvodoTouos, ce qui se transcrit en latin par:
distomus, tristomus, tetrastomus, chrysostomus ; méme quand il s’agissait d’un
adjectif au féminin ou au neutre, les grecs ne le terminaient pas par oropua,
mais par orouos au féminin et crovoy au neutre, par exemple: ypuadcTopos,
os, ov. Tous les noms de genre terminés en stomus sont donc corrects.

Si un substantif grec tiré de oroua est du neutre, il a subi une altération,
par exemple 76 7eptoroutov-ov (ouverture d’un vase) et non pas zepioToua.

Certaines particules comme ed (= bien), dus (= mal), av (latin in), ype
(latin semi) ne modifient pas, en général, la terminaison du second composant,
qui garde alors sa terminaison comme si le premier composant était une
préposition ; par exemple 7) av-dpia, xs, 7) OU 6 ALovos, ov. Il y a cependant
quelques exceptions, par exemple demi-drachme ne se disait pas 7 jurdpaxun
mais To 7pidpaxpov, ov.

* Par exemple: eis, dvd, év, TV, amo, €v, GVTi, mpd, Sid, KATA, ETA, Dwep,
bT0, TWKPH, El, MPS, TEpi, api.

7

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 859

Malgré de rares exceptions et dans des cas trés particuliers, que savent
expliquer les philologues hellénistes, il ne faut jamais oublier, que, en composi-
tion, la terminaison du 2e composant est modifiée et aussi le genre grammatical,
7 Spaxuy, is drachme, donne retpadpaxpyos, os, ov, de 4 drachmes, ro
TeTpadpaxpov, ov tetradrachme.

Prenons l’exemple de mots dont le 2e composant est tiré de To ypaype,
atos. Il faut écrire Plewrogrammus (ro mAevpov, ov, cdté), Hexogrammus
(€é six) ; mais Diagramma, parce que dia est une préposition.

Prenons l’exemple de mots dont le 2e composant est tiré de 7 Kepadn, is
téte ; ils ne se terminent pas par xedaAn (latin cephala), mais par cedados;
les grecs disaient 6 xuvoxépados, ov, (lat. cynocephalus), 6 Bouxedados, ov,
ou bien 6 Boveedadus, a, masculin (latin bucephalus) et Vadjectif était
Bovxédados, os, ov, jamais BovxédAxcAx (au nominatif singulier) ; Cyno-
cephalus est correct, Globicephala est incorrect.

Prenons l’exemple de mots dont le 2e composant est tiré de 76 Képaus
gen. képaTos ou Képws, corne ; les grecs disaient dixepws, ws, ov, Tpikepws,
ovs, ov, (mais non Sixepus, tpixepas); ils disaient 6 pwoKépws, wros,
rhinocéros.

Tous le noms composés créés par les zoologistes et paléontologistes et se
terminant en ceras sont donc incorrects, mais il n’est pas question de les
corriger, maintenant qu’ils sont depuis longtemps en usage.

La formation des mots composés en grec n’est pas simple, il peut y avoir
des apocopements, des lettres de liaison, des redoublement de lettres?, des
élisions, etc.

De nombreux ouvrages ont été publiés sur ce sujet, il serait bon qu’ils
soient consultés avant une rédaction définitive de l’article 28.

@ Les zoologistes oublient trop souvent que, lorsqu’ils forment un mot composé dont le
premier terme est tiré de kaAds, 4, ov beau, ils doivent observer le redoublement du A et faire
commencer le mot par calli..., callo..., avec 21.

860 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

DOCUMENT 25/11
(continued from page 740)

The Designation of Official Names for Higher Taxa of Invertebrates

(Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 1242)

By B. G. CHITWOOD

(Laboratory of Comparative Physiology and Morphology* of the Kaiser
Foundation, University of California, Berkeley, California, U.S.A.)

(Enclosure to a letter dated 27th March 1958)

Introduction

In the course of a recent review of the higher taxa of nemas (nematodes)
and related organisms, the writer has recognised many problems of a nomen-
clatural nature. Some of these bear on the entire policy of selection and
designation of such names, as proposed by pp. 59 x 69, Copenhagen Decisions on
Zoological Nomenclature and Article 12, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 14 : 92-94. As
the writer understands it, the Official Lists of Phyla, Classes and Orders are
to be agreed upon by committees of specialists and passed upon by vote of the
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature.

The field of zoology is so broad that specialists seldom, if ever, are familiar
with all of the names of higher taxa and the circumstances under which they
were proposed—outside of their own specialties. A clear need, then, for the
satisfactory functioning of the proposed committees, is a constant interchange
of findings among zoologists.

A comparison of the Copenhagen Decisions with the International Code of
Botanical Nomenclature may be helpful in considering these nomenclatural
problems. Whereas, in zoology, all names for purposes of priority begin
lst January 1758 (with one or two exceptions), in botany the dates accepted

* Contribution No. 18.

Bull. zool. Nomencl. Vol. 15, Quadruple-Part 25/28. May 1958.

a

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 861

for purposes of priority depend upon the group (Lanjouw, ef al., 1956). The
table below demonstrates this :

Publication Groups

Linnaeus, “ Species Plantarum ”’, Spermatophyta, Pteridophyta,
ed. 1, Ist May 1753 Sphagnaceae, Hepatacea,
Lichenes, Algae (with exceptions
below), Myxomycetes, Bacteria

Hedwig, ‘‘ Species Muscorum ”’, 3lst | Musci (Sphagnaceae excepted)
Dec. 1801

Persoon, “ Synopsis Methodica Fun- | Fungi (Uredinales, Ustilaginales,
gorum ’’, 3lst Dec. 1801 Gasteromycetes)

Fries, “‘ Systema Mycologicum ” v.1, | Fungi Caeteri
Ist Jan. 1821

Ralfs, ‘‘ British Desmideae ’’, 1848 Desmidaceae

Hirn, “ Monographie und Iconogra- | Oedogoniaceae
phie der Oedogoniaceen”’, Acta
Soc. Sci. Fenn. 27(1), 1900

Gomont “ Monographie des Oscil- | Nostacaceae Homocysteae
lariées ’, Ann. Sci. Nat. Bot. VII
15 : 263-368 ; 16 : 91-264, 1892-
1893

Bornet and Flahault, ‘‘ Revision des | Nostacaceae Heterocysteae
Nostacacées hétérocystées ”’, Ann.
Sci. Nat. Bot. VII. 3 : 323-381 ;
4 : 343-373 ; 5 : 51-129 ; 7 : 177-
262, 1886-1888

The writer believes that this action showed considerably more wisdom
than the action of zoologists in dating all priority of animal names to the
Tenth Edition of Linnaeus’s Systema Naturae, lst Jan. 1758 (exception : 1 pre-
1758). The present year marks only the 200th anniversary of the beginning
% of official systematic nomenclature in Zoology—the microscope has been in
general use little longer. In fact, the taxonomy of many of our groups is in its
infancy, or at most in its adolescence. Thus we find the Kingdoms Animalia

ee?

862 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

and Plantae recognised by most workers, though even in this case we must
note that Linnaeus’s dichotomous separation is contested today by many
sound biologists.

In the Tenth Edition of the Systema Natwrae, Linnaeus proposed the
Kingdom Animalia (p. 9) which he divided into six classes : Mammalia (p. 12),
Aves (p. 12), Amphibia (p. 12), Pisces (p. 12), Insecta (p. 13) and Vermes
(pp. 13 and 641). Of these, the Classes Mammalia, Aves, and Pisces have
survived with minor alterations. The Class Amphibia has been retained
nomenclaturally with the Class Reptilia separated out. The Class Insecta
has survived nomenclaturally for the majority of entomologists ; and the
vernacular term insect (modified according to language) is universal, even
though the group as originally proposed is nearly ludicrous in the eyes of present
day zoologists. (Because of the motley assortment of organisms originally
included in the Class Insecta by Linnaeus, many sound entomologists prefer
the more exact name Hexapoda.) Linnaeus’ Class Vermes can hardly be
accepted in the light of today’s knowledge. Since it contained segmented and
unsegmented worms, some arthropods, coelenterates, sponges, protozoa and
even mollusca, it has been dropped by the majority of present day workers.

The subdivisions or orders of Vermes included : Intestina (p. 647) [including
Gordius, Furia, Lumbricus, Ascaris (all p. 648), Fasciola (p. 648), Hirudo
(p. 649), Myzxine (p. 650) and Teredo (p. 651)] ; Mollusca ; Testacea ; Lithophyta ;
(all p. 642) and Zoophyta (p. 643). Most of these ordinal names have, like the
Class, disappeared from the literature because of the unsatisfactory groupings
involved.

Unquestionably, the botanists’ method of priority dating permits much
more correlation between nomenclature and advances in taxonomy than does
the scheme in use by zoologists.

For convenience, the writer has divided the rest of this article into Early
History (1808-1896) and Recent History (1900-1958) of Higher Taxa; Dis-
cussion of Higher Taxa ; and Uniform Endings for Higher Taxa.

Early history of taxa of unsegmented worms

In 1808-1809, Rudolphi proposed a Class Helmintha (pp. 252, 324, and
55 resp.), subdividing it into five orders : Trematoda (p. 251), Cestoidea (v. 2(2)
pp. 18, 222), Cystica (v. 2(2) p. 215), Nematoidea (p. 252), and Acanthocephala
(pp. 251, 356). His Class Helmintha was patently artificial, since it was
defined as internally parasitic [in animals] worms. It is no longer used, except

Oe ete

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 863

in a vernacular sense, by zoologists. His orders Trematoda and Cestoidea
were somewhat natural groups (though the former contained leeches), and
have been preserved in a modified condition up to now. His order Cystica
was admitted to be a possibly artificial group at the time of its proposal and,
with the advance in knowledge of tapeworm life histories, has been dropped.
The order Acanthocephala has been promoted, first to class, then to phylum
rank.

Rudolphi’s fifth order, Nematoidea, was less fortunately constituted.
He apparently held to his overall diagnosis of the Helmintha and omitted all
“ free-living ” and plant parasitic species, together with the free-living stages
of animal parasites—apparently because the life histories of many of these were
unknown atthetime. The matter is quite confusing. On pp. 55-56 of volume 2
(1809), he definitely stated that he omitted the genus Gordius and that there
had been a great deal of confusion between gordiids and nematoids. Un-
fortunately, so far as the writer has been able to determine, he gave no physical
or structural means of distinguishing between them. He transferred many
species originally described in the genus Gordius Linn., 1758 (pp. 644, 647)
to the genus Filaria Mueller, 1787 (pp. 64-67) ; we can only conclude that his
separation was based on whether or not the specimens were collected from other
invertebrates. Thus he did not distinguish between mermithids and gordiids.
The lack of knowledge relative to the free-living part of the life history of
“horse-hair worms” and “ cabbage worms ” was the primary cause of the
difficulty. By the same token, Rudolphi omitted the genus Anguina Scopoli,
1767 (p. 373, parasitic in plants), as well as the genus Vibrio Mueller, 1773
(pp. 39-49) in which the vinegar and paste eels had been described.

The ordinal name Nematoidea has been explained as being derived from
the Greek noun via, vnwaros, plus the noun efSos, yielding the meaning
thread-form or thread-like. (Rudolphi obviously avoided the classic Greek

word ivadns [m.f.], vadSes [n.] for the adjectival meaning sinewy or fibrous
[? loosely filamentous]. This is beside the point in the present discussion,
however, since Rudolphi could not have known about modern Greek usages,
though he was quite a scholar of classic Greek.

De Blainville (1816, pp. 105-127) divided the Animal Kingdom into three
Subkingdoms : Artiomorphes (p. 107) ; Rayonnes or Actinomorphes (p. 107) ;
and Hétéromorphes (p. 107). In his Artiomorphes he divided into Types :

I. Vertebrés or Ostéozoaires and

II. Invertebrés or Anostéozoaires ;

864 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

and further divided the latter into Subtype Malacozoaires, Subtype Ento-
mozoaires and Subtype Articulés with the Append. Entomozoaires including
the Class X Héxapodes (p. 107). [This is apparently the origin of the Class
Hexapoda.] In his Subkingdom Rayonnes or Actinomorphes he included :

I. Subarticulate Classes—XVIII Annulaires and XIX Echinoder-
maires and

II. True Classes—XX Arachnodermaires, XXI Actinaires, XXII
Polypaires, and XXIII Zoophytaires.

In his third Subkingdom, Hétéromorphes, he included Classes XXIV Spongiaires
and XXV Agastraires. In more detail (p. 123), he grouped articulated or
many-footed Hétéromorphes in “‘ Cl. X-X VII, Insectes & Vers”. Members of
the Subkingdom without lateral appendages were placed in “ Cl. VIII Apodes
(Vers Intestinaux, SubCl. I. Sang-Sues, SubCl. IT. Entozoires ” ; with a footnote
stating that the latter group probably contained highly diversified animals,
citing Ascaris and Ligule. Aside from the name Hexapodes and the limitation
of insects, the writer sees little merit in this effort.

Cuvier (1817) divided the Animal Kingdom (v. 1) into several ‘‘ Grandes
divisions ”’ :
Animalia vertebrata (p. 58)
Animalia mollusca (p. 59)
Animalia articulata (p. 60)
[v. 4] Animaux Rayonnés (p. 1)
les Zoophytes (p. 1).

Classes Echinodermes (p. 6) and Intestinaux (p. 26 = Entozoa Rudolphi), with
the order Les Cavitaires (p. 28 = p. 29, Ent. Nematoidea Rud.), included such
diverse genera as Filaria, Hamularia, Trichocephalus, Oxyuris, Cucullanus,
Ophiostomi, Ascaris, Strongylus, Liorhynchus, Prionoderma, Lernaea and
Nemertes Cuv. Cuvier also proposed :

Classe des Parenchymateux (p. 28), [including the families Acanthocéphales,
Trématodes, Ténoides, and Cestoides],

Classe Acéphales,
Classe Polypes, and

Classe Infusoires (p. 89), [including the Order Rotiféres (p. 89) as well as
the Order Infusoires Homogénes (p. 92) in which he included Cercaria,
various protozoans, Vibrio glutini, and V. aceti (p. 92)].

It is obvious from his groupings that the contribution was weak, to the extent
that it dealt with unsegmented worms.

a ee enue he eee Pee eee

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 865

Lamarck (1817) divided unsegmented animals into ten classes, the Vermes
(p. 131) being the fourth Classe des Animaux. He divided the Vermes into
three Ordres :

VERS MOLLASSES [p. 145—subdivided into three Sections :

LES VESICULAIRES (Bicorne, Hydatide, Hydatigére, Cénure, and
Echinocoque) ;

LES PLANULAITIRES (Toenia, Bothryocéphale, Tricuspidaire, Ligule,
Linguatule, Polystome, and Fasciole) ; and

LES HETEROMORPHES (Monostome, Amphistome, Géraffle,
Tétragule, Massette, Tentaculaire, and Sagittule)—all p. 146].

VERS RIGIDULES [p. 147—included Entozoa nematoidea Rud. v. 2,.
pp. 55-196 (Porocéphale, Echinorhinque, Strongle, Cucullan, Fissule,
Oxyure, Trichure, Ascaride, Hamulaire, Liorhynque, Filaire, and
Dragonneau [Gordius|—all on p. 147)].

VERS HISPIDES [p. 147—included Naide, Stylaire, and Tubifex].
From the erratic grouping it is obvious this classification had no merit.

Later, De Blainville (1828) divided Onchocephala, (the Classe Entomozo-
aires Apodes or Vers, (p. 530)) into Ordres :

Ordre Oxycéphales (p. 534) [with genera including Filaria, Gordius,

Vibrio, Trichosoma, Ophiostoma, Sclerostoma, Physaloptera, Spiroptera,
Thelazia, Liorhynchus, and Hamularia] ;

Ordre Probocephala (p. 549) [with the Fam(illes) Acanthocephala (p. 550),
Proteocephala (p. 552), and Sipunculidea (p. 533)] ;

Ordre Mycocephala (p. 555) [with the Fam(illes) Monocotyla (p. 556) and
Polycotyla (p. 569)].

The Subclass Parentomozoaires or Subannélidaires (p. 573) be divided into :

Ordre Aporocephala (p. 573) [with Fam(illes) Teretularia (p. 573) and
Planariae (p. 577)];

Ordre Porocephala (p. 580) ; and

Ordre Bothriocephala (p. 588) [with the Fam(illes) Polyrhynchia (p. 589),
Monorhynchia (p. 596), and Anorhynchia (p. 600)].

While this classification probably contributed somewhat to the knowledge
of flat worms and did group free-living nemas with the parasites, it did not aid

866 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

in removing horse-hair worms from the same group as Ascaris, and the writer
can see no merit in preservation of the name Oxycephala.

Tn 1828, Bory de Saint Vincent (p. 682) stated : ‘‘ Rotiferae. Micr. Ordre ”’,
fifth-class ‘‘ Microsquopiques ”’.

In 1831 (1828), Ehrenberg divided the Phytozoa into the Polygastricha
and Rotatoria, placing the Classis Rotatoria in the Polygastricha with :

Ordo Nuda [Sectio. Monotrocha, Schizotrocha, Polytrocha, and Zygo-
trocha] ;

Ordo Loricata [with the same Sectio.].

The Phytozoa Entozoa—Pseudo-polygastrica, Entozoa s. Suctoria, Pseudo-
polygastricha were given the subdivisions :

(a) Nematoidea Pseudo-Polygastricha [genera Amblyura and Anguillula ;
Familia Ascarideorum] ;

(b) Trematoda Pseudo-Polygastrica.
Classis Phytozoa Turbellaria was divided :
Ordo Dendrocoela

Ordo Rhabdocoela
Sectio I. Amphisterea
Sectio II. Monstera [Familia IV Gordiea]

Sectio III. Amphiporina [“ Familia VIII Nemertina, Nemertes
(Cuvier), Familia Nemertinorum ’’].

In this article, Ehrenberg seems to have included free-living nemas in the
Nematoidea and to have excluded horse-hair worms from the group for the
first time. He proposed, as well, the Class Turbellaria ; and a family based
on the genus Ascaris. Here also is found the first use of a higher taxon (Family)
based on the genera Nemertes and Gordius, as well as the establishment of the
name Rhabdocoela. Since Ehrenberg gave no morphologic means of separating
Gordius from the Nematoidea, the present writer can see no reason for attributing
the group to him. In 1837 (p. 235), Ehrenberg promoted the Nematoidea to
class rank, including therein Gordius, Anguillula, and Enchelidium.

Von Siebold (1843, 1848) transferred many of the species originally
described in the genus Gordius and transferred by Rudolphi (1809, 1818) to
the genus Filaria back to the genus Gordius and to the genus Mermis Dujardin,

om ee ©

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 867

1842 (pp. 117-119). In 1843, von Siebold proposed the Order Gordiacea
(pp. 302-303) [to contain Gordius and Mermis], placing it in the Class Helmintha
(p. 302) together with the Orders Nematoidea (p. 310), Acanthocephala (p. 316),
Trematoda (p. 316), Cestoidea (p. 328), and Cystica (p. 330). In 1848, both
von Siebold (p. 112) and Leuckart (p. 77) emended the spelling of Rudolphi’s
Order Nematoidea to the Order Nematodes, including horse-hair worms in the
order. Considerably later, Diesing (1861, p. 598) further emended the spelling
of this ordinal name to Nematoda, and included horse-hair worms as well as
free-living and plant-parasitic nemas in the group. The writer feels that both
of these emendations of Rudolphi’s name Nematoidea were entirely unjustified,
both on linguistic and on scientific grounds, as previously noted.

KE. Blanchard (1847, 7: 106; 8 : 141) proposed the Classe Anevormi for
the flat worms, including the nemertans. Thereafter, Leuckart (1848, p. 44)
referred to the Vermes as a ‘‘ Grosse Abteilung des Tierreichs ’’, and subdivided
it thus :

Klassen Ordnungen
Anenterati (p. 68) Cestodes (p. 68) and Acanthocephali
(p. 68)
Apodes (p. 70) Nemertini, Turbellarii, Trematodes,
and Hirudinei (p. 70)
Ciliati (p. 74) Bryozoa (p. 74) and Rotiferi (p. 74)
Annelides (p. 75 = Annulati Nematodes (p. 77), Lumbricini (s.
Burmeister excluding Terricolae) (Scoléides M. Edw.) [to
Nemertini) unit Abranches sétigerés Cuv. with

Branchiaten] and Branchiati.

Leuckart’s next “Grosse Abteilung” was the Arthropoda, followed by the
Mollusca.

Van der Hoeven (1850) subdivided the Class Entozoa (p. 154) as follows :

Ordines Familiae

Coelelmintha s. Parenchymatosa Cystica (p. 167), Cestoidea (p. 169),
(p. 167) Acanthocephala (p. 172), and
Trematoda (p. 173)

Coelelmintha s. Utricularia (p. Nematoidea [including such diverse
176) forms as Phalanx I Acanthotheca
—Pentastoma, Linguatula (p. 176),

and Phalanx II Strongyloidea,

with various genera from Rictu-

laria to Odontobius (pp. 177-178)].

868 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

He created an Appendix to Entozoa containing Chaos redivivum (p. 181) and
the Family Gordiacea including Gordius and Mermis (p. 182). Van der Hoeven
also recorded the Class Rotatoria (p. 183) and the Class Annulata (p. 194) with
the Orders Turbellaria (p. 208), Suctoria (p. 213—with family Hirudinea), and
Order Setigera (p. 217—with family Lumbricini).

Schultze (1851, p. 3) recognised the Classis Turbellaria Ehrenberg, with :

I. Subclassis Aprocta (Dies., 1850) Schultze, 1851
Ordo Dendrocoela Ehr.
Ordo Rhabdocoela Ehr.

II. Subclassis Proctucha (Dies., 1850) Schultze, 1851
Ordo Arynchia ?Troschel, 1849 or Schultze, 1851
Ordo Rhynchocoela (Nemertina) Schultze, 1851.

The next year (1852), he further subdivided the Nemertina (p. 183) into the
Anopla (p. 183) and Enopla (p. 183) ; but the writer found no clear statement
of the ranks of these groups, only that they were placed in the Turbellaria—
presumably as suborders.

Vogt (1851) proposed the Class Nematelmia (pp. 174, 175)—including in it
the Order Nematoidei (p. 181—excluding mermithids) ; the Order Gordiacei
(p. 181—including Mermis); the Order Acanthocephala (p. 180); and the
Order Gregarinidea (!) (p. 178). In the same article, he proposed the Class
Platyelmia (p. 185)—to include the Orders Cestoidea (p. 190) ; Ligulida (p. 195) ;
Taenida (p. 195) ; Trematoda (p. 197) ; Planarida (p. 205) ; Nemertina (p. 207—
Nemertida, p. 209); the Class Rotatoria (p. 210); and the Class Annelida
{(p. 217)—with the Orders Hirudinea (p. 224), Scoleina (p. 229), Gephyrea
{p. 228), and Tubicola (p. 230)].

Huxley, in 1853 (1854, p. 16) and 1864, referred to the Class Rotifera.
Leuckart (1859, p. 18) changed the name of his Apodes to Platodes. Gegenbaur
(1859) placed the Rotatoria (p. 194) as a Classe of Arthropoda, subdividing as
follows :

Ordnung Sessilia (p. 194)

Ordnung Natantia (p. 195).

He also used the name Classe Platelminthes (p. 137) with :

Ordnung Turbellaria (p. 137) —

Sty tS atte peomne orgies

Bulletin of Zoological N. omenclature 869

Ordnung Trematoda (p. 137)
Ordnung Cestoda (p. 137).

The Ordnung Turbellaria was subdivided (no ranks given) into :
Rhabdocoela [Rhynchocoela (Nemertina) and Arhynchia (p. 137)]
Dendrocoela (p. 137).

The Classe Nemathelminthes (p. 137) was subdivided into :

Ordnung Nematoidea [Gordiacei (Mermis and Gordius) and Nematoden
(Strongylus, Ascaris, and Oxyuris), no ranks given—all p. 137]

Ordnung Acanthocephala (p. 137).
The Classe Annulata was subdivided into :
Ordnung Branchiata (Vagantia and Tubicola)
Ordnung Scoleina [p. 138, Lumbricus, Chaetogaster, Nais, Enchytraeus]
Ordnung Suctoria—Hirudinea
Ordnung Gephyrea.
Hyman (1951, p. 53) discussed the legitimacy of these emendations. The
present suggested rule is the only basis on which the writer can see justification
for the continued use of a phylum Platyhelmintha(-es) since Minot, who first

limited the group as at present, used that spelling. Aside from reviving the
phylum Vermes, Gegenbaur’s groupings offered nothing original.

Huxley (1864) proposed a Class Scolecida (p. 47) for unsegmented worms,
including therein the Orders Turbellaria, Trematoda, Taeniada, Nematoidea,
Gordiacea, Acanthocephala, and Rotifera (p. 47). In the same article, he stated
that he was doubtful whether these latter groups should be considered orders

This is unfortunate, since later (1877, p. 679) Huxley reversed himself by

The name Echinodera has been attributed by Zelinka (1928) to Gosse
(1864, p. 403, n.v.) and the vernacular name Echinoderen to Graeffe (1869, n.v.).

Haeckel (1866, p. 400) proposed the ranks Phylum and Subphylum, giving
the latter rank to the Vermes and including therein :
Cladus Scolecida (Helminthes)

Classe Platyelminthes

Ordnungen Turbellaria (—all p. LXXIX), Cestoda, Hirudinea,
Onycophora (—all p. LXXX), and Nemertini (p. LXXXT)

870 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Classe Rhynchelminthes
Ordnungen Gephyrea and Acanthocephala (—all p. LX XXII)

Classe Nematelminthes

Ordnungen Chaetognatha and Nematoda (—all p. LXXXII;
including Gordiaceen, doubtfully, in the latter group)

Cladus Rotatoria (p. LX XXYV).

Metchnikoff (1865) proposed the Order Gastrotricha (p. 450). This is one
of the very few names of higher taxa that appears never to have been challenged,
merely promoted—first to class, then to phylum, in more recent years.

Biitschli (1876, p. 392) named a group Nematorhyncha, placing within
it the Gastrotricha and the Atricha [of equal rank, presumably orders in a class],
the latter subdivision being for the reception of the genus Echinoderes Claparéde,
1863. In a text figure, he represented the Annulata, Nemertina, Cestoda,
Trematoda, Turbellaria, Rotatoria, Nematoda, Nematorhyncha, and Arthro-
poda as equal in rank and type size. He apparently derived the Annulata and
Arthropoda from two extremes of the same original stock. On p. 406 he stated
that, in his view, alignment of the “ Tardigraden ”’ with the ‘“Arachnoiden ”’
wholly failed. Further (p. 407), he stated that he must recognise the “ Tardi-
graden” as “Arthropodenformen”’. He then returned to comment of the
comparison of the ‘ Rotatorien, Nematorhynchen und Nematoden” as
probably in the general line of ancestry of the ‘““Arthropoden ”. Though Bitschli
did not so state, one can only conclude that he considered all of these groups
as classes. In the writer’s opinion, this is the most original and thought-
provoking article among those here reviewed.

Minot (1876) stated that the Class Platyhelminthes (p. 19) was formerly
divided into:

1. Turbellarians (Rhabdocoela, Dendrocoela, and Nemertines) ;

2. Trematodes ; and

3. Cestods [sic !].

On p. 19, he officially removed the nemertines from the Class Platyhelminthes
and, on p. 24, presented his own classification of the Class Platyhelminthes :

Rhabdocoela (Acoela, Apharyngea, Pharyngocoela [Rhabdocoela, Dendro-
coela)) ;

Vaginiferae (Trematods [sic !] and Cestods [sic !]}).
He stated he did not know where to place nemertans, but that they did not
belong in this class.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 871

Lankester (1877) promoted Vogt’s class Platyelmia to phylum rank
(p. 441) with the Classes Planariae, Nemertina, Trematoidea, Cestoidea, and
Hirudinea (p. 444). At the same time, he promoted Rudolphi’s order Nema-
toidea to phylum rank (p. 441), subdividing it directly into the families Ascaridae,
Gordiidae, and Enoplidae (p. 449) ; and he recognised the Branch Rotifera.

: The higher taxa Ectoprocta and Entoprocta are commonly attributed to

: Nitsche (1870) but, although he did name both groups (p. 34) and cited the
derivation ‘‘ évro und mpwyrtds”’, he called the Entoprocta a Familie (p. 34)
and relegated the remaining Bryozoen to the Ectoprocta. As far as the writer
has determined, the first use above the family group for either name is that of
Leuckart and Nitsche (1877, p. 133), where both groups were termed orders
in the Class Bryozoa. In the same article, on p. 118, mention was made of the
Order Nematodes.

Huxley (1877) apparently had undergone quite a change of thought since
his 1864 article. In 1877, discussing the classification of invertebrates, he
wrote of the :

Protozoa
I. Zoophytic Series (including Porifera and Coelenterata)

II. Annuloid Series (including the Trichoscolices as a Division which
included the Turbellaria)

Annelida

III. Arthrozoic Series (composed of the Arthropoda and the Division
Nematoscolices [further subdivided into orders : Rotifera, Nema-
torhyncha (Gastrotricha included), Nematoidea (included Gordius
and Mermis), and ?Chaetognatha])

IV. Malacozoic Series (with the Polyzoa-Ectoprocta and Mollusca)

V. Pharyngopneustal Series (Tunicata and Enteropneusta)
VI. Echinodermata.
In another part of the same work he had :

Section I. Monera

872 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Section II. Porifera, Hydrozoa, Ctenophora (Coralligena)

Section III. Turbellaria, Rotifera (Nematorhyncha), Trematoda, Cesto-
idea

Section IV. Hirudinea, Oligochaeta, Polychaeta, Gephyrea

Section V. Crustacea, Arachnida (Pycnogonida, Tardigrada, Penta-
stomida), Myriapoda, Insecta

Section VI. Polyzoa, Brachiopoda, Lamellibranchiata, Odontotophora
Section VII. Echinodermata
Section VIII. Tunicata or Ascidioidea

Section IX. Peripatidea, Myzostomata, Enteropneusta, Chaetognatha,
Nematoidea, Physemaria, Acanthocephala, Dicyemida.

Apparently Huxley used a double system of classification in this publication,
classifying according to what he considered immediate relationships
(horizontally) and in series of evolutionary development (vertically). The
influence of other workers’ views, particularly some of Biitschli’s, is evident.

It was not until 1886 that Vejdovsky proposed the ordinal name Nemato-
morpha (p. 427) for the horse-hair worms and demonstrated how they could
be separated from the Nematoidea. He removed them entirely from the latter
vicinity, placing the order in the Annelida.

Reinhard (1887, p. 401) proposed the Class or Order Kinorhyncha, to
include the genus Echinoderes Claparéde, 1863. Dewitz (1892) classified the
unsegmented parasitic worms in the (?) Class Platodes or Platyhelminthes
(p. 1) ; mentioning the Cestodes (p. 2), the Trematodes (p. 102), and the (?) Class
Nemathelminthes (p. 1) with the Nematodes and the Acanthocephali. He is
credited by some authors with having excluded the nemertans from the Platy-
helminthes for the first time, but since the title of his book would not justify
their inclusion, and no mention of them is found therein, the present writer
cannot affirm the credit.

Hatschek (1888) subdivided the Metazoa into the Protaxonia (= Coel-
enterata) and the Heteraxonia (Bilateria). The latter he grouped as Type
Zygoneura, Sub-Type Autoscolecida (= Protonephridozoa) with the Cladus
Scolecida (p. 40). He proposed Classes Platodes, Rotifers, Entoprocta, Nema-
todes, Acanthocephala ; and Appendage Nemertini (all p. 40), in contrast to
Sub-Type Aposcolecida (= Metanephridozoa) which included the Annelida,
Onycophora, Arthropoda, Pharonida, Bryozoa (Ectaprocta) as classes ; and the
Cladus Mollusca.

a a il ti pe

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 873

Haeckel (1894, p. 90) divided the four Kingdoms of the Organic World
as follows [his Hauptclassen for the Protophyta, Metaphyta, and Protozoa
are not shown in the table below] :

Kingdoms

I. Protophyta

II. Metaphyta

III. Protozoa

IV. Metazoa

IVa. Coelenterata or
Acoelomaria

IVb. Bilateria or
Coelomaria

Phyla

. Archephyta
. Algariae
. Algettae

. Thallophyta
. Diaphyta
. Anthophyta

. Archeozoa
. Fungilla

. Rhizopoda
. Infusoria

. Gastereades
. Spongiae
. Cnidaria
. Platodes

. Helminthes

. Mollusca
. Articulata

. Echinoderma
. Tunicata
. Vertebrata

Hauptclassen

(1) Turbellaria, (2) Trema-
todes, (3) Cestodes

(1) Rotatoria, (2) Strongy-
laria, (3) Rhynchelminthes,
(4) Prosopygia

(1) Annelida, (2) Crustacea,
(3) Tracheata

Haeckel very soon (1896) saw the need for expansion and revision of this
system as it applied to animals and classified invertebrates. He suggested

nine phyla as follows :

Phylon Gastraeda

Phylon Spongiae (Porifera)

874 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Phylon Cnidaria (Acephalea)

Phylon Platodes (= Plathelminthes, p. 238)
Classe Platodaria (pp. 239, 346, = Archelminthes, p. 248)
Order Archicoela (pp. 246, 249)
Order Pseudacoela (p. 246 = Acoela, p. 240)

Classe Platodinia (= Plathelminthes, pp. 246, 252)
Order Turbellaria (pp. 246, 253)
Order Trematoda (pp. 246, 255)
Order Cestoda (pp. 246, 255)

Phylon Vermalia (= Helminthes, p. 261)
Cladoma Rotatoria (= Trochelminthes, p. 264)
Classe Provermalia (= Archipygia, p. 264, hypothetical)
Classe Gastrotricha (p. 264)
Classe Trochozoa (= Trochophoralia, p. 264)
Classe Rotifera (= Raderthiere, p. 264)

Cladoma Prosophygia (= Brachelminthes, p. 264)
Classe Bryozoa (= Polyzoa, p. 264)
Classe Brachiopoda (= Spirobranchia, p. 264)
Classe Phoronaria (= Phoronia)
Classe Sipuncularia (= Gephyrea, p. 264)
Cladoma Strongylaria (= Nemathelminthes, p. 264)
Classe Echinocephala (p. 264, = Kinorhyncha auct. insert.)
Classe Acanthocephala (p. 264)
Classe Nematoda (p. 264)
Subclasse Ascarideen (p. 299)
Subclasse Gordiaceen (p. 299)

Classe Chaetognatha (p. 264)

Cladoma Frontonia (= Rhynchelminthes, p. 264)
Classe Nemertina (p. 264)
Classe Enteropneusta (p. 264)
Classe Prochordonia (p. 264)

Phylon Chordonia
Subphylum Tunicata
Phylon Echinodermen

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 875

Phylon Mollusken

Phylon Articulaten
Cladoma Annelida

Classe Archannelida

Classe Chaetopoda
Order Protochaeta
Order Polychaeta
Order Oligochaeta
Order Spaniochaeta

Classe Stelechopoda
Order Myzostomia
Order Arctisconia (= Tardigrada)
Order Linguatonia

Cladoma Crustacea

Cladoma Tracheata.

Finally, Braun (1889, p. 224) quoted Gegenbaur as having used the Ordo
Scolecina (Vogt) in the “ Classis Annulaten ’’.

Recent history of higher taxa of unsegmented worms

Lankester (1900, p. 5) divided the Grade Coelomocoela into the phyla
Platyelmia, Nematoidea, Echinoderma, Chaetognatha, Vertebrata, Appendi-
culata, Mollusca, Nemertina, and Acanthocephala ; and the Subphylum Roti-
fera. The next year Benham (1901, p. 159), in Lankester’s own Treatise on
Zoology, recognised the Phylum Rhynchocoela with the Class Nemertina,
Branch Dimyaria, Orders Protonemertini, Mesonemertini, and Metanemertini ;
and the Branch Trimyaria with the Order Heteronemertini. He considered the
Anopla and Enopla of Schultze unnecessary groups.

Ward (1903) subdivided the Phylum Nemathelminthes (p. 205) into the
Class Nematoda (p. 205), with the Subclasses Eunematoda (p. 205), and
Gordiacea (p. 205) ; and the Appendix Acanthocephala (pp. 205, 224). No
orders were recognized in these groups.

Von Linstow (1905) divided the Class Nematoda into the Ordnungen
Secernentes (p. 272), Adenophori, Resorbentes, and Pleuromyarii (p. 273) ;
basing them primarily on the excretory system, secondarily on the musculature
and hypodermis. The diagnoses of the first two orders were eminently satis-

876 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

factory, as were his included genera. The second two orders, however, were
based on what we now know to be misinterpretations, and his included genera
were less uniform. In 1909 he gave additional examples of all four of his orders,
but, by limiting the examples to animal parasites and basing his information
both upon his own and other misinterpretations, he brought considerable
discredit on his classification.

Zelinka (1907, pp. 131, 135) used the name Echinoderida, without designat-
ing rank. He clearly intended it to be a superordinal taxon, however, since
he included the Ordnungen Homalorhagae (p. 135), Conchorhagae (p. 135), and
Cyclorhagae (p. 136) ; with the Suborders Nomosomata (p. 136) and Xenosomata
(p. 136). He had previously used several of these names without specifying
ranks.

Biitschli (1910) proposed the Subphylum Amera (p. 37) as a division of
the Phylum Vermes (p. 37) and placed therein :

Klasse Platyhelminthes (p. 37)
Subclass Turbellaria (p. 37)
Subclass Trematoda (p. 37)
Subclass Cestodes (p. 38)
Subclass Nemertina (p. 38)

Klasse Nemathelminthes (p. 38)
Subclass Rotatoria (p. 38)
Subclass Nematorhyncha (p. 38)

Order Gastrotricha (p. 38)
Order Echinodera (p. 38)

Klasse Nematodes (p. 39)
Order Eunematodes (p. 39)
Order Gordiida (p. 39)

Subclass Acanthocephala (p. 39)

Grobben (1909) recognised the Subkingdoms Protozoa and Metazoa. The
latter he divided as follows :

Division (a) Coelenterata

Phyla Spongiaria, Cnidaria, Ctenophora

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 877

Division (b) Coelomata

Phylum Protostomia (Zygoneura) Phylum Deuterostomia
Kladus Scolecida Subtype Amulacralia
Klassen Platyhelminthes, Kladus Echinodermata
Aschelminthes, Entoprocta, Kladus Enteropneusta
Nemertini
Kladus Annelida Subtype Homalopterygia
Kladus Arthropoda Kladus Chaetognatha
Kladus Mollusca Subtype Chordonia
Kladus Molluscoidea Kladus Tunicata

Kladus Acrania
Kladus Vertebrata

Klassen Cyclostomata, Pisces,
Amphibia, Reptilia, Aves,
and Mammalia (with the
last four grouped by the
unofficial designation Treta-
poda).

Grobben’s Klasse Aschelminthes contained the Rotatoria or Rotifera, Gastro-
tricha, Kinorhyncha, Nematoda, Gordiacea, and Acanthocephala.

Poche (1911) divided the Kingdom Animalia (p.67) into Supersubkingdoms,
Subkingdoms, Phyla, Subphyla, Supersuper Klassen, Super Klassen, and
Klassen. In his system, our unsegmented worms came under the following
classifications :

Subkingdom Coelomatodea (p. 87)
Subsubkingdom “ Coelomatali, 1877, p. 441” (p. 88)
Supersuper Phylum Zygoneura
Phylum Platodaria (p. 89)
Subphylum Platodes
Klassen Planarioidea, Cestoidea
Subphylum Nemertarii (p. 90)
Klasse Nemertoidea
Phylum Articulata
Subphylum Vermarii (p. 91)

878 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Supersuper Klasse Rotiferomorpha
Klassen Gastrotricha, Rotifera (pp. 91, 92)

Supersuper Klasse Echinoderomorpha
Super Klasse Echinoderoidea
Supersuper Klasse Gordiomorpha
Klassen Gordioidea Tratsach, 1889, p. 20; Necto-
nematoidea (p. 93)

Supersuper Klasse Tardigradomorpha
Klasse Tardigrada Sieb., 1848, p. 506 (r. 94)

Supersuper Klasse Vermomorpha
Super Klasse Vermes
Klassen Dinophiloidea, Histriobdelloidea, Annulata

Subsuper Klasse Gephyrea
Klassen Echiuroidea, Epithetosomatoidea,
Priapuloidea, Sipunculoidea
Subphylum Peripatorii
Klasse Onycophora
Subphylum Linguatularii
Klasse Linguatuloidea
Subphylum Arthropoda
Super Klasse Carcinomorphae
Subsuper Klasse Carcinomorphi
Klasse Carcinoidea
Subsuper Klasse Pycnogonomorphi
Klasse Pycnogonoidea
Subsuper Klasse Arachnomorphi
Klasse Arachnoidea
Super Klasse Tracheata
Subsuper Klasse Progoneata
Klassen Pauropoda, Diplopoda, Insecta

Phylum Nemathelminthes (p. 101)
Klasse Nematoidea Rud., 1808, p. 252, 1809, p. 324

Phylum Acanthocephalaria (p. 101)
Klasse Acanthocephaloidea

ee ee er

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Phylum Bryozoaria

Supersubphylum Actinotrochariae

Klasse Actinotrochoidea

Supersubphylum Bryozoa

Subsuperphylum Ectoproctadae
Klasse Ectoprocta Nitsche, 1869, p. 34

Subsubphylum Entoproctadae
Klasse Entoprocta Nitsche, 1869, p. 34.

879

Ward (1917) further subdivided the Eunematoda into the Suborders
Myosyringata (p. 9) and Trichosyringata (p. 9).

Cobb (1919) proposed the Phylum Nemates (p. 214), listing ‘‘ Nematoidea
sensu restricto ” as a synonym ; at the same time proposing :

Subphylum Class Subclass
Alaimia Alaima Manitinia
Kinetinia
Laimia Anonchia Anodontia
Odontia
Onchia Homonchia
Heteronchia

Order

Litinia
Bolbinia
Cytolaimia
Tsolaimia
Polylaimia
Apodontia
Synodontia
Synonchia
Mesonchia
Aponchia
Triplonchia
Axonchia
Anaxonchia

Representative
Genus or Genera
Bastiania
Laxus

Monhystera
Rhabdolaimus
Bathylaimus, Plectus
Axonolaimus
Teratocephalus
Enoplus
Fimbrilla (?)
Chromadorella
Tylenchus
Dorylaimus
Oncholaimus

(All representative genera in the above table were found on p. 216 of Cobb’s
1919 publication ; all higher taxa on p. 214.)

Since Cobb plainly stated (p. 216) that the representative genera were
temporary, and the type genera were to be designated later, those he cited

cannot be regarded as type genera.

In 1920, he published new genera in all

of his orders ; usually where one genus has the same stem as the ordinal name,

880 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

such a genus might conceivably be designated type genus, but Cobb did not
do so. This is a very awkward business because, by designating by selection
any genus listed as a representative genus in 1919 or described in 1920 in the
Order, one could have sufficient orders to accommodate the greater part of the
nemic genera ; with a very few exceptions, Cobb’s (1919-1920) orders, classes,
and subclasses would have priority. However, in every single case, between
his 1919 and 1920 articles, Cobb mixed up his subphyla, classes, subclasses,
and orders to such an extent that he appeared ridiculous.

Cobb’s great contribution was the naming of the phylum Nemates (p. 214)
and excluding all other types of organisms (including gordiids) from it. Cobb
definitely deserves the credit for first recognising the group as a phylum and
making the logical exclusions. The writer feels that even Dr. Cobb would
approve of the suppression of all his other higher taxa to the cause of the
phylum name Nemates (or the emended name Nemata). In 1931, Cobb gave
a satisfactory diagnosis of the phylum Nemates by his criticism of zoologists
for their mishandling of the group. While it was not the best way to “ win
friends and influence people ”’, Cobb at that time had fought for his concepts,
including the use of the vernacular word nema and its derivatives, since 1917,
when he first introduced it. The writer, having been one of his employees at
the time he wrote his polemic (1931) and his article on the “‘ English Word
‘Nema’” in 1932, knows he retired with a feeling of defeat, having converted
so few people to his views. Dr. Cobb, in the writer’s opinion, was one of the
greatest zoologists of any age. The recognition of his phylum Nemates (em-
ended Nemata) is the least that we can do to make up for his “ persecution ”
during his life. Upon Cobb’s retirement and death, neither the present
writer, nor his other former associates, were convinced that the group warranted
phyletic rank. In the face of a united front from the parasitologists, the writer
himself did not feel up to battling for Cobb’s views. It has only been recently,
after a survey of the literature, that the writer, being convinced of Cobb’s
correctness in this regard and desiring to see belated justice done, has taken
up the cause. Although it has no bearing on official zoologic nomenclature,
the writer would like to note in passing that the word nema is now in Webster’s
New International Dictionary, Unabridged (1954, p. 1639).

In the period from 1913 to 1916, several workers were active in- proposing
superfamilies and suborders of nemas ; particularly Railliet and Henry in France
and Skrjabin in Russia ; later, Travassos in Brazil. These names, as well as
those that followed, were primarily higher taxa of animal parasites, and were
based on generic names and presumptive type genera. Since we tend to
follow priority in these cases, no discussion is necessary (except for the
“homonymy ” of the names in series [see p. 885 of the present article]).

In 1926, Yorke and Maplestone published a book on the nemic parasites
of vertebrates, in which they divided the Class Nematoda Rud., 1808 emend.

st ttn nn et i ih il ets te) te

eee ree ae, ? eee

eet

(ES eS Sore”

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 881

Dies., 1861 into the orders Eunematoda Ward, 1916, and Gordiacea Siebold,
1848 (all on p. 15). Within the order Eunematoda they went directly to the
superfamilies Rhabdiasoidea (p. 26), Trichuroidea (p. 20), Strongyloidea (p. 33),
Dioctophymoidea (p. 176), Oxyuroidea (p. 181), Ascaroidea (p. 254), Spiruro-
idea (p. 288), and Filarioidea (p. 387)—all of these groups being attributed to
previous authors.

Baylis and Daubney also came out with a book in 1926, in their case
treating the families and genera of the Class Nematoda. Within the class they
recognised five orders: Ascaroidea (p. 1), Strongyloidea (p. 150), Filarioidea
(p. 193), Trichinelloidea (p. 237), and Dioctophymoidea (p. 235). They, like
Yorke and Maplestone, attributed all their higher taxa to previous authors
(even though several of the prior usages of the words had been at the super-
family level); but they omitted suborders and superfamilies, proceeding
directly to the families. They deserve credit for assembling the information
on all types of nemas. Their handling of free-living forms, however, was quite
inadequate.

In 1929, Filipjev suggested a much more satisfactory classification of the
Nematoda, recognising 11 orders: Anguillulata (p. 284), Enoplata (p. 284),
Chromodorata (p. 284), Desmoscolecata (p. 285), Monhysterata (p. 285),
Dioctophymata (p. 285), and Trichurata (p. 285). No authorships were cited
for any of these orders ; but the second to fifth, inclusive, were definitely new.
The stems of the remainder of the names had all be used for higher taxa by other
authors previously—mostly for suborders with the same spellings, though in
one or two cases, with the -oidea ending, for superfamilies.

Rauther (1930a) proposed a classification of the Class Nematodes—
Nematoidea (p. 249), in which he divided them into two orders :

Order Hologonia (p. 365)
Suborder Dioctophymoidea (p. 365)
Suborder Trichuroidea (p. 366)

Order Telogonia (p. 367)
Suborder Filaroidea (p. 367)
Suborder Strongyloidea (p. 375)
Suborder Ascaroidea (p. 379).

Rauther’s chief division was based on the origin of germ cells in the reproductive
system. As such it worked rather well; but we now know that though the
forms grouped under Hologonia are related, similar origins of germ cells occur
occasionally in forms placed in his Telogonia, and that certain telogonic forms
are more closely related to some of the hologonic forms (trichuroids) than the

882 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

two suborders of Hologonia are to each other. As a consequence these names
have been dropped, but with no discredit to the author. As a matter of fact,
his handling of free-living nemas was definitely superior to that of Baylis
and Daubney (1926), though not as good as that of Filipjev (1929). Rauther
(1930b) also classified the Class Nematomorpha (p. 403) into two orders:
Gordioidea (p. 445) and Nectonematoidea (p. 446).

Potts (1932), possibly stimulated in part by Cobb’s (1931) article, promoted
the Nematoda (p. 209) and Rotifera (p. 204) to phylum rank. Shortly there-
after (1935) he also promoted the Nematomorpha (p. 527) to phylum rank.

DeConinck and Stekhoven (1938) published a classification of free-living
nemas very similar to that of Filipjev (1929), but using the -oidea ending for
orders. They listed the Chromadoroidea (p. 25), Monhysteroidea (p. 25),
Araeolaimoidea (p. 93), and Enoploidea (p. 25) as orders. No suborders and
superfamilies were proposed.

Stimulated by Filipjev’s work, the writer and M. B. Chitwood (1933)
proposed a division of the Class Nematoda into two subclasses: Phasmidia
(p. 131) and Aphasmidia (p. 131); basing their classification primarily upon
the nervous system (phasmids) but citing other systems as supplementary.
Later (1937), the present writer offered the complete classification down to
superfamily (listing families) and, with M. B. Chitwood (1937), gave a more
extended account. It was not until 1940 that M. B. and B. G. Chitwood
realised their subclasses were actually synonyms of von Linstow’s (1905)
orders Secernentes (p. 127) and Adenophori (p. 132), and so indicated. In
the meantime Pearse (1936) had promoted the subclasses to classes Phasmidea
(p. 10) and Aphasmidea (p. 10). The writer (1940, p. 202) came to the conclusion
that the phylum Nemata as proposed by Cobb was a valid group, and that the
subclasses Phasmidia and Aphasmidia should take the rank of classes. There-
fore it is reasonable to say that, though continuing to use the Phasmidia and
Aphasmidia in other chapters of the book, M. B. and B. G. Chitwood promoted
the Secernentes and Adenophori to the ranks of class in 1940.

Pearse (1942) made several new subclasses : Rhabditia (p. 137), Spiruria
(p. 146), Enoplia (p. 155), and Chromadoria (p. 136). He recognised the
following orders :

Rhabditida Chitw., 1933, p. 131

Strongylida [Looss, 1911] Sprehn, 1927 [Baylis and Daubney, 1926] Pearse,
1942, p. 136

Ascarida [Baylis and Daubney, 1926] Sprehn, 1927, Pearse, 1942, p. 136

—s ee a ee

i &

ee im

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 883

Spirurida Chitw., 1933, p. 135

Dioctophymatida Pearse, 1942, p. 158

Dorylaimida Pearse, 1942, p. 156

Monhysterida, p. 136

Camallanida [(Chitw., 1937)] Pearse, 1942, p. 146
Spirurida [(Railliet and Henry, 1915)] Chitw., 1933, p. 131.

He also promoted many of the previous superfamilies to subordinal rank, and
thereby formed many more ‘‘ homonyms” [see p. _ of the present discussion].

Thorne (1949) proposed the Order Tylenchida (p. 37) and several other
promotions in lower ranks. Orders and suborders of both “ free-living ” and
plant-parasitic nemas have been proposed since—with great diversity in endings,
re-emphasising the need for prescribed endings [see p.__].

In 1950, the writer unfortunately did not follow the 1940 decision that the
names Phasmidia and Aphasmidia were rightfully synonyms of Secernentes
and Adenophori, although the statement referring to this was left in the revision
of his book. In the preface, however, he excused himself for not making the
changes in nomenclature (at that time particularly uniform endings), because
of the number of changes that would be necessary. He also failed to use the
phylum name Nemata, continuing to use the name Nematoda. This whole
matter was an unwillingness to flaunt zoologic public opinion, since at the time
he was also aware that the very name Phasmidia was a homonym of an insect
group. He did, however, characterise the Subkingdom Scolecida (p. 204),
mention the name Aschelmintha (p. 199), and place the Vermes Amera (p. 203)
as an alternative name for the Scolecida. (Whether this constitutes promotion
of the Amera Biitschli, 1910, to Subkingdom rank is a matter for the Inter-
national Commission to pass upon.)

Discussion of higher taxa

(a) Subkingdom.—Our discussion must, of necessity, begin with the sub-
kingdom. Whether or not Scolecida (Huxley, 1864) Chitw., 1950 is a homonym
of the Ordnung Scoleina Vogt, 1851 (for Oligochaeta) is a question for the
International Commission to decide. Vogt did not cite his derivation. There
are a number of Greek words with similar stems that have been used in zoology,
including oxdAné, scolex, worm, stem scolec-, and oxdAos, thorn or prickle,
stem scol-. Either word might be applied to oligochaetes. In quoting
Gegenbaur (1859, p. 138), Braun (1889, p. 224) purposely or inadvertently
emended the spelling of Vogt’s name to Scolecina. Assuming it is ruled that
Scolecida Huxley, 1864, is a homonym of Scoleina Vogt, 1851, then Amera

884 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Biitschli, 1910, becomes the first available synonym. Whether or not the
present writer (1950, p. 203) effected its promotion to subkingdom by mentioning
Vermes Amera as an alternative name, is a matter of opinion.

(b) Phylum Names.—The phylum names Nemerta [[(Oersted, 1844)]
Lankester, 1900] Chitw., 1950, p. 199, and Rhynchocoela (Schultze, 1851)
Benham, 1901, are up for ruling or choice. In this case it is clear that
Lankester (1900, p. 5) first promoted the Nemertina to phylum rank ; but
Benham (1901, p. 159)—in Lankester’s own series, presumably with the
editor’s permission—promoted the Rhynchocoela to phylum rank, preserving
the Nemertina at class level.

The phylum names Echinodera and Kinorhyncha are another case for
choice. Pearse (1936, p. 10) promoted the Echinodera to phylum rank, and
placed Kinorhyncha in parenthesis. The Kinorhyncha is preferred by many
because of the similarity of the name Echinodera to Echinoderma or Echino-
dermata.

The phylum names Nemata [[(Rud., 1808 ?)] Cobb, 1919] Pearse, 1936,
p. 10 ; Nematoidea (Rud., 1808) Lankester, 1877, p. 441, restricto Cobb, 1919,
p. 214 ; and Nematoda (Diesing, 1861) Potts, 1932, p. 209, are subject to a ruling.
In this case the writer, on the grounds of the derivation of the word, can see
no justification for the name Nematoda. He would prefer to see the matter
settled objectively by a committee of specialists being appointed to examine,
if possible, the specimens placed by Rudolphi in the genus Filaria and trans-
ferred by von Siebold to Gordiws and Mermis. If von Siebold was correct,
and some of these were nematomorphs, the phylum Nemata would be the
obligatory name. If Rudolphi was correct, and they really are not nemato-
morphs, the phylum Nematoidea would be obligatory.

The names for the phyla Gastrotricha (Metchnikoff, 1865) Pearse, 1936,
p. 10; Nematomorpha (Vejdovsky, 1886) Potts, 1935, p. 527; Entoprocta
(Leuckart and Nitsche, 1877) Storer, 1951, p. 380; and Acanthocephala
(Rudolphi, 1808) Lankester, 1900, p. 5, seem to be subject to no deliberation.
The phylum Rotifera (Cuvier, 1817) Potts, 1932, p. 204, would have precedence
over Rotatoria (Ehrenberg, 1831) Pennak, 1953, p. 10, by the published
opinions of many workers. Since Minot (1876) first excluded nemertans from
the flat worm phylum and used the spelling Platyhelminthes—presently emended
to Platyhelmintha, the writer would tend to cite this name Phylum Platy-
helmintha [(Vogt, 1851) Minot, 1876] Pearse, 1936, p. 8; but it could also
justifiably be rendered Platyelmia (Vogt, 1851) Lankester, 1900, p. 5, sensu
restricto Minot, 1876, p. 24, or Platyelma [([Vogt, 1851] Minot, 1876) Lankester,
1900] ortho mut. nov.

(ec) Classes and Orders.—There is a choice between Cestoidea (Rud., 1808)
Poche, 1911, p. 89; Cestodea [(Rud., 1808)] Pearse, 1936, p. 10, and Taeniea
[Huxley, 1864] ortho mut. nov., for the tapeworms.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 885

For a good many years, the writer has been aware that the Subclass and
Class names Phasmidia, Phasmidea proposed by Chitwood and Chitwood (1933)
for a group of nemas is a homonym of the insect Order or Suborder variously
rendered Phasmida, Phasmatodea, Phasmoidea, Phasmodea; based on the
genus Phasma Lichtenstein, 1796 (Cat. Rerum Nat. 3 : 49). The writer must
confess that he has by no means exhausted the entomologic literature on the
subject. In the little tracing done, however, he has concluded that without
uniform endings by the rules in the past, even for families, the entomologists
have had as much trouble as helminthologists are now having in determining
the ranks given names by various authors. Brues and Melander (1932)
recognised an Order Phasmatodea (pp. 17, 61), listing as synonyms : Phasmida,
Phasmodea, Phasmoidea, and Gressoria. Krauss and Wolff (1919) placed
the insect Order Phasmida in the ‘‘ Ordnungsgruppe ”’ Orthopteroidea (p. 171),
first mentioning the Phasmida as an order on p. 69, and later discussing the
group (pp. 157, 159). The Order Phasmida has been attributed to Leach
(1815)—but according to Krauss (1902, p. 534), this was only what Leach
called the group (1817-1818), not an Order, and the same is supposed to have
been true in the case of Phasmodea Burmeister, 1838, and Karsch, 1893.
The “‘ Gruppe ” Phasmodea (p. 540) was placed by Krauss (1902) in the middle
of the series of Familie Phasmidae and Unterfamilie Phasminae. Verhoeff
(1902, p. 30) named the Insectenordnung Phasmodea, placing it in the Salta-
toria. Handlirsch (1903) placed the Ordnung Phasmoidea (p. 727) in the
Unterkl. Orthopteroidea. Poche (1903, p. 239) emended the spellings to Fam.
Phasmatidae, Unterfam. Phasmatinae and “ Gruppe”? Phasmatodea. From
the writer’s standpoint further documentation is unnecessary, inasmuch as
the use of Phasmodea, Phasmoidea, and Phasmida as orders definitely antedates
our use of Phasmidia (1933) as a subclass, by 14 to 31 years.

The writer (1951) verified Cobb’s (1928) observation of a phasmid-like
structure on Syringolaimus smarigdus (p. 647, fig. 9K) and illustrated similar
areas on the tails of T'ricoma spinosa and T’. spinusoides (p. 644, figs. 8H,
8D-E, resp.). He proposed for these areas the term phasma. Other workers
have illustrated structures which they thought were phasmids in various
“aphasmidian”’ nemas, and both the writer and others have been wholly

unable to demonstrate even the rudiments of phasmids in a large part of the
Order Tylenchida.

No action of the Commission appears necessary on this case of homonymy,
inasmuch as the name character itself, i.e., presence or absence of organs
termed phasmids in the Nemata seems to have been an error, and, in addition,
both the names Secernentes and Adenophori von Linstow, 1905, have priority.
The writer is only too glad to withdraw the names Phasmidia and Aphasmidia
in favour of Secernentea and Adenophorea. Von Linstow’s names—empha-
sising the excretory system—definitely tie the Secernentea, through the tubular
character of the system, to the other protonephridial forms. The character
thus appears quite fundamental. Whether or not the promotion of Secernentes

886 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

and Adenophori von Linstow to class rank was effected by M. B. and B. G.
Chitwood (1940, pp. 127, 132) or by B. G. Chitwood (1940, p. 202), is a matter
of opinion.

Although Dr. Dougherty has called the writer’s attention to the fact that
Enopla Schultze, 1852 (Nemerta or Rhynchocoela) antedates Enoplata Filipjev,
1929 (Nemata, Nematoidea or Nematoda), the writer takes the attitude that
since Enopla Schultze, 1852, is not based on an included genus, but that the

genus Hnoplus Dujardin, 1844 (p. 230) antedates it, the stem Enopl- must be.

preserved for the nemic group. Benham (1901) stated that the orders Anopla
and Enopla Schultze were unsound, and they have been dropped by many
specialists of the group—despite their promotion to class rank by Coe (1943,
p. 222). Some of the order names in the phylum Nemerta or Rhynchocoela
will have to be decided upon, since there have been differences of opinion.
The writer has preferred to leave this matter in abeyance for the time being, as
also the classes and orders of Rotifera, so that the histories of the various names
may be studied by specialists of these groups.

Suggestions.—In general, it would appear wise for the Commission to
rule against names of higher taxa denoting likeness to any group of animals
not included in the same taxa. The writer can see only difficulties in their
acceptance, ¢.g., Phasma Lichtenstein, 1796, loc. cit. (insect)—Phasmidia (nema).
Also—Bdella Latreille, 1795, Mag. encyclop. 3(13) : 18; 1796, Précis Caract.
Ins. : 180 (arachnid) ; Bdellia Westwood, 1840 in Blyth’s Cuvier, Anim. Kingd. :
399 (leech) (pro -la Savigny, 1822) not Bdellia Enderlein, 1928, Z. angew. Ent.
14 : 359 (dipteran fly) ; Bdella (Savigny, 1822, Descr. Egypte 1(3) (Ann.) : 112
(leech)—Bdelloidea auct. (rotifer higher taxon).

The writer has searched in vain for any single formula that would justify
all of the presently used higher taxa. The closest he could come would be to
suggest as a formula that the name used by the first worker to rank the group
as presently ranked (excluding all necessary forms and including the then
known necessary forms) be accepted, providing the name does not indicate
any similarity to any group of animals excluded from the group. For placement
on an Official List a waiting period of fifty years after original publication might
well be required.

Regardless of what decisions are made as to higher taxa by the International
Congress, the writer heartily endorses the attitude that scientists who disagree
with the International Commission on the validity of particular names for
scientific reasons should not be proscribed from using the names they believe
to be correct in scientific journals. A contrary view would amount to censorship
of scientific writings and might well discourage many good systematists. In
democracies it is quite common for the majority to be in error. Progress in
science, as in other community efforts, depends to a large degree on the dissident
minority groups.

wt AOL OG ae

Ee a ee oe rent es

ee eS oe

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 887

Uniform endings for higher taxa

The writer has noted in the Copenhagen Decisions (Decision 67) the recom-
mendation of the Colloquium that the matter of uniform endings for names in
the Order/Class Group and the Phylum-Group be brought to the attention of
the Specialist Committee ; but the Colloquium was of the opinion that there
should be no prescribed terminations for such names.

The very fact that instructions to investigate such questions were issued
is evidence of the need. The writer feels there should be no reason to drop
the matter at this time despite opposed views. The writer has no idea who
first started the practise of uniform endings for higher taxa. But, when
the matter was first called to our attention about 1932-1933, those of us in the
field of helminthology in the U.S.A. immediately agreed to it—despite the
fact that it meant changing the terminations of many commonly used group
names in this country. At that time Baylis and Daubney (1926) had recently
published a book using the -oidea ending for orders. Yorke and Maplestone
in their book published in the same country, England, and in the same year
(1926), had used the -oidea ending for superfamilies. The latter endings
previously had been used for superfamilies by Railliet and Henry, in France,
who also used the -ata ending for suborders. In addition to these “ systems ”’,
there was Rauther’s (1930) use of the “ -oidea”’ ending for orders and the
“ -iformes ” ending for superfamilies. The present writer does not even know
who originated the system of uniform endings that we all eventually adopted
in 1936. But since A. S. Pearse (1936) was the man whose name appeared on
the A.A.A.S. report, he will call it the Pearse system. Tracing back, one notes
that F. Poche (1911) proposed another system of uniform endings ; that at
least H. B. Stenzel (1950), C. Hubbs (1953), and Berg (quoted by Hubbs, 1953)
proposed such systems. All of these systems have their good points, the
greatest of which is that the reader would not need to know the taxonomic
level intended by an author to be able to interpret his writings.

Nomenclature in the field of helminthology has improved a bit since
1936 but uniformity in endings to indicate rank is still far from international.
In the field of nematology today there are apparently several systems extant.
Assuming we did agree to accept the system used by some other group of
workers, however, without its incorporation in the International Rules we would
have no assurance that they might not change the system. The writer believes
he represents in this the majority of helminthologists in the U.S.A. when he
says that he would accept any set of uniform endings incorporated in the
International Rules. He feels this is more important than Official Lists of
higher taxa, and should be a corollary of such lists. At the present time some
workers on continental Europe use the termination “‘ -oidea ” for orders, and
do not bother with suborders or superfamilies. Others use the -oidea ending

888 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

for superfamilies and the termination “ -ata ’’ for suborders, while still others
have adopted the “ Pearse system” in which “ -oidea”’ is used for super-
families and “ -ina ’’ forsuborders. In our field the chief difficulty is encountered
with the -oidea ending, since one never knows whether it is meant as a super-
family or order. In fact, it is so bad that unless an author states the rank
intended, one can only guess from the context. One cannot “tell a player
without a program ”’. The various systems of terminations that the writer has
encountered in a far from exhaustive search of the literature are as follows :

Various systems of terminations for higher taxa

RANK AUTHOR
‘** Pearse ”’ Stenzel Hubbs

Kingdom

Supersubkingdom

Subkingdom

Subsubkingdom

Supersuperphylum

Superphylum

Subsuperphylum

Phylum

Supersubphylum

Subphylum

Supersuperclass

Subsuperclass

Superclass

Class

Subclass

Superorder “i -oilei
Order -(i)formes -oidei
Suborder i -oidei i -oinei
Superfamily -oidea -ilae
Family (Official) -idae -idae
Subfamily (Official) -inae -inae -inae
Supertribe idi -ali
Tribe (Subsubfamily) ini -adi
Subtribe i -ani

At the time of the adoption of the “ Pearse system” by the A.A.A.S.
Committee, some protests were raised by entomologists and ichthyologists

ee ee oe

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 889

who did not want to change the terminations of their ordinal names. In
the field of helminthology, the sole formal protest was from Dr. G. Steiner
(Pearse, 1936, p. 3), who stated that changing from the subordinal -ata ending
to the -ina ending would be “ objectionable because identical names already
have good standing as genera in the same group (Rhabditina Cobb, 1922 ;
Chromadorina Filipjev, 1926)’. The present writer never bothered to answer
this criticism since he could not at that time (and still has not) locate any article
in which Cobb named a genus Rhabditina, and at that time the genus Chroma-
dorina Filipjev, 1926, had been synonymised. At any rate, it is the custom
to italicise generic names even when appearing without a specific name. Since
that time the genus Chromadorina Filipjev, 1926, has been revived with addi-
tional species having been described. Scientists of the U.S.S.R. persist in
using the -ata termination for suborders but, apparently, use the -ida
termination for orders. The writer would like very much to see the Inter-
national Commission settle these differences by designating “‘ Official Uniform
Endings for Higher Taxa ”’, regardless of which group wins or even if it is a
compromise. In his opinion, it would do more for stabilising nomenclature
than the Official Lists of Phyla, Classes, and Orders.

References

Baylis, H. A., & Daubney, R. (1926), A synopsis of the families and genera of
Nematoda: Brit. Mus. Nat. Hist., London : 1-277

Benham, W. B. (1901), ‘‘ The Platyhelmia, Mesozoa, and Nemertini ”’ Part IV
in: Treatise on Zoology : (Lankester) Adam & Charles Black, London :
4 : 1-204

de Blainville, H. [=H.M.D.] (1828), Vers. in Dict. Sc. Nat. 57 : 365-628, pls.
27-28

Bory de Saint Vincent, J. B. G. M. (1828), Dictionnaire classique d’ Histoire
Naturelle: Rey & Gravier, Le Normant, Paris : 57 : 1-628

Braun, M. (1889), Vermes. Bronn’s Klassen und Ordnung des Thierreichs :
C. F. Winter’sche Verlags., Leipzig: 4: Abt. la, Lief 7 : 257-304,
figs. 1-2

Brues, C. T., & Melander, A. L. (1932), “‘ Classification of insects ’’, Bull. Mus.
Comp. Zool. Harvard College : 73 : 1-672, illust.

von Biitschli, O. (1876), “‘ Untersuchungen iiber freilebende Nematoden und
die Gattung Chaetonotus ”’, Zischr. Wiss. Zool. 26(4) : 363-413, pls. 23-26

—— (1910), Vorlesungen iiber vergleichende Anatomie, 1. Lieferung : Einleitung ;
Vergleichende Anatomie der Protozoen ; Integument und Skelet der Metozoen :
W. Engelmann, Leipzig : 1-401, figs. 1-264

Carpenter, W. B. (1858), Zoology, a new edition revised by W. S. Dollas:
Henry G. Bohn, Covent Garden, London : 2 : 1-588, illust.

GGG

890 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Carus, J. V. (1863), Handbuch der Zoologie, Raderthiere, Wiirmer, Echinodermen,
Coelenteraten und Protozoen : Wilhelm Engelmann, Leipzig ; 2 : 1-642

delle Chiaje, S. (1841), Descrizione e notomia degli animali invertebrati del regno
di Napoli :
or (1841), Descrizione e notomia degli animali invertebrati della
Sicilia citoreriore, osserveti vivi negli anni 1882-1830: 4, fol. 2 v. atlas
Napoli
or (1843), Untersuchengen iiber das Polystoma in menschichen
Blut. (Abst. 1835) Isis (Oken) (1) 151

Chitwood, B. G. (1937), “A revised classification of the Nematoda.” Papers
on Helminthology, 30 Year Jubileum, K. J. Skrjabin, All-Union Lenin
Akad. Agric. Sc., Moscow : 67-79

—— (1940), “‘ Nemic relationships ’’ Chapt. XIII in: Chitwood, B. G., &
Chitwood, M. B., An Introduction to Nematology, Sect. I, Pt. 3: Leader
Press, Babylon, N.Y. : 190-204, illust.

—— (1950), ‘‘ Nemic relationships’? Chapt. XIII in: An Introduction to
Nematology, Sect. I, Rev. Ed.: Monumental Printing Co., Baltimore, Md.:
191-213, illust.

—— (1951), “‘ North American marine nematodes ”, Texas J. Sc. 3(4) : 617-
672, illust.

Chitwood, M. B., & Chitwood, B. G. (1940), ‘‘ The excretory system ”’ Chapt. IX
in : An Introduction to Nematology, Sect. I, Pt. 3 : Leader Press, Babylon,
N.Y.: 125-134, illust.

Cobb, N.S. (1917), “A new parasitic nema found infesting cotton and potatoes ”’
J. Agric. Res. 11(1) : 27-383, figs. 1-5

—— (1919), ‘“‘ The orders and classes of nemas ”’ Contrib. Sc. Nemat. 8 : 213-216

—— (1920), “‘ One hundred new nemas (types of 100 new genera) ” Contrib.
Sc. Nemat. 9 : 217-3438, illust.

—— (1928), ‘“‘A new species of the nemic genus Syringolaimus”’ Contrib. Sc.
Nemat. 19 : 398-402, figs. 1-3

—— (1931), “‘ Some recent aspects of nematology ”’ Science 73 (1880) : 22-29

—— (1932), “ The English word ‘nema’ ” J. Amer. Med. Assoc. 98(1) : 75

Coe, W. R. (1943), ‘‘ Biology of the nemerteans of the Atlantic Coast of North
America”, Trans. Conn. Acad. Arts. & Sci. 35 : 129-329, illust.

de Conick, L. A. & Stekhoven, J. H. S. (1933), ‘‘ Free living marine nemas
of the Belgian Coast. ii. With general remarks on the structure and
system of nemas”’ Mém. Mus. Hist. Nat. Belg. 58 : 1-163, figs. 1-163

Stata:

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 891

Cuvier, G. (1817), Le régne animal distribué d’apres son organisation : Fortin
Masson et Cie, Paris : 4 : j-viii + 1-255, pls. 1-15

—— (1829), Idem. 2 ed. 5 : i-xxiv + 1-556

Dewitz, J. (1892), Die Eingeweidewiirmer der Haussiugetiere : Paul Parey,
Berlin : 1-180, illust.

Diesing, C. M. (1851), Systema Helminthum. : W. Braumiiller, Vindobonae :
2 : 1-588

Dujardin, F. (1842), “ Mémoire sur les Gordius et les Mermes ” Compt. Rend.
Acad. Sc. Paris 15(3) : 117-119

Dutrochet, H. (1817), “ Note sur un annélide d’un genre nouveau” Bull, Sc.
Soc. Philomat., Paris : 3 s. (1817) : 130-131

Ehrenberg, C. G. (1831 [1828]), Symbolae physicae seu icones et descriptiones
corporum naturalium novorum aut minus coquitorum quae ex itineribus
per Libyam, Agyptum, Arabiam et Habessiniam publico institutis sumptu
. . . studio annis 1820-1825 rediderunt. Pars zoologica. Decas prima :
Berolini ex Oficina (title page, 1828 [1.e., plates ; 1831 : text]) unpaged
[1-128], pls. I-VI, I-II, I-11

—— (1836-1837), Die Acephalen des Rothen Meeres und der Organismus der
Mudusen der Ostsee erléutert und auf Systematik angewedet: Berlin :
1-82, pls. 1-8

—— (1837), Ibid. Abhandl. Akad. Wiss. Berlin (1835), Physikal Abhandl. :
181-260, pls. 1-8

—— (1838), Die Infusorienthieren als Kommene Organismen. Fol Leipzig

Filipjev, I. N. (1929), “ Classification of free living Nematoda and relations
to parasitic forms ” J. Parasitol. 15(4) : 281-282

Gegenbaur, C. ( 1859), Grundsiige der vergleichenden Anatomie : Leipzig : I-XIV
+ 1-606, figs. 1-198. Obtained from John Crerar Library, Chicago

Grobben, K. (1909), “ Die systematische Einteilung des Thierreichs ” Verhandl.
K. K. Zool. Bot. Gesellsch. Wien (1908) 58(10) : 491-511, figs. 1-3

Haeckel, E. (1866), Generelle M orphologie der Organismen. Allgemeine Anatomie
der Organismen : Georg Reimer, Berlin: 1 : 1-574, 2 : 1462

—— (1894), Systematische Phylogenie der Protista und Pflanzen. 1. Theil:
Georg Reimer, Berlin : 1-400, illust.

—— (1896), Systematische Phylogenie der Wirbellosen Thiere (Invertebrata).
2. Theil : Georg Reimer, Berlin : 1-720, illust.

Handlirsch, A. (1903), “ Zur Phylogenie der Hexapoden ” Vienna Akad.
Sitzungsb., Math.-Naturw. Kl. 112 : 716-738

892 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Hatschek, B. (1888), Lehrbuch der Zoologie : Gustav Fischer, Jena : 1-432, illust.

Hemming, F. (1953), Copenhagen Decisions on Zoological Nomenclature :
Internat. Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, London : 1-135

—— (1957), “‘ Professor J. Chester Bradley’s Draft: Names, Nomenclatural
Regulations and Their Interrelations with Taxonomy” Bull. Zool.
Nomenclature 14 : 1-190, 191-286

van der Hoeven, J. (1850), Handbuch der Zoologie : Wirbellosen Thiere, Leopold
Voss, Leipzig : 1 : 1-821, pls. 1-15

Hubbs, C. (1853), “ Proposed modifications of the Stenzel system ’”’ Copeia
4 : 251-252

Huxley, T. H. (1864), Lectwres on the elements of comparative anatomy : London :
1-303

— (1853[1852]), ‘‘ Lacinularia socialis. A contribution to the anatomy and
physiology of the Rotifera ” T'r. Micr. Soc. Lond. n.s. 1 : 1-19

—— (1876[1874]), ‘‘ On the classification of the Animal Kingdom ”’ Journ. Linn.
Soc. London Zoology 12 : 199-226

—— (1877), A manual of the anatomy of invertebrated animals : J. & A. Churchill,
London : i-viii + 1-698 + figs. 1-158

Sufre re L. B. (1940), Protozoa through Ctenophora. The Invertebrates : McGraw-
Hill, New York : 1 : 1-726, illust.

—— (1951), Platyhelminthes and Rhynchocoela. The acoelomate Bilataria : Ibid. :
2 : 1-550, illust.

—— (1951), Acanthocephala, Aschelminthes, and Entoprocta : Ibid. : 3 : 1-572,
illust.

Krauss, H. A. (1902), ““ Die Namen der altesten Dermopteren (Orthopteren-)
Gattungen und ihre Verwendung fiir Familien und Unterfamilien-

Benungen auf Grund der jetzigen Nomenclaturregeln’”’ Zool. Anz.
25 : 530-543

Krauss, A., & Wolff, M. (1919), “‘ Einer Ubersicht iiber die bischer aufgestellten
fossilen und rezenten Insektordnungen ” Arch. Naturgesch. J. 85, Abt.
A (3) : 151-171

Lamark, J. B. P. A. (1816), Histoire naturelle des animaux sans vertéebres :
Verdiére, Paris: 3 : 1-586

Lanjouw, J., et al (1956), International Code of Botanical Nomenclature.
I.U.BS.-U.N.ES.C.O. Internat. Bur. Plant Taxonomy and Nomen-

clature of the International Association for Plant Taxonomy: Lange
Nieuwstraat 106, Utrecht, Netherlands : 1-337

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 893

Lankester, E. R. (1877), ‘‘ Notes on the embryology and classification of the
Animal Kingdom ” Quart. J. Micro. Sc. s. 2,17 : 399-454

—— (1900), A Treatise on Zoology : Adam and Charles Black, London : 2 : 1-
178, illust.

Leuckart, K. G. F. R. (1848), Ueber die Morphologie und die Verwantschafts-
verhiltnisse der wirbellosen Thieren. Hin Beitrag sur Charakteristik und
Classification der thierischen Formen: Friedrich Vierweg & Sohn,
Braunschweig : 1-180, 1 pl.

— (1859), ‘‘ Bericht tiber die wissenschatliche Leistungen in der Natur-
geschichte der niederen Thiere waihrend des Jahres 1858 ”’ Arch. Naturg.
25 J. 2 : 97-255

Linnaeus, C. (1758), “Systema Naturae. per Regna Tria Naturae ’’ Laurentii
Salvi, Holmiae, 10 ed., 1 : 1-823

von Linstow, O. (1905), ‘‘ Neue Helminthen ” Arch. Naturg. 71 J. 1(3) : 267-
276, pl. 10, figs. 1-17

—— (1909), ‘“‘ II. Parasitische Nematoden ” Die Siisswasserfauna Deutschlands :
Gustav Fischer, Jena : 15 : 47-83, figs. 1-80

Metchnikoff, E. (1865), ““ Ueber einige wenig bekannte hiedere Thiereformen ”’
Ztschr. Wiss. Zool. 15 : 450-463, pl. 35

Minot, C. 8. (1876), ‘‘ On the classification of some of the lower worms” Proc.
Boston Soc. Nat. Hist. 19 : 17-25

Mueller, O. F. (1777), Zoologiae Danicae seu Animalium Daniae et Norvegiae
rariorum ac minus notorum icones : Hallageriis, Havniae : Fasc. 1 : [3-]4,
pls. 1-40

—— (1783), ‘““Anmerkungen beym, Durchlesen einiger Aufsitze in den 10
ersten Stiicken des Naturforschers ” Naturforscher, Halle : 19 : 159-176

—— (1787), ‘‘ Verzeichniss der bischer entdeckten Eingeweidewiirmer, der
Thiere, in weichen sei gefunden worden, und besten Schriften, die
derselben erwihnen ” Naturforscher, Halle : 22 : 33-86

Nitsche, H. (1870), ‘‘ Beitrage zur Kenntnis der Bryozoen ” Ztschr. Wiss. Zool.
20 : 1-36, pls. 1-2

Oersted, A. S. (1844), Hntwurf einer systematischen Einteilung und speciellen
Beschreibung der Plattwiirmer : Kopenhagen : i-viii + 1-96, figs. 1-18,
pls. 1-3, figs. 1-56

Pearse, A. 8. (1936), Zoological Names, A list of Phyla, Classes, and Orders :
Sect. F, A.A.A.S., Duke Univ. Press, Durham, N.C. : 1-24

—— (1942), An Introduction to Parasitology : Charles C. Thomas, Springfield,
Baltimore : 1-375, illust.

894 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

—— (1947), Zoological Names. A list of Phyla, Classes, and Orders : Sect. F,
A.A.A.S., Duke Univ. Press, Durham, N.C. : 1-22

Pennak, R. W. (1953), Fresh-water invertebrates of the United States : Ronald
Press, New York : 1-769, illust.

Poche, F. (1903), “ Zur Nomenclatur der Orthopteren, nebst einigen allgemein
nomenclatorischen Bemerkungen in Hinsicht auf die neuen inter-
nationalen Nomenclaturregeln ” Zool. Anz. 26(693) : 233-241

— (1911), “Die Klassen und héheren Gruppen des Thierreichs”’ Arch.
Naturg. J. 77, 1 (suppl. 1) : 63-136

Potts, F. A. (1932), in: Borradaile, L. A., & Potts, F. A.: The invertebrata ;
a manual for the use of students: Cambridge Univ. Press ; Cambridge :
1-645, illust.

— (1935), Jbid., 2 ed. : 1-725, illust.

Rauther, M. (1930), “‘ Fiinfte Klasse des Cladus Nemathelminthes ’’ Handb.
der Zoologie: (Kiikenthal u. Krumbach), Walter de Gruyter & Co.,
Berlin & Leipzig : 2, Lief. 10 (4) : 249-402, figs. 1426

Reinhard, W. (1887), “‘ Kinorhyncha (Echinoderes) ihr anatomischer Bau und
ihre Stellung im System ”’ Ztschr. Wiss. Zool. 45 : 401-467, pls. 20-22,
figs. 1-97

Rudolphi, C. A. (1808), Entozoorum sive vermium intestinalium historia naturalis :
Amstelaedami: 1 : 1-527, pls. 1-6

— (1809), Idem. 2 : 1-457, pls. 7-12

Schultze, M. (1851), “‘ Beitrage zur Naturgeschichte der Turbellarien ” 1 Abt. :
C. A. Koch, Greifswald : 1-77, pls. 1-7

—— (1852), “ Zoologische Skizzen ” Ztschr. Wiss. Zool. 4 : 178-195

Scopoli, G. A. (1777), Introductio ad Historiam naturalem sistens genera Lapidum,
Plantarum, et Animalium : Wofgangum Gerle, Prague : 1-373

von Siebold, C. T. (1843), “‘ Bericht iiber die Leistungen im Gebiete der Helmin-
thologie wahrend des Jahre 1842” Arch. Naturg. 9 J., 2 : 300-335

—— (1848), “‘ Lehrbuch der vergleichenden Anatomie der wirbellosen Thiere ”’
in: von Siebold & Stannius, Lehrbuch der vergleichenden Anatomie :
Veit, Berlin : 1 Theil, i-xiv + 1-679 + [1]

Stenzel, H. B. (1950), ‘‘ Proposed uniform endings for names of higher categories
in zoological systematics ” Science 112 : 94

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 895

Storer, T. I. (1951), General Zoology, 2 ed. : McGraw-Hill, New York : 1-832,
illust.

Thorne, G. (1949), “‘ On the classification of the Tylenchida, new order (Nema-
toda, Phasmidia) ” Proc. Helminth. Soc. Wash. 16(2) : 37-73, illust.

Vejdovsky, F. (1886), “ Zur Morphologie der Gordiiden ” Zéschr. Wiss. Zool.
43(3) : 369-433, pls. 15-16

Verhoeff, K. W. (1902), ‘‘ Uber bie Nerven des Metacephalensegmentes und die
Insectenordnung Oothecaria ” Zool. Anz..26 : 21-31, figs. 1-9

Vogt, K. C. (1851), Zoologische Briefe. Naturgeschichte der lebenden und unter-
gangen Thiere fiir lehrer, hoéhere schulen und gebildete aller sténde:
Literarische Anstalt (J. Riitten), Frankfurt :1 : 1-719, figs. 1-925

Ward, H. B. (1903), ‘‘ Nematoda ” in: Buck, A. H. (E. A.) : Ref. Handbook Med.
Sct. 6 : 205-225

—— (1916), “ Nematoda” in: Buck, A. H. (E. A.): Ref. Handb. Med. Sci.
3 ed. 6 : 676-704, figs. 4075-4116

—— (1917), “On the structure and classification of North American para-
sitic worms ” J. Parasitol. 4(1) : 1-12, pl. 1, figs. 1-14

Webster’s New International Dictionary of the English Language (1954), 2 ed.,
unabridg. : G. & C. Merriam & Co., Springfield, Mass. : 1-3194, illust.

Yorke, W., & Maplestone, P. A. (1926), The nematode parasites of vertebrates :
P. Blakiston’s Son & Co., Philadelphia : 1-536, illust.

Zelinka, C. (1907), ‘‘ Zur Kenntnis der Echinoderida ” Zool. Anz. 32 (5/6) : 130-
136

896 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

DOCUMENT 25/12

Notes on the Naming of Higher Taxa, with Special Reference to the
Phylum (or Class) Nematoda

(Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 1242)

By ELLSWORTH C. DOUGHERTY

(Department of Physiology, School of Medicine, and Laboratory of Comparative
Physiology and Morphology* of the Kaiser Foundation, University of California,
Berkeley, California, U.S.A.)

(Enclosure to a letter dated 8th March 1958)

For a previous communication from Dr. Dougherty, see
Document 25/4 (: 523-539 of the present volume)

Mr. Francis Hemming has advised me that he regards excerpts from letters
sent by me to Dr. Benjamin G. Chitwood in November 1957 as suitable for
publication in the volume (Volume 15) of The Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature,
set aside for the agenda of the London Colloquium. I had sent carbon copies
of these excerpts to Mr. Hemming by way of illustrating certain of the general
problems connected with determining the names of “ higher ” zoological taxa
(i.e., of the Order/Class- and Phylum-Groups) and also by way of acquainting
him with the specific problems posed by the Phylum (or Class) known generally
as the Nematoda, although also called the Nemata by a few zoologists, of
whom Dr. Chitwood is the most distinguished and articulate.

2. It was my suggestion that this material, suitably edited, might be
usefully published in the Bulletin. Dr. Chitwood, to whom the proposal
was simultaneously made known, wrote to me strong disapproval of this
idea, for he felt—and with reason, as I then realized—that his view-point

* Contribution no. 17

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 15, Quadruple-Part 25/28, May 1958.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 897

would not get fair hearing if my position alone were published. However, this
objection is met by his being given, at this same time (Chitwood, 1958 : 860
herein), the oportunity to present that position.

3. By way of general explanation of the following excerpts I should first of
all point out that the letters from which they were derived were written at a time
when I was collaborating with Dr. Chitwood in a paper designed to reclassify
the nematodes (what he prefers to call nemas). Subsequently he terminated
the collaboration, and no joint paper of this sort is now contemplated.
Therefore, reference to such publication in the following excerpts should be
ignored. We nevertheless remain in a fully co-operative relationship, and our
differences with respect to nematode classification reflect disageement at a
scientific, not a personal level.

4, Citations to names and to other scientific matters made in the following
excerpts are documented in the list of “‘ References’ at the end of the last
excerpt. Footnotes clarifying certain points have been added and are
numbered consecutively.

5. In summary, I wish to state that I personally favor the following names
for the three highest taxa of Nematodes because I feel that they best serve the
goal of stability and universality of nomenclatural usage (authors are cited
according to conventions* used in Appendices III and V of the letter of 16th
November 1957, to Dr. Chitwood) :

ah RG

Phylum Nematoda [([Rudolphi, 1808] Diesing, 1861) Lankester, 1877]
Potts, 1932.

Partial synonymy.—§Nematoidea Rudolphi, 1808 (Ordo—pp. 197, 198) ;
§Nematoda Diesing, 1861 (Ordo—p. 598); §Nematoidea Lankester,
1877 (Phylum—p. 449); Nemates Cobb, 1919 (Phylum—p. 214) ;
Nematoda Potts, 1932 (Phylum x pp. ix, [214]); Nemata Pearse,
1936 (Phylum—p. 10).

Class Secernentea ([von Linstow, 1905)] Chitwood, 1958.

Partial synonymy.—§Secernentes von Linstow, 1905 (Ordnung—p. 272);
Phasmidia B.G. & M. B. Chitwood, 1933 (Subclass—p. 130; non
[inter alia] Phasmida Krausse & Wolff, 1919 [Ordnung—p. 157)) ;
Phasmidea Pearse, 1936 (Class—p. 10); Secernentes M.B. & B. G.
Chitwood, 1940 ([Subclass or Class]—p. 127); Secernentea B. G.
Chitwood, 1958 (Class—p. ).

* Dr. Chitwood originated the idea of using square brackets to indicate changes in spelling
from the original ; I have elaborated it somewhat and added the symbols: §, #, ¢, and f. (E.C.D.)

-

898 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Class Aphasmidia [(B. G. & M. B. Chitwood, 1933)] Pearse, 1936.

Partial synonymy.— §Adenophori von Linstow, 1905 (Ordnung—p. 273) ;
Aphasmidia B.G. & M. B. Chitwood, 1933 (Subclass—p. 130) ;
Aphasmidea Pearse, 1936 (Class—p. 10); Adenophori M. B. &
B. G. Chitwood, 1940 ([Subclass or Class]—p. 132); Adenophorea
B. G. Chitwood, 1958 (Class—p. ::

Complete citations for all the foregoing names are to be found in the list of
“ References”’. These names occur without (in most cases) complete
documentation in the following excerpts; however, citation in the foregoing
lists supplies that documentation. It is to be noted that the case of Phasmidia
or Phasmidea, the commonly used name of a subclass or class of Nematodes,
presents the kind of homonymy (with the order Phasmida Krausse & Wolff,
1919) that, according to 168(2) of the Copenhagen Decisions . . . (1953 : 42),
should be brought to the attention of the International Commission. Likewise
several homonymous series exist in the Nematoda, of which an example cited
further on (in Appendix III of the letter of 16th November 1957) comprises
Spiruria Pearse, 1942 (Class—p. 146)—Spirurida [Filip’ev, 1929] Chitwood,
1933 (Order—p. 131; syn. Spirurata Filip’ev, 1929: Order—p. 282)—
Spirurina [Railliet & Henry, 1915] Pearse, 1936 (Suborder—p. 10; syn.
Spirurata Railliet & Henry, 1915: Sous-ordre—p. 274). (See also footnote
no. 11.) These cases of homonymy are hereby drawn to the attention of the
International Commission.

Excerpt from a letter dated 4th November 1957 from

ELLSWORTH C. DOUGHERTY to BENJAMIN G. CHITWOOD

then: Chief Nematologist, State Plant Board of Florida, Gainesville ;
now: Research Scientist, Laboratory of Comparative Physiology and Morphology
of The Kaiser Foundation, University of California, Berkeley).

“* Nema ”’ vs. “* Nematode ”’

My feeling now about “nema” as against “nematode” is that the
particular virtue of the former lies in the fact that it is a simple and neutral
word for popular use in English—neutral because, unlike “nematode”, it
does not have the disadvantage of suggesting “toad”. However, I should
like to preserve “‘ nematode ”’ for scientific usage because it is a member of an
international group of cognate words (Nematode ; nématode ; (der) Nematode ;
nematodo ; uematoga; etc.). Out of deference to your views I have no
hesitation at using “nema ”’ as a scientific word in joint publication with you.
And, who knows ?—perhaps the latter will take over in time, first in English,
then in other languages. But in my separate publications I shall continue
to use “‘ nematode ” in most cases, although sometimes I may use both.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 899

T am not much impressed with the arguments of saving secretarial time and
printing expense. English is replete with redundant letters. I should be
interested in a wide-scale simplification of spelling, but, short of that, efforts to
simplify isolated words—as with ‘‘ nematode” (with but 4 extra letters as
compared with “nema ”’)—seem rather quixotic. However, the argument for
shortness is a valid one ; the problem thus resolves primarily into a question as
to whether the difficulties in changing traditional usage cancel out the
advantage of a shorter word. I rather suspect that the answer to this last is
“yes”. But I feel strongly that you are entitled to present your case. And
I am glad to observe that Systematic Zoology has a liberal editorial policy.*

I should warn you, before you lean too much on the point of inappropriate-
ness of “ Nematoda ” on the basis of the classical meaning of vynward5ys, that
the modern Greek word for nema is (76) vnwarddes (pl. vnpatwdy). The
Greeks of today have abandoned the classical meaning of the word and use for
fibrous or filamentous the word ivdédns (m., f.), ivSes (n.), which also occurred
in Classic Greek. My informant is a physician who graduated from the
University of Athenst and who studied yywardéSy (!) in medical school in
Greece.

It would be interesting to know when the word vyparades (for nema)
got back into (modern) Greek from the scientific language of western Europe.
In any case, it apparently found no effective resistance to itself despite its
disagreement with a classic word.

The names Nemata, etc.

The following line of reasoning is what makes me somewhat sympathetic
with your espousal of the phylar name NEMATA. [I regard, as I believe you do,
the strongest point in its favor to be that it was the first name given to the
hemas as a phylum unencumbered with the horse-hair worms, i.e., the first
completely rational phylum as we see it nowadays. Against this, however, is
the fact that Rudolphi named an Order NEMATOIDEA, which was ultimately
promoted to the rank of Phylum by Lankester in 1877. A case can be made for
preferrmg NEMATOIDA (ortho. mut.) to NEMATA—as you have yourself
implied.

Now where does NEMATODA fit into this? I'll postpone answering
this question till further on in this letter, for I think the time has come for us
to inspect all three names from a linguistic point of view :

1. NEMATOIDEA and the emendation NEMATOIDA (from yj and
eidos [ form]—as explicitly stated by Rudolphi in 1808) ;

2. NEMATODA (from vnpardédn s—at least by implication) ;

* Chitwood (in press).
} Dr. Peter Stathakos, Department of Internal Medicine, Kaiser Foundation Hospital,
Oakland, California ; also compare Kykkotis (1947).

900 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
3. NEMATA (from ripe; pl. viata).

At first blush these words all seem to have different Greek origins. But
it is a bit trickier than it seems. I have not yet seen the book by Burmeister
in which NEMATODES was first used as a group name—in that case for a
family (the book is on order through Interlibrary Loan*); but I should be
surprised if I find that he indulged in any esoteric etymological analysis. In
fact, I do not know if anyone has referred to vnuatwdns as the basis for
Nematoda. For example, Neveu-Lemaire (1936, p. 653) gave the following :
“CLASS: NEMATODA Rudolphi 1808” and beneath this “(vjuz, fil;
eldos, forme)”. (The Greek circumfiex can be written either ~ or ~—hence
va OF viyza—the ~ was a late innovation—of Alexandrine times, I believe,
hence past the classical period of Attic Greek. I have consistently written
vpjpa rather than vipa purely out of a sense of preference for the historically
classical form.) Now, Neveu-Lemaire must be counted as in a sense corect,
for the Greek adjectival suffic -wdns is derivable from cidos. In the Attic
dialect of Greek, compound words of which the final part came from this word
underwent a contraction the -O- of the preceding stem with the dipthong
“e.” of eidos to give “mw” (long “o”). The uncontracted form, -oerdns,
was used in the Tonic dialect (in which the medical writings of Hippocrates
were done, for example). Here are some examples from the Liddell-Scott
unabridged Greek lexicon7 :

apaxyviwdns, [apayvia@dles, like a cobweb, Hipp...
apaxvo-erd7s,és, like a cobweb, Hipp .
apayvwdns, [apaxvad|és = apayvoerdys, Arist . .

From this you can see that Hippocrates, who wrote in the Ionic dialect, used
the uncontracted form (at times), whereas Aristotle, who wrote in the Attic
(classic) dialect, used a contracted form.

I further find the following contracted form in my small Greek dictionaryt :
“ yaotp-wdps, €s [gastr-ddés, es] (yaornp, eidos) pot-bellied ”.

Despite a fair amount of searching, I can find no example of an adjective
ending in -oevd7s in that dictionary, but probably because it (the dictionary)
is largely confined to the Attic dialect.

The proper way of transcribing into Latin (i-e., that used by the Roman
scholars of their classic period—some hundred of years later than the “ classic ”
Greek period) required, as I understand it, -ddés for -wd s and -oidés for -oe15ns

* Burmeister (1837, seen as of 19th February, 1958); origin of word not given therein.
{ Liddell & Scott ([1897)).
t (The) Classic Series (1956).

——

ah bur

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 901

(the diphthong ec of Greek generally being reduced to 7 in Latin). It therefore
follows that nematoidea and nematoda are merely orthographic variants, both
derived from vijy.« (gen. vjyparos) and efdos.

The problem does not quite rest there, however. At least as far as the
written language was concerned, it appears to me that Latin did not borrow
very many adjectives of Greek origin ending in -ys (m., f.), -es (n.), for, by
dictionary search at least, I can find very few cases of their having been taken
into Latin at all—let alone in the form that classical rules of transcription
would have required. The reason for this was apparently that adjectives in
-ns, -€s, were rather alien to Latin. Actually the stem of such an adjective,
vnparwdns being taken for example, ended in an -e-, as can be seen by
inspecting the alternative genitive form vypardéde-os. Such an adjective
must have posed real problems to the Romans. They would have wanted to
keep it in their third declension, just as it was in Greek—but it was it then
to be (in the nominative singular) nématddés (corresponding to the contracted
Greek nominative singular), or nématédeis (preserving the full Greek stem,
but then resulting in bizarre—for Latin—plural forms), or nématddis (in
which the stem “e ” (e) of the Greek was sacrificed) ?

In all my dictionary searching* I have found but one case each of the first
and third alternatives, and none of the second. I cannot now recall the example
of the first ; but for the third, I found :

dapsilis, -e [instead of dapsilés or dapsileis] <8ayuAjs, -és—sumptuous
(a typical Latin 3rd declension adjective with nom. sing. ending in
-is [m., f.] and -e [n.]).

One way out for the Romans was to transfer such words to their Ist and
2nd declensions ; in this way they were able to preserve the -e- of the stem.
An example that I have found was :

eugénéus or ius, a, um [instead of eugénés] <ev yes, -és—well born.

I found another case where the -7s,-es was replaced with -atus, -ata, -atum,
but cannot locate it now.

Native Latin adjectives ending in -és, -sé, or -es were few and far between
and were 3rd declensional. They included such words as bipés (gen. bipédis)—
biped ; hébés (gen. hébétis)—blunt, dull ; quadripes (gen. quadripédis)—four-
footed ; etc.

All in all, the -ns, -es adjectives must have seemed to the Romans to have
built-in deterrents to word borrowing.

* In Lewis & Short (1907).

902 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

The foregoing analysis is the result of further study since I recast your
footnote 1 in “ The English word ‘nema’ revised ”’,* plus discussion with a
staff member in the Department of Classics.| I would now suggest modifying
the footnote slightly (as could be done easily in proof, I should think) to read
(3rd line): “... one probable .. .”’ instead of “. . . the most probable ” ;
also the pl. (m., f.) form would better be written “ nématddes”’ than
“ nematodés ”’ (i.e., the macron over the final “e ” should be dropped).

To give you an idea of how complex this problem is, I have prepared the
following table :

Singular Plural

Greek Latin Greek Latin

Nominative
Masculine
and

Feminine

nematodes
[nématodis]t

nematodés

vnatwdns

vynparwders

Neuter

Genitive
Masculine
and
Feminine

VNLAaT@OES

vnwatwdous
or
vnwatwdoes

vnwaTwodous

[nématédes for
neuter]|{

nematodis
[nématodis,
or

nematodeos|t

néematodis
[nematodis]t

vnaTtwdn or
VNMATWSER

vnpaTwdwrv
or
vnpatwdéwv

vnpaTwdwy

nématoda (or
nématodia) or
nematodea

nematodum
(or
nematodium)
[nématodon,
or
nematodedn] .

nematodum
(or

nematodium)
[nématodon]t

I hope I am not boring you with all this linguistics. It is excusable, I
think, not only because writing it serves to make me organize my thinking, but
because it will, I believe, show you the intricacies of this kind of problem.

* Vide footnote f on page 899.

¢ Dr. Elroy L. Bundy, Department of Classics, University of California, Berkeley (to
whom warm thanks are due.—E.C.D.).

+ These are more exact transcriptions, according to the standard rules of Latinization as I
understand them, but result in forms never found in regular 3rd declension Latin adjectives, so
far as I am aware.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 903

Moreover, the reason that the foregoing has pertinence is that, in naming
taxa of organisms, one is supposed to use “‘neo-Latin”. But the plain fact
is that “neo-Latin ” is largely a hypothetical entity as far as I can see.
Zoologists certainly need further guides than what we have. One thing
is clear, however : zoologists have generally acted as if they had licence to
take Greek stems and add Latin endings to suit their fancy. This probably
is no more than just, since the actual Roman practices were diverse and
capricious. (I guess this last fact is as one should expect to find it, for
borrowing from Greek into Latin went on for several centuries, and there
obviously was ample opportunity for styles to change. Moreover, what is
preserved is only what was written. Obviously, one can have no exact idea
of how the Greek that was borrowed into Latin was actually spoken. I venture
to say that there were all conceivable permutations of possible forms for
borrowed words—from those that would have had to be written as faithful
transcriptions of the exact Greek to very free and radical latinizations.)

To get back now to “ Nematoda ”—one can interpret it in any one of
several ways. Since most names of zoological taxa above the Family-Group
of names are best taken as neo-Latin neuter plural adjectives used as
substantives (thus agreeing in gender with the Kingdom name Animalia), one
can select any of the following :

(1) “ Nematoda ” as a transcription of the neuter plural Greek adjective
vnuarwdyn with the y rendered as arather than e (this was commonly
done in classic Latin with terminal 7 in several situations) ;

(2) ““ Nematoda ” as the neuter plural of a neo-Latin adjective némdtédus,
-a, -um, derived from VnLaTwdys ;

(3) “ Nematoda ” as the transcription of vnuardda, the neuter plural of
a neo-Greek adjective vnuaraSo $, -%, -ov (which would be rendered
into Latin as nématodus, -a, -wm—this is in a sense a variation of
saying what is said under 2);

(4) “‘ Nematoda ” as an arbitrary word formed by adding the suffix -a to

the stem nématéd- (derived from vnwarwdns).
You pays no money, but you takes your choices anyway if you want to.

Now to the real meat of the problem. It is the relative position of
Nematoidea or Nematoda (which are really orthographic variants, both derived
from vijpe + e€fSo s) vs. Nemata. At my suggestion you accepted the
formula: Nemata [(Rudolphi, 1808) Cobb, 1919] Pearse, 1936. I now think
that this is wrong. Nemata cannot properly be attributed to Rudolphi as
initial user—but is Cobb’s alone. The reason for this is that the stem nemat-
is derivable from vnma (gen. viparos) only, whereas Rudolphi’s stem
nematoid- must be reckoned a compound of two words—vfua + €fSo Ss, as
also must Burmeister’s stem nematod-.

904 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
Excerpts from a letter dated 16th November 1957 from
ELLSWORTH C. DOUGHERTY to BENJAMIN G. CHITWOOD

(Editorial Note: Here followed four Appendices (Appendices
II to V). These had already been communicated to the Office
of the Commission by Dr. Dougherty under cover of a letter dated
20th November 1957 with a suggestion that they should be
published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. In
accordance with this suggestion Dr. Dougherty’s letter with the
four accompanying Appendices were placed on the London
Agenda Paper, being allotted the Document Number Document
25/4. That Document has been included in Double-Part 16/17 of
the present volume (: 523-539). This Part was published on 21st
March 1958 ((intl’d) F.H. 23rd March 1958)

References

Blanchard, E. (1849), “ Recherches sur l’organisation des vers. (Voyage en
Sicilie.) °’ Ann. Sci. Nat., Zool., ser. 3, 11 : 106-202, pls. 6-8

Burmeister, H.[=K.H.C.] (1837), Handbuch der Naturgeschichte. Zum Gebrauch
bet Vorlesungen Entworfen ...2. Abt.: Zoologie: Verlag von Theod.
Chr. Friedr. Enslin, Berlin: I—XII, 369-858

Biitschli, O. (1910), Vorlesung wber vergleichende Anatomie. 1. Lieferung :
Einleitung ; Vergleichende Anatomie der Protozoen; Integument und
Skelet der Metazoen: Verlag von W. Englemann, Leipzig: 1-401,
figs. 1-264

Chitwood, B. G. (1950), “‘ Nemic relationships ”’ Chapt. XIII in: Chitwood,
B. G., et al.: An Introduction to Nematology, Sect. I, Anatomy (Revised
Ed.) Monumental Printing Co., Baltimore, Md.: 191-205, figs. 142-145

(1958),

(in press), ‘‘ The English word ‘ nema’ revised ” Systematic Zool.

(submitted), ‘ The classification of the phylum Nemata (Rudolphi,
1808) Cobb, 1919” Ibid.

Chitwood, B. G., & Chitwood, M. B.(1933,) ‘The characters of a protonematode”
J. Parasitol. 20(2) : 130

Chitwood, M. B., & Chitwood, B. G. (1940), ‘“‘The excretory system” Chapt. IV
in: Chitwood, B. G., et al.: An Introduction to Nematology, Sect. I,
Pt. III, Leader Press, Babylon, N.Y. : 125-134, figs. 112-114

Classic Series, The (1956), The Classic Greek Dictionary, Greek-English and
English-Greek ...: Follett Publishing Co., New York—Chicago—Los
Angeles: [4] + 1-835; 1-262

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 905

Cobb, N. A. (1919), ‘‘ The order and classes of nemas ” Contrib. Sci. Nematol.
no. VIII : 213-216

(1932), ‘‘ The English word ‘nema’” J. Amer. Med. Assoc. 98(1) :'75

Diesing, K. M. (1861), “ Revision der Nematoden”’ Sitzwngsber. K. Akad.
Wissensch. Wien, Math.-Naturw. Cl. (1860), 42(28) : 595-736, 1 pl.,
figs. 1-12

Ehrenberg, C. G. ([1831]), Symbolae Physicae seu Icones et Descriptiones
Animalium Evertebrorum Sepositis Insectis quae ex Itinere per Africam
Borealem et Asiam Occidentalem Friderici Guielelmi Hemprich et
Christiant Godofredi Ehrenberg Medicinae et Chirurgiae Doctorem Studio
Novae aut Illustratae Redierunt. Decas Prima: Berolini ex Oficina
(Title page, 1828 [ie., plates; 1831: text]): unpaginated [1-128],
pls. I-VI, I-II, I-II.

Filip’ev (Filipjev), I. N. (1929), “ Classification of free living Nematoda and
relations to parasitic forms ” J. Parasitol. 15(4) : 281-282

Grobben, K. (1909), ‘‘ Die systematische Hinteilung des Tierreichs ” Verhandl.
K. K. Zool.-Bot. Gesellsch. Wien (1908) 58(10) : 491-511

Huxley, T. H. (1864), Lectures on the Elements of Comparative Anatomy : John
Churchill & Sons, London : i—viii, 1-698, figs. 1-158

Krausse, A. & Wolff, M. (1919), “‘ Eine Ubersicht iiber die bisher aufgestellten
fossilen und rezenten Insektenordnungen”’, Arch. Naturgesch. Abt. A,
85(3) : 151-171

Kykkotis, I. (1947), English-Greek and Greek-English Dictionary, including
English and Greek Grammar, Geographical and Proper Names and
Abbreviations : Lund Humphries & Co. Ltd., London : i—viii + 1-766

Lankester, E. R. (1877), ““ Notes on the embryology and classification of the
animal kingdom: comprising a revision of speculations relative to the
origin and significance of germ-layers ” Quart. J. Micro. Sci., n.s., 17 :
399-454, figs. 1-17, pl. 25 (figs. 1-20)

Lewis, C. T., & Short, C. (1907), Harpers’ Latin Dictionary, a New Latin
Dictionary founded on the Translation of Freund’s Latin-German Lexicon
(Edited by E. A. Andrews, Ll. D.): American Book Co., N.Y.—
Cincinnati—Chicago : 1-[xiv], 1-2019

Liddell, H. G., & Scott, R. ([1897]), A Greek-English Lexicon : American Book
Co., N.Y.—Chicago—Cincinnati : i-xvi, 1-1776

von Linné, C. (1758), Systema Naturae, per Regna Tria Naturae, Secundum
Classes, Ordines, Genera, Species, cum Characteribus, Differentiis,
Synonymis, Locis: Impensis Direct, Laurentii Salvii, Holmiae: [1-4],
[1]-823 [+ 1]

von Linstow, O. [F.B.] (1905), “‘ Neue Helminthen ” Arch. Naturgesch. J. 71,
1(3) : 267-276, pl. 10 (figs. 1-17)

Neveu-Lemaire, M. (1936), Traité d’Helminthologie médicale et vétérinaire :
Vigot Fréres, Paris: I-X XIII, 1-1514, figs. 1-787

HHH

906 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Pearse, A. S. (1936), Zoological Names. A List of Phyla, Classes, and Orders :

(Prepared for Section F, A.A.A.S.) Durham, N.C. : 1-24

(1942), Introduction to Parasitology: Charles C. Thomas, Springfield-

Baltimore : i-ix, 1-357, figs. 1-448

Potts, F. A. (1932), “The phylum Nematoda ” Chapt. VIII in: Borradaile,
L. A., et al.: The Invertebrata. A manual for the use of students :

Cambridge Univ. Press; The Macmillan Co., N.Y.: 214-227, figs.
166-171

Railliet, A., & Henry, A. [C.L.], (1915) “Sur les nématodes du genre Goezia
Zeder”’ Bull. Soc. Path. exot. 8(5) : 270-275

Rudolphi, C. A. [=K.A.] (1808), Entozoorum sive Vermium Intestinalium
Historia Naturalis: Amstelaedami: Vol. 1, i-xxvi, 1-527, pls. 1-6

von Siebold, C. [T.E.] (1843), ‘‘ Bericht tiber die Leistungen im Gebiete der
Helminthologie wihrend des Jahres 1842” Arch. Naturgesch. J. 9,
2 : 300-335

Vejdovsky, F. (1886), ‘“O strunoveich (Gordiidae) okoli Prazského, s
pozndmkami o jich morfologii ”’ Zprdévy o Zasedini K. Ceské Spoleénosts
Nauk, Trida Mathematicko-prirodovédecki [=Sitzungsber. K. Bohm
Gesellsch., Math.-Naturwiss. Classe], J. 1885 : 620-640. [An expanded
version was printed in German later in 1886: “ Zur Morphologie der
Gordiiden ”’ Zeit. wissen. Zool. 43(3) : 309-433]

Vogt, C. (1851,) Zoologische Briefe. Naturgeschichte der lebenden und unter-
gegangenen Thiere fiir Lehrer, hohere Schulen und Gebildete aller Stande.
Literarische Anstalt (J. Riitten): Vol. 1, [2], 1-719, figs. 1-925

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 907

DOCUMENT 25/13

Comment on the procedure for securing lists of names for
Orders and Classes recommended for stabilisation

By P. C. SYLVESTER-BRADLEY
(University of Sheffield, Sheffield, England)

(Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 1242)

(Enclosure to a letter dated 4th April 1958)

Hemming (D.25/1, para. 3), Hopkins (D.25/7) and others have rightly
drawn attention to the difficulties inherent in appointing committees of special-
ists for the purpose of drawing up lists of the names of Orders, Classes and
higher ranks recommended for stabilisation. Hopkins suggests that in place
of committees, invitations should be extended to individuals, or that individuals
should be encouraged to volunteer. In effect, then, Hopkins suggests that the
procedure would be less cumbersome, and become, indeed, practicable, if the
Committees proposed at Copenhagen were replaced by individuals, whose
recommendations would then be published, and open to comment by all zoo-
logists.

_ 2. Hopkins’ suggestions seem to me to be eminently sane. There is one
difficulty, however, which I think should be foreseen, and steps taken to cir-
cumvent it. Although a general invitation might well evoke an occasional
response on a scale equivalent to the comprehensive proposals provided by
Melville and Durham (D.25/2), it is inevitable that Hopkins’ proposal would
specially encourage individuals to provide lists for the conservation of taxa
relating to relatively minor parts of the animal kingdom, the province of but
few specialist experts. Such proposals are those already provided by Cox
(D.25/6) and Knight, Lemche and Yochelson (D.25/9). From the point of
view of the general zoologist, as also of the Commission, such proposals suffer
in comparison with those more comprehensive in scope in that it is difficult
to be certain how the acceptance of a particular Order or Class name may
affect the stabilisation of names of related taxa in the same phylum. This
difficulty may be illustrated by the further examination of the cases now
before us.

908 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

3. Cox (D.25/6) summarises the history of eight names, each in competition
for that of the class with the genus Chiton as type. He mentions also the name
Amphineura as that of a phylum containing Chiton, but states that, as a phylum,
“it was not synonymous with the series of names under consideration, and
further reference need not be made to it”. I am myself no specialist in this
group of Mollusca, but I am uneasy at this dismissal of the name Amphineura,
for the name has, in fact, been rather often used, as that of a Class containing
Chiton, in general works on palaeontology and zoology. It is so used in the
following : Griindziige der Paldontologie (Zittel, 1903) ; Textbook of Paleontology
(Zittel & Eastman, 1913); Invertebrate Paleontology (Twenhofel & Shrock,
1935) ; Indea Fossils of North America (Shimer & Shrock, 1944) ; Palaeontology
Invertebrate (Woods, 8th edit., 1947) ; Traité de Paléontologie (Piveteau, 1952) ;
Invertebrate Fossils (Moore, Lalicker & Fischer, 1952) ; Manuel de Paléontologie
Animale (Moret, 1953): Principles of Invertebrate Paleontology (Shrock &
Twenhofel, 1953). The list could be considerably extended. Now, so far as
I know, there is nothing in the Copenhagen Decisions that prevents a name
proposed as that of a phylum being transferred to that of a Class. Cox proposes
that the name Polyplacophora be stabilised as that of the Class having Chiton
as type. In several of the works quoted above (including some of those quoted
by Cox in support of his application), the name Polyplacophora is used as that
of an Order within the Class Amphineura. It seems clear to me that it would
be unwise to come to any conclusion as to the future of the name Polyplacophora
without considering the effect that such a conclusion would have on the name
Amphineura.

4. Knight, Lemche, and Yochelson (D.25/9) propose that the Order or
Class name Monoplacophora be stabilised (presumably typified by the genus
Tryblidium). Again, I can claim no specialist qualifications to enable me to
offer any authoritative comment, but I note that the genus T'ryblidium has,
in general works, previously been placed in the Class Amphigastropoda or
Protogastropoda, and has been referred to the Order Cynostraca. It seems to
me important that the future of these other names should be considered at the
same time as the name Monoplacophora.

5. It is clear from the foregoing paragraphs that a decision affecting a
single name is likely to have repercussions on the names of related groups,
and this is all the more the case as no taxa of high rank have yet been officially
stabilised by the choice of type genera, and no Law of Priority applies. Although,
then, I agree with Hopkins that individual specialists should be encouraged
to submit names of Orders and Classes for stabilisation, yet I feel that the
receipt of such applications needs to be followed by a procedure designed
to widen the scope of the enquiry to cover related groups in the same phylum.
I find it difficult myself to formulate a procedure that is not too cumbersome
to be practicable, but I hope that the Colloquium will discuss the problem when
considering this case.

a

te lie Sa, “a ere Dap rte: i aE ES

Ja ae

pve

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 909

DOCUMENT 25/14

Comment on the petition relating to the date and authorship of the
Order/Class name “ Monoplacophora ”’

(Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 1242)

By L. R. COX
(British Museum (Natural History), London)

(Statement received 21st April 1958)

There is a further fact that should be taken into consideration when the
Commission deals with the question, submitted by J. B. Knight, H. Lemche,

and E. L. Yochelson, of the date and authorship to assign to the Order/Class
name Monoplacophora.!

It should not be overlooked that there was a prior usage of the name
Monoplacophora in the Phylum Mollusca, namely, by J. D. F. Gilchrist (1895,
Proc. R. Soc. Edinb. 20 : 358), who proposed to designate those Mollusca
“ protected by two shells only ” as Dipleacophora and those having “a single
shell as a means of protection ”’ as Monoplacophora.

In my opinion it cannot be reasonably maintained that Gilchrist’s names
were not validly introduced for use in taxonomy because his outlook was not
a taxonomic one and no rank was assigned to the groups designated. It is
evident from Gilchrist’s remarks that he considered Monoplacophora and
Diplacophora to rank equally with Aplacophora and Polyplacophora, both always
accepted as names of the Order/Class category, and the use of such a phrase as
“ factors . . . which determine the classification of the sub-groups ” shows
that his approach to the subject was at least in part taxonomic. It thus
appears that Gilchrist’s names have been available for acceptance as names of
the Order/Class category by any workers accepting his basis of classification.

1See Document 25/9 (: 555-556).

910 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

We are therefore faced with a problem of homonymy in names of the
Order/Class category, for Monoplacophora, in the sense of Knight, Lemche,
and Yochelson, was a homonym of Monoplacophora Gilchrist, and, unless
validated by use of the Plenary Powers, was “ still-born ” no matter whether
it is attributed to Wenz, Odhner, or Knight.

I suggest therefore, that, in order to remove this difficulty, the Commission
should also be asked (4) to place the names Monoplacophora Gilchrist and
Diplacophora Gilchrist on the Official Index of Rejected Order|Class Names in
Zoology.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 911

DOCUMENT 27/6
(continued from page 642)

A Critique of Professor Chester Bradley’s ‘‘ Principle of Conservation ”’

(Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 861)

By PHILIP HERSHKOVITZ
(Chicago Natural History Museum, Chicago, Illinois, U.S.A.)

(Enclosure to a letter dated 28th March 1958)

[The following critique is contributed as a supplement to my own proposition for a
“* Law of Prescription ’’.1 It will be noted that a Principle of Conservation and a
Law of Prescription are the two faces of the same coin. The first would conserve
a selected junior synonym by rejecting the senior synonym, the other would reject
the senior synonym in favor of a selected junior synonym. The Recommendation
offered below applies to all proposals of the same nature.]

The “ Principle of Conservation”? proposed by Professor Bradley in
Article 5, Section 3 (: 43) of his draft of the Régles states, ‘‘if a name for a
taxon that is not an invalid homonym is in general current use and has been
available for fifty years or more, it shall not be replaced on nomenclatural
grounds by a senior synonym, unless the latter has been widely used during
some part of the fifty years preceding its proposed substitution ”’.

ce

Professor Bradley concedes that “interpretation of ‘general current
use ’ and ‘ widely used ’ must necessarily be subjective’. He also recognizes
“that complete search of the literature for the fifty year period would usually
be impracticable’. To these qualifications of his Principle of Conservation
may be added the following :

1. Many names are not “in general current use ” because the taxons to
which they apply have not been objects of study since first
described or, having been objects of additional study, either have
not been made subjects of supplementary published reports or
have been redescribed under different names.

1 For the document here referred to see Document 27/2 (: 630-632).

912

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

. “ Usage” as applied to a name cannot be restricted to use in scientific

literature published during the twentieth century. Names appear
also in speech, thought and are written in manuscripts and on
labels of specimens or of animals held for study or exhibition. The
direct association of a name with the animal is usage in a sense
that is more meaningful than the mere citation of the name in
literature.

. Many check lists and text books published fifty or more years ago are

“widely used’ and often the only reliable comprehensive works
of their kind (e.g., Trouessart’s Catalogus Mammalium, 1897;
Flower and Lydekker’s Mammals, Living and Extinct, 1891).
Scientific names in these classics are familiar even if some of them
may not be “current” in the narrow sense employed by some
nomenclaturists.

. The number of names “ in general current use ” which are in imminent

or potential danger of replacement on strictly nomenclatural grounds
by senior synonyms not “ widely used ” for the last fifty years, are
too few to justify adoption of any Principle of Conservation with all
its attendant complications.

. As the obverse of item 4, the vast majority (in recent years, nearly all),

of changes in nomenclature in most, if not all, groups of animals
have been based on homonymy or on taxonomic grounds and such
changes are rightly excluded from the operation of the proposed
Principle of Conservation.

. The proposed Principle does not require documentation of the existence

of a broad general demand for the conservation of a junior synonym
the use of which has extended beyond the realm of narrow
specialization. On the contrary, operation of the Principle provides
a convenient service for zoologists (who can muster a friendly
following when necessary) desiring to conserve favored names for
obscure taxons of moment only to one or a few specialists.

. According to the procedure suggested for use of the Principle of

Conservation, a proposal for the rejection of a senior synonym
may be made by one person. The proposal may be based,
consciously or unconsciously, on prejudice. The pertinent biblio-
graphic data may be deliberately or inadvertently one-sided and/or
misleading. The proposer is not required to present personal
credentials, his motives may not be openly questioned, his com-
petence as a zoologist, if he is one, is not weighed. In the absence
of a protest to a proposal because of ignorance, indifference, or
inability on the part of an objecting specialist to meet the two-year
deadline, the Commission, according to suggested procedure, must
reject the senior synonym and place the junior synonym on the
appropriate Official List of Valid Names.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 913

8. Scientific research, including bibliographic research, cannot operate
freely in a dimension arbitrarily restricted by time. The proposed
Principle of Conservation carries the implication that the validity
of scientific discoveries diminishes and ultimately vanishes with the
passage of time.

9. An ideal Principle of Conservation should function automatically ; it
should yield the same solutions for the same problems; it should
permit free and universal application without the need for recourse
to or intervention by the International Commission. Such a
Principle is precisely the ‘‘ Law of Priority ”’.

Discussion : The Principle of Conservation proposed by Professor Bradley,
if adopted, would contribute more to confusion and controversy than to the
nomenclatural stability it purports to provide. The nomenclatural changes or
“upheavals ”’ the Principle would eliminate can be, and always have been,
disposed of independently by individual zoologists or by tacit agreement

Recommendation : Any principle, rule or law that specifically provides for
annulment or circumvention of the Law of Priority shall not be incorporated
into the International Rules of Zoological Nomenclature.

914 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

DOCUMENT 33/6
(continued from page 808)

Miscellaneous Comments on the Draft of the “‘ Régles *’

(Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 1329)

By HENRY TOWNES
(Museum of Zoology, University of Michigan, U.S.A.)

(Enclosure to a letter received 9th April 1958)

I have read over the mandatory parts of the new Draft of the Rules, but
not the “‘recommendations ’’, or very few of them. Below are comments
on the mandatory parts.

There is much to be recommended in this Draft, and much to be criticized.
A number of things that have proven necessary procedures and become standard
practice are now clearly formalized in rules. These offer valuable guidance
which has not previously been easily available. Some of the old rules have been
clarified. The principle of first revisor has been formally applied to many
situations. The things that seem good will not be discussed further, as it seems
to me now that the need is to delete or modify the undesirable sections, and thus
make a document that will be of real service and will merit respect and
permanence.

The proposed rules make some unnecessary exceptions to cardinal principles.
Some of the exceptions relate primarily to previous controversies or stages of
development of the International Rules, or to questionable Opinions of the
International Commission, or to certain personal opinions. All too often the
function of these exceptions seems to be protection of the points stressed by
these opinions rather than codifying a useful part of nomenclatural practice.
The rules would be more useful if many of these special or partisan exceptions
were eliminated.

Much attention is given to declaring invalid the contributions of authors
not meeting certain standards, but at the same time, names mentioned only
in synonymy are accepted as valid. Could any name be validated under worse
circumstances than as a synonym which is considered both unnecessary and

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 915

unavailable by its author? Also, the special protection given to new names
for secondary homonyms seems out of line with the general philosophy of
discouraging the ill-considered multiplication of names.

It is a curious thing that while this Draft puts the scientific worker under
more meticulous, detailed, repetitious, and compelling rules than the earlier
International Rules, it gives the International Commission practically unlimited
power to help him circumvent the rules on occasion. One would gather that
circumvention of the Rules will henceforth be the main activity of the Com-
mission, and to make sure that this can be done efficiently and unhindered,
the Commission is given wide powers.

The Commission is given “ legislative, judicial, plenary and emergency
powers’, and the power to nominate or elect its own members. It may set aside
any part of the Rules and it may reverse its own actions. It can make decisions
that set precedent or it can declare that a decision does not set precedent.
Thus it is not bound to follow any consistent policy, or even to agree with itself.
Its decisions are declared to be above question, except that it may reverse them.

Exercise of the powers of the Commission is as easy as the powers are
broad. Many kinds of cases can be settled without a hearing from the opposing
viewpoint, provided no one looks up the facts and protests to the Commission
before a set deadline. If there is a protest to a proposal, the Commission
may decide the case with finality by a vote of as few as one fourth of its member-
ship, and it is not necessary that each of these voters should know whether he
is voting “yes” or “no”. There is a provision that Commissioners who do
not wish to evaluate a case for themselves may leave direction with the
Secretary to record their vote as agreeing with the majority. Thus, as few as
two Commissioners with only second hand information from a possibly biased
source could make a decision which is not supposed to be subject to question.
In contrast to this, a decision by a specialist, with full first hand knowledge of
the nomenclatural, historical, and zoological aspects of a case, is subject to
review on its merit (which is, of course, the only scientific way to view a decision).

While the Commission claims the power to make final decisions, experience
has shown that its Opinions are not final. A number have already been reversed,
and appeals from the results of others are on the way. The only permanent
decision by the Commission, as by the rankest amateur, is the one which proves
in the long run to be wise enough to have general and lasting support.

My own view on this situation is that we should be very careful about what
rules are adopted, then presume that they will be observed without exception.
Some of the rules in the draft are so often impractical to apply that there is
some need for the Commission to provide a means for avoiding them on
occasion. It would be better if such “‘ Rules ” were changed to ‘“ Recommenda-
tions’. In this form they would cause less trouble and make it unnecessary
to breach the “ Rules ” to maintain a sound nomenclature.

916 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

The International Commission should be given power to decide cases only
in accordance with the International Rules, and if all evidence of importance
is not considered in an Opinion, the case should be subject to review. Thus
we would return to the type of Opinions issued prior to 1935. There should
be confidence that the taxonomic specialist will use his full knowledge and powers
to build up a useful, accurate, and consistent nomenclature, as stable as a
changing science will allow. The specialist should not be hampered with
directions to send information to the International Commission, to have it make
the decisions for him. Also, he should not be required to be constantly alert
to protect scientific nomenclature by investigating the many proposals to the
Commission and writing many articles or letters to meet set deadlines. He
has his own work to do, and in practice there may be few persons in the world
(or none) at any given time able to inform the Commission on the justice of
a given proposal before it, or on the completeness of the information in the
proposal. There are certainly times when the specialist needs advice, and the
Commission could often help him. There are some cases (very few but some
of them important ones) where lack of decisive information or conflict of
nomenclatural principles results in situations not easily decided by the rules.
For such cases a careful consideration and decision by a group of experienced
nomenclaturists is desirable. But unless the Commission itself follows
principles and rules, it can only confuse matters when asked for guidance, or
if its backing is wanted it will only echo the more influential of the opinions
presented to it for approval.

The ever present possibility of circumventing a rule with the aid of the
Commission makes this draft of Rules indecisive in a high proportion of cases.
Though giving specific directions with the tone of command, there is also
often the suggestion that sometimes it will be best to avoid applying the rules.
Although it states that the rules can be avoided only under a definite routine
and with lack of effective opposition within a certain period, in actual practice
there will be many times when the rules will not be followed because it might
be possible to circumvent them officially if the official method were attempted.
And, if the Commission made a definite ruling on the case one could avoid
following this ruling with the excuse that an appeal for a reversal would
probably be made to the Commission at some future time.

It would seem better to have the Rules formulated without any reference
to making exceptions or to the Commission. The Commission should be a
separate advisory or judicial body with the same relation to the Rules that a
Civil Court has to the Law or the Constitution. Its powers and functions
should not be made part of the Code, but considered separately.

The above discussion applies in general to many parts of the Draft.
Particular comments on particular sections are as follows :—

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 917

Point (1)

Article 1, Section 1 (: 35) : It is often considered that species, genera, etc. are
concepts, though based on reality. Under this view, would Section 1 make
any sense ?

Point (2)

Article 3, Section 1 (: 39) : Recommendation. Change “ choosing” to “ pro-
posing ” and make the recommendation stronger.

Point (3)

Article 3, Section 2 (: 39) : Make it clear that the name dates from its original
proposal rather than from the time of transfer.

Point (4)

Article 4, Section 5 (: 41) : It would seem better to omit this Section. If applied
retroactively it would necessitate re-examination of many well-used names as
to compliance of the general work in which they were proposed, and inevitably
some well-known and otherwise valid names would have to be discarded.
If applied only to the future, this section would tend to make for uniformity
in proposal of names, but would result in some unfortunate cases where names
proposed in valuable monographs were unavailable because of irregularity in
some part of the work. The total harm would probably outweigh the good.

Point (5)

Article 5, Section 1 (: 42) : This section prevents any part of the new Code
from becoming retroactive. It may also negate any power given the Com-
mission to deal with names under “ suspension of the rules’. Is this what was
intended ?

Point (6)

Article 5, Section 3 (: 43) : The principle of “ usage ”’ overlaps the other principles
expressed in this draft, and it will be essential either to state which principles.
will always have priority, or if sometimes one and sometimes another, exactly
where the division of authority lies. Usage will have to be defined by exact
number of references, per cent of uniformity, and accuracy of concept to which
a name is applied, or it overlaps and muddles the whole system of rules.

In my opinion the principle of usage has no place in scientific nomenclature
except for a statement that significant usage should not be upset unless required
by the rules.

918 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Point (7)

Article 5, Section 4 (: 45) : If a “long-overlooked name ”’ could be given a
useable definition this would be a helpful rule, otherwise not. It seems almost
impossible to use this principle without, in effect, adopting a new date as the
starting place for nomenclature, later than 1758. As it is now stated, the
Section would lead to confusion in nomenclature. It should be revised or
abandoned.

I myself do not see that it could be stated in a way that would make it
useable.

Point (8)

Article 5, Section 5 (: 46) : Since it is possible to use a revisor’s interpretation
of nomina dubia, they could be dealt with in this way. This Section, though
solving some problems, would be an invitation to discard many names without
a sincere effort to use them. Nomina dubia gradually get clarified and put
into use. Why not permit this process to continue at its natural pace ?

Point (9)

Article 6, Section 1 (c) (: 49) : Note that a name can end in the same letters as
a “ forbidden suffix ’’ without actually having a suffix.

Point (10)

Article 6, Section 1 (d) (: 49) : This had better be omitted. If really applied
it would result in differences of opinion and upset of some well-known names.
What is “‘ offensive ”’ varies not only with language, but also with place and time.
Some names proposed as purposely offensive are now in reputable use and
may as well remain so.

Point (11)
Article 6, Section 1 (e) (: 49) : See discussion of articles 27 and 28.

Point (12)

Article 6, Section 1 (f) (: 49) : I agree with this but elsewhere in the draft a
synonymy is admitted as the basis of a family name.

Point (13)
Article 6, Sections 1 (i) and (j) (: 50) : These two are repetitious. Why not

omit the date, use “i” only, and define “indication ”’ here instead of in
Section 3? If a standard for an indication makes a useable name in 1929,

why not the same standard in 1931 ?

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 919

Point (14)

Article 6, Section 1 (k) (: 51) : This section, in practice does more harm than
good and had better be omitted. If it is a requirement, there should be an
explanation of what to do with the species included in a new genus without
designated type. If the species names are to be considered valid but the
generic name not, under what generic name are they to be listed? If the
species names are not valid, it should be stated what is to be done to give
them validity. (See Article 6, Section 5 (b), and in opposition to this the last
paragraph on p. 101). Although this section has the good intention of encour-
aging authors to cite genotypes in the original publication of generic names,
this objective could be achieved by a “recommendation” which did not
cause the inconvenience to users of the published literature that results from
its statement as a “‘requirement”’. It would be very troublesome to try to
enforce this as a rule, and confusion of the literature seems to be the main
result of trying to do so. A subsequent designation of a genotype is much
better than rejecting such a name, then proposing a new name all over again
for the sole purpose of giving it a genotype in its original publication. Also,
such names very easily come into use from their first publication even if some
later author states that they are not valid. Not everyone knows or cares
that a nomenclatural technicality has not been satisfied when the name was
introduced.

Point (15)

Article 6, Section 1 (m) (: 51) : This requirement is not well followed. Could
it not better be made a “ recommendation ”’ ?

Point (16)

Article 6, Section 1 (n) (:52): This seems O.K., but how could an author
propose a replacement name without making it clear that the older name is
to be rejected in its favour ? I can’t think ofa possibility. Just what practice
is the rule intended to forbid ?

Point (17)

Article 6, Section 3 (5) (: 53) : A name cited in synonymy is not proposed
by its publisher as the proper “ designation ” of an animal (a requirement for
validation of a name in the present International Code). It is cited for what
information of value it may give, but as a useable name is definitely rejected
by its author. Adoption of this Section denies an author opportunity to
clarify the status of a manuscript name or nomen nudum unless he also takes
responsibility for proposing it. This is nonsense and quite unnecessary.

920 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

If the Rules are to require recognition of a name in this case, why do they
elsewhere make so many provisions for rejecting names which appear in
literature under much better conditions than names mentioned in synonymy ?

It has been argued that a name mentioned in synonymy has as its original
description the descriptions of taxa with which it was synonymized. This is
a lack of understanding of the fact that the real requirement for a description
of a new taxon is for characters that may be presumed to be differentiating.
Assignment of any manuscript name to a genus or family thereby associates
it with the generic or family characters, but not with its own differentiating
characters. The case of names mentioned in synonymy is ordinarily the same.
Some such names are accepted under Article 6, Section 7 (b)(1).. In my opinion
such names as were brought into use of the principle of validation in synonymy
were introduced replacing properly established names, contrary to sound
nomenclatural principles (though with the precedent of two Opinions), and in
some cases contrary to well established usage. Under these circumstances
it seems to be an unwarranted breach of good nomenclature to maintain them
with a special rule.

Names mentioned only as definite synonyms should always be treated as
unavailable, regardless of whether there is independent descriptive data with
them. See Article 6, Section 4 (3).

Point (18)

Article 6, Section 5 (e)(i) (: 55) : Why except Ammonites ? Is their case different
from all others in zoology ?

Point (19)

Article 6, Section 5 (f) (: 56) : Parts 2 and 4 are necessary. The rest invite
widespread emendations, variant spellings, and differences of opinions thereon,
which would be harmful.

Point (20)

Article 6, Section 7 (: 58) : See discussion of Article 6, Section 3 (5).

Point (21)

Article 6, Section 8 (ce) (: 61) : Could not this section be omitted entirely, or
replaced with a statement that names proposed in indices are as valid as in
any other places, provided that they meet the general requirements for valida-
tion of aname ? It is an involved rule and seems to get nowhere.

9

;

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 921

Point (22)

Article 6, Section 9 (5) (: 62) : This is the question of validation in synonymy
again. A name should not be considered valid until it is used for the “ designa-
tion” of a taxon. Citation only for explanatory purposes accompanied by a
definite rejection should not constitute a valid proposal of a name.

Point (23)

Article 7, Section 4 (6) (: 67) : It is common practice to date publication from
Separata, providing that they were widely distributed. This is in line with the

general principle of publication.

Point (24)

Article 10 (: 78-87) : This Article is redundant as far as rules go. It could
well be omitted here and included in an appendix, as instruction rather than
in the Rules themselves, as these are primarily directions on how to deal with
names already published. Practically everything in Article 10 is repeated
elsewhere.

Point (25)

Article 10, Section 2 (b) (: 85) : This might better be omitted. Animals are so
varied that it would not seem possible to make a satisfactory definition of the
“work ”’ of an animal. Anyway, why make limitations on the source of char-
acters ? Many decisions would be needed on categories like : shells of molluscs :
shells of foraminifera ; galls of insects ; footprints of dinosaurs ; skin prints of
dinosaurs ; nests of termites ; corals ; worm tubes ; etc.

Point (26)

Article 11 (: 88-91) : Article 11, as proposed, is an invitation to revised spellings
and consequent differences of opinion and usage. Thus, it is undesirable.
Emendations of generic names are particularly to be avoided because they lead
to new homonymy. A statement like that below would seem better :

1. The original spelling of a name is to be maintained except as
follows :

(a) An adjectival specific, subspecific, or infrasubspecific name is to be
made to conform in gender with that of its generic name.

(b) Capitalization of names shall be made to conform with correct usage,

JIJ

922 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

(c) Formation and termination of names of the family-group shall be
made to conform with correct usage.

(d) Numerals contained in names may be spelled out in their Latin form.

(e) Diacritic marks may be omitted, though it is recommended that they
be kept.

2. If a new name is spelled more than one way in its original publica-
tion, the first person to call attention to this fact and to choose one of the
original spellings in preference to others is to be considered the first
revisor, and his choice is to be followed.

3. Variant spellings (different from the original spelling and not
included in the provisions of section 1) which were evidently or may be
presumed to be errors, lapsi, or misprints have no status in nomenclature.
Clearly intended variant spellings are to be considered substitute names,
with the same nomenclatural status as other substitute names.

Point (27)

Article 12 (: 92-94) : In spite of some sentiment for rules for this group of names
it would seem wiser to keep hands off, at least for the present. These kinds of
names have an involved history and usage and would be hard to deal with by
means of rules. Usage, priority, and appropriateness, in varying emphases
should be allowed to work out these names as they are now doing. The names
are relatively few and though there are more names than needed, to a certain
extent each name has its own connotations and is not exactly equivalent to
some other name. An author often chooses a name according to the animals
he wishes to include in his category. Thus he might choose Planipennia
(over Neuroptera, Saltatoria over Orthoptera, etc.) to make his meaning clear.
It may be best to leave this situation alone, or to be content with some
“recommendations ”’.

Point (28)

Article 13, Section 3 (: 96) : Although priority of supergeneric group names has
been frequently advocated, it has many disadvantages and before adoption
it would be appropriate to compare its practicality with that of the other main
system for selecting family-group names, which is priority of generic name
within the group (or in case of more than one generic name of the same age,
the choice of the first revisor). In my opinion, the oldest generic name within
a group is the best source of the family-group name because :—

1. Bibliographic data for determining the oldest generic name are
readily available, while data for priority of supergeneric group name are
not complete enough for making stable decisions. Supergeneric group

aed

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 923

names have been proposed in such a variety of places and often with such
informality that they would be difficult to catalogue with the necessary
completeness.

2. In my experience, the types of the family-group names already
correspond rather well with the oldest included genus. This is the method
of type genus selection given preference in the earlier codes of nomenclature
(Strickland and Dall codes), at the time when many of these names were
being proposed or stabilized. On the other hand, it is hard to say how
well the type genera now correspond with priority of supergeneric group
names. The bibliographic data are not complete enough, and advocates
of this method of selection differ among themselves in details which make
it often impossible to say what the type genus would be even when the
data are complete. Even the proposed wording of Article 13, while
representing one of these points of view, contains some disguised elements
of other views, which results in conflicting ideas. (Compare Section 3 (b)
with 4 (b) and note the indecision about vernacular names. See also
Article 24, Section 6 (d), which is a rule that would be difficult to apply
without disagreements.)

3. The oldest available generic name in a group is a single and definite
thing and selection of this as type circumvents many vexing questions or
disagreements like changes of family names when the type genus is
synonymised, vernacular names of families, whether putting a plural ending
on a generic name always constitutes its designation, type genera mis-
identified when the family name was proposed, and zoological continuity
of the type genus.

4. The first action in grouping species together is the creation of a
genus for them. Later, this genus may be subdivided, or other genera
associated with it so that instead of one genus we have a group of genera
which may be called a generic group, or a tribe, subfamily, or family.
It would be just as logical to date priority of the family-group name
from creation of the first genus contained as from the first pluralization
of a generic name and subordination of others under it. With logic and
maintenance of usage about equal for either method, it would be best to
select the method that would be most convenient to apply, or the one
that would give rise to fewer disagreements, which in both cases would be
the method of the oldest generic name.

Point (29)

Article 18, Section 4 (a) (: 97) : There has been so much protest already over
this proposal that I shall only add mine, without elaboration.

924 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Point (30)

Article 13, Section 4 (b) (:97) : This is confused thinking. A nomenclatural
type is the permanent type of a name but type of a taxon only as long as it has
that particular name. Note the following situation :

Name Type Genus
Aidae 1902 Black (Aus) = Cus
Bidae 1904 Johnson Bus
Cidae 1906 Thomas Cus = (Aus)

If the above three family names all apply to the same family, authors using
Section 4 (b) would select ‘‘ Cidae ” and date it from 1902, in order to give it
priority over ‘“‘ Bidae’ 1904. Yet Section 3 (b) states that a name of the
family-group should date from the time of its original publication, which
would give “ Bidae ’’ 1904 priority over ‘“‘ Cidae ”’ 1906. There is a conflict
of ideas here, due to failure to differentiate between types of names and types
of zoological groups. Section 4 (b) is certainly not in line with the way types
and priority of names of genera and species are treated. See Article 24,
Section 15 (e)(1) and (2).

Point (31)

Article 15, Section 2 (2a) (: 106) : In case of doubt the term “ variety ” should
continue to be admitted as a substitute for ‘‘ subspecies’. The term is too
firmly fixed in literature as often approximately equivalent to subspecies to
have this meaning abandoned immediately. Botanists still use it regularly
this way.

Point (32)

Article 15, Section 4 (: 107): There is no need to involve the Commission
here. Either the system will or will not function to advantage, and should
be advocated or not on this basis.

Point (33)

Article 15, Section 8 (c) (: 111) : This rule seems confused. Combinations with
a generic name have separate status if the generic name itself has separate
status. The question depends on whether or not emendations are considered
to have separate status.

Point (34)

Article 16 (: 112-114) : I have no experience with names of hybrids and no
opinions on them.

A i ee

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 925

Point (35)

Article 18, Section 3 (b) (: 118) : Omit this. See discussion of Article 6, Section
1 (k).

Point (36)
Article 18, Section 4 and 5 (: 118 and 119) : See discussion of Article 13.

Point (37)

Article 19, Section 2 (c) (: 121) : This is unnecessary and will doubtless lead to
confusion. Suppose that Mr. Jones is not certain of the identity of the type of
say albus Smith, 1870, but knows well the usual application of the name albus.
To be sure he knew what zoological species was genotype, he may designate
that albus, as interpreted by himself,’or some other author, but not necessarily
the albus of Smith is the genotype. According to this rule he has therefore
proposed albus as a new name for the zoological species made genotype. Very
likely albus Smith, 1870, will belong to the same genus, which would make
albus Jones a homonym, and possibly also a synonym of the original albus.
This would provide a confusing tangle of names. There would be albus Jones,
nec Smith, which may be a synonym of albus Smith or might be a homonym
and need another name. The genotype might be albus Jones (nec Smith) =
albus Smith. Is all this necessary ? Why not have a distinctive new name
proposed for the zoological genotype when, as, if someone finds that it actually
needs a new name and will propose the name “properly”. Until then it
can be referred to as albus Smith, pending proof whether it is or not the true
albus Smith.

Point (38)

Article 19, Section 3 (a) (iv) (: 24) : I would suggest omitting “ prior to 1931 ”’.
See discussion of this question under Article 6, Section 1 (k).

Point (39)

Article 19, Section 3 (b) (: 125, line 8) : “And all unavailable names ”’ should
be omitted. A perfectly good nominal species may be included in a new genus
under an “ unavailable name” (a homonym), and be accepted as genotype.
Note the discussion of Article 19, Section 2 (c), where the rule sets up what
may be a homonym as the genotype.

Point (40)

Article 19, Section 3 (i) (: 126): This is a provision of doubtful value and
far-fetched. The only reason for keeping it would be that it might be needed

JIT*

926 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

to protect the stability of some important names in general use. The full
history of the possible cases would have to be investigated before one knew
whether this rule was essential to their stability. I myself know of no need

for it.

Point (41)

Article 19, Section 3 (ii) (: 126) : The benefit of the deadline of 1931 is not
apparent. If this is considered to be “absolute tautonymy ’’, should it not
be included under that heading and precede “ hidden tautonymy ” ?

Point (42)

Article 19, Section 4 (b) (: 127) : This is unnecessarily involved and restrictive.
A rule which fits better the actual situations and current practice would be :

(b) If an author proposes a new generic name simply as a substitute for
a prior name, both names must have the same genotype and the
selection of the genotype for one of the names automatically selects
it for the other. The genotype in this case must be one of those
available for the earlier name ;

(c) If an author proposes a new generic name that he believes should
replace a prior generic name, but in his original publication selects
as type of the new name one that is not available for the older name
(because not included or because the older name already had a differ-
ent genotype), then his selection stands and the two generic names
are subjective rather than objective synonyms.

Point (43)
Article 19, Section 4 (e) (i) (: 129) : If in citing a publication an author made
his intention clear, why should not this be sufficient ?
Point (44)

Article 19, Section 5 (b) (: 180) : In lines 15 to 20 change “ original author ”
to “ original publication’. (This is what seems to have been intended.)

Point (45)
Article 19, Section 8 (: 136) : See discussion of Article 6, Section 1 (k).

Point (46)

Article 20, Section 1 (d) (: 140) : This is the same question as for genotypes
of substitute generic names. See discussion and recommendations for Article

19, Section 4 (b).

—_—

1
ero ee ee ee

2 ictenesiy

ho

a

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 927

Point (47)

case it would be logical to turn to the specimen from which the figure was
made. I think that this section should be revised.

Article 20 (: 145-151) : This seems to give neotypes undue importance and
authority, and makes their establishment legalistic rather than a matter of a
taxonomic contribution. The real value of neotypes is questionable. If the
type of a species name is not extant but its original description or redescriptions
of the species by revisors make application of the name clear, a neotype is not

redefinition, but this could be done with or without establishment of a neotype.
The important thing in all such cases is the published redefinition rather than
the establishment of the neotype, and the rules should be framed to place the
emphasis and authority on the definitions rather than on designated specimens,

adequately described.

“A species name applying to a concept that is originally or previously
too broad or too poorly defined for use in modern taxonomy may have its
concept restricted or clarified in either of the following ways, used alone, jointly,
or in sequence,

1. By restricting the original type material to one specimen (lectotype) or
several (lectosyntypes).

2. By redefining the concept in a more exact or more restricted way.

928 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

In either of the above cases the author’s action is to be followed to the
extent that he is first revisor, makes his meaning clear, and cannot be proven
incorrect. To be correct his concept of the redefined or restricted species must
include some part of the original author’s concept (as indicated by all available
evidence), and must be in conformity with previous restrictions and/or
redefinitions.

Material which was used by a revisor in restricting or redefining a species
is known as “ neotype”’ material. Neotype material is useful as illustrative
of a revisor’s opinion but has no nomenclatural force. The force in a revisor’s
work is in his published definition, as far as this may be adequate. If it is not
entirely adequate, some later revisor may supplement it, basing his own work
on the same, additional, or on different material.”

Point (49)

Articles 21-26 (: 152-190) : Most of this part of the Code is a restatement of
things previously covered, or a logical development from them. It contains
much that is useful in the way of specific directions but is so largely repetitious
that it might make the Rules shorter and easier to grasp if all that is redundant
or only elaborative in these articles were relegated to an appendix, to serve
as directions for abiding by the Rules already laid down rather than incor-
porated in the Rules themselves.

Most of the points in Articles 21-26 requiring comments have already
received them in connection with previous articles. Comments on points
not yet covered are below.

Point (50)

Article 22, Section 5 (c) (i) (: 162) : The required use of parentheses on authors’
names isa moot point. It isa matter of opinion whether the trouble of applying
them correctly is repaid in added information of equal value. I am convinced
that ordinarily it is not fully repaid, and that parentheses should be used on
authors’ names only in situations where the added information they supply
is really needed.

Point (51)

Article 24, Section 4 (b) (: 172) : Since it is common merely to omit diacritical
marks, and diacritic marks are not part of the expanded Latin alphabet, it
would be better to consider these names homonyms. The absence of diacritical
marks from many type fonts and typewriters, and an ignorance among z0o-
logists of their exact meanings in various languages are important practical
considerations.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 929

- Point (52)

Article 24, Section 6 (d) (: 175) : This should properly be included in Article 13
with the other rules concerning family names. It is a vital question if other
portions of Article 13 are to be accepted as written, but of no interest if family-
group names are based on the oldest included genus.

Point (53)

Article 24, Section 8 (a), Exception (:176) : This concerns only some ill-considered.
recent actions by the Commission and it would be better to undo these rather
than to maintain them with a special rule that breaches the general principle.

Point (54)

Article 24, Section 8 (b) (: 176): The questions of the “ites ’’ ending has
been discussed in several places. Here, there seems to be some inconsistency.
If such names have no status under the Law of Priority, why should they have
status under the Law of Homonymy ? If they are to have this dual status
they will have to be catalogued among the valid genera, if for no other reason
than to forestall future homonyms. If they are catalogued, they may as well
come also under the Law of Priority.

Point (55)

Article 24, Section 11 (: 178) : A secondary homonym is a subjective homonym.
It should be rejected only as long as it is considered a homonym and subject
to resurrection when needed. I know that there is a variety of opinions on this,
but have done enough cataloguing of names to become convinced that the
permanent rejection of secondary homonyms is a harmful practice.

Point (56)

Article 24, Section 13 (b) (i) (: 183) : The rule would be better with the elimina-
tion of this exception.

Point (57)
Article 24, Section 13 (c) (: 184) : ‘‘ Discussion’. I agree with the discussion.

Point (58)

Article 25 (: 188) : What is the reason for prohibiting the revival of a suppressed
secondary homonym ? The nomenclatural situation is approximately the same
as for a suppressed subjective synonym. In either case the suppressed name
should be subject to revival and use if changing taxonomic concepts show that
suppression is unnecessary.

930 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Point (59)

Article 27 (: 191-248) : (Linguistic regulations.) Scientific names based on
good Latin and Greek are much to be desired, and their correct formation
should be encouraged by all practical means. Zoological names of the generic
and specific levels, however, are legion, and especially in the case of generic
names it has been necessary to admit as valid names all sorts of letter combina-
tions with varying degrees of resemblance to classical Latin or Greek. Once
proposed and put into use these names become more identified with the animals
themselves than with their etymology. Whether or not they are spelled
according to certain rules becomes of less importance than the constancy of
their spelling. Whatever is an original spelling, that should be the correct
spelling for that name. When “ correction” of spelling is advised, it is hard
to know how far emendations will be carried, and variant spellings will in-
evitably increase. Any permission for emendations carries with it the question
of where to stop emending, which is a question without final answer.

Any name that is an arbitrary combination of letters is acceptable and is
not subject to a revision of its spelling, while for words with a meaningful
origin there are many exacting rules to be observed, and always the possibility
that someone will disagree with the original author and wish to revise the
spelling. This situation will encourage most zoologists to use arbitrary
combinations of letters for new names, so that their spellings will not be
molested.

Article 27 contains some good suggestions for the formations of words,
but it is doubtful whether the Greeks and Latins would recognize such rigid
rules. Their words were coined, modified, elided, abbreviated, or expanded
for euphony and for many of the same reasons that create modern slang.
While present day zoologists can never get the feel of these languages as natives,
they can clumsily use the same methods of modifying classical or other words
and often come out with short, euphonious, and wholly useable names, even if
at variance with the rigid rules in Article 27. Such results as these have been
and should continue to be used without revisions.

Most of Article 27 should be in the form of “‘ recommendations ”’ rather
than ‘‘rules”’, and the original spelling of scientific names should be con-
sidered the only valid spelling except as provided in the comments on Article 11
above. :

Point (60)

Article 29 (: 245-270) : (Pertaining to the Commission.) This should not be
a part of the Code of Nomenclature, but a separate matter separately decided
upon. See the introductory remarks.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 931

DOCUMENT 38/2

(continued from page 754)

Draft ‘‘ Régles’’ : the expressions ‘“‘ transliteration °’’ and
** Latinisation ’? : Support for proposal submitted by Professor L. W.
Grensted

(Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 1334)

By J. CHESTER BRADLEY
(Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.)

(Enclosure to a letter dated 18th March 1958)

Appendix F of the old Rules of Zoological Nomenclature is entitled
“ Transliteration of Greek words ”, and in part, but only in part, that is what
the table indicates. Where it reads “ p=r ” or “ =x ”’, that is transliteration,
which implies representation of the letters of one language in the equivalent
letters of another. But where that table reads “final y=a” or “ ec=i”,
that is Latinization, not transliteration, for it indicates, not the Latin
equivalent of the Greek letters, but the way that the Romans would have
spelled the Greek word in Latin had they taken it ‘over into their own
language.

This distinction is quite obvious, but, nevertheless, escaped me until
recently Professor Grensted brought it to my attention. I regret that, for that
reason, I have written ‘‘ transliteration ” in the Draft of the Revised English
text of the Régles in instances where ‘“‘ Latinization ’” should have been used.
I therefore fully support the suggestion made by Professor Grensted that
throughout the draft wherever the word “transliteration” is used,
“ Latinization ” should be substituted in every case where that is meant, care
being taken not to make the substitution in any instance where “ translitera-
tion ” has been properly used.

932 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

DOCUMENT 38/3

Draft “‘ Régles ’’ : Support for Professor Grensted’s proposal for the
substitution of the word “‘ Latinisation ’’ for the word “‘ transliteration ,’’
with special reference to Article 11, Section 1(a) (emendation of names)

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

(Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature)
(Statement dated 21st March 1958)

I wish to record my strong support for the proposal submitted by
Professor L. W. Grensted, Consulting Classical Adviser to the International
Commission, in his statement dated 2nd March 1958 (Document 38/1), in which
he recommends that the word “ Latinisation ”’ be substituted in the Régles
for the misleading and incorrect word “ transliteration’. This is one of those
proposals which, when once made, is seen to have such obvious advantages as
to lead to surprise that the action suggested has not been taken long ago.

2. While this proposal of Professor Grensted’s was prompted by an
examination of the text of Section F of the Appendice to the existing Régles—
where its adoption will materially assist in bringing order into those provisions—
the need for this correction in phraseology arises, as Professor Grensted rightly
observes, wherever the word “ transliteration ”’ is at present used in the main
body of the Régles in contexts where the meaning actually intended is
‘* Latinisation ’’. In this connection I should like to draw particular attention
to the need for introducing the revised expression in the provisions relating to
the emendation of names which were formerly included in Article 19 of the
Régles and which, in the revised form approved by the Copenhagen Congress
(1953, Copenhagen Decisions zool. Nomencl. : 43, Decision 71(1)(a)(i)), now
appear in Section 1(a) of Article 11 of the Draft of the Régles to be considered
by the London Congress (1957, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 14 : 88, line 9).

CONTENTS

(continued from front wrapper)

THE LONDON AGENDA PAPER

(a) New Proposals

Page

Case No. 40: Draft ‘“ Régles’’, Article 28, Section 11(e) : gender

agreement problems

D.40/1_ K. Friedericks et al. .. of 18 ao ae -» 4 9809
Case No. 41: Draft ‘‘ Régles’’, Article 20: provisions relating to

neotypes

D.41/1 P. C. Sylvester-Bradley = * as ae Baca: |

D.41/2 Francis Hemming... mi ¥ < <: .. 814

D.41/3 Cyril F. dos Passos .. ne re ag a va Seo

D.41/4 Francis Hemming 2 2 ia a “F .. 822
Case No. 42: Draft “‘ Régles ’’, Article 22, Section 5: citation of dates

on combination changes

D.42/1 Cyril F. dos Passos... We a se T ne See

D.42/2 Francis Hemming... és a oe ae ois) eee

(b) Comments on previously published proposals

Case No. 1: Proposed recognition of the “‘ Parataxon ’’ concept

D.1/60 Francis Hemming... ae a “€ ag ie So oae

D.1/61 C. W. Sabrosky as = eS 4 AS oat Sao

D.1/62 Tadeusz Jaczewski .. ve a <n i oo | Sem

D.1/63 BP. C. Sylvester- Bradley ie - ‘f ES .. 834

D.1/64_ P. C. Sylvester-Bradley a a oe “e ap OEE

D.1/65 Errol I. White . . me cs x Hs ae een 4 |
Case No. 2: Family-group names: proposed rejection of, when name

of type genus is rejected as a junior synonym

D.2/21 BR. V. Melville e. I “ ep se iwewesos
Case No. 10: Question of the substantive language for the ‘‘ Régles ”’

D.10/5 Francis Hemming... wd a ats = .. 854

Case No. 19: Proposed ban on intemperate language
D.19/3 Cyril dos Passos be as He se ne io SE

CONTENTS

(continued from inside back wrapper)

Page

Case No. 21: Gender of generic names

D.21/3 R. Ph. Dollfus .. ‘e ze a ist es .. 858
Case No. 23 : Proposed rejection of names calculated to give offence

D.23/3 Cyril dos Passos 23 wie Se e i -e a

a

Case No. 25 : Order/Class Names

D.25/11_ B. G. Chitwood re A 4! oK a -. 68

D.25/12 Ellsworth C. Dougherty rs 3 is se -22. 886

D.25/13 P. C. Sylvester-Bradley _.. ae oA at » a | ee

D.25/14 L. R. Cox er ok Ee ay oe oy oo pe SUS
Case No. 27 : “ Principle of Conservation ”’

D.27/6 P. Hershkovitz ce ae és % ft xe
Case No. 33: Draft ‘ Régles’’, miscellaneous drafting and other

amendments

D.33/6 Henry Townes... we Ht “ss cf is Seay |
Case No. 38: “ Latinisation ’’ versus “ Transliteration °’

D.38/2 J. Chester Bradley .. a < be aM :. Oa

D.38/3 Francis Hemming... Ss an - say .. 932

© 1958. THe INTERNATIONAL TRUST FOR ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE
Printed in England by MetcaLre & Cooper LimiTeD, 10-24 Scrutton St., London E C 2

VOLUME 15. Double-Part 29/30

13th June 1958
pp. 933—996, 3 text-figs.

THE BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL
NOMENCLATURE

wy

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
Thirteenth Instalment of the London Congress Agenda Paper

(continued inside back wrapper)

PURCHASED

1958
20 JUN LONDON :
Printed by Order of the International Trust for
Zoological Nomenclature
and

Sold on behalf of the International Commission on Zoologica}
Nomenclature by

the International Trust at its Publications Office,
41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7
1958

Price Two Pounds and Five Shillings

(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 AMakat (Sao Paulo, Brazil) (12th August 1953)
Secretary: Mr. Francis Hemmina (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 Pierre Bonnet (Université de Toulouse, France) (9th June 1950)
Mr. Norman Denbigh Rimzy (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 Merrens (Natur Museum u. Forschungs-Institut Senckenberg, Frankfurt
a. M., Germany) (5th July 1950)

Professor Dr. Erich Martin Hrina (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 (Mezdgazdasdgi Museum, 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. Sytvesrer-Braviey (Sheffield University, Sheffield, England) (12th August 1953)

Dr. L. B. Hoiruuis (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. Mitter (Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, University of California, Berkeley, California,
U.S.A.) (29th October 1954)

Doe. Dr. Ferdinand Pranti (Ndrodni Musewm v Praze, Prague, Czechoslovakia) (30th October
1954)

Professor Dr. Wilhelm Ktunetr (Zoologisches Institut der Universitdét, Vienna, Austria) (6th
November 1954)

Professor F. S. Boprnnummr (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, Double-Part 29/30 (pp. 933—996, 3 text figs.) 13th June 1958

CASE No. 43

ARTICLE 20, SECTIONS 1-3 : TERMINOLOGY OF TYPE SPECIMENS

(Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 1347)

2 9 JUN 1958 DOCUMENT 43/1 See ay YS

Proposed increase in the number of categories of
type specimen recognised in the “ Régles ”’

By P. C. SYLVESTER-BRADLEY
(University of Sheffield, Sheffield, England)

(Enclosure to a letter dated 21st April 1958)

Article 20 of the Draft Code recognises holotype, lectotype, syntype and
neotype as terms needing definition and explanation. Sabrosky suggests that
the term ‘“ paratype ” should also be mentioned. I agree, and would further
suggest that there remains another category, of special nomenclatural signifi-
cance, that should be specially mentioned in the Code, and that is that of the
rejected syntypes—rejected by the designation of some other syntype as
lectotype. These specimens are of special nomenclatural significance because
they have passed through a change of nomenclatural status. Before the
designation of a lectotype, they had equal standing with the other syntypes
as possible name-bearers. After the valid designation of a lectotype, they
ceased to rank as possible name-bearers, and now rank as if they had originally
been paratypes. Oddly enough, no special name seems yet to have been
proposed for this category, although both the terms “‘ metatype ”’ and “ para-
type ” have been used (incorrectly, according to the original definition of those
terms). If a term is thought to be necessary, “‘ parasyntype”’ might be
thought suitable.

KKK

934 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

DOCUMENT 43/2

Objection to the proposal to incorporate the expression
“paratype ’’ in the “ Régles ’’

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

(Note dated 22nd April 1958)

In a note submitted by Mr. P. C. Sylvester-Bradley’, it is proposed, inter
alia, that the expression “ paratype ”’ should be recognised and defined in the
revised addition of the Régles.

2. In this connection, it will be convenient to recall that the question
whether the expression “ paratype ’’ should be recognised in this way was
considered by the Commission and the Congress at Paris in 1948. The following
is an extract from the Decision then taken in this matter (1950: Bull. zool.
Nomencl. 4 : 185, Decision 75(c)) :

(c) The categories of type specimens which it was desirable should be
recognised and defined in the Régles were those which possessed a
direct nomenclatorial significance, namely, holotypes, syntypes and
lectotypes. It was not necessary to recognise paratypes, for,
although paratypes were of great practical value in many ways,
they possessed no nomenclatorial significance, since in any given case
they came into existence only when a holotype was designated or
a lectotype selected.

3. It appears to me that the view formed in this matter by the Paris
Congress is as valid today as it was ten years ago and I accordingly recommend
that the proposal that the expression ‘“‘ paratype ” should be recognised in the
Régles should be rejected.

1 See Document 43/1

WES one sine

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 935

CASE No. 44

DRAFT “ REGLES ’’, ARTICLE 7, SECTION 4, SUBSECTION (6) : STATUS
OF NAMES IN PREPRINTS WHEN THE PAPER CONCERNED WAS NOT
PUBLISHED LATER IN A REGULAR MANNER

(Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 1348)
DOCUMENT 44/1

Support for the proposal included by Professor Chester Bradley in the
suggested Annexe to Subsection (6) of Section 4 of Article 7
of the Draft “ Régles ’’

By CYRIL F. DOS PASSOS
(Mendham, New Jersey, U.S.A.)

(Extract from a letter dated 22nd March 1958)

I agree with the proposed addition to Article 7, Section 4(6), lines 18-22
made by Professor Bradley. It would cover the important case of Henry
Edwards’s ‘‘ Pacific Coast Lepidoptera ” and any similar situations. If this
addition to subsection (6) is adopted, it would be necessary to provide that this
paragraph be made to apply after a certain date, as originally suggested by me
to Professor Bradley.

936 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

DOCUMENT 44/2

Proposed rejection of Professor Bradley’s proposal in Article 7, Section 4
(6, Annexe) for the acceptance in certain circumstances of new
names included in pre-prints

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

(Note dated 30th March 1958)

In the Annexe to Subsection (6) of Section 4 of Article 7 of the Draft of the
English text of the Régles, Professor Chester Bradley, after including the
Congress decision that names included in preprints acquire thereby no status
in zoological nomenclature, has added a new proposal of his own that never-
theless such names should be accepted “if the publication that was to have
contained the separatum is never subsequently published ”’.

2. At first sight the above appears a reasonable proposal but on closer
inspection it appears to me to be open to serious objection. In any case, if
it is to be accepted, it will need to be redrafted in order to eliminate the ambiguity
inherent in the use in this context of the word “ never’.

3. I feel sure that no one would favour a provision under which new names
included in a preprint would be initially rejected but would nevertheless be
liable to be brought to life with priority as from the date on which they were
originally given an irregular currency if at any later date the paper concerned
was to be published in a regular manner. For such a provision could lead
only to doubt and uncertainty and might in certain circumstances lead to
confusion and name-changing.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 937

4. I accordingly consider that, if a proposal on the lines suggested is to be
accepted, the dangerous (because ambiguous) word “never” should be
replaced by some word having a precise meaning. This might be done by the
insertion of some time-limit after the expiry of which names included in a
preprint would become an available name with retrospective priority as from
the date on which the pre-print was originally issued, unless in the meantime
the name had been duly published, in which case the names concerned would
rank for priority only as from the later date on which due publication took place.

5. On balance my advice would be that the suggested Annexe to Section
4(6) of Draft Article 7 should be rejected. Its only purpose is to provide a
basis for regularising the position of names irregularly brought into currency
by being introduced in preprints. As shown above it would not be easy to
frame a provision that would secure this end in a clear-cut and logical manner.
That this should be so is not surprising, for it is seldom possible to frame a
satisfactory provision when that provision is intended not to deal with a question
of principle but to provide in certain circumstances a solution which is at
variance with the general principle adopted. It was to escape from this
dilemma that over forty years ago the Ninth International Congress of Zoology,
Monaco, 1913, decided that, where it was desirable in some particular case
that an exception should be made to the normal provisions of the Régles,
the machinery for so doing should not take the form of qualifications to the
provisions in the Régles, the possibility of obtaining the end desired being
provided by the grant to the International Commission of Plenary Powers
for dealing with particular cases where otherwise confusion might arise.
I would agree that it is desirable that means should be found for assuring the
status of new names introduced by Henry J. Edwards in his “ Pacific Coast
Lepidoptera ”’ (the case cited in the Draft), but I consider that it would be
much better that this end should be secured by the use by the Commission
of its Plenary Powers than by the insertion in the Régles of some illogical
ad hoc provision.

6. For the reasons set out above I recommend that the provision proposed
to be annexed to Section 4(6) of Article 7 of the Draft Régles (1957, Bull. zool.
Nomencl. 14 : 67, lines 18-22) be rejected.

938 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

CASE No. 45

DRAFT “ REGLES ’”’, ARTICLE 28 : COMPOUND NAMES OF
SPANISH ORIGIN

(Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 1349)
DOCUMENT 45/1

Proposed correction of certain inaccuracies in
Professor Bradley’s Draft

By R. ALVARADO

(Instituto José de Acosta, Museo Nacional
de Ciencias Naturales, Madrid)

(Letter dated 24th March 1958)

The attention of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
should be drawn to certain erroneous entries that I have found in Professor

Bradley’s Draft. These are as follows :-—

Professor Bradley says on page 195 (lines 27-28): “‘In such Spanish
compound names the first name is actually the surname of the bearer’s mother,
and should not be employed. In Portugese it is the reverse”’. Of course it is

the reverse of “‘ the reverse ’’.
A Spaniard bears a forename (the Christian name) and two surnames.
The former is the surname from his father, the mother’s surname is the second.

For instance, Professor Ignacio Bolivar Urrutia (not Urutia) bore at first
“‘ Bolivar ”’, and sometimes is so named. His son is Professor Candido Bolivar

Pieltain.
I think, but I am not sure, that the Portugese bear the names in the reverse
order.

RRO eR A rcetisttrtesn — —_ =

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 939

Also, and this is a little question, on page 200 (line 22) it is suggested that
_ Aguilar-Amat is a Portugese zoologist. In truth Aguilar-Amat is a family
name (of Barcelona to be precise) and is a surname of a well-known mala-

ecologist.

940 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

CASE No. 46

DRAFT “ REGLES ’’, ARTICLE 1, SECTION 1 AND ARTICLE 21,
SECTION 2 (IMPLICATIONS OF THE TYPE CONCEPT)

(Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 1351)
DOCUMENT 46/1

Comments on Article 1, Section 1, and Article 21, Section 2 in
Professor Bradley’s Draft ‘‘ Régles ”’

By R. A. CROWSON
(Department of Zoology, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, Scotland)

(Enclosure to a letter dated 8th March 1958)

From Article 21, Section 2, paragraphs i-ii of the Draft, it would appear
that according to Professor Bradley, a specific name can be said to denote
objectively only a holotype. On the same principle, a generic name could be
said to denote objectively only its nominal type species, and a family-group
name only its nominal type-genus. Thus the Article appears to imply that all
that any taxonomic name can designate objectively is a single specimen, a
holotype ; the wider denotation, of such other animals as a given taxonomist
chooses to regard as related to it in the given degree, would in Professor
Bradley’s parlance be subjective. This implication seems to me to conflict
with the terms of Article 1, Section 1 of the same Draft. For myself, I would
not wish to see the implications of either Article 1, Section 1 or Article 21,
Section 2 embodied in the new International Code of Zoological Nomenclature.
In my opinion, a taxonomic name denotes a very definite concept, namely
that a given assemblage of animals are related to each other in a given degree
and can be recognised as such by a given set of characters ; furthermore it is
implied that any animal (living or fossil) discovered in the future which
possesses this combination of characters shall also be subsumed under the
same name. The concept may be mistaken in that the forms included by the

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 941

definition proye not to constitute a natural relationship-group or more sub-
jectively in that the later opinion may prefer to alter the status given to the

group.

well retort that the decisions of the International Commission itself might
by the same criterion be accused of “ subjectivity ”’.

942 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

CASE No. 47

ARTICLE 19, SECTION 7(a) : MISIDENTIFICATION OF A SELECTED
TYPE SPECIES FOR A GENUS

(Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 1350)

DOCUMENT 47/1

Criticism of provision suggested in Article 19, Section 7(a)
of the Draft “‘ Régles ’’

By R. A. CROWSON
(Department of Zoology, Glasgow University, Glasgow, Scotland)

(Enclosure to a letter dated 8th March 1958)

In Section 7(a) of Article 19 (1957, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 14 : 135) the new
Draft Code seems to exalt the function of naming above that of classifying.
The care and the special knowledge of the group that went into the systematist’s
selection of a type species for a genus are, it appears, as nothing in the eyes of
our legislators compared with immense ritual importance of the quoting of a
name. If the new Code is to incorporate this provision, a systematist wishing
to make certain of establishing a given species (not a name) as the type of
an already named genus might be driven to take a rather devious procedure.
His best method might be to name the species and genus as new, leaving
posterity to work out the synonymy. A particular case where the application
of the proposed article is likely to create considerable confusion concerns the
genus Lema F. (Coleoptera CHRYSOMELIDAE). As originally proposed by
Fabricius, Lema was completely synonymous with Crioceris Geoff. (Geoffroy’s—
work was not strictly binomial in that he used French endings for his specific
names, but if Crioceris is not given priority from his work, further nomen-
clatorial troubles are likely to result). The establishment of Lema as a genus
distinct from Crioceras is due to Lacordaire (1845) ; though not citing particular
species as types of either genus, he separated them in such a way that it was

7
:

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 943

possible to designate types which would validate both genera. In fact, Curtis
has already (1830) named Chrysomela asparagi L. as the type of Crioceris,
and Lacordaire’s usage of the name was in accordance with this designation.
No type appears to have been designated for Lema until 1908, when Jacoby
cited L. cyanella L. Unfortunately there has been confusion over the applica-
tion of this name—though there need never have been any doubt over the species
that Jacoby intended to designate. In the British Museum collection (arranged
by Jacoby himself), in the Jacoby and Clavareau part of Wytsman’s ‘“‘ Genera
Insectorum ” (1904), and in Clavareau’s contribution to Kunk’s “‘ Coleopterorum
Catalogus ” (1913), Z. cyanella L. is consistently synonymised with L. punticollis
Curtis. Subsequent opinion has however swung to equating cyanella L. with
L. lichenis Voet, belonging to quite a different species group from puncticollis.
From material seen by me in the Banks and Hunterian collections, it is evident
that Fabricius confused the two species (lichenis Voet and puncticollis Curtis)
under the name cyanella L., indeed at one stage it seems to have been believed.
that they represented the two sexes of one species. Now L. lichenis belongs to
a comparatively small and well-marked group of species later separated off
by Heinze (1927) in a new genus Hapsidolema, so that if the ruling laid down
in Article 19 section 7(a) is adopted, Lema will become a senior subjective
(because based on a different type species) synonym of Hapsidolema Heinze,
and a new name will have to be found for the main part of the old genus.
L. puncticollis Curtis on the other hand belongs in the main part of the genus,
in fact is the only European representative of it (all others being Hapsidolema)
and was no doubt specially selected by Jacoby for that reason. Certain old
(and disused) generic names of dubious application seem to have included
some species of Lema, for example Oulema Gozis and Auchenia Thunb. ; numerous
subgeneric names have been published in recent times by Heinze, Pic and
Monros, and the problem of finding a valid replacement for Lema is likely to be
complex. I may add that Lema is a large and widely distributed genus,
containing several species of some economic importance.

944 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

CASE No. 48

DRAFT “ REGLES’’, ARTICLE 13, SECTION 3(c) :
FAMILY-GROUP NAMES CONSISTING OF VERNACULAR WORDS

(Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 1352)
DOCUMENT 48/1

Suggested definition of the expression ‘‘ vernacular word ”’
as applied to family-group names

By R. A. CROWSON
(Department of Zoology, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, Scotland)

(Enclosure to a letter dated 8th March 1958)

It would be desirable to add a definition of the term “‘ vernacular word ”
used in this Section. For example, in the greatest work that has ever been
published on the classification of the Coleoptera, Prof. Lacordaire uses French
endings for the family-group names, many of which he is there proposing
as new. Does this mean according to the proposed new Code the whole of
Lacordaire’s family-group nomenclature is to be regarded as unavailable ?
If so, would not this constitute an example of the undesirable effects of retro-

active legislation ?

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 945
DOCUMENT 48/2

Need for relaxing the severity of the Copenhagen Rule against the
acceptance of family-group names consisting of vernacular words

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

(Note dated 15th March 1958)

In a general survey of the experience gained in the Office of the Commission
in the practical application of the Copenhagen Rules in regard to family-group
names during the last five years (1958, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 15 : 187-193)
which has been placed on the London Agenda Paper as Document 5/1, I have
expressed the conviction (: 190-191) that the Copenhagen Rules on the subject
of family-group names consisting of vernacular words (1953, Copenhagen
Decisions zool. Nomencl. : 36, Decision 53(2)) are unduly restrictive and require
relaxation in the interests of nomenclatorial stability. The strong support
for that view given by Mr. R. A. Crowson (Glasgow University) in his note
on the name-changing which would result in the nomenclature of the Order
Coleoptera (Class Insecta) if under the provision referred to above the family-
group names introduced in the vernacular by Lacordaire were to be rejected
is particularly opportune, being based—as it is—not upon theoretical grounds
but upon practical experience.

2. At this point it is necessary to draw attention to the fact that in the
Draft of the Revised English text of the Régles (1957, Bull. zool. Nomencl.
14 : 97) Professor Chester Bradley has (1) inserted the Copenhagen Decision
in a form considerably more restricted than that in which it was actually taken
by the Congress and (2) has qualified the Copenhagen Decision even in the form
so restricted by a note that the safeguard so provided “ must be revoked,
since it violates the requirement that a zoological name must be Latinised.
Professor Bradley adds that ‘“‘ any particular case can be handled by the
Commission under its Plenary Powers ”’.

8. On the question of procedure I cannot see that the London Congress
is under any obligation to cancel the portion of the Copenhagen Decision
referred to by Professor Bradley, though naturally in this as in other cases it
would be open to the Colloquium to submit a recommendation in this sense
to the London Congress, if it thought it proper so to do.

946 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

4. On the strictly logical plane Professor Bradley has, as I think it will be
agreed, a point when he urges the reversal of the qualified acceptance by the
Copenhagen Congress of family-group names consisting of vernacular words,
for it does appear inconsistent at first sight to ban generic and specific names
consisting of vernacular words, while accepting words of this type for family-
group names. It seems to me however that this is a matter which should be
judged against the historical background and where the decision to be taken
should be based upon regard for maintaining stability and continuity in
nomenclature rather than upon narrow considerations of logic and symmetry.

5. If we look at this matter from the foregoing strictly practical stand-
point we see that there is nothing to be said in favour of the total rejection
of all family-group names consisting of vernacular words, for in many cases
at the beginning of the last century such names were introduced by leading
zoologists, notably in France, and those names—in a corrected Latinised form—
have been accepted by later workers. The rejection of such names and their
attribution to the first subsequent author by whom they were published in due
Latinised form would be most confusing and in some cases would lead to the
rejection of the name in question through the interposition of some subjective
synonym which under a rule such as that discussed above would take priority.

6. In general, I share the view expressed by Professor Bradley that,
where cases arise which present exceptional features, it is better that these
should be dealt with by the Commission under its Plenary Powers rather than
that the manner in which such cases should be handled should be written
directly into the text of the Régles. Ido not feel, however, that these considera-
tions are applicable in the present case because it is likely that the number of
cases where in the interests of nomenclatorial stability it would be desirable
to conserve family-group names originally published as vernacular words
is relatively large. In these circumstances an undue burden would be imposed
both upon specialists and upon the Commission itself if it were necessary for
each such case to be submitted individually to the Commission. On this part
of the subject therefore I conclude that the Copenhagen Congress was well
advised to make express provision in the Régles for the class of case here under
consideration.

7. My recommendation in the interests of nomenclatorial stability is there-
fore :—

(1) that Professor Bradley’s proposal (Bull. 14 : 97, lines 17 to 19) for the
cancellation of the decision by the Copenhagen Congress in favour
of the acceptance in certain circumstances of family-group names
consisting of vernacular words be rejected ;

(2) that at the least Section 3(c) of the Draft Article 13 should be amended
so as to bring it into conformity with the decision actually taken
by the Copenhagen Congress (: 36) ;

RPE oe" one

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 947

(3) that, as an advantageous alternative to (2) above, consideration
should be given to the question of strengthening the Copenhagen
Decision so as to provide that, while normally family-group names
consisting of vernacular words should be rejected, such names
(a) are nevertheless to be accepted where otherwise existing nomen-
clatorial practice would be disturbed, and (b), when once so accepted,
are not to be rejected without the prior approval of the Commission.

948 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

CASE No. 49

DRAFT “ REGLES ”’, ARTICLE 27 :
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE LATIN

(Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 1042)
DOCUMENT 49/1

Twofold problems raised by Article 27 of the Draft “‘ Régles ’’

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

(Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature)

(Note dated 10th April 1958)

In March 1957 I prepared for the consideration of the International Com-
mission a note asking for a Ruling clarifying the status under the Régles of names
published in an abbreviated form—such as name leuwcoryn. Linnaeus, 1771, as
published in the combination Lanius leucoryn. (Hemming, 1957, Bull. zool.
Nomencl. 13 : 210-212). Later I submitted a supplementary note prepared
for the purpose of covering zoological names consisting of abbreviated versions
of the names of persons—for example, the name alowensi based on the initials
and surname “A. L. Owens ’’—to which attention had been drawn by Mr. Arthur
N. Dusenbury, Jr. (Jusepin, Monegas, Venezuela) (Hemming, 1957, Bull. zool.
Nomencel. 13 : 299-302).

2. In the time available it would not be possible before the forthcoming
International Congress of Zoology (a) for the International Commission to
reach decisions on the foregoing matters and (b) for the decision so taken to be
embodied in a Declaration and for that Declaration to be duly published.
It has accordingly been decided not to proceed by way of Declaration but
instead to place the problem involved on the London Agenda Paper as Case
No. 49. The papers referred to above are being reproduced as Document 49/2.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 949

3. Quite recently papers have been received from Professor J. Chester
Bradley (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U S.A.) and Dr. L. R. Cox (British
Museum (Natural History), London) on another aspect of Article 27 in the
Draft of the Revised Régles (1957, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 14 : 191-192), namely,
the acceptability under the Réegles of arbitrary combinations of letters when
_ Owing to lack of vowels the resulting word is one which—quite apart from
__ the lack of an appropriate termination—could not possibly be held to constitute
a Latin word. The papers so received have also been registered as com-

ponents of Congress Case No. 49.

950 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

DOCUMENT 49/2

Specific names published in abbreviated form : proposals published in
1957 for the adoption of a “ Declaration ’’ defining status of,
under the “ Régles ’’

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

Document 49/2, Part 1
Proposed adoption of a “ Declaration ’’ clarifying the procedure to be
adopted under Article 14 when a specific name is published
in an abbreviated form

(First published in June 1957, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 13 : 210-212)

The purpose of the present application is to ask the International
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to render a Declaration clarifying the
procedure to be followed under Article 14 of the Régles in cases where a specific
name is published in an abbreviated form. This question was first brought to
notice by Dr. Ernest Mayr (then of the American Museum of Natural History,
New York) in a letter dated 10th March 1952 and it was agreed upon between
us that I should bring this matter before the Commission at a convenient time.
Several examples are now available where the present problem arises and the
opportunity is accordingly taken to place this matter before the Commission.

2. The nature of the problem may be illustrated by the following cases :-—

(a) Among the names by Linnaeus published in 1776 in the Catalogue
prepared in connection with Edwards’s Natural History was the
specific name “ americ.’’ which appeared in the combination Vermivora
americ. (Linnaeus, 1776, Cat. Birds Beasts Fishes Ins. Edwards’s
Nat. Hist. : 13).

(b) A specific name was published in the abbreviated form ‘“‘ merid.” for
a species of Micronisus by Hartlaub in 1860 (Proc. zool. Soc. Lond.
1860 : 109).

(c) In 1771 Linnaeus published a specific name in the abbreviated form
“‘leucoryn.” in the combination Lanius leucoryn. (Linnaeus, 1771,
Mantissa Plant : 524).

.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 951

3. At the time when this matter was before Dr. Mayr and myself in 1952
only the first two of the foregoing examples was available. These resembled
one another in that in each case it was perfectly clear what the specific name
in question would have been if it had not been published in an abbreviated
form, for clearly “americ.”” was an abbreviation for “americana” and
“merid.” an abbreviation for meridionalis. The question which we then
considered together was the nature of the action which the International
Commission should be advised to prescribe for the purpose of giving valid
force to the spelling-out in full of the names in question. Such a Ruling
appeared to be necessary in view of the fact that some zoologists had taken
the view that under the Law of Priority it was necessary in such cases to
retain for all time the abbreviated form in which the names concerned had
originally been published. This seemed to us to be altogether too ritualistic
a view and to constitute a violation of the spirit of the Reégles.

4. At the same time we considered the situation which would arise if it were
not clear how a specific name originally published in an abbreviated form ought
to be spelled out. On this we took the view that recourse to the Commission
would be needed in each such case as it arose. We had not, however, before us
at that time an actual example of a situation of this sort. Quite recently,
however, Dr. Kenneth C. Parkes (Associate Curator of Birds, Carnegie Museum,
Pitisburgh, Pennsylvania, U.S.A.) has brought to the attention of the Office
of the Commission the name published by Linnaeus in the abbreviated form
Lanius leucoryn. This was a very good example, for, as Dr. Parkes has reported,
this name has been spelled out by different authors in at least four different
ways, namely: (i) lewcorynchos ; (ii) leucorynchus ; (iii) leucorhynchos ; (iv)
leucorhynchus. Quite clearly this is a case where the spelling to be adopted
when the abbreviation “‘lewcoryn.’’ is spelled out can be settled only by an
express Ruling by the International Commission.

5. The proposal now submitted is that the International Commission
should render a Declaration in the following terms :—

Draft of suggested ‘‘ Declaration ”’

(a) Where a specific name is published in an abbreviated form and it is
evident what would be the correct spelling for that name if it were
spelled out in full, it is to be so spelled out.

Example: In the case of a specific name published in the
abbreviated form ‘‘ americ.”, it is evident that, when spelled out,
that name would be americanus (-a). Accordingly, such a name
is to be so spelled out.

(b) Where a specific name is published in an abbreviated form and it is not
evident what would be the correct spelling for that name if it were

952 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

spelled out in full, the question is to be referred to the International
Commission for decision.

Example: In the case of a specific name published in the
abbreviated form “‘leucoryn.”’ it is not evident whether the
intention of the author was to use the spelling “ leucorynchus ”’ or
the spelling “‘lewcorynchos’’, quite apart from the fact that both
the foregoing spellings are technically defective in that the letter
“h” which should appear between the letters “r” and “y”
was omitted in the abbreviated form employed. In such a case
the question of the spelling to be used when this name is spelled
out should be referred to the Commission for decision.

(c) Recommandation: Authors and editors are recommended to avoid
the publication of specific names in abbreviated form.

6. As regards the individual names cited above in the present application
no problem arises in connection with the first (americ. Linnaeus, 1771, as
published in the combination Vermivora americ.), for the work in which this
name appeared has been suppressed by the Commission under the Plenary
Powers in Opinion 412 (1956, Ops. Decls. in.. Comm. zool. Nomencl. 13 : 203-
232), when also the specific name in question was placed on the Official Index
of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology. As regards the two other
names concerned, a note has been made in the appropriate Commission File
that the matter is to be reviewed as soon as a decision has been taken on the
present application.

eee

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 953

DOCUMENT 49/2, Part 2

Proposed amplification in certain respects of the suggested “‘ Declaration ”’
relating to the procedure to be adopted under Article 14 when a specific
name is published in an abbreviated form

(First published in December 1957, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 13 : 299-302)

Two suggestions are here put forward for the amplification of the Declaration
which I recommended in Application Z.N.(S.) 1042 (1957, Bull. zool. Nomencl.
13 : 210-212) should be adopted by the International Commission for the
purpose of clarifying the procedure to be adopted under Article 14 of the
Regles in the case of a specific name published in an abbreviated form.

2. These suggestions are :-—

(a) a proposal submitted by myself arising out of a letter which I recently
received from Mr. Arthur N. Dusenbury, Jr. (Creole Petroleum
Corporation, Jusepin, Monagas, Venezuela) ;

(b) a proposal submitted by Professor J. Chester Bradley (Cornell University,
Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) in a note in which he recorded his support
for the adoption of the Declaration which I had recommended.

3. The proposal now submitted by myself has as its object the exclusion
from the scope of the proposed Declaration of a specific name consisting of a
word compounded (i) of the surname of a person, and (ii) preceded by one or
more of that person’s initials. To take one of the examples cited by Mr.
Dusenbury, it was never my intention to recommend that a specific name
consisting of the word “‘alowensi”’, composed of a latinised version in the
genitive singular of the modern surname “ Owens ”’, preceded by the initials
“A.L.”, should be expanded to include a full writing-out of the names
represented by above initials “‘A.L.”’ even if the words represented by these
initials could be ascertained. The proper course in my view, is that such
a name as alowensi should be treated as an arbitary combination of letters
in the same way as the International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948,
directed that a specific name consisting of a phonetic reproduction of the
initials of persons should be treated. Mr. Dusenbury’s letter and my reply
are reproduced in Annexe | to the present note. The proposal which I submit
for the clarification of the above matter is set out in paragraph 4 of my letter
to Mr. Dusenbury.

954 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

4. Professor Bradley’s proposal, which is reproduced in Annexe 2, is that the
Declaration should provide that in the case of a name published after the close
of 1957 no name published in an abbreviated form, other than a name com-
pounded of a cardinal number printed as a number instead of being printed
as a word, should possess any status in zoological nomenclature.

5. Finally, it would, I think, be well that it should be made clear in the
Régles in some appropriate form that no generic name, whatever its date of
publication, possesses the status of availability if published in an abbreviated
form. This provision seems to be necessary, for a generic name, to be accept-
able, should be published in such a way as to make it clear at once to all
zoologists—and not merely to specialists in the group concerned—whether
it is a homonym of some previously published name and whether a given
name, if subsequently published, would be liable to rejection as a junior
homonym of a name published in this objectionable way.

ANNEXE 1

Correspondence between Arthur N. Dusenbury, Jr. (Jusepin, Monagas,
Venezuela) and Francis Hemming, Secretary to the International
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature

(a) Letter dated 4th August 1957 addressed by Arthur N. Dusenbury, Jr.
to Francis Hemming

Specific names published in an abbreviated form

Floyd Hodson (1926, “‘ Venezuelan and Caribbean Turritellas’, Bulletins
of American Paleontology 11 (No. 45) : 201, 204-205) described two new fossil
gastropods which he named “ T'urritella plebeia Say A-L- Owensi, n. subsp.”
and “ Turritella G-A- Weaveri, n.sp.”’. Because of the rules against capital-
isation of specific names and against the employment of hyphens in specific
names, the paleontologists of our company have been writing these names
as “‘alowensi”’ and “ gaweavert”’. Hodson’s description of these forms states
that the first was ‘‘ named in honor of Mr. A. L. Owens, Geologist for the
Standard Oil Company of Venezuela ’”’ and that the second was “ named in
honor of Mr. G. A. Weaver who was an invaluable collaborator in the field
work during 1924-25’.

Obviously, initials are a form of abbreviation, hence, if your proposal
(Bull. zool. Nomencl. 13 : 210-212) to spell out all abbreviated specific names
is adopted, as I think it should be, it would necessitate emending Hodson’s
names to include the complete first and middle names of the two geologists
honoured by him. By referring to old membership lists of the American

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 955

Association of Petroleum Geologists, I find that A. L. Owens is Allen L. Owens
and that G. A. Weaver is George A. Weaver, but I have so far been unable to
ascertain their middle names. Doubtless, this could be accomplished with
sufficient expenditure of time and effort. Do you advise me to pursue this
course? Or can you suggest an easier one 2

(b) Reply dated 10th September 1957 addressed to Arthur N. Dusenbury, Jr.
by Francis Hemming

Names published in an abbreviated form

In reply to your letter of the 4th August, I should explain that it was my
intention in putting forward Application Z.N (S.) 1042 (Hemming, Bull. zool.
Nomencl. 13 : 210-212) to seek a decision from the Commission as to the
treatment to be accorded to names published in an abbreviated form in cases
where the words of which those names consisted were either Latin or Latinised
words of a clearly recognisable kind. You will remember that the example
which I cited was that of the word “ americ.”’ which was clearly an abbreviated
form of the Latinised word “ americanus ”’.

2. It was certainly no part of my idea that the proposed Declaration should
involve the writing out in full of the initials of the first name or first names of
a zoologist in those cases where such initials were incorporated with the
surname of that zoologist in a specific name.

3. In my view, it is very undesirable that specific names should be formed
in this way. When, however, such a name is published, it should be treated in
the same way as names based upon a phonetic reproduction of the initials of
a zoologist, as regards which a Ruling has already been given by the Inter-
national Congress of Zoology. This latter problem was raised by Mr. R. G.
Fennah in connection with the name veedce published by Ross in 1943 in the
combination Aglaostigma veedee. Fennah explained that this specific name
was presumably intended to represent the initials “ V.D.” written phonetically,
these letters being the initials of E. C. Van Dyke and E. P. Van Duzee, both
of whom were listed as collectors of the species concerned. (Fennah, 1945,
Bull. zool. Nomencl. 1 : 8-9). This application was considered by the Com-
mission in Paris in 1948 and it was then decided to ask the International
Congress of Zoology to insert words in the Régles which would secure that a
name such as veedee Ross would become an available name (see 1950, Bull.
zool. Nomencl. 4 : 252). The basis of the decision then taken was that a name
such as veedee should be treated as an arbitrary combination of letters.

4. In order to make this matter absolutely clear I propose, now that you
have raised this special case, to recommend to the Commission that the
following new Point (c) should be inserted in the proposed Declaration.

(c) The foregoing provisions do not apply to a specific name based upon
a modern patronymic comprising not only the surname, but also one

956 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

or more of the initials, of the person in whose honour the specific
name was devised, a name so published to be treated as an arbitrary
combination of letters.

5. I propose further to recommend that the “‘ Recommendation ”’ which
now forms Point (c) of the proposal, which would become Point (d), should be
expanded to cover names falling in the suggested new (c) above as well as in the
original (a) above, that is to say that it should be recommended that authors
should avoid (i) publishing specific names in abbreviated form, and (ii) devising
specific names consisting of words comprising the initials of a person as well as
that person’s surnames.

(c) Letter dated 6th October 1957 addressed by Arthur N. Dusenbury, Jr.
to Francis Hemming

I am very much pleased with your solution of the problem of the specific
name based upon a modern patronymic and including initials, and I wish to
support your proposed recommendation to the Commission covering the point
I raised. Your selection will promote stabilisation of the nomenclature, for it
will allow us to continue to use the name J'urrutella plebeia alowenst Hodson
and Turritella gaweaveri Hodson as before.

ANNEXE 2

Support for and proposed extension of the “‘ Declaration ’’ suggested
by Secretary Hemming to cover the case of a name proposed in an
abbreviated form

By J. CHESTER BRADLEY
(Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.)

I wish to express my support of the Declaration proposed by the Secretary.
But the practice of proposing a name in abbreviated form is so abominable
that I recommend that it be outlawed for the future. Therefore, may I suggest
the following provision to replace paragraph (c), the “‘ Recommendation ”’.

“Subsequent to the year 1957, the name of a taxon proposed in an
abbreviated form shall have no status in nomenclature, either under the Law of
Priority, or the Law of Homonymy. But this shall not be construed to apply
to a name compounded with a cardinal numeral which is not written as a word ”’.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 957

DOCUMENT 49/3

Support for action proposed in relation to names published in an
abbreviated form

By F. A. URQUHART

(Head, Division of Zoology and Palaeontology,
The Royal Ontario Museum, Toronto, Canada)

(Letter dated 30th January 1958)

I was most interested in the discussion of proposing a name in abbreviated
form. It is indeed surprising that any taxonomist would consider using
initials in the name of a taxon.

I certainly support the Declaration proposed by you, and I whole-heartedly
. agree with the recommendation put forth by J. Chester Bradley that subse-
quent to 1957, the name of a taxon proposed in an abbreviated form shall
have no status in nomenclature except for a name using a cardinal numeral
which is not written as a word.

958 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

DOCUMENT 49/4

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

(a) Letter dated 10th February 1958 addressed to the Secretary by
J. CHESTER BRADLEY

Cases like “‘ alowensi ’’ and “‘ gaweaveri”’ are one thing. Suppose that all
initials and the first letter of the surname were to be consonants or even
vowels : John James Johannsen—J. J. Johanseni would become a stuttering
jjjohannseni ; A. A. Allen—aaalleni ; J. R. G. Srb (the surname of a colleague
of mine on the Cornell faculty)—jrgsrbi.

Such cases could be guarded against by adding to your point 4(c) on p. 302 :
Provided that the word thus formed is pronouncable in Latin. Otherwise
the initials shall be eliminated.

I am not sure but that it might be better to rule that initials should be
eliminated in all cases, or at least in all cases where they were not originally
coalesced with the surname. We have been at some pains to lay down rules
for the formation of names indicating personal dedication ; it seems too bad
to mar them by the admission of monstrosities, even on the grounds of their
being arbitrary combinations of letters.

But perhaps we should go further. There is no sentiment against the basic
rules that the language of our nomenclature is Latin, and that names must be
Latin or Latinized or an arbitrary combination of letters treated as a Latin
word. Ought we not to provide that words of the two latter classes must be
pronouncable in the Latin language ? I do not think that srbi can be regarded
as a Latinized word. Would it not be desirable to provide that if a surname
cannot be pronounced in Latin in its original form it shall be so emended
that its Latinized spelling will represent the pronunciation of the name in the
original language ?_ I understand that Professor Srb pronounces his name as
Serb. Then a Latinized name dedicated to him should be serbi, not srbv.
I am not committed to any of these ideas.

(b) Letter dated 20th February 1958 addressed to J. Chester Bradley
by FRANCIS HEMMING, Secretary to the Commission

I agree that when we jointly considered this mater before publication we
neither of us thought of a case where a name might be formed by such a

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 959

combination of initials with a surname as to be quite unpronounceable. [
agree also that some safeguarding words ought to be added. We cannot,
however, I am sure, insert a provision as to what is or is not pronounceable
in Latin, because nobody knows how in fact the Romans pronounced their
language. What we can, however, do, and what I think we ought to do, is to
insert a proviso invalidating such a name if the first portion of it consists of a
combination of consonants of a kind which would be impossible in Latin.
A proviso of this kind would rule out the sort of cases cited in the first para-
graph of your letter.

As regards the third paragraph of your letter, I agree that where a name
is published in the manner discussed above but the initials are not coalesced
with the surname, the zoological name so formed should be rejected as not
complying with the provisions of the Régles.

As regards the point raised in the final paragraph of your letter, I think
that the first of the suggestions put forward above, if generalised so as not to
apply only to cases of names formed of initials plus surnames and thus made
to apply to all cases where zoological names are based on arbitrary combinations
of letters, would meet the case which you have in mind and which I agree
it is desirable should be taken care of. Personally, I already take the view
that a specific name consisting of the letters srbi does not comply with the
requirements in the Régles that names must be Latin or Latinized, or treated
as such, and therefore that a name consisting of the above letters is under the
existing rules already invalid.

(c) Letter dated 23rd March 1958 addressed to the Secretary by
J. CHESTER BRADLEY

I am glad that we think alike in regard to this matter. I do not, however,
fully share your view about not referring to Latin pronunciation. Bull. zool.
Nomencl. 4 : 245, paragraph 8, recognizes the fact that zoological nomenclature
is a living language. Neolatin is the official language of the Roman Catholic
Church, and its pronunciation throughout the ages has not been a matter of
question. It is true that in pronouncing classical Latin in modern times,
the “ English ’’, the ‘‘ Continental ”’ and the “‘ Roman” methods have been
employed, but the differences lie in how certain vowels shall be pronounced,
on whether the hard “ c ”’ shall be used, and whether “ J ”’ shall be pronounced
like “y”’ (consonant). As a matter of fact, the former two have been more
a matter of national pronunciation. The differences do not at all affect the
pronouncability of words. The Hncylopedia Brittanica (last edition) reads :
“ The Pronunciation of Latin in Italy in the classical period has been determined
with approximate accuracy by strict application of the Philological method ”’.

From these considerations I am led to the conclusion that the easiest test
as to whether a barbarous word has been Latinized or treated as a Latin word

960 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

is whether it is pronouncable in Latin. From a practical standpoint, I think
that any word that could be accepted as pronouncable in English, French,
German, Italian or Spanish would pass as pronouncable in Latin (though
perhaps with a very different pronunciation in that language) because all these
languages have the same rules in regard to syllables, which determine the
possibility of pronunciation. ‘‘Srb”’ cannot be pronounced in any of these
languages ; “ serbi”’ can be in all, and would be given the pronunciation that
“‘srbi’’ would have in its original tongue.

Even though the fact that “srbi’’ does not comply with the Revised
Draft, Article 27, Section 1 (that names must be Latinized), we are met with
the conflicting mandatory provision of the Revised Draft, Article 28, Section
16(b) (taken from Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 205, paragraph 11, paragraph (1)(b)(i),
that the ending ‘‘i” or “ii” shall be added to the exact unchanged surname.

From these considerations I am led to propose the enclosed proposals.

1 The proposals here referred to are reproduced as Document 49/5.

ee ey ee

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 961
DOCUMENT 49/5

Latinization of certain geographic and personal names

By J. CHESTER BRADLEY
(Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.)

(Statement received on 3rd April 1958)

Some names in such languages as Welsh, Polish, Hungarian and Czech,
although written with the Latin alphabet, are not pronouncable as Latin words
and cannot be regarded as Latinized without modifying the spelling.
“Cwmffrwd”, “Srb”’, and “Przemysl”’ are examples.

2. One requirement of the Régles is that a zoological name must be Latin or
Latinized, or treated as such, if it is of barbarous origin. Conflicting with this
is the rule that a zoological name based on a modern surname shall consist
of a certain ending “ added to the exact unchanged surname ”’.

3. As long as these two rules stand unmodified, it is impossible to base a
specific name upon such a surname as “ Srb’”’.

4, The pronunciation of zoological names is a matter that has never entered
into the Régles, and need not do so. Of the three methods of pronouncing
Latin in use, two are based on national convenience. The differences lie
largely in the values given to certain vowels. But the pronunciation used in
Rome in classical times has been determined with approximate accuracy.
Without any regard to these differences, a word that cannot be pronounced
in one method cannot be pronounced by any of them. It follows that whether
such a word as “ Cwmffrwd ” can be pronounced in Latin, by whatever method,
is the easiest test as to whether it can be regarded as “‘ Latinized ”’.

5. I doubt that any zoologist would advocate thatevery Latinized barbarous
name must as closely represent phonetically the original pronunciation as the
Latin alphabet permits. No one would suggest that the French “ Renaud ”’
should be Latinized (by the Roman method of pronunciation) as “ Reno”’,
and indeed to do so would at once require selection of a particular method of
pronouncing Latin. I would not suggest that the Welsh “f”’ must necessarily
be Latinized as “‘v” because that is its phonetic value. But it does seem
rational that where a combination of consonants that is impossible in Latin

962 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

occurs in a barbarous word, it should be Latinized in such a manner as to retain
the approximate phonetic value of the original word. Thus the Welsh
** Cwnffrwd ”’, which has the Latin phonetic value of ‘“‘ cumfrud ”’, should be so
Latinized. The Polish “ cz’, a combination of consonants unknown in Latin,
like Czeth “‘e” (ec with a haéek) is pronounced like the soft English “ ch” in
“‘ cheese ’’, a sound not used by the Romans but possible in the “ English ”
pronunciation of Latin. Probably “ch ”’ is the best Latinization of these.

6. When the tables are completed that are to indicate how letters bearing
diacritic marks in the several languages are to be Latinized, they will help in
the Latinization of many of these cases. But they will not be sufficient.
Just as we have for Greek, and have under consideration for the Cyrillic
languages, we need tables for the Latinization of combination of consonants
peculiar to other languages.

7. The language of the Zulus and other African tongues frequently initiate
a word with an “m ” followed by a consonant. “‘ Mposensis ” from “‘ Mposa ”
cannot be regarded as a Latinized name, but I shall leave it to others to suggest
what should be done.

8. The suggested additions to the Revised English draft of the Régles that
follow are designed to obviate the conflict to which attention has been called
in the second paragraph of this paper.

Article 27(b)
P. 192, Line 6. Add:

ae sh ne “ec sht cafe “ce pjh 33 and initial “cc ll 2
may be used in Latinizing geographic and personal names.

P. 192, Line 9. Add:

(c) Barbarous geographic or personal names.—A barbarous geographic or
personal name that lacks such relation of vowels and consonants as
permits it to be divided into syllables capable of pronunciation in
Latin** must be Latinized in order to be used as the basis of a
Neolatin zoological name.

Examples: A specific name based on the Welsh geographic name
“ Cwmffrwd”’ should be written “ cumfrudensis’’. A species dedicated to
a man bearing the Czech surname “Srb” should be named “ serbi ”. The

* Or would it be better to reduce the initial “ ll” in such names as Lloyd to a single “1” ?
Here not only the Welsh “ll” is concerned, but also the Spanish ella.

** This is without reference to any particular method of pronouncing Latin.

cpa lebtaddelp natal tieesti te

ee ee ee eT, ee ee

PPR Baer cater nae eas ni

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 963

Polish city Przemysl may be Latinized phonetically as ‘‘ Pjhemysl”’. The
combination “ cz ” which occurs in certain East-European languages, and also
the Czech “é” should be Latinized as “ch”. The Polish combination
“szez’ should become “sht”’.

9. In such cases where a change is necessary, an attempt should be made
to express in Neolatin the phonetic values of the original word. If a geo-
graphic place had formerly a Latin name, that should be employed, as Bruna
for Brnno, and if a name that cannot be pronounced in Latin in its vernacular
spelling has an equivalent in the Germanic, English, or one of the Romance
Janguages, such an equivalent is preferable. Thus the German Lublin could
be used instead of the Polish Lwow.

(d) Contraventions.—Geographical and personal names introduced as
zoological names in contravention to the provisions of paragraph
““¢” preceding shall be corrected, but shall be attributed to their
original author and date.

Article 28, Section 13

Page 220, Line 7. Add:
(cf. Article 27, Section (2)(c)).

Article 28, Section 16

Page 223, Line 20. Add:
(For an exception cf. Article 27, Section (2)(c)).

Page 226, Line 3. Add:
(For an exception cf. Article 27, Section (2)(c)).

Article 28, Section 17

Page 228, Line 18. After “‘ otherwise” add:
(For an exception ef. Article 27, Section (2)(c)).

964 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

DOCUMENT 49/6

Comments on J. Chester Bradley’s paper on the Latinization of
certain geographic and personal names (Document 49/5)

By L. W. GRENSTED

(Consulting Classical Adviser to the International
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature)

(Letter dated Ist April 1958)

I have had from Professor Chester Bradley a copy of a paper which
I understand he has sent to you in connection with the Latinising of names such
as “‘Cwmffrwd”, “Srb”’, and “Przemysl’”’ (which I remember well as
Primrose Hill!). He asks me to let you have my views on it in detail.

My immediate and natural reaction is that such names should where
possible be avoided. Beyond that, I think that what he suggests is substantially
all right—though I rather believe that “‘ Cwmffrwd ” would be pronounced
differently in North and South Wales, even though ‘“‘ Cumfrud ”’ is the best
one could do with it. I do not see how consistency is possible. In particular
I think that the Welsh “Il’’, initial or medial, is too well established to be
changed. Lloydia is well-known, and clear enough. And nothing can be
done to reproduce the true sound of the “ Il ” in, say, Dolgelley—which is nothing
like the ‘“‘ Dolgethly ” of well-meaning English visitors. And I doubt whether
“ Pjhemysl” is better Latin than “‘ Przemysl”’.

I feel rather inclined to let the suggestions go through, hoping that authors
of new names (and we shall soon have Chinese Zoologists in the field) will be
merciful.

But I do feel some doubt about the section on Contraventions (paragraph
9(d)). If an author’s name is a good attempt at producing a pronounceable word
I think we ought to be a bit cautious about correcting him—especially if he
knows his own language and wedonot. I can conceive well-meaning corrections
in some languages producing very unexpected changes of meaning.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 965

As a non-zoological example, it does not at all do to pronounce “ Karma ”
in the English way as “ Kama”’, and to write it so would be worse—much
worse !

T note, in Bradley’s paper, one or two slips :
Paragraph 5 line 11 read “‘ Cwmffrwd”’
Paragraph 9 line 4 read “as Bruna for Brno, .. .”

There might be something to be said for allowing geographical names
to stand as they are printed in standard English or French atlases, i.e. as

interpreted in one of the two languages recognised in the discussion and drafting
of the “‘ Rules ”’.

966 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

DOCUMENT 49/7

Specific Names based on the Surname of a Person, prefixed by one or
more of his Forename Initials, with a proposal for dealing with
the situation so arising

By L. R. COX
(British Museum (Natural History), London)

(Letter dated 7th April 1958)

C. A. Fleming, of the New Zealand Geological Survey, has written suggest-
ing that I should raise the above question at the Colloquium, and mentioned
his letter to me of 20th March, a copy of which he has sent to you direct?.
The question involved is as follows.

When it has been desired to dedicate a species to an owner of a surname
common to more than one worker in the same field, the course has occasionally
been adopted of proposing a compound specific name, the first component of
which is the initial of the forename of the person to whom the species is dedicated.
Examples known to me, besides the case mentioned by Fleming, are Pinna g.
muelleri Krenkel and Coralliochama g. boehmi Muelleried. There are probably
cases in which two or more initials have been so employed, but I can think of
none at the present moment. The treatment of such names does not appear
to be covered by any existing Opinion or Decision, nor is this particular matter
mentioned in the Bradley Draft of the International Rules which you have
circulated. In this Draft, however, are two clauses which might be considered
to have some bearing on the point.

Under Article 28, Section 13, of the Bradley Draft reference is made
(p. 221, line 21) to specific names consisting of a “‘ phonetic reproduction of
the initials of one or more persons ”’ (what “‘ phonetic reproduction ”’ means,
I do not know), which are to be regarded as an arbitrary combination of letters ;
and under Article 28, Section 15 (p. 222) it is stated that (except in one circum-
stance) “‘ the elements of a compound name shall be coalesced, not hyphened ’’.
It might, therefore, be maintained that the specific name proposed as
“ G@. Muelleri”’ should become the single word “ gmuelleri”” and regarded
as an arbitrary combination of letters. In my view, however, this type of
case should be made a second exception to the coalescence of the elements of

1 In the letter in question, Dr. Fleming mentioned the present issue but did not discuss it.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 967

a compound name, so that the specific name I have mentioned should be
rendered as ‘‘ g-muelleri ’’, omitting the full-stop after the “g”’. At the same
time, I think that the introduction of such specific names in the future should
be prohibited.

This, however, brings me to a second matter.

Names consisting of Arbitrary Combinations of
Letters should be required to be Pronounceable

In the Rules as they stand (Articles 27 and 28 of the Bradley Draft) no
qualifications at all seem to be required of arbitrary combinations of letters
which may be treated as equivalent to Latin words and used as generic or
specific names. So far as I can see, such a combination as QSBT RUS could
be accepted as a specific name unless the Draft Rules are modified.

I would, therefore, propose that Article 27, Section 1(a) of the Bradley
Draft should be emended to read: “Arbitrary words.—An arbitrary com-
bination of letters, treated as though it were a Latinised word, and provided
that it is capable of pronunciation when so treated, shall be deemed to come
under the preceding Rule”’, and that the corresponding clause relating to
specific names should be similarly modified. Possibly some Slavonic gentlemen
would be capable of pronouncing even the hypothetical specific name I have
just mentioned, but that is another matter—a name formed of an arbitrary
combination of letters should be one which a Roman could have pronounced.

968 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

DOCUMENT 1/66
(continued from page 851)

Comment on the Moore/Sylvester-Bradley “ Parataxa Plan ”’

(Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 1056)

By ROBERT O. FAY
(Oklahoma Geological Survey, Norman, Oklahoma, U.S.A.)

(Letter dated 14th April 1958)

In reply to an article sent to me: “ 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 and P. C. Sylvester-
Bradley, I wish to emphasize several points.

First, we are not certain of the biological relationships, morphological
position, or physiology of conodonts. For instance, it is believed that there are
two suborders of conodonts (1) Neurodontiformes (fibrous type) and (2) Cono-
dontiformes (Lamellar type). Some authors now wish to exclude the first
from the conodonts, whereas most authorsdonot. Thisisa matter of individual
opinion, open to question, subject to controversy, and not legally settled by the
Régles. It is not known, for instance, that the conodonts are vertebrates or
invertebrates, clearly a subject that should be divorced from the Régles.
However, the proposals cited in the above article indirectly make the above
decision, namely that Neurodontiformes are not conodonts and Conodonti-
formes are conodonts, treating the former as Taxa and the latter as Parataxa
for discrete parts and Taxa for assemblages. This is not seen directly in the
Régles as proposed, but that is what has to happen as a result of the above
article.

Second, the assemblages, upon which the entire article is based, are open
to question. Some authors who have seen assemblages (Branson & Mehl,
C. C. Branson) are not convinced that these represent whole-animal taxa but
are coprolitic in nature, suggesting that several animals represented by conodonts
were swallowed by a fish or some animal and later excreted. Therefore the
names used for assemblages should be disregarded and the names used for dis-

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 969

crete units should be considered as valid under the present rules (Taxa).
However, this is an opposite view from that expressed in the proposal, based
upon a different interpretation of assemblages.

Third, the conodont Archeognathus primus Cullison, 1938 shows clearly
that each individual conodont attached to a jaw or ramus is the same, and
therefore any name applied to a discrete unit is Taxic. In order that this would
not apply to the conodonts, it is necessary to exclude the suborder (Taxa)
Neurodontiformes from the suborder (Parataxa) Conodontiformes (except for
natural assemblages $) accepting the fact that Archeognatus belongs to the
Neurodontiformes.

Although we must operate outside of the rules occasionally, I deem it not
only desirable but advisable in the case of the conodonts because of the above
reasons. Also, there has been no confusion or disagreement among conodont
specialists with regard to assemblages. It is my hope that we will have a few
simple rules to cover this exceptional case because certainly we cannot place
conodonts under the same rules as aptychi (structures that are biologically,
morphologically, and physiologically understood).

970 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

DOCUMENT 1/67

Comment on the Moore/Sylvester-Bradley ‘‘ Parataxa Plan ’’

(Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 1056)

By KOSARAJU REDDIAH
(Marine Biological Station, Port Erin, Isle of Man)

(Letter dated 21st April 1958)

I write to convey to you that I agree in principle with the proposed
“ Parataxa Plan ” tabled by R. C. Moore and P. C. Sylvester-Bradley in so far
as it applies to paleontology provided the method of application of the system
is acceptable to the specialists in the field. I consider the plan to be of practical
advantage to the paleontologists and the risk to nomenclatural stability to be
small.

Although I do not possess any practical experience in paleontology it
appears to me however that the issue would be simplified if some convenient
method is found so as to apply both the Law of Priority and the Law of
Homonymy to act independently when a wall has to be instituted between
the two systems of taxa, instead of the Law of Priority only, the difficulties
for which have already been expressed by you as the Secretary to the Inter-
national Commission and to some extent by the proposers themselves (1957,
Bull. zool. Nomencl. 15 : 107-117) or that it should be clearly defined by the
Commission when recognised what the wall is composed of.

Secondly, I personally feel that this may not be the right time and even
the right method for the plan to extend to the “ Life Stages ” of the living
animals and I enumerate below the points that have made me to arrive at this
conclusion :

(1) The concept of the word “ fragments ’’ or “ parts ” as applied to fossil
organisms is not the same as the life stages of living animals. The
life stages are not the fragments or parts of life stages but are stages
that are complete in form based on a more definite pattern of
expression than the fragments or parts of fossil forms, by reason of

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 971

which the life stages show pronounced systematic affinities to higher
taxa and to a less degree if not at all, to lower taxa until the time
the complete life history of the animal is worked out. It is no wonder
that the Chairman of the American Society of Parasitologists,
Allen McIntosh, has confidently clarified in his letter dated 19th
December 1956 to J. Chester Bradley (ibid. : 98) that all the species
belonging to collective groups can be placed in classes, most of them
in orders and many in families.

(2) In a determined effort to work out the complete life-history of a living
animal, the matter does lie within the scope of practical possibility,
whereas it may not be even feasible in the case of fossil organisms
as it is largely dependent on chance as to what type of the organism,
or type of the part of the organism, or to what extent it was fossilised,
and as to whether the worker has sought the right material and at
a right place in a right formation. Hence, I fully appreciate the
need felt by many paleontologists and warmly sympathise with them
for the recognition of ‘‘ Parataxa Plan ”’ to the fossil groups.

:
:
:

(3) Assuming that when the parataxonomic system is adopted and proved
effective for selected groups of living animals also, it will not be
practical to restrict the system which would particularly benefit
special fields like the medical but it will have to be extended to all
fields of study comprising different forms of animal associations with
complicated life-histories irrespective of pure and applied fields,
thus spreading to a fairly large part of the animal kingdom which,
I am afraid, might result in further chains of confusion and instability.

(4) After having studied the resolution called for by the American Society
of Parasitologists (1957, ibid. : 89) and the supplementary proposal
introduced by J. Chester Bradley (1958, ibid. 15 : 242-244) satisfying
the further requirements of the said resolution for the purpose of
assigning taxonomic status for the collective groups, I still feel
that the time is not ripe yet to give any significant systematic lift
tosuch groups. The matter still requires to be canvassed for opinions
and comments not only among the systematic parasitologists but
also to all other animal systematists as far as possible, even if it
would cover another five years, as the weight representing the views
of neontologists now seems to be comparatively small and the need
also appears to be not immediate.

Without going any further, I should like to conclude by saying that the
recognition of the ‘‘ Parataxa Plan ” to fossil groups alone at this stage would
prove itself as one of the most remarkable advances ever made in the history
of zoological nomenclature.

972 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

DOCUMENT 1/68

THE DEFINITION OF THE TERM “ PARATAXON ”’

(Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 1056)

By P. C. SYLVESTER-BRADLEY
(University of Sheffield, Sheffield, England)

(Enclosure to letter dated 29th April 1958)

A definition of the term “‘ parataxon ”’ was included in the original proposals
eoncerning parataxa (Document 1/1, p. 13). I have been asked to suggest a
modification of this definition which would, without relaxing any of the
safeguards introduced to prevent abuse, render it sufficiently comprehensive to
cover the wider applications which have been suggested by some authors, such
as the inclusion, as parataxa, of certain works of animals (e.g., trails ; faecal
pellets).

2. I would emphasise that such a change in definition is not intended to
pre-judge the issue of whether some or all works of animals are to be classified
in terms of parataxa. In my view, most works of animals would be better
classified as natural animals, or as Organ Genera. I must also explain that
shortage of time has made it impracticable to discuss the definition given in the
following paragraph with Dr. R. C. Moore, senior author of the original proposals.

3. The definition I would suggest is based on that given in a previous
document (Document 1/64, paragraph 3), and is intended to replace proposal
(2)(a) of paragraph 13 of Document 1/1 :

[that a new article should be incorporated (a) defining the expression
“ parataxa ’’ in the following terms :]

“* parataxa are artificial taxa, based on material deemed, by decision
of the Commission, to be inadequate for diagnosis of natural taxa,
and classified on arbitrary morphological grounds, without regard
to relationships ”’.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 973

4. In order to avoid unintended restriction of the original proposals, the
_ term “fragments” in the second line of proposal (2)(b)(i), and also in the
second line of (2)(b)(ii), should be replaced by the term “ remains ”’,

974 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

DOCUMENT 9/3
(continued from page 209)

Citation of corrected and emended names
(Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 1269)

By CYRIL F. DOS PASSOS
(Mendham, New Jersey, U.S.A.)

(Letter dated 22nd March 1958)

Case No. 9 involves a problem that has confronted me a number of times
in the preparation of a check list of Nearctic Rhopalocera.

To cite some simple examples only, when used as a scientific name the name
McDunnough has been written incorrectly because of the omission by all
authors save one of an ‘a’ as the rules now require. It has accordingly been
changed in my List to macdunnoughi followed by the author, year, and
emendation in parentheses.

Similarly, Callophrys sheridanii (Carpenter), 1877, named after Lt.-Gen. P.
H. Sheridan, has been written incorrectly with an “‘o” instead of an “a”.
In such cases, because of a possible misunderstanding in correcting the mis-

spelling, my entry reads as follows :

sheridanii (Carpenter), 1877 (emendation)

sheridonit (Carpenter), 1877 (lapsus calamt).

It was, therefore, with particular interest that I read Case No. 9 and the
observations of Professor Bradley and yourself. This situation may need
clarification. It is my suggestion that all emendations should be noted as
such. In some cases, such as macdunnoughi, it may not be necessary to place
mcedunnoughi in the synonymy. If the former name is followed by the word
emendation or something similar, it is quite obvious what has been done.
But in cases like sheridanit an explanation should follow and the incorrect
spelling placed in the synonymy followed by lapsus calami. Perhaps to avoid
too many exceptions in the Régles, the latter procedure should be followed
in all cases, and that is the action hereby recommended.

i
|
|
.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 975

DOCUMENT 17/4
(continued from page 692)

Citation of dates in round brackets for bibliographical references

(Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 1294)

By CYRIL F. DOS PASSOS
(Mendham, New Jersey, U.S.A.)

(Letter dated 22nd March 1958)

This case has been studied and my opposition to the proposed deletion of
Article 22, Recommendation 10 (f) relating to the citation of dates in a
particular situation is expressed hereby.

The decisions taken at Paris on this subject are concise and logical. They
give one, who becomes familiar with them, an instant knowledge of where to
find a citation. They are by no means restrictive or pedantic, and correspond
with the usual practice. They will not be ignored by most zoologists once they
are thoroughly understood and their advantages appreciated.

976 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

DOCUMENT 26/15
(continued from page 618)

International Systems for the transliteration of Cyrillic characters and
their modification for use in Zoological Nomenclature

(Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 310)

By P. C. SYLVESTER-BRADLEY
(University of Sheffield, Sheffield, England)

(Enclosure to letters date 26th April 1958)

The Almasov-Boltovskoy plan was first published (January, 1955) a few
months before the first edition of the new “ International System for the
Transliteration of Cyrillic Characters’? was issued by the International
Organization for Standardization (I.8.0.), in October, 1955. It would, in my
view, be a mistake for the International Congress to adopt a system which
ignored the advances made towards international agreement by our biblio-
graphic colleagues. The present contribution to the discussion is an attempt to
set out a scheme which will harvest the skill and labour expended by Almasov
and Boltovskoy while conforming (so far as the special requirements of zoological
nomenclature allow) with the I.8.0. Recommendation.

2. The various schemes of transliteration which have been propounded in
the past chiefly vary in the extent to which diacritic marks are used. There is
considerable variation even within the various national schemes that are now
being proposed—a great many more diacritic marks being recommended, for
example, in the scheme as set out by the Royal Society (Document 26/12) for
the transliteration of Bulgarian than in that for Russian. The advantage of
diacritic marks over polygraphs is the possibility of avoiding all ambiguity in
back-transliteration. But diacritic marks, as Almasov and Boltovskoy have
pointed out, are not to be permitted in zoological names, and, if nevertheless
proposed, are to be subject to “ automatic ” correction according to a schedule
to be attached to the Code. Almasov and Boltovskoy have therefore attempted
to use polygraphs in such a way as to avoid ambiguity in back-transliteration.
Bushell (Document 26/10) rightly points out, however, that such absence of
confusion has been achieved only for those who have some knowledge of the

aS ee ee

Dh ot Pam fm 4

eo hr ea ot

. 1
Se at Peat. thie.

APE «aR hp

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 977

Slav languages concerned. But Bushell also contends that zoological
nomenclature, as such, has no need of back-transliteration, and that
consequently the Almasov-Boltovskoy scheme is more complicated than
necessary. Bushell therefore suggests that two quite different systems are
needed, one for bibliographical purposes, one for zoological nomenclature.
Bushell’s clear exposition of the problem seems quite fundamental to our
present purpose, and deserves further analysis.

3. Once an approved schedule of transliteration has been added to the
Code, names based on words in languages employing Cyrillic characters will
enter zoological nomenclature in four ways :

(a) names will be transliterated according to the schedule ;

(b) names will be transliterated according to some scheme that is not
that of the schedule, but which does not involve the use of diacritic
marks ;

(c) names will be transliterated according to some scheme that is not
that of the schedule, and which does include diacritic marks ;

(d) names will first be transliterated according to some scheme that |
employs diacritic marks, but before publication as zoological names,
these diacritic marks will be eliminated by application of either the
approved schedule of substitutes, or by some other method of
substitution.

Names transliterated according to (a) will be linguistically correct, and
available without modification. Likewise, if the principles approved at
Copenhagen are endorsed, names transliterated according to (b), even though
not in the form recommended, will not be subject to subsequent emendation.
But names introduced according to scheme (c) will be automatically subject to
correction by application’ of the approved schedule of substitutes for diacritic
marks, so that, in fact, they come to equal names transliterated according to
scheme (d).

4. It will clearly be to the advantage of zoological nomenclature if there
is as little disagreement as possible between the finally accepted zoological
names based on words transliterated according to the four methods set out in
the preceding paragraph. It must be emphasised that the majority of names
based on words in Cyrillic characters will be coined by zoologists who are
natives of countries using such languages. Hence, if disagreement between
methods (a) and (b) is to be avoided, it is more important for the schedule to be
acceptable to persons of (for example) Russian, Bulgarian or Serbian nationality

978 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

than it is to those of, say, British, French, American or German nationality. In
this connection it is particularly encouraging to note (from the Annexe to
Document 26/8) that the Institute on Linguistics in Moscow strongly supports
the scheme being sponsored by 1.8.0. Clearly the International Congress must
pay particular attention to this scheme. Now, the 1.8.0. scheme uses diacritic
marks freely, so if it were to be recommended for use in the Code, it would
have to be accompanied by a schedule of recommended substitutes for diacritic
marks. This emphasises another important point, which is to ensure that names
transliterated according to scheme (a) of paragraph 3 should agree as far
as possible with those transliterated according to scheme (d). It seems
imperative, therefore, to formulate proposals for the schedules of diacritic
marks at the same time as those for the schedules of transliterations. Now, if
the Almasov-Boltovskoy proposals are compared with those of the I.8.0., it
will be found that (with a few exceptions dealt with in detail in the following
paragraphs) the only points of disagreement are those in which the 18.0.
scheme uses diacritic marks. One possible course for the Congress would
therefore be (a) to recommend (or, perhaps, to stipulate) that transliteration
should follow the scheme sponsored by I.8.0., modified by the substitution of
letters specified in a schedule for those characters embodying diacritic marks ;
and (b) to base this schedule of diacritic marks on the scheme proposed by
Almasovy and Boltovskoy. Such a course seems to have much to recommend it,
but it is necessary also to explore the possibility, suggested by Bushell
(Document 26/10), of adopting a much simplified schedule of substitution, in
which such letters as y are allowed to represent a variety of different sounds.
At first sight Bushell’s scheme sounds attractive, but it would have one severe
disadvantage. As it would certainly rank as a unique system of transliteration,
it could not be hoped that any agreement would exist between names formed
according to the systems (a) and (b) outlined above in paragraph 3. This
disadvantage appears to me to be so great as to rule out further consideration
of this proposal of Bushell, although I agree with his contention that there is
little need to consider back-transliteration when coining zoological names.

5. It is now necessary to consider the details of the Almasov-Boltovskoy
proposals. The great majority of these have been chosen with such skill
that they have already a great body of international opinion backing their
acceptance. But there are a few exceptions :

(a) Character No. 8b (as listed in the I.S.0. scheme set out in Annexe 2
below) has never previously, so far as I know, been transliterated
as ew but (in the absence of diacritic marks) either as jo, yo or
o (cf. Documents 26/3, 4, 6, 8 annexe, 9 and 12 Table ITI).

(b) Character No. 38 is used so differently in Russian and Bulgarian that
surely it is a mistake to attempt the same transliteration in both
languages. W, in any case, seems unsuitable to both. In the L.8.0.
system the Russian character is represented by a double oblique

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 979

dash (“), which might either be omitted altogether in zoological
names, or represented (as suggested by the Institute of Linguistics,
Document 26/8, p. 594) by the letter 7. In Bulgarian the I.8.0.
system recommends @. This surely must be transliterated as a
vowel; a substitute for the diacritic mark could be either a or ah.

(c) Character 40, an apostrophe or oblique dash according to both the
1.8.0. system and that of Almasov and Boltovskoy, seems unsuitable
for inclusion in any zoological name, and would, in my view, be
better simply omitted.

(d) There remain five characters which are translitered in the I.8.0.

scheme in a way different to that advocated by Almasov and
Boltovskoy, although no diacritic marks are involved.

Transliteration

Character No.
(as in Annexe 2) Almasov-
Boltovskoy

In these cases, some of the suggestions put forward by Almasov and Boltovskoy
have previously been rather frequently used in Anglo-American and west
European systems of transliteration, and consequently may seem to some

_ people more familiar than the alternatives recommended by 1.8.0. In my

view, however, the fact that the I.8.0. scheme is likely to find greater favour
in Slav countries is more important than that it should be familiar in the
languages of western Europe, and I therefore propose that the I.S.0.
alternatives should, in these five cases, be those recommended in the Code.
They have also the advantage of being simpler.

6. It is now possible to draw up two schedules according to the principles

set out in the preceding paragraphs. Schedule 1 (Annexe I) lists the letters and

combination of letters which I suggest that the Congress should :

(a) stipulate as those to be substituted for diacritic marks when these have
been incorrectly included in zoological names based on words
transliterated from the following languages: Bulgarian, Russian,
Ukrainian, White Russian and Serbian ; and

980 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

(b) recommend as those which should be substituted for diacritic marks
when basing a new zoological name on a word in one of the foregoing
languages transliterated according to the I.8.0. system (given in
Schedule 2).

Schedule 1 incorporates all the recommendations of the Almasov-Boltovskoy
scheme except for those noted in para. 5.

Schedule 2 (Annexe II) lists the I.8.0. scheme as published in I.8.0.
Recommendation No. 9 (lst edition, October, 1955), together with the
recommended substitutes for diacritic marks, as in Schedule 1. As I am myself
no authority on these matters, I have queried the disputed symbols listed above

in paragraph 5, and suggest that these need further discussion, and expert
advice.

7. The 1.8.0. Recommendation of Schedule 2 is copyright, and is
reproduced here by permission of the British Standards Institution. The B.S.I.
have in preparation a new British Standard on the “ Transliteration of Cyrillic
and Greek Characters ’’, due to be published in June, 1958. This Standard
will be divided into three sections. Section 1 is intended as a British rather
than an international system, and although it will certainly appeal to English-
speaking scientists, it is in my view not suitable for international use in
zoological nomenclature for the reason that it is more important to choose a
scheme preferred by a native of one of the countries using Cyrillic characters
(who will inevitably include the majority of zoologists wishing to coin zoological
names based on words transliterated from Cyrillic) than it is to appeal to
English-speaking zoologists.

Section 2 is to include four tables for an international system of trans-
literation. It will incorporate all the recommendations of the I.8.0. scheme,
and will in addition provide tables for the transliteration of Cyrillic Macedonian,
Moldavian, Church Slavonic and Roumanian. Section 3 provides a table for
Greek transliteration.

If the Congress looks with favour upon the scheme proposed in para. 6
above for the modification (by the substitution of diacritical marks) of the
international systems for Bulgarian, Russian, Ukrainian, White Russian and
Serbian, it may well wish to extend the same principles to cover the Macedonian,
Moldavian and Roumanian Cyrillic alphabets as set out in Section 2 of the
British Standard. This section, it must be emphasised, is to be proposed as
international, rather than regional, in scope.

I would like to express my appreciation to the British Standards Institution _
for their courtesy in providing information, incorporated in this paragraph, ~
in advance of the publication of the Standard in question.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 981
ANNEXE 1

DRAFT OF PROPOSED SCHEDULE 1

;
Proposed schedule of substitutes for diacritic marks employed in the
transliteration of Cyrillic characters when these are to be incorporated
in zoological names

Diacritical Languages from Proposed substitute
mark which transliterated’ | in zoological names

4

1 B—Bulgarian ; R=Russian; U=Ukrainian; W=White Russian ; S=Serbian.
2 See para. 5a.
3 See para. 5b.
* See para. 5c.

982 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

DRAFT ¢

The I.S.0. scheme for the transliteration of Cyrillic charact
with (in brackets) substitutes for diacrit

Cyrillic
character

Recommended

transliteration

Language

i
po

/ gRuws- |=; eae
epee ney So BBUWS 4), |) oa
F Occl, BS || eRUWS | | vena
ok Aes RM A RE

6-ads Aa |) BRUWS- |~ [o ¢ ee
Luge.) Be BRuWws | ee
eee ee | eo RA | een
nia.) Ge hana) oh

/0

1

/3a Due - eee} + __—

13b
aide esky || RUS —-—| 1-7
ei ee eee
pz | a [| eruw {| __y__
le teatime. |. BROWS... k
BRUWS

mn eae

BRUWS m
BRUWS n

5

_
—s
o

shes
=
4

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 983

i, Russian, Ukrainian, White Russian and Serbian languages,

‘for recommendation in the Zoological Code

Cyrillic Recommended

Character transliteration
oe, S|
BeOWS val) op

Soest
MP faa ohne Bea

4

ne

6

x

Sls

37a B
RU
B GC@h?)

BRW
BRUW
BRUW

“Comit 2)
eCje)

eCeh)

D

a

=
+

D
=

BRUW
BRUW

/@d

984 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

DOCUMENT 33/7
(continued from page 930)

Draft ‘‘ Régles ’’ : minor drafting amendments

(Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 1329)

By P. BASILEWSKY
(Musée Royal du Congo Belge, Tervuren, Belg.)

(Enclosure to letter dated 20th February 1958)

Point (1)
Article 10, Section 1, Recommendation 21 (: 83)

L’indication de l’institution ot se trouve déposé le matérie) typique d’une
forme nouvellement décrite devrair étre obligatoire et non une simple
recommandation.

Point (2)
Article 11 (: 88)

Il serait nécessaire de notifier qu’une erreur de transposition en latin, ou
Vemploi d’une voyelle jointive mal appropriée dans la formation d’un mot
composé, ne constituent pas une orthographe originale invalide et ne peuvent,
par conséquent, étre sujets & émendation, méme si l’étymologie du nouveau
nom est clairement indiquée.

Point (3)
Article 19, Section 1(a) (: 120)

Le terme “‘ génotype ” est définitivement condamné et c’est trés regrettable.
La raison de cette condamnation, 4 savoir une confusion possible avec le
méme terme utilisé en Génétique, est inconsistante puisqu’il s’agit de disciplines
aussi différentes.

Bull. zool. Nomencl. Vol. 15, Part 29/30. June 1958.

ne betas. Ry LIDS

et ae re

ee ce eee ee Te ee

—

Ue: vee pve

ee

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 985

| Le choix du terme “ Type-species’”’ est malheureux, car il devra étre
4 traduit dans toutes les langues, ce qui aménera un manque d’uniformité
facheux. Le terme “ genotype ” avait l’avantage de pouvoir étre utilisé dans
toutes les langues sans traduction.

J’insiste pour que cette question soit remise 4 l'étude. Pourquoi avoir
tranché aisi “ex cathedra”’? Voila pourtant un cas pour lequel il aurait été
utile de connaitre les avis du plus grand nombre possible de taxonomistes, par
Yenvoi d’un questionnaire. Est-il trop tard ?

Point (4)
Article 19, Section 4(e) (: 129)

Une prévision stipule qu’un nom générique établi avant 1931 et pour
lequel aucune espéce n’a été citée comme s’y rapportant, sera supposé contenir
comme espéces originalement citées celles énumérées par le premier auteur
subséquent.

Il est cependant nécessaire d’ajouter que ces espéces ne peuvant étre
postérieures en date a celle de l’établissement du genre.

Point (5)
Article 20 (: 138)

Dans cet article ne sont mentionnés que les “ types primaires’”’: holotype,
syntype, lectotype et neotype.

Il est regrettable que les termes de “ paratype ”’ et “ allotype ”’ ne soient
pas reconnues. Cela ne les empecherait pas de rester des types secondaires et
subjectifs, n’ayant jamais la valeur de “‘ name bearer ”’, mais il serait fort utile de
les inclure dans le Code, ne fut-ce que justement pour bien marquer cette
différence.

Ces deux termes sont utilisés par tous les taxonomistes ; ils existent et ne
pas les reconnaitre c’est fermer les yeux sur un fait bien établi.

Point (6)
Article 20, Section 1, Recommendation 4 (: 139)

“Every institution in which types are deposited should: (y) make
them available to research scientists for study ”

Cette indication est beaucoup trop vague. Certaines institutions la
_ comprennent simplement comme une non-interdiction 4 un spécialiste de venir
_ examiner ces spécimens sur place. Ce n’est qu’une fagon de tourner la
_ Tecommandation.

986 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Il serait souhaitable que chaque institution possédant des types soit mise
dans l’obligation de communiquer ces types & des institutions reconnues, tout
en s’entourant de toutes les précautions nécessaires quant & la sécurité de cette
communication.

Point (7)
Article 20, Section 2 (: 141)

Bien souvent la description originale d’une forme nouvelle fait seulement
mention de plusieurs exemplaires, sans désignation d’holotype, tandis qu’en
réalité un de ces exemplaires est etiqueté holotype par son auteur. Dans ce
cas il n’est pas nécessaire de céer un lectotype, holotype existant.

Point (8)
Article 20, Section 5(a)(x)(: 147)

La publication d’un neotype dans le Bulletin est-elle bien nécessaire ?
La publication de la création de ce neotype dans le travail de l’auteur n’est-elle
pas suffisante ?

Point (9)
Article 24, Section 11(c) (: 180) (et Article 25, Section 1 (: 188))
La prévision telle qu’elle est établie est absolument inacceptable.

J’illustre ma protestation par un exemple réel.

Le genre A est établi en 1810. Le nombre d’espéces lui attribuées croit
sans cesse et atteint 300 vers 1900 ; plusieurs sous-genres sont établis et méme
des genres pour les espéces les plus particuliéres. Entre 1940 et 1955 paraissent,
sous la signature de plusieurs spécialistes, d’importants travaux qui prouvent
que ce genre A comporte en réalité les genres A, B, C,... V, et constitue
une importante sous-famille avec une dizaine de tribus.

En 1957, un auteur sans aucune compétence spéciale dans le groupe,
déclare estimer que les genres A, B, C, .. . V n’ont aucune valeur et que seul le
genre A compte; et cela sans méme aucun essai de discussion taxonomique.
Comme plusieurs de ces genres comportent des noms spécifiques identifiques
(mais, ayant été décrits dans des genres distincts, n’ont jemais eu la méme
combinaison binominale), il les considére comme des homonymes secondaires
et crée des noms de remplacement nouveaux.

—

7
‘

iustiimaua oo

erbe =

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 987

Tl va sans dire que la proposition de ce dernier auteur de réunir en un seul
les genres A, B, C,... V est un retour en arriére et qu’elle ne peut étre acceptée
taxonomiquement et ne sera naturellement suivie par personne. I] n’empéche
qu’é cause de son action plusieurs noms spécifiques identiques ont été
introduits dans un méme genre ; ils ont donc été des homonymes secondaires.

Appliquer 4 un tel cas la “‘ permanency of rejection ’”’ est non seulement
une absurdité mais aussi un encouragement & une action arbitraire et
scientifiquement malhonnéte.

Recourir & la Commission et attendre sa décision c’est accorder trop
d’honneur & une action aussi incorrecte, et rester dans l’indécision. La Section
16 de l’Article 24 prévoit d’ailleurs des abus de ce genre, mais ne propose pas
de moyen pratique pour les éliminer.

Il ne reste done qu’une solution ; modifier la prévision dans le sens
suivant :

(a) Le rejet valide d’un homonyme primaire, donc objectif, est permanent.

(b) Le rejet d’un homonyme secondaire, donc subjectif, n’est pas
permanent; l’homonyme secondaire pourra étre retabli lorsque l’>homonymie
a été provoquée abusivement et disparait.

Point (10)
Article 28, Section 2(a) (: 195)

Les noms d’un taxon basé sur un nom patronymique se terminant par la
lettre ‘‘q”’.

Le Code prévoit d’ajouter la lettre ‘‘u”’ au radical. Cette prévision est
absolument injustifiée.

L’introduction de cette lettre ‘‘ u’”’ modifie le radical méme du nom de la
personne & qui l’on dédie le nouveau taxon, ce que est certainement contraire
a Vintention de l’auteur.

Il est indispensable de supprimer ce paragraphe.

Point (11)
Article 28, Section 2(f)(ii) (: 199) et Section 4(b) (: 202)

L’apostrophe est un signe diacritique comme les autres et doit donc étre
supprimé. Les deux paragraphies mentionnés cidessus se contredisent.

988 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Point (12)
Article 28, Section 2(g) et (h) (: 199)

Les prévisions concernant les noms de taxons basés sur des noms
patronymiques avec un préfixe sont extrémement mal appropriées. Les
appliquer serait introduire un chaos complet et le désaccord des taxonomistes.

(1) Il est fait une différence entre les particules nobiliaires et les autres
préfixes. Cette différence est peut-étre justifiée théoriquement, mais non en
pratique car il est souvent impossible de s’avoir s’il s’agit d’une particule
nobiliaire ou d’un article. ;

(2) Dans le case d’une particule nobiliaire, le radical du nom patronymique
est dépourvu de cette particule. Ce nom patronymique ne change donc pas
si on supprime la particule en basant le taxon.

(3) Dans le cas d’un préfixe, méme s’il s’agit d’un ou de deux articles ayant
la méme forme que la particule nobiliaire, le nom patronymique est inséparable
de ce préfixe que fait partie intégrante du nom. Supprimer une partie ou le
tout de ce préfixe équivaut & une modification du nom patronymique.

(4) Que le préfixe soit réuni on non avec le nom lui-méme ne change
absolument rien. Bien souvent, dans la méme famille, une branche a l’article
réuni au radical, l’autre pas; dans d’autre cas il s’agit simplement d’erreurs
de l’état civil, erreurs non rectifiées par la suite.

(5) Quand on base le nom d’un taxon sur un patronyme, c’est pour honorer
la personne qui porte ce nom patronymique. II est donc nécessaire que cette
personne, et les lecteurs, puissent reconnaitre la patronyme qui a donné
naissance au nom du taxon. En supprimant le ou les préfixes le nom
patronymique est déformé et cette reconnaissance est parfois impossible.

Nommez plasi une espéce que l’on veut dédier 4 Mr. Van den Plas est
aussi inconséquent que de créer le nom de leyi pour honorer Mr. Bradley.

(6) Dans le projet examiné cette différence théorique entre la particule
nobiliaire et le préfixe a été comprise 4 l’envers, puisque dans le premier cas le
maintien de la particule est laissé au choix de l’auteur et dans de second, le
préfixe devrait étre supprimé. Si l’on voulait & tout prix maintenir la
différence entre particule et préfixe, c’est le contraire qui devrait se produire.

(7) Faire une distinction entre les régimes linguistiques ou les nationalités
des noms patronymiques ne résiste pas @ la critique ; il faut une régle uniforme.

(8) La preuve de ce que l’auteur de projet n’a qu’une trés vague idée de ce
qu’il propose, ¢’est qu’il se contredit lui-méme; c’est ainsi qu’il propose d’abord :
vanderhoecki, delacroixi, vanduzeei, et plus loin : ortt, vechti, etc.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 989

.
:
1

(9) Si des préfixes doivent étre supprimés, pourquoi ne pas supprimer
également les préfixes anglo-saxons: Mac. Fitz,O% Or, il n’est pas question
de supprimer ces derniers, ce qui serait tout aussi logique que de supprimer
un Van.

Pour me résumer, je conclus en demandant que les paragraphes (g) et
(h) de la Section 2 soient remplacés par un seul, stipulant :

“En basant le nom d’un taxon sur un nom personne comprenant une
particule nobiliaire ou un (ou plusieurs) préfixe, cette particule ou ce préfixe
peuvent étre omis on conservés suivant le choix de l’auteur du taxon. ”

Et ajouter: ‘‘ Ce choix constituera l’orthographe originale valide et ne
pourra pas étre modifié ultérieurement ’’.

Point (13)
Article 28, Section 8 (: 203)

Pourquoi ne pas prévoir aussi les suffixes “INI” pour les tribus, et
“INA” pour les sous-tribus? Ces suffixes sont actuellement presque
universellement utilisés et il serait souhaitable, dans un but de stabilité et
duniformité, de les rendre intangibles.

Point (14)
Article 28, Section 16(b)(i), (ii), (iv) (: 223-225)
La terminaison “7” ne devrait pas étre admise comme génitif d’un mot

ou d’un nom ne se terminant pas par I.

Il n’y a aucune raison de laisser indifféremment “‘ smithii”’ ou “ smithi ”’
et seule la seconde forme doit étre autorisée.

990 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

DOCUMENT 33/8

Proposals and comments concerning various aspects of the Copenhagen

Decisions, Professor J. Chester Bradley’s Draft of the English Text of

the “ Régles’’, and other matters on the Agenda Paper for the
London Congress

By DONALD F. McMICHAEL
(Australian Museum, Sydney, Australia)

(Enclosure to letter dated 25th March 1958)

Point (1)

A proposal for the amendment or withdrawal of Copenhagen Decision 31
(Article 17 of Professor Bradley’s Draft Text) (: 115) :—

W. I. Follett (Syst. Zool., 5 : 33-36, March 1956) dealing with Modifications
of the International Rules proposed since Copenhagen, mentions on p. 36
that some provision should be added to the rules governing the designation and
restriction of type localities, to the effect that the restricted or designated
locality must be consistent with all available information and that a restriction
or designation that is not consistent with such information should not be
binding on subsequent authors.

To date, I have seen no proposal to the Commission in the Bulletin of
Zoological Nomenclature to this effect, and am therefore taking action in the
matter myself.

Restriction or designation of a type locality for a nominal species will
normally happen under two quite different sets of circumstances, as follows :—

(a) When the holotype, lectotype or syntypes are available but do not
yield adequate data from their labels. In such cases, it will usually
be possible to identify the holotype, lectotype or syntypes with a

particular taxonomic species, and the type locality when chosen ——

should fall within the range of the taxonomic species as far as it is
known.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 991

(b) When the holotype, lectotype or syntypes are missing, or not available.
If the missing holotype is known to have been destroyed, then a
neotype should be chosen, thus automatically fixing the type locality
as that of the neotype specimen. On the other hand, most
designations or restrictions will be made when the type material
is not available, either because its location is unknown, or the
specimen cannot be made available for study, or because the author
has made no effort to locate it. In such cases, the author will try to
identify the nominal species with some particular taxonomic species,
and will then select as the designated or restricted type locality, a
place which lies within the range of that taxonomic species. Later
information (either through rediscovery of the holotype, lectotype
or syntypes, or because of a taxonomic revision) may show that the
original reviser misidentified the species, and that the restricted or
designated locality lies outside the range of the taxon to which
the nominal species is now referred.

As an example, I shall cite the nominal species Unio ambiguus Philippi,
1847 (Abbildung . . . neuer... Conch., 3 : Unio, p. 7 (47) pl. 3, fig. 2) for which
the type locality is given by Philippi as “‘ Nova Hollandia””. In 1934, Iredale
(Australian Zoologist, 8 : 62-63) identified a species of freshwater mussel
from Western Australia as Unio ambiguus Philippi, 1847, on the basis of the
original description and the figure, but without reference to the holotype. As
a consequence, he restricted the type locality to King George’s Sound, Western
Australia. In a subsequent revision of the taxonomy of the Australian
freshwater mussels, Dr. I. D. Hiscock and I have studied the holotype of
Unio ambiguus Philippi, 1847, and are agreed that it represents a species living
in eastern Australia. We therefore have (in m.s.) set aside Iredale’s former
restriction and made a new restriction in keeping with the range of the species
recognised as Unio ambiguus Philippi by us.

However, under Copenhagen Decision 31 and Article 17 of Professor
Bradley’s draft, we could not legally do this ; we could only further restrict
the area set down by Iredale.

Probably many similar cases exist, and it is obvious that the restriction of
the first reviser which does not conform to all the available information, should
not be binding on later authors. I therefore propose that the following
provision should be added to Professor Bradley’s Draft of Article 17, Section
(b) :

“(5) A restricted type locality or a designated type locality which proves
to be, in the light of later knowledge, beyond the known natural
range of the species, or to be inconsistent with what is known of the
original type material, shall not be binding on any subsequent
reviser ”’.

992 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Quite apart from the suggested alteration of this Article, I find myself
in agreement with Professor Bradley’s comment immediately following the
foreword to his Article 17, to the effect that this article is wholly inappropriate
to the Code. The fixing of type localities is a taxonomic matter and only
impinges on nomenclature when the characters of the holotype, suntype or
lectotype are insufficient to identify it. If the morphological characters of the
types in question are insufficient to identify the taxon, then it might be a more
satisfactory solution to select a neotype, which would be identifiable and carry
with it an automatically restricted type locality.

Point (2)

A proposal for the amendment of Copenhagen Decision 137 (2) (Article 20,
Section 2(ii), of Professor Bradley’s Draft)(: 141)

When at the Paris Congress, a definitition of what constituted designation
of a holotype was prepared, the definition was framed in language which gave
freedom to workers to recognise as legitimate holotypes, specimens labelled as
as such by their original authors at the time of their description, but to which no
reference was made in print. The wording “.. . single specimen designated or
indicated by the original author at the time of the original description ”
clearly implies the above to be correct.

Among the proposals submitted to the Copenhagen Congress was one from
Professor Bradley aimed at clarification of Article 31 of the old code in which
he redefined this requirement as follows :

“If the author when describing the species designated one and only one
specimen to be ‘the type’ or its equivalent, that specimen is the holotype.
If, in default of publishing such a designation, he is known to have labelled
one and only one specimen as ‘ type’ or its equivalent, that specimen is the
holotype ” (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 10 : 419, par. (2)(ii)).

I do not have any documents detailing the discussions which surrounded
this proposal at Copenhagen, but in the Decisions resulting from that
congress, the last sentence of Professor Bradley’s proposal quoted above is
omitted. Whether this is accidental or was done deliberately I do not know.

Whatever the cause of the omission, its effects will be disastrous. It means
that many thousands of specimens which have been used in the past as the
bases of species descriptions (i.e., as holotypes) and which were so marked by
their authors at the time of the description and which have been accepted
since as legitimate holotypes, but which were not definitely stated to be such

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 993

in print are now to be deprived of their status and regarded as syntypes only.
In many cases these specimens were figures, measured, or otherwise referred
to and sometimes the specific name is based on the locality from which they
came. According to the Copenhagen Decisions, all these specimens should
now be given equal status with other original material and a lectotype selected.
As Fennah (Syst. Zool. 6 : 47-48) suggests, no restriction is placed on subsequent
lectotype selectors, who may choose any specimen without stating their reasons.
Obviously, this will open the way for unscrupulous workers to select some other
specimen as lectotype which may cause a nomenclatural shift when the
specimen so selected represents a different taxon.

In order to preserve stability, it will be necessary in nearly every case to
select as lectotype, the very same specimen which has for years been regarded as
the holotype, both by the author of the name and by subsequent workers. The
waste of time and publishing space alone will be enormous. If this alteration
in the working of the requirements was intentional, it is, in my opinion, a
complete injustice to the early workers who marked a specimen as “‘ Type ”
in good faith when there were no rules of nomenclature to guide them.

I consider this a matter of extreme urgency and request that the following
amendment should be made to Article 20, Section (2)(ii) of Professor Bradley’s
Draft and to Copenhagen Decision 137(2): The amended version to read as
follows :

“‘ Tf an author when describing a nominal species states in that description
that one specimen and only one is to be the ‘ type’ or uses some equivalent
expression, that specimen is the holotype. If an author failed to make a
statement to this effect in print, but at the time of the original description
marked one specimen and one only as the ‘ Type’ (either on its label or in a
catalogue of the collection) or used some equivalent indication, then that
specimen is the holotype ”’.

I would further add a restriction to the rules governing the selection of
lectotypes following on Recommendation 9 or Article 20 of Professor Bradley’s
Draft to the effect that :

“Other things being equal, a taxonomist should select as lectotype
a syntype which has been assumed by previous workers to be the type,
especially if it was originally figured, measured, or referred to in the original
_ description ”’.

A further provision should be included to the effect that after the date of
coming into force of the new rules, a statement as to the existence of a holotype

994 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

must accompany the original description otherwise the specimens on which the
species was based are all to be regarded as syntypes.

Point (3)
Comments on Proposals for the Modification of Copenhagen Decision 54 (: 95):

A great deal has already been written about Copenhagen Decision 54
which need not be repeated. I give my views on various proposals below.

1. I feel that the rules to be introduced concerning names in the family-
group will cause such a large amount of additional work and confusion to
taxonomists, that it would have been better had they not been introduced.
To this extent I am in agreement with Professor Myra Keen (Bull. zool. Nomencl.
15 : 148).

2. Since the rules have been introduced, they must be framed in such a
way as to leave no ambiguity and to cause as little change in nomenclature at
present in use as is possible.

Therefore I recommend that :

(a) Copenhagen Decision 54(1)(a) should be rephrased so as to make
it quite clear that it is not to be retroactive.

(b) Names proposed as substitutes for older family-group names which
were invalid under the old Article 5, which have gained general
acceptance, should not be displaced in favour of the older name on
grounds of priority.

Consequently I am in agreement with Professor Bradley’s suggestion on the
amendment of Copenhagen Decision 54(1)(a) (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 15 : 253-254)
especially as it concerns the date to be given to a new name introduced under
the old Article 5.

I am also in agreement with the system of dating and authorship citation
suggested by G. H. E. Hopkins (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 15 : 186) for substitute
names introduced under the old Article 5, prior to the Copenhagen Decisions.
In connection with the latter, I would like to point out that I recommended a
similar solution in connection with the name MARGARITIFERIDAE, the subject
of a recent Opinion by the International Commission (see McMichael, Systematic
Zoology, 5 : 141—142). In this Opinion (Opinion 495) the Commission has
adopted ‘‘ Haas 1940” as the authority and date for MARGARITIFERIDAE, i.e.,
the author and date of the change under Article 5, rather than the author
and date of the original name. This should not be taken as a precedent when
considering Hopkin’s and Bradley’s proposals. Under Bradley’s proposal, the
name MARGARITIFERIDAE would date from 1910 (the date when MARGARITANIDAEB

—— se a

TS

5
é
é

a. se

il al led et

Pa
hI
ae

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 995

was introduced, for which MARGARITIFERIDAE is an amendment), and under
Hopkin’s scheme the name would have been written as MARGARITIFERIDAE
Ortmann, 1910 (F. Haas, 1940, nom. mut. pro. MARGARITANIDAE Ortmann,
1910). The latter, though cumbersome, would in my opinion be an ideal
solution, and if adopted would solve many of the problems of priority which are
bound to arise if some provision to the effect of my recommendation (b) above
is not introduced.

Point (4)
Proposal to Modify Article 29(1)(i) of Professor Bradley’s Draft (: 250) :

In view of the possibility of conviction and sentence to imprisonment on
political grounds (in absentia) of political refugees who have fled from a country,
I suggest that this subparagraph should be altered to read as follows :

“Tf on conviction of a court of law, other than a court established
in time of war by an occupying power, he is sentenced to imprisonment
(other than when he is a political refugee in another country, and is
convicted and sentenced in absentia).”

or alternatively that this subparagraph be replaced by one to read as
follows :

“Tf he is convicted of some criminal offence, which in the opinion
of the other commissioners renders him unfit to hold office.”

Point (5)

Proposal to make Recommendation 1 of Article 20 of Professor Bradley’s
Draft Mandatory (: 138) :

Since it has been considered advisable to make it mandatory for neotypes
to be deposited in a museum or other institution which maintains permanent
zoological collections, I can see no reason why this should not also be a necessary
provision for holotypes and lectotypes and therefore propose that Article 20,
Recommendation 1, should be made a mandatory provision of the Article.

Point (8)

_ Proposal to Extend Article 7, Section 4 of Professor Bradley’s Draft to exclude

eyclostyled or mimeographed documents from consideration for nomenclatural

_ purposes (: 66) :

Article 7, Section 2(a)(i) of Professor Bradley’s draft as at present phrased
would allow cyclostyled or mimeographed publications to be accepted as

996 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

publications for nomenclatural purposes, since they are not prohibited under
Section 4. It is, of course, possible that they could be excluded under
Section 2(b)(i).

Most cyclostyled or mimeographed publications are no better than carbon
copies made on a typewriter, and are frequently much worse. This type of
publication should be excluded from acceptance as “ publications for
nomenclatural purposes’ along with microfilms and microcards. Therefore
I would add the following provision to Article 7, Section 4 of Professor Bradley’s
Draft :

‘“‘(7) the distribution of mimeographed or cyclostyled documents, not-
withstanding that these may form a periodical which is distributed
free or placed on sale ”.

PURCHASED
2 0 JUN 1958

CONTENTS
(continued from front wrapper)

THE LONDON AGENDA PAPER

(a) New Proposals

Page
Case No. 43: Draft “ Régles ’’, Article 20, Sections 1—3 ; terminology
of Type Specimens
D.43/1_ P. C. Sylvester-Bradley on oa ‘F 4 yao Deee
D.43/2 Francis Hemming... =) ae ve a ar 5 |
Case No. 44: Draft “ Régles’’, Article 7, Section 4, Subsection (6) :
status of names in Preprints
D.44/1 Cyril F. dos Passos .. he “3 i fs cng. Sbe
D.44/2 Francis Hemming... ie mS 5 A a F936
Case No. 45: Draft “ Régles ’’, Article 28 : compound names of Spanish
origin
D.45/1 R. Alvarado .. * a a ‘ te o> eee
_ ase No. 46: Draft “ Régies ’’, Article 1, Section 1, and Article 21,
Section 2: implications of the type concept
D.46/1 BR. A. Crowson .. ¥ ‘e ox A os. .. 940
Case No. 47: Draft “ Régles ’’, Article 19, Section 7 (a) : misidentifi-
cation of a selected type species for a genus
D.47/1_ BR. A. Crowson. . si ae 2 “ fs -. ~ 942
Case No. 48 : Draft “ Régles ’’, Article 13, Section 3 (e) : family-group
_--—sHaMes consisting of vernacular words
y Sonne: dua erowsan et ic. oe ER a ey ia

D.48/2 Francis Hemming... te bi ne a4 -. 945

CONTENTS

(continued from inside back wrapper)

Page

Case No. 49: Draft ‘‘ Régles’’, Article 27: zoological nomenclature

Latin

D.49/1 Francis Hemming... a Mn iS a .. 948

D.49/2 . Francis Hemming ... re te Sy an . 2) a aD

D.49/3 F. A. Urquhart as ar i ms as i eee

D.49/4 J.Chester-Bradley .. Se ms en er . eae

DAg/5 aJ¢Choster-Bradlty. 9.95... > steak. deat Cee

D.49/6 L. W. Grensted on =i NA us CS .» BOE

D.49/7 L. R. Cox Be: si Be, aie 53 Fe « RGB:

(b) Comments on previously published proposals

Case No. 1: Proposed recognition of the ‘‘ Parataxon ’’ concept

D.1/66 Robert O. Fay.. ns m Se ome sf ~. | 26s

D.1/67 Kosaraju Reddiah ... 4f a ie Rf 2 ee

D.1/68 P. C. Sylvester-Bradley iy “0 Mis 5 i ae
Case No. 9: Citation of corrected and emended names

D.9/3 Cyril F. dos Passos... a “A Pi 3 A gid y
Case No. 17: Citation of dates for bibliographical references

D.17/4 Cyril F. dos Passos .. ep Be os a: ae
Case No. 26: Transliteration of Cyrillic Languages

D.26/15 P. C. Sylvester-Bradley a4 4A at Ne aN iL
Case No. 33: Minor drafting amendments

D.33/7 P. Basilewsky .. on i ee Bi es ia) ae

D-33/8. Donald F. McMichael... © .2)8 24 3: SO OR ee

© 1958. THe INTERNATIONAL TRUST FOR ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE
Printed in England by MeTcaALre & Cooper Limrtep, 10-24 Scrutton St., London E C 2

VOLUME 15. Triple Part 31/33 27th June 1958
pp. 997-1092

‘THE BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL
: NOMENCLATURE

The Official Organ of

THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

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

5’ Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature\” >

HASED CONTENTS

1 Abad? en of the London Congress Agenda Paper

yf. Appointment of Officers of the ce on Zoological Nomenclature
London, 1958 Six. af : at a Pe i nie OOF

C Shairmanship of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature .. 998

(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 Three Pounds

(All rights reserved)

Edited by Pa
Qxvisi MU
% .

yi

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 Hpmuane (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 Plaia, Argentina) (27th July 1948)

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

Dr. Henning Lemcue (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark) (27th July 1948)
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 JaczEwsxi1 (Institute of Zoology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw,
Poland) (15th June 1950)

Professor Dr. Robert Mertens (Natur Museum u. Yorschungs-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 BrapLey (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 Hanx6 (Mezégazdasdgi Museum, Budapest, Hungary) (12th August 1953)

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

Mr. P. C. SyivEestER-BraDLey (Sheffield University, Sheffield, England) (12th August 1953)

Dr. L. B. Hoxrxuis (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. Matter (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. Wilhelm Kiunett (Zoologisches Institut der Universitat, Vienna, Austria) (6th
November 1954)

Professor F. S. BopunsEemer (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) Q

Professor Enrico TortonEsE (Museo di Storia Naturale ““G. Doria”, Genova, Italy) (16th
December 1954) ;

Dr. Per Brrxox (Lunds Universitets, Zoologiska Institution, Lund, Sweden) (19th May 1958)

BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

mai RS
Volume 15 (pp. 997-1092) PUR? ASED 27th June, 1958

j A Ha 1058

APPOINTMENT OF OFFICERS OF THE COLLOQUIUM ON ZOOLOGICAL
NOMENCLATURE, LONDON, 1958

Statement issued by the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature

Consequent upon being informed by Mr. Francis Hemming that on the
advice of his doctors it will not be possible for him to take part in the meeting
of the forthcoming Colloquium on Zoological Nomenclature the following,
appointments have been made by the International Trust for Zoological
Nomenclature in consultation with Sir Gavin de Beer, President of the Fifteenth
International Congress of Zoology shortly to assemble in London :—

To be Chairman of the Colloquium on Zoological Nomenclature

R. G. 8. HUDSON, D.Sc., Chief Geologist, Iraq Petroleum Company.

To be Secretary to the Colloquium on Zoological Nomenclature

% R. V. MELVILLE, MSc., Assistant Secretary to the International
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature and Director of the Office
of the Commission (on seconded service from the Geological Survey
and Museum, London).

FRANCIS HEMMING

Managing Director and Secretary,
International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature

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

| 30th May 1958

_ 000

998 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

CHAIRMANSHIP OF THE INTERNATIONAL TRUST

Statement issued by the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature

The International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature has great pleasure in
announcing that the Right Hon. the Lord Hurcomb, G.C.B., K.B.E., has
accepted the Chairmanship of the Trust in succession to the Right Hon.
Walter Elliot, deceased.

FRANCIS HEMMING

Managing Director and Secretary,
International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature

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

30th May 1958

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 999

CASE No. 50

ARTICLE 28, APPENDIX, TABLE 2, PART B GREEK [WORDS] :
GUIDANCE AS TO FORMATION OF FAMILY-GROUP NAMES BASED UPON

(Commission Reference Z.N.(S.)1353)
DOCUMENT 50/1

Proposed Revision of certain entries in Part B of Table 2 in the Appendix
to Article 28

By AFRANIO DO AMARAL
(Instituto Butantan, Sao Paulo, Brasil)

(Extract from a letter dated 8th February 1958)

Concerning Table 2, Part B—Greek (Bull. 14: 240—243), I should suggest
a revision, if possible, of the following Family names transliterated in Latin
as “examples” :

OICIIDAE (p. 238), EICONIDAE, EIDEIDAE and AIDIDAE (p. 241), since in
_ Latin there was no initial diphthong such as Oi, Hi and Ai except when in
Greek the original corresponding vowels did not form a diphthong, being
written, respectively, ot, et and «i (with diaeresis).

Instead of Oiciidae we should write @ciidae : like @conomia.
Instead of Hiconidae we should write Iconidae : like Iconographia.
Instead of Hideidae we should write Ideidae : like Idolatria.
Instead of Aididae we should write Aididae : like Mdepsus.

1000 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

CASE No. 51

DRAFT “ REGLES ”’’, ARTICLE 28, SECTION 16 (SPECIFIC NAMES BASED
ON MODERN SURNAMES) : PROPOSED ADOPTION OF A FURTHER
“RECOMMENDATION ”’

(Commission’s Reference Z.N.(S.)1024)

DOCUMENT 51/1

Proposed adoption of a “‘ Recommendation ’’ that, where a specific name is
based on a modern patronymic, it should be formed as a substantive in
the genitive case if the purpose is to honour the collector of
the type material and as an adjective in other cases

By HOBART M. SMITH
(University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois, U.S.A.)

(Enclosure to a letter dated 27th September 1955)

The Copenhagen Decisions on Zoological Nomenclature (1953 : 53) recom-
mends that, whereas Article 14 now requires that a trivial patronym be formed
only as a noun substantive in the genitive case (e.g. jonesi), the provision of
that Article should be extended to permit the formation of such a specific name
as an adjective by the addition of an adjectival termination (e.g. jonesianus).

Additionally, the Colloquium recommended that a formal Recommandation
should be appended to the Article expressing a preference for proposal of
patronyms in substantive rather than adjectival form.

In the documents relating to the Case governed by this Decision (1953,-
Bull. zool. Nomencl. 10 : 221) no mention is made of a custom common among ~ $
plant taxonomists that lends reason, not otherwise evident, to a choice between ©

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 1001

substantive and adjectival forms for patronyms. This custom is that patronyms
honouring the collector be of substantive form in the genitive case, and that
_ patronyms honouring persons other than the collector be of adjectival form.

Inflexible application of the stated botanical custom in zoological taxo-
nomic precedure would apparently be undesirable. On the other hand the
_ possible merit of adding to Article 14 a Recommandation that this custom be
__ observed insofar as practicable in zoological taxonomy is worthy of consideration,
_ hereby requested, by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature.

1002 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

CASE No. 32

DRAFT “ REGLES ”’, ARTICLE 20, SECTION 1(b),
*“ RECOMMANDATION ” 1: “ RECOMMANDATION ”? RELATING TO
THE DESIRABILITY OF TYPE SPECIMENS BEING DEPOSITED IN
PUBLIC INSTITUTIONS

(Commission Reference Z.N.(S.)1305)

DOCUMENT 52/1

Proposed insertion in the “ Régles ’’ of a provision invalidating names given
to species and taxa of lower rank where the holotype, syntypes or
lectotypes are not placed in a public institution

By P. VIETTE

(Muséum National d’ Histoire Naturelle, Paris)

(Statement enclosed under cover of a letter dated 11th February 1958)

The fact, that, to validate the description of a new species or a new sub-
species, the holotype must be kept in a recognized public institution that
maintains a research collection to which scientists are admitted, was already
evocated at the 1953 Copenhagen International Colloquium of the Zoological
Nomenclature. Unfortunately, this proposition was, at this time, rejected
by a majority.

2. The new text of the Régles states that a neotype to be validated must
be kept in a public institution as above. Why not apply the same rule when
a holotype is created to validate the name of a new species or a new subspecies
or the designation of a lectotype ?

_ Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 1003

3. Holotypes, lectotypes and neotypes, having the same scientific value
as type specimen of the species or the subspecies and being the property of
Science must not be found in a private collection (often for lucrative views).

4. It would thus be necessary that the 1958 London International
~ Colloquium of the Zoological Nomenclature decides to include in the Reégles
_ new paragraphs, for instance in the Article 20 or a new Article which could
_ be drawn as follows :

(1) The description of a new species or a new subspecies will only be
validated if the holotype (or a series of syntypes, if the author
does not desire to designate any holotype) is kept in a recognized
public institution that maintains a research collection to which
scientists are admitted.

(2) The designation of a lectotype will only be valid if the lectotype, so
designated, is kept in a public institution as above.

(3) Holotypes (or syntypes) and lectotypes are properties of Science
and not those of a private collector.

This text could come into effect from Ist January, 1960.
After this date, the name of the species or subspecies, the holotype of

which would not be kept in a public institution as above, would have to be
placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology.

1004 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

DOCUMENT 52/2

Objection to the insertion in the “ Régles ’’ of a provision for the compulsory
deposit of type material in public institutions

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

(Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature)
(Statement dated 20th February 1958)

At its Session held in Paris in 1948 the Thirteenth International Congress
of Zoology agreed to insert in the Régles a ‘‘ Recommandation ” urging authors
(a) when describing new species to place the holotypes of those species in
public institutions or (b) when selecting lectotypes for previously established
nominal taxa to secure that the lectotype so selected was placed in such an
institution (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4: 187, Point 75(6) ). The provision so
adopted has been incorporated in the Draft of the English text of the Revised
Régles in Article 20, Section 1(b), Recommendation 1 (1957, Bull. zool.
Nomencl. 14: 139).

2. The reason which has led me to submit the present note is the presen-
tation to the coming Congress of a proposal that the non-mandatory “‘ Recom-
mandation ”’ inserted into the Régles by the Paris Congress should be converted
into a mandatory provision under which a name proposed for a new species
would be invalid unless its holotype had been deposited in a public institution
and a lectotype selection made for a previously established nominal species
would also be invalid unless the syntype so selected to be the lectotype was
deposited in such an institution. Everyone will, I am sure, be in favour of
the ‘‘ Recommandation ” adopted by the Paris Congress, but the conversion
of that ‘‘ Recommandation”’ into a mandatory provision would create an
entirely new situation and one which on closer inspection would, I feel confident
be generally regarded as being open to serious practical objection.

8. Far from promoting stability in zoological nomenclature, the proposal
submitted would have an exactly opposite effect, for under it a name published
for a new species with an excellent description and figures might be invalid

possibly for years if its type material were not deposited in some public -—

collection. Indeed, if the nominal taxon concerned was based upon a unique

holotype, the name might remain invalid indefinitely. What would be still

eee

Cnet.” aap

LRA Ce yine

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 1005

worse, it would under such a system be impossible ever to give a valid name to
such a species unless and until a second specimen was discovered. Clearly
no system however, well-intentioned which could lead to such anomalous
results could be regarded as satisfactory.

4. Moreover serious difficulties would inevitably arise if the type specimen
of a nominal taxon, the name of which had been rejected under the proposed
provision, were at some later date to find its way into a recognised museum.
Would the name thereupon acquire the status of availability ? If so, as from
the date on which the name was originally published and rejected or from
the date on which the type specimen arrived at the museum or that on which
the arrival of the type specimen in the museum was first duly published ?
One has only to ask these questions to see what a powerful (though unintended)
instrument for the upsetting of established names would be brought into
existence if a provision of the kind here under discussion were to be adopted.

5. Finally, it must be recalled that much rich material has been obtained
in the past from little known regions by collectors who recouped themselves
of the expenditure incurred by the sale of the specimen which they collected.
An important part of the receipts so obtained was commonly derived from the
sale of those of the specimens concerned which had become types when the
collections obtained were worked over. Any provision which required that
such specimens should already be in museums before they became types
would deprive the organisers of such expeditions of an important part of the
funds till now available in such cases for meeting the expenditure involved.
It cannot be doubted that the effect would be to reduce the number of such
expeditions and thus to slow down the rate at which knowledge of the fauna
of little-known places is obtained.

6. I would therefore recommend that the provision relating to the
deposit of type specimens in public institutions should remain as at present
a non-mandatory Recommendation.

1006 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

CASE “Nov 33

DRAFT “ REGLES ”’, ARTICLE 24, SECTIONS 8(a) AND 10(a) :
RELATIONSHIP FOR PURPOSES OF THE LAW OF HOMONYMY
OF VARIANT SPELLINGS OF NAMES BASED ON GEOGRAPHIC TERMS

(Commission Reference Z.N.(S.)961)
DOCUMENT 53/1

Request for a Ruling that any two generic names or trivial names in the same
genus, each based upon a word transliterated into the Latin alphabet
from a language using another alphabet but differing from
one another in the transliteration used, be treated as
homonyms of one another

By TEISO ESAKI
(Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan)

(Note : This paper was handed in by the late Professor Teiso
Esaki during the Copenhagen Colloquium and was published
after the close of that meeting (1954, Bull. zool. Nomencl.
10: 523-526). The subject matter was not fully dealt with
at Copenhagen, and the present paper is reprinted for con-
sideration by the London Colloquium in connection with
Professor Tadeusz Jaczewski’s communication of 30th May,
1955.)

In connection with the request submitted by Dr. Hachisuka (1952, Bull.
zool. Nomencl. 9: 102-103) the National Sub-Committee on Zoological
Nomenclature, National Committee on Zoology, Science Council of Japan,
decided to prepare the draft of a ruling to be inserted in some proper place
of the Régles that generic or trivial names based upon the names of persons

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 1007

or places other than the Latin derivative or upon barbarous words, each
consisting of a variant of a previously published name derived from the name
of the same person or place or the same word, and are based upon a word
transliterated into the Latin alphabet from a language using another alphabet,
and the difference(s) so displayed is (are) due to different methods of trans-
literation, are to be treated as junior homonyms of the earlier names so
published. This problem is especially connected with some Asiatic animals,
of which the scientific names are based upon names of persons or places. The
author, as the Chairman of the Sub-Committee, accordingly personally consulted
and discussed the whole problem with Dr. Hachisuka and prepared the present
draft, which was approved by Dr. Hachisuka and by the Sub-Committee.*

|
i
;

We reached the conclusion that the ruling should cover as many cases as
possible, as suggested by Mr. Hemming, Secretary to the International Com-
mission on Zoological Nomenclature, in connection with Dr. Hachisuka’s
application (1952, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 9 : 103). The co-ordination of various
cases derived from different languages proved, however, rather difficult. The
following scheme was intended to cover as many as possible of the cases
involved at present.

The Sub-Committee submits to the Commission for consideration, that
the recommendation to be given in connection with the Article 34 of the
Régles and Opinion 147, agreed by the Commission at the 6th Meeting, Paris,
July, 1948 (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 161-162) should be further expanded
so as to cover as many as possible of the cases to be expected, and therefore :

It is recommended that, where it is evident that two generic names or two
trivial names in the same genus (1) consist of the same Latin word or of the
same Latinised word (including proper names other than modern patronymics),
or (2) are based upon the same modern patronymic, or (3) are based upon the
_ name of the same continent, country, district, town or other place or upon
_ the name of the same geographical feature such as a mountain, island, sea,
river or lake, or (4) are based upon the same barbarous word, and the said
‘generic names or the trivial names of the same genus are distinguished from one
another only by one or more of the undermentioned differences in spelling,

the two names are to be treated as homonyms of one another.

(a) the use of “ae’’, “oe” and “e” (caeruleus, coeruleus, ceruleus) ;
_ (b) the use of “ei”, “i” and “ y ” (chiropus, cheiropus ; japensis, yapensis) ;
_ (c) the use of “c” and ‘“‘k” (coreanus, koreanus ; micado, mikado) ;
(d) the use of “‘v” and “ w” (okinavanus, okinawanus) ;
(e) the use of “c”’ and “z” (ceylonensis, zeylonensis) ;
(f) the use of “s” and “z” (lusonicus, luzonicus) ;

* Approved by Dr. Hachisuka on 8th May 1953, and by the Sub-Committee on 25th May
1953. The author regrets to record that Dr. Hachisuka died suddenly on 14th May 1953, of
angina pectoris, at his residence in Atami at the age of 52.

1008 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

(g) the aspiration or non-aspiration of a consonant (oxyryncus, oxy-
rhynchus) ;

(bh) the presence or absence of a “‘c” before a “t” (autumnalis,
auctumnalis) ;

(i) the use of “m” and “n” before a consonant (sepiemtrionalis,
septentrionalis ; symplecta, synplecta) ;

(j) the use of a single or double consonant (litoralis, littoralis).

In the case of names derived from the names of persons or places or some
other word originally written in the Cyrillic or some other alphabet, and the
differences are due to the different methods (e.g. English, German, French or
Dutch) of transliteration :

(a) the use of “u”’, “ou” and “oe” (buruensis, bourouensis, boeroeensis) ;

2

(b) the use of “kh”, “ch”, “gh” and “h” for Cyrillic “x” or an
equivalent ;

(c) the use of “ch”, “tsch” and “tch” for Cyrillic “4” or an
equivalent ;

(d) the use of “ts” and “z’”’ for Cyrillic “ I” or an equivalent ;
(e) the use of “g” and “h” for Cyrillic “I” ;
(f) the use of “sh”, “sch” and “ ch” for Cyrillic “ III” or an equivalent ;

(g) the use of “shch”’, “shtch”’, “shtsh”’, “schtsch” and “ chtch ” for
Cyrillic “ce Uy 2” :

(h) the use of “v’”, “w’”, “f” and “ ff” for Cyrillic “ B ” or an equivalent ;

(i) the use of “ zh’”’, “ dsch” and “ j ” for Cyrillic ‘‘ SK” or an equivalent ;

(j) the use of “ja’’ and “ya” or “ju” and “yu” for Cyrillic “A”
or “é Xe) a2

In the cases of names derived from the names of persons or places of Japan
or any other Japanese word, in which differences are due to the use of different
systems of transliteration,* or to the use of a sharp or soft consonant, the
following differences may be dealt with as shown below :

* There are several systems of transliteration used in Japan. The so-called ‘“‘ Hepburn’s
system ’’, in which the vowels are transliterated as in German or Italian, while the consonants
are latinised like in English, is the oldest in origin and is still in very wide use, while the so-called
“Nippon system ”’, based on theoretical grounds based on the construction of the Japanese
language, is more strongly supported in younger academic circles than the former. The two
systems differ from each other in expressing several sounds by different consonants as summarized
above. A slightly modified system of the latter, the ‘‘ Kunrei (or Instruction) system”, was
officially adopted as the standard method of transliteration by the Japanese Government in 1937,
but in spite of this act, all three systems are now in use even by governmental bodies.

SP age ©

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 1009

(1) Hither of each of the following groups of syllables or consonants may be
used to express the same sound :

eee ane pes en) and “tS tam” and “‘ to??s. “fa”
and hs jk’, et and. * diy 9 and) “zy ” before an
fae, Oo OF. th an A. ay Deters an “oa, 57"
ons ch” and’ “ty before ane “fa?, “o ?C ont a

““m” and ‘‘n” before a labial consonant.

(2) Either consonant in each of the following groups may be used in some
cases to express one and the same syllable according to the arbitrary
pronunciation in preference to the other :

AS ay and DEE series erp and way teas OS and air leew Cals We
and = ea eS and eae “Sah and es ae one and ABS

The problem whether the present ruling could be further expanded as to
cover cases, in which the names are derived from more or less different words
of the same meaning and origin, such as japonicus, japanicus ; nipponicus,
niphonicus, nihonicus ; berlinensis, berolinensis; ceylonicus, zeylanicus; or
the names are derived from the same geographical term and have the ending,
“-ensis ’’, but differ from one another in spelling, for example, such names as
borneensis, borneiensis, bornensis, borneoensis, borneonensis ; should be submitted
for further discussion. The difference in names with or without diacritical
marks may also be discussed in connection with the present case, and in that
event the recent article by Paclt (J. Paclt, Uber die Behandlung der diakritischen

_Zeichen, 1952, Senckenbergiana 33 : 357-361) may usefully be consulted.

1010 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

DOCUMENT 53/2

Comment on certain points raised by Professor Teiso Esaki in regard to the
position in relation to homonymy of certain names consisting
of variant spellings of geographic terms

By TADEUSZ JACZEWSKI
(Polish Academy of Sciences, Institute of Zoology, Warsaw, Poland)

(Letter dated 30th May, 1955)

Although with some delay, I would like to make the following additional
comment in connection with Document 53/3 by Prof. Teiso Esaki, published
in Bull. zool. Nomencl., London, 10 : 523-526:

The example of the pair of names japensis and yapensis is inadequate for
the recommendation given in point (b) in p. 524. The facultative use of ei, 7
or sometimes y is found in names of classical derivation, while the above
example concerns names differing not by i and y, but by j and y, and is the
result of different methods of transliteration. It is clearly evident that the
spelling japensis is based on the German method of transliteration, and the j
has to be pronounced as in German or in the Slavonic languages which use the
Latin alphabet, as Polish, Czech and some other. The spelling yapensis is
transliterated according to the English or French method. In any case the
example does not belong to the recommendation concerning the use of e#, 7 or y.
The whole matter is not so simple, and I think that the question of facultative
variants of spelling in names derived from classical words should be dealt with
as a separate one and independently of the various methods of transliteration
of modern names derived from languages using an alphabet different from the
Latin, or possessing no alphabet.

2. The recommendations in the points (a), (g), (h), (i) and (j) on p. 524
of the Document in question apply to names of classical origin only. The
recommendation in point (c) on p. 524 is good both for classical and many,
but not all, modern names. The recommendation in points (d), (e) and (f) on
p. 524 belong to the field of variants of transliteration.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 1011

3. In other words, I think that such recommendations as proposed in
the Document in question should be given separately for (1) names based on
words of classical origin, and (2) names derived from modern words.

4. The best method of transliteration of words taken from languages
using an alphabet other than the Latin alphabet, or possessing no alphabet,
would be perhaps a method similar to the ““ Hepburn’s system ”’, used in Japan,
as described by Prof. Teiso Esaki, l.c., p. 525. The vowels could be trans-
literated in German, Italian or the Slavonic languages using the Latin alphabet,
j as in German or the mentioned Slavonic languages, ¢ as in the Slavonic
languages, other consonants as in English with such additional combinations
as zh, dzh and perhaps some others.

5. On p. 525, in point (d), there should be added the possible variant c
which should be treated as homonymous with ts or z (German method) in the
transliteration of the Cyrillic I.

6. On the same p. 525, in point (i), there is an obvious error : the Cyrillic
#K has never the phonetic value of dsch. In all languages using the Cyrillic
alphabet it has always the phonetic value of the French j.

7. It should be also noticed that the points given on p. 525 of the Docu-
ment under consideration take into account the Cyrillic alphabet only as it is
used in Russian. There will be some more variants if other languages using
the Cyrillic alphabet are taken under consideration as well.

1012 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

CASE No. 54

DRAFT “REGLES ”, ARTICLE 28, SECTION 8 : TERMINATION TO
BE ADOPTED FOR THE NAMES OF TRIBES AND SUPERFAMILIES
RESPECTIVELY

(Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 1356)

DOCUMENT 54/1

Information regarding the acceptability of certain terminations for the names
of tribes and superfamilies furnished to the Copenhagen Congress of 1953
by Leonard P. Schultz (Washington)

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

(Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature)
(Note dated Ist April 1958)

At Copenhagen in 1953 the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology,
after re-affirming the terminations to be used for the names of families and
subfamilies, postponed for later consideration the question of the termination
to be used for tribes (then defined as taxa belonging to a category below the
subfamily level) and superfamilies (1953, Copenhagen Decisions zool. Nomencel. :
33, Decision 47(2)). In the above connection it is thought that it would be
of interest to the London Colloquium to have before it the following extract
from a note by Dr. Leonard P. Schultz (Smithsonian Institution, Washington,
D.C., U.S.A.) in which are given particulars of replies received from a con-
siderable number of specialists in various groups to questions put to them as
to the acceptability of a certain specified terminations for taxa belonging to
each of the above categories. The document in question was submitted to

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 1013

the Copenhagen Congress in a paper by Dr. Schultz which was published in
full as Document 4/6 on the Copenhagen Agenda Paper (1953, Bull. zool.
Nomencl. 10 : 5—8).

ANNEXE TO DOCUMENT 54/1

Results of a preliminary survey of group endings in zoological
classifications above the category of genus
4

By LEONARD P. SCHULTZ

(Smithsonian Institution, United States National Museum,
: Washington, D.C., U.S.A.)

(Communicated under cover of a letter dated 26th September 1951)

} Late in 1948 the author inquired of twenty-seven North American
q ichthyologists in regard to fixing specific endings for various categories of
classification. Replies were favourable. In order to obtain information
_ on a broader basis, during the early part of 1949 specialists in the fields of
carcinology, entomology, herpetology, ichthyology, invertebrate zoology,
malacology, ornithology, mammalogy, paleontology, and parasitology, were
consulted. Entomologists and ornithologists have, to a certain extent, already
_ adopted endings for various Groups of classification. After discussions with
about twenty specialists in the various fields, and knowing that numerically
_ entomologists nearly outnumber the specialists in all other fields together,
it was decided to follow the endings as already used by entomologists from
Superfamily down through Subtribe, but to follow ornithologists for the ending
_of an Order (-iformes) and for Sub-Order (-oidei) as used by certain vertebrate
zoologists, both minorities, for the purpose of stirring up discussions and
inviting comments. The results were interesting and valuable.

Somewhat as an afterthought the idea of a type genus was added to the

circular letter sent out. This was an error, since it was misunderstood by
a sizable percentage, who did not distinguish the type genus concept from the
mtirely separate concept of stabilisation of group endings.

3 The author sent out the circular letter to over 700 North American syste-
Matic zoologists on the mailing list of the Society of Systematic Zoology and

1014 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

received 445 ballots in return. This circular proposed to fix the endings of
Groups above the level of the genus, and results were as follows :

Number of votes cast concerning proposed endings used in groups of
classification4

Field Votes

Carcinology

Entomology

Herpetology

Ichthyology

Invertebrate
Zoology
Malacology
Against
Ornithology For :
Against
Mammalogy For $
Against y
Paleontology | For ;
Against :
Parasitology 4

Totals

Granp ToTaL
Per cent.

The following information is summarised from comments received on
about half of the ballots returned: ‘‘A wonderful idea and attempt to advance

1. This Table as originally prepared by Dr. Schultz contained additional columns relating -
to certain matters (e.g. the terminations for Orders and Sub-Orders, etc.) which, though relevant
to the purposes for which the paper was constructed are not relevant for the purposes of the
forthcoming Colloquium. (int’d.) F.H. 10th March 1958.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 1015

stability of zoological nomenclature”; ‘Leave nomenclature alone and get
back to the study of specimens.”’

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Superfamily : Little or no comment.

Supertribe, tribe, subtribe : These categories are used in the most compli-
cated groups of species, mostly in insects, fishes and crustacea. Some individuals
voted against these categories because they did not use or need them in their
own speciality. A sizable majority want the endings for these categories fixed
- for all time. Mary Rathbun in crustaceans was the only one mentioned using
these groups above the family level.

1016 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

DOCUMENT 54/2

Observations on Article 28, Section 8, of Prof. Bradley’s
Draft ‘‘ Régles ”’

By R. A. CROWSON
(Department of Zoology, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, Scotland)

(Enclosure to a letter dated 8th March 1958)

In formulating a new International Code, which we presumably expect
to remain in force for the rest of the century at least, I can see no good reason
for restricting the rules for suffixes to families and subfamilies only. The
great majority of systematists today use superfamilies and tribes and the long-
term trend has been towards the use of more and more categories, which permit
the more accurate expression of phylogenetic relationships. The terminations
for superfamilies and tribes are in fact almost completely standardised by
usage, and the Commission should give this usage the force of law. If the
Code is to be formulated with an eye to the future, I think it would be desirable
to incorporate the standard ending -ina for subtribes, which are likely to come
into increasing use.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 1017

CASE No. 55

—o oy

—*

. EXISTING “ REGLES ”’ : ACTION RECOMMENDED TO BE TAKEN
FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONSOLIDATING IN THE REVISED
* REGLES ’” THE PROVISIONS APPEARING IN SECTIONS “A’’
TO “E” OF THE “APPENDICE ”’ OF THE EXISTING “ REGLES ”’

(Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 1333)

DOCUMENT 55/1

Action recommended in regard to the provisions included in
Sections “A ’’ to ““E’’ of the “‘Appendice’’ to the
existing ‘‘ Régles ”’

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

(Report dated 27th August 1957)

Introductory

é In the early part of the present year Professor J. Chester Bradley informed
_ me that it had not been in his mind to deal in his Draft of the English text of the
_ Regles with the provisions which appear in the Appendice to the existing
_ Régles. It was evident, however, that these provisions would need to be
considered by the London Congress, and it was accordingly arranged at
_ Professor Bradley’s suggestion that this task should be undertaken by myself.
_ Separate Case Numbers have been allotted to the problems raised in Section
_ “F” (Transliteration of Greek words’’) and Section “G”’ (“‘ Transcription
___ of Geographic and Proper Names ’’) of the Appendice to the existing Régles.
The present note is concerned only with the problems raised in Sections “A”
to “E” of the Appendice.

1018 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

2. The questions raised in the Sections of the Appendice with which we
are here concerned are of a miscellaneous character and probably owe their
presence in the Appendice to the fact that they did not fit conveniently into any
of the Articles of the Régles as drafted by Professor Raphael Blanchard, i.e. in
the Régles as approved by the Berlin Congress in 1901. In the circumstances
it appears to me that the most convenient course will be to comment in turn on
the provisions contained in each Section and to make suggestions as to the
procedure to be adopted for incorporating those provisions in the revised text
of the Régles.

Comments on Sections “‘A’’ to “‘ E ’’ of the “‘Appendice ”’

3. Section “‘A’’, First sentence : This provision contains a recommendation
that papers dealing with systematic zoology should be written only in one or
other of five specified languages. It now appears in Recommendation 2 in
Article 10 (1957, Bull. zool. Nomenclature 14:79). This transfer is in accord-
ance with a decision taken in Paris in 1948 by the Thirteenth International
Congress of Zoology that greater prominence should be given to this recom-
mendation by transferring it from the Appendice to the main body of the
Régles (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 221, Decision 15(1)(e)(g)).

4, Section “A”, Second Sentence: This provision, which contains a
recommendation that type specimens should be deposited in museums and their
museum number stated, was re-enacted in clearer terms by a decision taken by
the Copenhagen Congress in 1953 (Copenhagen Decisions zool. Nomencl. : 76-77,
Decision 145). The decision so taken has been incorporated by Professor
Bradley in his Draft of the Régles as Recommendation 21 in Article 10 (1957,
Bull. zool. Nomencl. 14 : 83).

5. Section “A’’, Third Sentence : The third sentence of Section ‘‘A” did
not form part of the Appendice as approved by the Berlin Congress of 1901
but was added by the Monaco Congress in 1913. It deals with the need for
basing the description of a species upon a single type specimen labelled as such
[ie. upon a holotype] and not, as was formerly the general practice, upon a
series of syntypes [incorrectly referred to in this Section as “ paratypes ”’].
This subject was dealt with more fully in 1948 by the Paris Congress which
agreed that a Recommendation setting out the desired procedure should be
inserted in the Régles (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 187, Decision 75(7)(a)).
The decision so taken by the Paris Congress has been incorporated by Professor
Bradley in the Draft of the Revised text of the Régles as Recommendation 7
in Article 20 (1957, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 14 : 141).

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 1019

6. Section “B”: This Section contains a recommendation as to the
provision of explanations to figures in one or other of the five languages
specified in the first sentence of Section “A” in the case of papers published
in languages other than any of the five referred to above. This provision
clearly should appear in the Régles in close proximity to that which formerly
appeared in Section “A’’ and which now appears in Recommendation 2 in
Article 10 in Professor Bradley’s Draft (see paragraph 3 above). It is accord-
ingly recommended that the provision which has hitherto appeared in Section
“B” of the Appendice should be transferred, as a Recommendation, to Article 10
of the Régles, being there either incorporated in Recommendation 2 or included
in a new Recommendation following immediately thereafter.

7. Sections “C”, “D” and “E”: Each of these Sections contains
a recommendation as to the method of recording measurements which it is
desirable should be employed in describing specimens. These recommendations
have a particular reference to the description of type specimens and it is suggested
therefore that they should be inserted as Recommendations in Article 10 which
deals expressly with the establishment of new nominal taxa and the publication
of new names. It is suggested that the most appropriate point in the above
Article at which to insert these Recommendations would be between Recom-
mendations 20 and 21 (1957, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 14 : 83).

Conclusions and Recommendations

8. In the light of the considerations set out above I have formed the
following conclusions and submit the following recommendations :—

(1) The matters dealt with in Section “A” to “E” of the Appendice
are of a miscellaneous minor (though important) character which
did not fit very appropriately into the structure of the draft Régles
as placed before the Berlin Congress of 1901 and which were therefore
relegated to an annexe termed the Appendice. The provisions
appearing in these Sections of the Appendice do not differ in general
character from many matters which were incorporated in the Régles
by the Paris (1948) and Copenhagen (1953) Congresses. Indeed
some of the provisions in these Sections of the Appendice were
actually transferred to the main body of the Régles by one or other
of the above Congresses. It is recommended that this process
should now be completed and that these Sections be thereupon
deleted, instead of, as proposed by the Paris Congress (1950, Bull.
zool. Nomencl. 4 : 65) being included in the Schedule into which it
was then agreed that the Appendice as a whole should be converted.

(2) No action is called for in connection with Section ‘“A’’, the three
provisions included in it having already been incorporated in the
Régles (paragraphs 3-5).

1020 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

(3) It is recommended :—

(a) that the provision embodied in Section “ B”’ be transferred to
Article 10 in Professor Bradley’s Draft and be there included
either in Recommendation 2 or in a new Recommendation to be
inserted immediately after that provision (paragraph 6) ;

(b) that the provisions which now appear in Sections “C”, “D”,
and “E” be transferred to Article 10 in Professor Bradley’s
Draft and be there inserted as Recommendations between the
existing Recommendations 20 and 21 (paragraph 7).

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 1021

CASE No. 56

DRAFT “ REGLES ”’, ARTICLE 19, SECTION 1: INTERPRETATION
OF THE EXPRESSION “ TYPE-SPECIES ” IN RELATION
TO A NOMINAL GENUS

(Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 1243)

DOCUMENT 56/1

Proposed insertion in Section 1 of Article 19 of Professor J. Chester
Bradley’s Draft of the Revised English text of the “ Régles ”’
clarifying the expression “ type-species ’’ of a genus

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

(Note dated 11th October 1957)

The purpose of the present note is to draw attention to an obscurity of
long standing in the meaning of the expression “ type species” as used in
relation to a nominal genus, and to suggest a means for setting this difficulty
at rest.

2. The point here at issue was raised by Professor Raymond C. Moore
(University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas, U /S.A.) in the following letter dated

reaching importance and it seems not to be covered in the Copenhagen
Decisions or other authoritative pronouncements I can find.

1022 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

3. The problem so advanced had in fact arisen in connection with at least
two cases which had been dealt with by the International Commission in
recent years. The nature of these cases and of the action in regard to them
taken by the Commission when dealing with them is set out in the following
letter which, as Secretary, I addressed to Professor Moore on 18th June 1957 :—

Status of a nominal subspecies when designated or selected
as the type species of a genus or subgenus

With reference to your enquiry of the 6th May, am I right in thinking
that the problem which you are concerned with is what is the position when
a taxon, originally described as a subspecies, is later designated or selected
as the type species of a genus? To make sure that I have got your point
correctly, I would like to illustrate it by an actual case dealt with by the
Commission (in my own group) in Opinion 177 which is concerned with
a question of the species to be accepted as the type species of the genus
Euchloé Hibner. Hiibner placed seven nominal species in this genus,
of which the first he called “ Huchloé belia Esp.”. The species described
and figured by Esper under the names Papilio belia is a perfectly well-
known Mediterranean species which was universally known by that name
for about 100 years. In 1871, however, it was pointed out by Kirby
first that Esper was not the author of the name belia, he having only
employed the older name belia Linnaeus, and second that the species so
named by Linnaeus was not the Mediterranean species to which the name
had universally been applied but a quite different North African species,
the female of which faintly resembled the species which for so long had
been known by the name belia. Kirby thereupon re-named the Mediter-
ranean species Huchloé ausonia Hiibner var. espert. You will see that he
treated the Mediterranean taxon not as a separate species but as a sub-
species of the taxon represented by another nominal species, namely,
Papilio ausonia Hiibner which in fact referred to a third species. The
Mediterranean species (i.e. the false belia) was selected as a type species of
Euchloé Butler in 1870 and was universally accepted as such by later
authors. The information set out above is given only for background
purposes and is not of direct bearing on the matter in which you are
interested. Your point does, however, come in at the next stage, namely,
when the Commission was asked to use its Plenary Powers in the interests
of stability to confirm the technically invalid selection by Butler of the
Mediterranean species as a type species of Huchloé. The Commission in
the Opinion referred to above approved this proposal and in recording
its decision cited the Mediterranean species under the oldest available
name (espert) which I have shown above was originally published as the
third term of a trinominal combination. A similar case in the Echino-
dermata was dealt with by the Commission under its Plenary Powers in
Opinion 209 when it designated Spatangus brissus var. unicolor Leske,
1778, to be the type species of Brissus Gray, 1825.

Whether a given taxon ought to be regarded as representing a separate
species or as constituting a subspecies of some other species is a purely
taxonomic matter with which nomenclature is not concerned. It would,

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 1023

however, be quite absurd if in the case of a genus established without
a designated or indicated type species one of the included species were
to be ruled out as unavailable for selection as the type species of the genus
merely because the author by whom the “ specific ”’ name concerned had
been published had described the taxon in question as a subspecies of
some other species.

Although, as I have shown, the Commission has at least twice taken
action in the foregoing sense, no express provision on this subject in the
Régles has so far been considered necessary. If, however, you take the
view, which I am rather inclined to take myself, that a provision on this
subject ought to be included in the Régles, J will consider what suggestion
on this subject might appropriately be placed on the Agenda for the
London Congress.

4. In a letter dated 15th July 1957 Professor Moore intimated as follows
his agreement with the suggestion made in my letter of 18th June 1957 (para-
graph 3 above) that this matter should be put to the London Congress for
decision :—

J thank you very much indeed for your discussion of a genus or
subgenus based on a nominal subspecies as type species (written to me on
18th June 1957). In the examples cited the originally published tri-
nominal becomes a binominal. 1n paleontology we have several examples
of “‘ varieties ’’ (= subspecies) of nominal type species of genera (described
concurrently or subsequently) and question has arisen about disposition
of these. In my view there is not possibility for recognition of subspecies
in paleontology and J am urging contributors to the Treatise [of Inverte-
brate Paleontology] to be guided by this view.

I do indeed think that the subject of type species of genera or sub-
genera based on nominal subspecies should be specifically dealt with in the
revised Code as you suggest in the last paragraph of the 18th June letter.

: 5. It appears to me that the appropriate place for dealing with this matter

would be by the insertion in Section 1(a) of Article 19 of Professor Bradley’s
_ Draft of a new sub-section as follows and I recommend that this should be
done :—

(i) For the above purpose a “ type-species ”’ may be either
a taxon established as a nominal species or a taxon
established as a nominal subspecies.

1024 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

CASE No. 57

DRAFT “ REGLES ’’, ARTICLE 15: PROPOSED INSERTION OF
PROVISIONS RECOGNISING THE CONCEPT “SUPERSPECIES ”’

(Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 1304)

DOCUMENT 57/1

Proposed insertion in the ‘* Régles’’ of provisions recognising

** superspecies ’’ as a special category for the classification and

nomenclature of taxa belonging to the above group as now proposed
to be defined

By
S. G. KIRIAKOFF
(University of Ghent, Belgium)
and

Z. LORKOVIC
(University of Zagreb, Yugoslavia)

(Enclosure to a letter dated 14th February 1958)

The purpose of the present application is to seek the grant of a formal —
status for names given to taxa treated as belonging to the category “ super-
species ’’, a category first recognised some thirty years ago and one which is
now widely accepted.

2. The expression “superspecies ”’ was introduced by E. Mayr (1931)
as a substitute for the expression ‘“‘ Artenkreis ” proposed by S. Rensch in~

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 1025

‘ 1929. Mayr’s most recent definition of the concept “‘ superspecies’’ is the
following (Mayr, et al., 1953) :-—

A superspecies is a monophyletic group of very closely related and
largely or entirely allopatric species.

The above definition is followed by a short comment, the last portion of which
runs thus :—

Superspecies are not distinguished by a special nomenclature. They
are, however, listed as such in monographs and catalogues. They are
chiefly important in zoogeographical and speciation studies (op. cit. : 29).

3. The expression “Superspecies”’ was again proposed, presumably
independently from Mayr, by F. A. & M. Schilder (1939). So proposed, the
expression has a meaning equivalent to that of “‘ Formenkreis ” of Kleinschmidt
(1900). This concept, originally entirely geographical, has been adjusted to
_ modern needs and provided with a definition in Schilder (1952 : 25). Schilder

. . . der Begriff Formenkreis (bedarf) jetzt insofern eine Erweiterung,
als unter bestimmten Bedingungen ihm auch solche Formen angeschlossen
werden miissen, die im gleichen Raume nebeneinander leben, also dem
Prinzip des gegenseitigen Ausschlusses nicht gerecht werden; daher
definieren wir neu :—

Eine Superspezies (Formenkreis) besteht normalerweise :—

(a) aus einer Anzahl von Spezies und Subspezies verschiedener
Differenenzierungsstufen, welche sich gegenseitig geographisch,
dkologisch oder in ihrem zeitlichen Auftreten vertreten und an
ihren Verbreitungsgrenzen héchstens in schmaler Zone iiber-
schneiden, bisweilen unter Bildung von Zwischenformen ;

(b) die am Rande des Gesamtareals lebenden Formen koénnen als
Peritypen das Gebiet ihrer Nachbarn auch in ausgedehnterem
Masse tiberdecken oder als Schizotypen auf engem Raume
nebeneinander leben ;

(c) die fossilen Ahnen dieser Formen miissen zu jeder Zeit einen
analogen, wenn auch weniger ausgedehnten und einfacher
zusammengesetzten Formenkreis gebildet haben (welcher der
Superspezies einzugliedern ist) und auf eine einzige Stammform
zurickgefiihrt werden kénnen.

4. S. G. Kiriakoff (1948) proposed the expression “ ultraspecies ”’, not as a
substitute for Mayr’s “ superspecies ”, but for a new concept that no longer

J
‘

1026 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

reposed on a purely geographical basis. Kiriakoff’s definition of the concept
‘‘ ultraspecies ”’ was as follows (loc. cit. : 68) (Author’s translation) :—

An ultraspecies is a monophyletic group of sympatric and/or allopatric
species and/or semispecies which differ from each other morphologically
or otherwise too much to be placed in a single species.

5. In a later discussion (1956) Kiriakoff stressed, amongst other points,
that in principle the so-called “ sibling-species ’ should be placed in ultra-
species. The concluding portion of his comment (op. cit. : 40) (Author’s
translation) was as follows :—

The ultraspecies sensu Kiriakoff (1948) and Schilder (1952) is a very
important taxon that seems to be indispensable for a phylogenetically
minded systematic study. It has been sometimes confused with lower
supraspecific taxa (e.g., sections or subgenera), which is an error because
it belongs to the species-complex of which it is the highest category ; it
differs from the lower supraspecific taxa in its composition, because it may
include semispecies as well as full species, which is unthinkable with
sections, subgenera and other supraspecific taxa.

6. As Mayr has pointed out (paragraph 2 above) superspecies are listed
as such in monographs and catalogues. The recognition of the taxon under
discussion has indeed become generalised, especially where Mammalia and
Aves are concerned. It seems unnecessary to insist upon the latter fact, it being
so well known. The concept of the superspecies has been less widely recognised
by students in invertebrates. The following works are chosen from among
those where the authors have accepted the so-called “ Kiriakoff Scheme ”
(see paragraph 8 below) :—

Leipdoptera: S. G. Kiriakoff, 1953

: A. A. M. Gillard, 1948
os baat AB Bartos, 1955.

Rhizopoda: M. Stepanek, 1952

7. In view of progress in phylogenetically-minded research and, as one of
the corollaries of that progress, the need for using finer taxonomic distinctions
than those required in the past, the adoption of some special kind of notation
seems inevitable. Huxley (1945 : 404 et seg.) discussed the matter at length _
and proposed a partial scheme for such notation. The superspecies was, however, -_
omitted from the portion of that Scheme where special nomenclature was
concerned.

_~

eS. Se

On OO. er ale er ae Se ie ae al

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 1027

8. Kiriakoff (1948a) proposed a more complete scheme—the so-called
“‘ Kiriakoff Scheme” (vide C. L. Remington, 1948 : 16). As far as the super-
species (then called ultraspecies by Kiriakoff) is concerned, the suggestion
put forward was as follows (loc. cit. : 15) :—

3. Ultraspecies—named binominally ; the name used is that of the
first described form, preceded by a capital ““U”. The name of each
form included in an ultraspecies is written following the name of the first
described form in the complex. The prior form is placed in ordinary
parentheses—( )—if the included form is a race or semispecies, and in
square brackets—{ ]—if it is a good species.

9. As has already been explained, the expressions “ superspecies ” and
“ ultraspecies ”’ are not strictly synonymous, as defined by Mayr and Kiriakoff
respectively, the latter expression applying to a broader concept. However,
in order to simplify matters and taking into consideration the fact that most
taxonomists recognise the former of these concepts, it has been thought
desirable—on the advice of Professor E. M. Hering—to drop the expression
“ultraspecies”” in favour of the expression “superspecies”. We are
encouraged to take this view by the provision that “‘ The Rules do not trespass
upon the freedom of taxonomic thought ” incorporated in the Draft of the
Revised Régles (1957, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 14 : 33). Any taxonomist is free

therefore to use the expression “‘ superspecies ’’ in whatever sense he may
consider best.

Recommendations

10. For the reasons set forth above I recommend that the International
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature should propose to the International
Congress of Zoology that the concept ‘‘ superspecies ”’ should be recognised
in the Régles at the same time that the concept “ semispecies”’, as to which
a separate application is being submitted—is so recognised. The action which
we recommend should be taken to give effect to the foregoing proposal is as
shown below. The Article and page numbers cited are those in Volume 14

of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, the volume containing the Draft
of the Revised Régles.

Suggested modifications in text of Draft ‘‘ Regles ”’
(1) Article 4, Section 2, line 7:

Substitute “species and superspecies ’’ both in the title and in the
text in this line. [In view of the fact that ‘‘ superspecies ”’ is an
optional category only, it is suggested that in these passages the

word ‘species’ should appear in front of, and not after that
word.]}

1028 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

(2) Article 4, Section 2, line 10:

Substitute ‘Example of a designation for a_ species’
“Example ”’.

?

for

(3) Article 4, Section 2, new line to follow line 10:
Insert the following :—
Examples of designations for superspecies :
Dicrurus [hottentotus}*

Note :—The above is the designation to be used when it is
desired to cite the superspecies as a whole.
Dicrurus [hottentotus] hottentotus
Dicrurus [hottentotus] montanus
Note :—In the above example the names hottentotus and

montanus are the specific names of the species of which
the superspecies is composed.

(4) Article 4, Section 2 (Explanation), line 17:
Insert the following: ‘Similarly, the name of a superspecies is to
be ignored for the purposes of the calculation prescribed in the
present Section ”’.

(5) Article 4, Section 3, lines 19-22 and substitute the following :—

Section 3. Subspecies and members of a superspecies: The
designation of a subspecies and that of a member of a superspecies
shall be trinominal (cf. preceding Explanation). I.R. Art. II.

Example of a name of a subspecies: Campsomeris plumipes
confluenta

Example of a name of a member of a superspecies: Dicrurus
[hottentotus] hottentotus hottentotus.

(6) Article 15, Title, line 2:

Insert the words ‘‘ members of a superspecies ” between the words
‘* species ’’ and “ subspecies ”

(7) Article 15, Section 1(a) : Delete line 7 and the first four words in line 8
(to the word “ subject ’’ inclusive) and substitute the following :—

(a) Specific and subspecific names and names of members
of superspecies: Specific and subspecific names and the names ~
of members of superspecies shall be subject .. .

1 See Vaurie (C.), 1949, ‘‘ Revision of the Bird Family Dicruridae ”, Bull. amer. Mus. nat. Hist.
93 : 291 et seg. ;

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 1029

(8) Article 15, Section 7, between lines 2 and 3: Insert the following new
Section which will become Section (a), and existing Section (a)
(Subspecific names) becoming Section (b) :—

(a) Superspecific names: The designation of a superspecies shall
consist of the binomen composed of (1) the generic name,
followed (2) by the oldest available specific name belonging
to any member of the superspecies, this latter name being
placed within brackets ; any member of a superspecies may
be cited under the above formula, with the addition thereto
of the specific name of the said member.

(9) Glossary, page 283, between ‘‘ Super-Order”’ and “‘ suffix” insert the
following :—

Superspecies: A Superspecies is a monophyletic group of
sympatric and/or allopatric species which differ from each other
morphologically or otherwise too much to be placed in a single
species.

References

Bartos, E. (1955), ‘‘Ceske Druhu Virniku Rodu Brachionus a s Klicem k
Urcovani vsech druhu Obou Rodu” Casopis nat. Musea (Prir.) 121
(2) : 169-194, 10 figs.

; Gillard, A. A. M. (1948), ‘“‘De Brachionidae (Rotatoria) van Belgié met
beschouwingen over de taxonomie van de familie ” Natuurwet. Tijdschr.
30 : 159-218, pls. 2-4

Huxley, J.S. (1945), Evolution, the modern Synthesis, London, 645 pp.

iriakoff, S. G. (1948), “‘ Taxonomie et spéciation : la semi-espéce et la super-
espéce ”, Bull. Ann. Soc. ent. Belg. 84 : 64-70

(1948a), ‘‘ On the so-called ‘lower’ taxonomic categories ”’ Lep. News
2:34

(1948a), “‘ The nomenclature of the specific complex ” ibid. 2 : 15

(1953) ‘‘Les Thyretidae du Musée Royal du Congo Belge” Ann.
Mus. R. Congo Belge, Sci. zool. (No. 26), 91 pp., 7 pls.

- (1956), Beginselen der dierkundige systematiek, Antwerp. 167 pp.
Kleinschmidt, O. (1900), J. f. Ornith. 1900 : 124

yy

1030 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

‘Mayr, E. (1931), “Notes on Halycon chloris and some of its subspecies ”’
Amer. Mus. Novit. 469 : 1-10

Mayr, E., Linsley, E. G., & Usinger, R. L. (1953), Methods and Principles of
Systematic Zoology, New York, 328 pp.

Remington, C. L. (1948), ““ The Use of Kiriakoff’s Scheme of Nomenclature ”
Lep. News 2:16

Rensch, B. (1929), Das Prinzip geographischer Rassen und das Problem der
Artbildung, Berlin. 206 pp.

Schilder, F. A. (1952), Hinfuhrung in die Biotaxonomie (Hormenkreislehre)>
Die Entstehung der Arten durch rdumliche Sonderung, Jena. 162 pp.

Schilder, F. A. & Schilder, M. (1939), Proc. malac. Soc. Lond. 23 : 180

Stepanek, M. (1952), “ Krytenky (Testacea) tinky na Hradku u Kunratic
(Praha) ” Sbornik Narodniho Muzea v Praze 8B(3)(2) : 1-55

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 1031

CASE No. 58

DRAFT “ REGLES ’’, ARTICLE 15 : PROPOSED INSERTION OF
PROVISIONS RECOGNISING THE CONCEPT “‘ SEMISPECIES ”’

(Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 1328)
DOCUMENT 58/1

Proposed insertion in the “‘ Régles’’ of provisions recognising ‘‘ semi-
species as a special category for the classification and nomen-
clature of definite groups of taxa as now proposed to be
defined

By
Z. LORKOVIC
(University of Zagreb, Yugoslavia)

and

S. G. KIRIAKOFF
(University of Ghent, Belgium)

(Enclosure to a letter dated 3rd March 1958)

The purpose of the present application is to seek the grant of a formal
status for a category of taxon first recognised nearly twenty years ago which
has now become necessary in refined systematics.

2. The term “ semispecies”’ was first proposed by E. Mayr (1940) for
forms which :—

“can be deduced to be geographical representatives of some other

species, but have during isolation developed morphological differences of
the order of magnitude to be seen between undoubted species.”

1032 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

3. In 1948, S. G. Kiriakoff somewhat broadened the concept of semi-
species. He adopted the definition suggested by Mayr (quoted in paragraph 2
above) but made the following addition * :—

“In order to give the semispecies the broader sense defined above,
it will be sufficient to add that it comprises ‘ Biological’ as well as ‘ geo-
graphical’ representatives. One would indeed go further and use the
word ‘ representatives ’ without qualification.”

4, Z. Lorkovic (1953) proposed the introduction of semispecies into
systematics as a special category, defining it in 1955 as follows :—

“There is more and more evidence recently that some allopatric
and also some sympatric species, being incompletely reproductively
isolated, mean a real transition between the geographic race and species.
. . . For all such allopatric or partially sympatric forms, with incomplete
physiological reproductive isolation, but which do not mate freely, the
author introduces the name of semispecies. . . .”

5. Later (1957) Lorkovic completed the term “ semispecies ” by genetical
characteristics, pointing out that in some semispecies some (or at least one)
of the reproductive isolating mechanisms do not entirely prevent the gene
exchange between neighbouring populations, and therefore a low but
nevertheless noticeable percentage of hybrids in some parts along the line
of contact results. The chorological (geographical) characteristics of the
semispecies is allopatry with a sharp cline in the zone of contact, but in certain
cases of strictly ecological and/or temporal isolation semispecies may be partly

sympatric.

6. The above are all peculiarities on which even the most outstanding
specialists in a group do not agree in the systematic evaluation of two or more
forms, this fact being a good indicator for semispecies.

7. The category of semispecies is required in order thereby the better to
define and point out the transitional stages in the speciation process, i.e. stages
between subspecies and species, these being of such great importance in —
evolution. In this way the distinction between the concepts of species and
subspecies can be avoided.

8. Kiriakoff (1948) and Lorkovic (1953) proposed independently a manner
for designating a taxon of the semispecies category, namely, by the use of ~—

* Authors’ translation.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 1033

7
;
.
La
-
&

a trinominal term in which the name of the species would be placed in parentheses
followed by the name of the semispecies. Example: A-us (b-us) c-us.

9. Recommendations : In view of the facts and considerations set out
above we now formally request that the following additions be made in the

Reégles :—

(1) That the words “ and of semispecies ”’ be added at the end of Section 1
of Article 15;

(2) That the following entry lettered (a) be inserted before the existing
item ‘‘(a) subspecific names ”’ in Section 7 of Article 15 :—

(a) Semispecific names.—The designation of a semispecies shall
consist of a trinomen composed of (i) the generic name, followed
by (ii) the specific name, placed between parentheses, and (iii)
by the semispecific name.

Examples: A-ws (b-ws) b-us
A-us (b-us) c-us

(3) That the following definition of the term ‘“‘ semispecies ’’ be inserted in
the “ Glossary” :

“A semispecies is an intraspecific category presenting a transition
between subspecies and species; like the former, semispecies
are allopatric but with a sheer cline in the zone of contact (if
any such exists) on account of the very restricted but nevertheless
noticeable occurrence of hybrids along the line of contact due to
the incomplete reproductive isolation between semispecies ”’.

References
- Kiriakoff, 8. G., 1948, Taxonomie et Spéciation : La semi-éspéce et la super-
e éspéce, Bull. Ann. Soc. ent. Belg. 84 : 64-70

_Lorkovic, Z., 1953, Spezifische, semispezifische und rassische Differenzierung
‘ bei Erebia tyndarus Esp., Rad Acad. Yougoslave 294 : 315-358

: —, 1955, Semispecies a necessary new taxonomic category, Biol. Glasnik,
Zagreb 7 : 236-237

_——,, 1957, Die Merkmale der unvollstandigen Speziationsstufe und die Frage
.. der Einfiihrung der Semispezies in die Systematik, Proc. Sympos. 250th
Anniversary K, Linnaeus, Uppsala

u ayr, E., 1940, Speciation phenomena in Birds, Am. Naturalist 74 : 249-278

1034 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

CASE No. 59

DRAFT ‘“REGLES’’, ARTICLE 12; QUESTION WHETHER THE

CATEGORY ‘ SUPERFAMILY ’’ SHOULD BE TREATED AS BELONGING

TO THE FAMILY-GROUP OR TO THE ORDER-GROUP AND OF THE

CATEGORIES WITH WHICH IT SHOULD BE TREATED AS CO-
ORDINATE

DOCUMENT 59/1
Proposal for the transfer of Superfamily names to the Order/Class group

(Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 1358)

By R. V. MELVILLE

(Assistant Secretary, International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature)

The XIII International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948, directed the
Secretary of the International Commission to give special consideration to
seven problems of zoological nomenclature involving the clarification, amend-
ment or expansion of the Régles so that these could be discussed by the XIV
International Congress, Copenhagen, 1953. One of these problems concerned
the formation of the names of “ families and subordinate categories of supra-
generic rank” and the exhaustive treatment given to this problem by the
Secretary in his report (Hemming, 1952, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 7 : 61—94)
covered, in paragraphs 39—42 of this paper (op. cit., pp. 89—90), the question
of the names of superfamilies.

2. In the first of the paragraphs referred to, the Secretary remarked “At
first glance it might be thought more appropriate to treat superfamily names
as representing the lowest unit in the group of categories comprised in the
‘ ordinal’ group, rather than as a kind of upward extension of the group of
categories belonging to the ‘family’ group. On closer inspection, however,
it becomes apparent that, in fact, superfamily names are much more closely

related to family names than they are to names of the ordinal group, being

based invariably upon the stem of the name of a genus which is already the
type genus of one of the families included in the superfamily concerned. It

i
|

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 1035

is accordingly suggested that the revised scheme relating to the naming of
families should include also those provisions relating to the naming of super-
families’. In paragraph 41 he went on to say ‘‘ No doubt in most cases
authors publishing new superfamily names have formed the superfamily name
in question on the basis of the name of the longest established of the families
placed in the new superfamily, but it is possible that for one reason or another
this course has not always been followed. Moreover, even where this course
has been adopted by the author of a superfamily name, it does not follow that
the family on the name of which the superfamily name is based will always
remain the oldest established family comprised in the superfamily so established,
for the boundaries to be assigned to a superfamily are essentially a matter for
the subjective judgment of systematists and in the nature of the circumstances
represent a concept, the content of which must be liable to change in accordance
with changing taxonomic ideas. It follows therefore that a rule which required
that the name of a superfamily must be based upon the stem of the name of
the type-genus of the longest established of the included families might give
rise to instability in the names of superfamilies. This is something which
should clearly be avoided. It is accordingly suggested that the names of
superfamilies shall be co-ordinate with the names of families. It is suggested
that this latter rule should be qualified by a proviso that superfamily names
shall rank for priority, inter se, by reference to the dates on which they were
severally published as such and not by reference to the relative priority of
the names of the families comprised in the superfamily concerned ”’.

3. Attention has been drawn to the Secretary’s remarks quoted above
because it is clear that he realised that, while the names of superfamilies are
closely related to the names of other family-group categories, the concept is,
in at least some fields of zoology, nearer to an order-group concept than to a
family-group one. This is especially true in groups such as the ammonites
and belemnites, which were for long comprised within a single nominal genus
and whose growth to ordinal status has taken place in the last hundred years.
_ In such groups as these the lack of categories between family and suborder

has always presented taxonomic difficulty. It is possible that in other groups,
such as the insects, where from the earliest times of Linnaean taxonomy
recognition was given not only to many genera, but to several categories of
_ order-group rank, the concept of the superfamily has been of a unit in the
family-group, but I cannot believe that, even if this is the case, specialists in
these groups welcome the introduction of the kind of instability to which the
_ Secretary drew attention.

B 4. The origin of this instability lies in the fact that, when the Copenhagen

Colloquium included the superfamily category in the family-group, it ruled
(Copenhagen Decisions : 33, para 46) that ‘‘ names applied to units belonging
_ to the family-group of categories shall be co-ordinate with one another, that
_ is to say, for purposes of priority, a name published for a unit in any category
in the family-group and based on a particular type-genus shall date from its
_ original publication for a unit in any category in the family-group and shall

1036 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

retain that priority even if that unit is subsequently treated as belonging to a
higher or lower category in the family-group ”’. In so deciding, the Copenhagen
Colloquium not only ignored the advice of the Secretary, but it also set aside
the opinions of two of the specialists who replied to the Secretary’s appeal
for advice on problems concerned with the formation of names for units in
the family-group of categories. These were Mr. L. Bairstow (Bull. zool.
Nomencl. 8 : 205—206), a specialist in belemnites; and Dr. F. A. Urquhart,
conveying the views of the scientific staff of the Royal Ontario Museum of
Zoology and Palaeontology (ibid. : 203—204). In both these contributions it
was urged that superfamily names should rank for priority among themselves,
without reference to the relative priority of the names of the included families.
The same problem is discussed in a letter from Dr. G. Henningsmoen reproduced.
as Annexe | to this document.

5. The Copenhagen Decision referred to has been held to imply that every
family name calls into existence a notional superfamily name, but this implica-
tion is neither logical nor practical. The practical difficulties have already
been indicated. Logically, if every nominal family were to be promoted to
superfamily status, the problem of priority as between one category and the
other would disappear, so that the contingency provided for can never in
fact occur.

6. The late Dr. W. J. Arkell (Treatise of Invertebrate Paleontology,
Geol. Soc. Amer., Part L, 1956) changed four names of ammonite superfamilies
in accordance with Copenhagen Decision 46, as follows :—

Crioceratitaceae Wright, 1952 to Ancylocerataceae Meek, 1876
Hamitaceae Hyatt, 1900 to Turrilitaceae Meek, 1876
Harpocerataceae [sic] Neumayr, 1876 to Hildocerataceae Hyatt, 1867
Oppeliacea [sic] Bonarelli, 1894 to Haplocerataceae Zittel, 1884.

At least the last two of these changes may be regarded as undesirable disturb-
ances of current usage.

7. There are four courses open to the London Colloquium when considering
the present problem. The first would be to leave things as they are; this
would be undesirable because of the actual and potential instability of nomen-
clature thus caused. The second would be to transfer the category superfamily
to the order-group ; this would obviate the need to change many existing
superfamily-names to confrom with the name of the oldest currently included
nominal family, but it would bring superfamily-names into competition with
order-group names for the purposes of priority. Since, however, order-group
names are not generally based on the stem of the name of an included genus,
and since, in the groups where these names are so formed, the category super-
family is not in every case currently employed, the risk of confusion is small.
The third course would be to create an independent category for superfamilies
and to declare that their names are not co-ordinate either with names of the
family-group or with names of the order-group; the extent to which the

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 1037

category superfamily is used, however, probably does not justify such heavy-
handed treatment. The fourth course would be to rule that the names of
superfamilies, while still to be regarded as belonging to the family-group, are
to rank for priority among themselves alone, without reference to the relative
priority of the family names concerned. The result of this course would be
to abolish the co-ordinate status of superfamily names vis-a-vis other names in
the family-group, at least in the sense in which the term “ co-ordinate ’’ was
defined by the Copenhagen Colloquium and in which it is used by Professor
Bradley in his “ Glossary ” (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 14 : 274). The adoption of
this suggestion might therefore be felt to introduce an undesirable inconsistency
into the harmony of existing arrangements within the family-group.

8. It is therefore held that the course which will contribute most to
stability of existing nomenclature and cause the least interference with current
practice would be to transfer the category superfamily from the family-group
to the Order/Class-group. Consideration of the alterations to Professor
Bradley’s draft Régles which would be required if this course were adopted has
revealed certain defects in the drafting of Article 12 which ought in any case
to be amended, whether the proposals now to be submitted concerning super-
family names are approved or not.

9. The first defect in the drafting of Article 12 is that the range and
content of the phylum-group and the class- and order-group are nowhere
defined in that article. These groups were defined by the Copenhagen Collo-
quium (Copenhagen Decisions: 38, para 60), and it is therefore proposed :—

(i) that a new paragraph be included in Article 12, Section 1 of the draft
English text of the Régles defining the groups covered by that
Article as follows :—

(a) the phylum-group is defined as including all categories from sub-
phylum upwards. The class-order group is defined as
including all categories from superfamily to superclass inclusive.

Cf. C.p.38. par. 60.

The paragraph now numbered (a) would then be numbered (b) and that now
numbered (b) would be numbered (c).

10. Next, if the superfamily category is to be transferred to the Order/
Class-group, it is necessary to define its relationship to the other categories
included in that group from the point of view of the Principle of Priority.
It will obviously be desirable that current practice whereby the names of
superfamilies are formed from the stem of the name of the genus which is the
type genus of one of the included families should be perpetuated. The question
of the co-ordinate status of superfamily names vis-4-vis names in other cate-
gories in the class- and order-group must, however, be treated in the same way
in those fields where ordinal names are formed from the stem of the name of
an included genus and in those fields where this is not the case. In cases of

1038 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

the former kind, it is possible that nominal suborders or orders may exist, the
names of which do not accord with the names of any of the superfamilies
referred to the suborder or order concerned, although this is perhaps unlikely
to be often met with, since suborder and order names formed in this manner
are usually formed on the basis of the names of well-known genera that are
already the type-genera of nominal families. In any case, it is felt that it
would be best for superfamily names on the one hand and suborder and order
names on the other hand to be independent for purposes of priority ; for in
most groups ordinal categories as such have been introduced long prior to
the introduction of superfamilies, and it would be undesirable to give super-
family names a greater—in many cases perhaps a much greater—degree of
priority than properly belongs to them by making them co-ordinate with
ordinal names formed from the name of the same nominal genus. It is therefore
proposed to add a new paragraph (d) to Section 1 of Article 12, as follows :—

(d) Superfamily Names

(i) No superfamily name, of whatever date, shall be an available
name under the Law of Priority unless its name be formed from
the stem of the name of a genus which is also the type-genus
of one of the nominal families included in the superfamily
concerned at the time when it was first established.

(ii) The names of superfamilies shall rank for priority among them-
selves, by reference to the dates on which they were severally
published as such and not by reference to the relative priority
of the names of the families comprised in the superfamily
concerned. Further, their priority shall be decided without
reference to the relative priority of the names of any units
belonging to higher categories with which they are associated
on taxonomic grounds, however the names of these higher
units may be formed.

11. The transfer of the superfamily category to the class- and order-group
if accepted, will necessitate certain minor amendments to the later sections of
draft Article 12, as follows :—

Section 2, p. 93, line 5. For “‘ of a rank above superfamily ”’ read “ of
the class- and order-group or of the phylum-group ”’.

Section 3(a), p. 93, line 19. For “of a taxon above superfamily ” read
“of the class- and order-group or of the phylum-group ”.

Section 3(b), p. 93, line 25. For “ belonging to a category above super-
family ” read “ of the class- and order-group or of the phylum-group ”’.

Recommendation, p. 94, line 8. For ‘‘ above superfamily ” read “ of the
class- and order-group or of the phylum-group ”’.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 1039

12. Lastly, if the transfer of the superfamily category to the order-group
is approved, it will be necessary to amend Section 1 of Article 13. It is there-
fore proposed :—

(i) that Section 1 of Article 13 of the draft English text be amended by
the deletion of the word superfamily in the third line of paragraph
(a) of that Section (p. 95, line 6).

Annexe 1 to Document 59/1

Extract from letter dated 3rd September 1955 from
Dr. GUNNAR HENNINGSMOEN, Paleontologisk Museum, Oslo

According to paragraph 46 in the Copenhagen Decisions, the author of
the first-published valid name for any taxon in the family-group (tribe, sub-
family, family, superfamily) is held to be the author of all other taxa in this
group which are based on the same nominate type, and the date of publication
for purposes of priority is that of the first-published name. Superfamilies have
from time to time been based on the same nominate type as the three trilobite
families CONOCORYPHIDAE Angelin, 1854, prycHOPARIIDAE Matthew, 1887 and
OLENIDAE Burmeister, 1843. If the three families are regarded as belonging
to the same superfamily, does it mean that Olenacea Burmeister, 1843 auto-
matically becomes the name of the superfamily, even if a superfamily Olenacea
was recognized much later than a superfamily Conocoryphacea ? (Assuming
that no superfamily had been based on the same nominate type as a family
of this group erected before 1843, and apart from the question of the termination
of superfamily names). And does paragraph 46 mean that anybody even from
now on can change the name of a superfamily simply by “ erecting a super-
family ’’ based on the same nominate type as, e.g. a family which is “ older ”’
than that of the family based on the same nominate type as the superfamily
(provided that this is not, by chance, the oldest) ? To take an example:
if there had been a family X YZidae Smith, 1842 included in the Olenacea,could
I change the name of the superfamily to XYZacea Smith, 1842 simply by
stating that I regarded XYZacea as a superfamily ? If so, it seems as if names
of superfamilies for a long time will be rather unstable.

1040 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

CASE No. 60

DRAFT “ REGLES’’, ARTICLE 28, SECTION 4: NAMES PUBLISHED
WITH DIACRITIC MARKS OVER INDIVIDUAL LETTERS

(Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 893)
DOCUMENT 60/1

Report on communications received since the Copenhagen (1953) Congress on
the question of the practicability of inserting additional letters in words
in place of diacritie marks

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

(Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature)
(Report dated 19th May 1958)

The present Report is concerned with the problems arising in connection
both with the use and with the non-use of diacritic marks over letters in
zoological names. The question of principle involved in this matter was
considered by the Copenhagen Congress in 1953 and certain broad conclusions
were then reached. With the exception of a decision regarding the treatment
to be accorded to the German Umlaut, no decisions were taken however by
the Copenhagen Congress as to the treatment to be given to individual dia-
critic marks. On this subject the Commission was invited to make enquiries
and to furnish a Report. The task involved has proved much more difficult
than it appeared at Copenhagen, in this respect resembling the somewhat
similar problem presented by the Latinization for the purposes of zoological
nomenclature of words normally written in Cyrillic characters’, on which also
the Copenhagen Congress called for a Report from the Commission.

1 See Case No. 26, pp. 557—570 of the present Volume.

oe 4 ea ae ee

al ee a te ee a ae

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 1041

2. The Copenhagen International Congress of Zoology decided to delete
from the Régles the provisions in Article 20 (of the existing Régles) prescribing
the use of diacritic marks over letters in zoological names in cases where the
words of which those names were composed carried such marks prior to being
Latinized for use in zoological nomenclature and in its place inserted a twofold
provision as follows :—

(a) Diacritic marks are not to be used in the formation of zoological names.

(b) Where a letter comprised in a zoological name bore a diacritic mark
when that name was first published, that mark is to be represented
by a combination of letters to be prescribed in a Schedule to be
annexed to the Régles.

3. It was evident from the outset that the subject was one which could
be dealt with only in a piece-meal fashion, alphabet by alphabet. It was
found that in the case of some alphabets containing letters bearing diacritic
marks there already exist recognized combinations of letters for use in place of
the diacritic marks concerned. In these cases all that is required is that these
equivalents should be collected, the list so constructed being incorporated in
a Schedule annexed to the Régles as agreed upon at Copenhagen. In the
second group of alphabets there exist no recognized equivalents for the dia-
critic marks concerned, and from the evidence collected it seems very doubtful
whether it would be practicable to devize a generally acceptable scheme.
These problems are discussed separately below.

(1) Diacritic Marks for which equivalents exist which it is recommended
be now inserted in the list to be incorporated in
a Schedule to the “* Régles ”’

4, The Danish, German and Swedish alphabets all include letters bearing
diacritic marks for which equivalents consisting of combinations of letters are
commonly recognized. It is recommended that these equivalents be listed in
the Schedule to be annexed to the Régles as the equivalents to be used when
such diacritic marks have been used in the forming of a zoological name.

(a) Danish alphabet

5. The Danish alphabet contains three letters bearing diacritic marks.
As regards these Professor Dr. Jakob Nielsen, Secretary to the Kongelige
Danske Videnskabernes Selskab of Copenhagen has reported (in litt., 10th
February 1956) that there are recognized equivalents and that their use in
place of the diacritic marks concerned would be unlikely to lead to any
difficulty :—

1042 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Danish letter bearing Generally accepted
a diacritie mark equivallent of letter
in Col. (1)
(1) (2)
(6D) ae
4) oe
a aa

(b) German alphabet

6. In the case of the German alphabet it is necessary to consider only the
Umlaut, for which fortunately there is a long-established equivalent. It is
accordingly recommended that the following entries be made in the proposed
new Schedule to the Régles :—

German letter bearing Generally accepted
a diacritic mark equivalent of letter
in Col. (1)
(1) (2)
a ae
oe
u ue

(ec) Swedish alphabet

7. The Swedish alphabet contains three letters bearing diacritic marks.
As regards these Dr. Arne Westgrau has reported (in litt., 25th June 1956) on
behalf of the K. Vetenskapsakademiens, Stockholm that there are well-
recognized equivalents which could appropriately be used for the present

purpose. The letters concerned and their recognized equivalents are the
following :—

Swedish letter bearing Generally accepted
a diacritic mark equivalent of letter
in Col. (1)
(1) (2)
oO
ae

oe

——————— tC(‘—COr

ee a

Va a ee er oe

, eo

LN ee |! ee

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 1043

(2) Diacritic marks for which no recognised
equivalents exist

8. Two communications were received commenting on the portion of the
Copenhagen Decision which provided for the arbitrary insertion of specified
additional vowels to signify given diacritic marks in cases where there are no
currently accepted equivalents for the diacritic marks in question. The first
of these communications (which was dated 26th August 1955) was from
Professor Dr. Tadeusz Jaczewski writing on behalf of the Section of Biological
Sciences of the Polish Academy of Science, Warsaw. The second was from
Mr. P. J. M. Geelan of the Permanent Committee on Geographical Names for
British Official Use. In making this communication Mr. Geelan stressed the
fact that the opinions expressed in it were his personal views only, the question
at issue not having been considered by, and indeed one falling outside the terms
of reference of, the above Committee.

9. Professor Jaczewski and his colleagues in Warsaw expressed the view
that the insertion of additional letters in particular words to indicate the
presence of diacritic marks would disfigure often beyond recognition the
original zoological name ; in the case of most of the alphabets concerned the
difficulties involved in preparing the proposed Schedules would be virtually
insurmountable ; the insertion of additional vowels in the manner proposed
at Copenhagen would be manifestly counter to the orthographic rules in force
in the languages concerned, and doubt was expressed as to the propriety and
indeed the practicability of the International Congress of Zoology introducing
special rules of this sort. Professor Jaczewski and his colleagues concluded that
in the aggregate the foregoing objections were so formidable that it would be
less objectionable to ignore diacritic marks and to print words as though none
of the letters comprised in them bore such marks. Professor Jaczewski and
his colleagues were however unable to support this latter course and recom-
mended therefore that the London Congress should accept a modified scheme
under which diacritic marks would be recognized in principle but provisions
would be added which, it was hoped, would render the scheme reasonably
practicable. Dr. Jaczewski’s letter is attached to the present Report as
Appendix 1.

10. Mr. Geelan, after passing the principal aspects of the problem under
review expressed the opinion that the whole idea of the transliteration of
Roman-alphabet languages was unwise. In his view the rendering, for
example, of an accented Czech word by an English equivalent would be a most
retrograde step. Mr. Geelan’s letter (which was dated 13th November 1955),
is attached to the present Report as Appendix 2.

(3) Underlying Difficulties

11. I am bound to observe that the technical objections to the arbitrary
interpolation of vowels to indicate diacritic marks and the practical difficulties
inherent in the construction of any such scheme now appear to be so

1044 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

serious as to render impracticable this approach to the diacritic-marks
problem. This applies, in my view, not only to letters bearing diacritic marks
in alphabets where there are no established equivalents but also to letters
belonging to alphabets where well recognized equivalents are in existence.
For very naturally those equivalents have been evolved independently by the
peoples using those alphabets, the result being that a given combination
adopted as an equivalent for some letter bearing a diacritic mark in one language
may be adopted—and in some cases at least has been adopted—as the equivalent
of a different such letter in some other alphabet. Thus, even in the small
number of cases analysed in paragraphs 5 to 7 above we find that the letters
‘ae’ are the Danish letter ‘‘(i’’, the German “‘&”’ and the Swedish “a&”’.
Similarly the letters “‘ oe ”’ are the currently accepted equivalent for the Danish
“9”, the German “6” and the Swedish “6”. We see therefore that the
adoption for the purposes of zoological nomenclature of the equivalents.
currently accepted for the above letters in the countries concerned would at.
once create a situation of “false homonymy” at what may be termed the
““equivalent-name”’ basis. Accordingly, the adoption of these equivalents,
while overcoming the difficulties involved in printing diacritic marks, would
have failed to put an end to the danger that situations of false homonymy
might arise through the omission of a diacritic mark. On the other hand, the
adoption of a policy totally to disregard diacritic marks would, I think, be open
to strong objection. In this connection I feel it of value to recall an interesting
letter which I received in 1951 from Professor Dr. E. M. Hering (Zoologische
Museum der Humboldt-Universitat zu Berlin) when the present issue arose in.
connection with the individual names T'érnquistia Reed, 1896 (Class Trilobita)
and Tornquistia Paeckelmann, 1930 (Class Brachiopoda), for in this letter which
is reproduced as Appendix 3 to the present Report such words, apart from
being names of different individuals, may differ in both pronunciation and in
meaning.

(4) Possible Solutions

12. For the reasons set out above it appears to me that the solution of the
difficulties presented by diacritic marks advocated by the Copenhagen Congress.
is unsatisfactory, the difficulties involved in its application being now seen
to be much greater than was then supposed. In my view therefore it is
necessary now to look elsewhere for a method for dealing with this problem.
Broadly speaking, there are only three ways by which this matter could be:
settled, namely :—

(1) A provision directing that diacritic marks are to be totally disregarded,.
in the sense that, if a name is published with such a mark, that.
mark is to be omitted by later workers without the insertion of any
letter to indicate the former existence of the diacritic mark.

(2) The provision in Article 20 requiring the use by subsequent authors of
diacritic marks whenever these were used when a name was first

~~"

ree ee ee

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 1045

published which was deleted by the Copenhagen (1953) Congress
might be restored.

(3) It might be possible to devize some scheme somewhat intermediate
in character between (1) and (2) above which in addition escaped
the difficulties inherent in the Copenhagen Plan.

13. It seems to me that the objections both to (1) and to (2) are so great
as to rule both out of court for practical purposes. Course (1) is not only
incorrect but would, in addition, lead to the most anomalous results, while
Course (2), though avoiding the actual errors inherent in Course (1), involves
such serious difficulties from the point of providing the required type as to
render its adoption impracticable from the printing point of view.

14. I conclude therefore that what is required is some compromise solution
which would avoid the major disadvantages and inaccuracies inherent in
(1), while avoiding also the practical difficulties inherent in (2). With these
considerations in mind, I submit the following tentative proposals for
consideration :—

(1) Where a name is published without a diacritic mark although the
word of which that name is composed bore such a mark prior to being
so Latinised, the spelling used by the original author is to be retained
and is not to be subject to emendation on the ground that the
diacritic mark was either omitted or was not represented by the
insertion of an additional vowel.

(2) Where a name is published with a diacritic mark over one or more of
the letters comprised in the word of which it is composed, (a) the
name concerned is not to be treated as a homonym of an otherwise
similar word published without a diacritic mark, but (b) it shall not
be obligatory for later workers to employ the diacritic mark in
connection with the word concerned in cases where to do so would
involve printing difficulties.

15. The advantage of the foregoing suggestion, as it seems to me, is that
it avoids the error involved in ignoring the difference created by the presence or
absence of a diacritic mark, while at the same time avoiding the almost
insuperable difficulties which arise except in a limited number of large centres.
The foregoing scheme, if approved, would naturally find its place in Section 4
of Article 28 of the Draft of the English Text of the Régles (1957, Bull. zool.
Nomencl. 14 : 201). What would be required would be the deletion of the
existing Section 4 (a) and its associated sub-section (i) (ie., all the words
which now appear on lines 15 to 26) and the insertion in their place of provisions
on the lines outlined above (paragraph 14).

RRR

1046 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

APPENDIX 1

The problem raised by diacritic marks over letters in words when used
as zoological names

By TADEUSZ JACZEWSKI
(Polish Academy of Sciences, Instytut Zoologiczny, Warsaw, Poland)

(Letter dated 26th August 1955)

I think that the question of diacritic marks is not so easy to dispose of
as it was taken in Copenhagen Decision 101 (1953, Copenhagen Decisions

zool. Nomencl. : 57-58).

In connection with the letter of the Secretary to the International
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, of April 22nd, 1955, ref. No.
Z.N.(S.) 310, the Polish Group for questions of zoological nomenclature studied
the matters involved; reported them to the Secretariat of the Section of
Biological Science of the Polish Academy of Science, and has been authorised
by the Secretariat of that Section to express the following opinion :—

(I) As to the transliteration of words normally written in Cyrillic
characters, for the purpose of forming zoological names, the Group
does not feel competent to express an opinion since in the Polish
language the Latin alphabet is in use. The Group approves, however,
the relevant remarks made by Prof. Dr. T. Jaczewski in his letter
to the Secretary of the Commission of April 29th, 1955, ref. No.
1081/55/P.II.

(II) As to the use of diacritic marks in words used as zoological names
the Group would like to express the following opinion :—

(a) The text of art. 20 of the Rules should be amended as follows :
“In forming names derived from languages in which the Latin
alphabet is used, the exact original spelling, including in
principle diacritic marks as well is to be retained. Examples

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 1047

(b) The following two additional paragraphs should be introduced
in art. 20 of the Rules :—

(i) Authors of new zoological names are strongly invited not
to form such names from words, either patronymics or
other, which are written with the use of diacritic marks.

(ii) Authors, editors and other persons concerned are authorised
to omit in zoological names diacritic marks when these
would entail technical difficulties in printing, provided
that such an omission does not result in homonymy with
other zoological names ; the German “ umlauts”’ should
be replaced in cases of such technical difficulties by the
double letters ae, oe, and we. Such omissions of diacritic
marks are not to be treated as emendations of the names
in question.

(c) It seems that the proposed emendation of, and addition to the
present text of art. 20 of the Rules will be a reasonable and
practical way out of the existing difficulties.

(d) The proposed addition of supplementary letters to replace
diacritic marks, as provided in the Copenhagen Decision
No. 101, would cause very serious difficulties, of which the
principal ones would be the following :—

(i) Additional letters will disfigure completely, often beyond
recognition, the original word from which the given
zoological name was derived.

(ii) There will be no means of distinguishing these additional
letters from those belonging to the original spelling of
the word from which the name in question was derived,
unless they are printed in different types, taken into
brackets, or set off by some similar method.

(iii) There will be unsurmountable difficulties in the preparation
of the required schedules, since only very few cases will
be as simple as that with the German “umlauts”; a
very difficult case will be presented for instance by the
French vowels with their three different accents, etc.

(iv) The addition of supplementary letters instead of diacritic
marks will be manifestly contrary to orthographic rules
in force in the various languages ; it seems to be a matter
of serious doubts whether the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature or even the International
Zoological Congresses have the necessary authority, and

1048

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

whether it is advisable that they should interfere with
these rules which are officially accepted by competent
scientific bodies and governments in the various countries,
and which form, as is commonly felt, an essential element
of the national culture. It seems, moreover, to be
indisputable that a simple omission of diacritic marks
interferes less, and in a less obvious and more “ passive ”
way, with the various orthographic rules in question,
than the “ active ”’ addition of supplementary letters.

(e) It should be remembered also that zoological names in which

diacritic marks are used are derived mostly from modern
patronymics and were introduced in zoological nomenclature
as a rule to honour or to commemorate some person. It seems
quite obvious that any disfiguration of the corresponding
patronymic would be a very doubtful mode of honouring or
commemorating the person in question. It seems to be also
unquestionable that a simple omission of diacritic marks will
disfigure a given name less than the insertion of additional

letters.

(f) It should be also remembered that at least generic and specific

names are as a rule followed in zoological publications by either
full or abbreviated names of their authors, in which diacritic
marks are often encountered as well. In this case any attempt to
replace these diacritic marks by addition of supplementary
letters should be regarded as absolutely inadmissible for it
would be most misleading in matters of bibliographical refer-
ences. It seems thus that even the adoption of the proposition
expressed in the Copenhagen Decision No. 101 would practically
help little in technical matters.

Accepted unanimously at the meeting of the Polish Group for questions

of Zoological nomenclature on June 4th, 1955.

WSs

air

“- Po

y
Gi
?.
e
4
‘
»

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 1049

APPENDIX 2

On the question of the treatment of diacritic marks for the purpose of
zoological nomenclature

By P. J. M. GEELAN
(London)

(Letter dated 13th November 1956)

Apart from what I believe to be the inherent undesirability
of “transliterating" roman alphabets there are two practical difficulties to
be faced, The first is that all the European roman-alphabet languages

. (except English, Dutch and Italian) make extensive use of diacritics, but not.

all of them in the same way or to fulfill the same functions: this means

that you would need a set of "transliteration" rules for each language. For
example, you refer in your letter to the easy Solution to the German umlaut
problem, Presumably this involves the writing of ae,-oe and ue for 4, 6 and ¥
respectively, and I agree that this is a perfectly satisfactory and workable
convention. ‘The same convention, however, cannot easily be applied to Swedish
& without confusion with Danish ae; it cannot satisfactorily be applied to
Fimish & and 6 since these vowels also occur doubled as 84 and 66, and to write
these as aeae and oeoe is clumsy in the extreme; it cannot be applied in the
same way to Hungarian 6 and ti, which have corresvondinz long forms 6 and f,
except by some such trick as pairing them oe/ooe and ue/ume; it cannot be
aoplied comfortably to Estonian 6 without distorting the connection between
this letter and Estonian 6. Furthermore, it mist be borne in mind that
devising ways of transliterating umlaut would be simplicity itself compared
with the distinguishing of French e, #, é and &, Portuguese 6 and 6, Rumanian

a and 4, Czech u, 4 and u, Polish e and e, Latvian a and 4, Lithuanian u and y,
Swedish a and 4, Turkish 1, i and 1, Albanian e and 4,

While the transliteration of diacritic-bearing consonants
would not present the same degree of difficulty as the vowels there would
nevertheless be many problems. For example, while Croat & could probably
be rendered ch without risk of ambiguity Czech ¢ could not be so rendered

1050 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

since ch already exists in the Czech alphabet as a Gigraph with the sound

of ch in English loch, Again, while Polish 2 could conveniently be rendered
as zh (the usual convention for the sound of j in French jour) it is difficult
to see what could be done with Polish 4, which represents an intermediate sound
between z and 2, Again, while Croat @ is, even in Croat itself, often written
conventionally as dj or gj, there is no easy soluticn to the transliteration

of Maltese h.

I do not at all deny the theoretical possibility of en
unambiguous system for transliterating all diacritic-bearing letters in those
European languages involved in Zoological nomenclature, but its application
would lead to something little short of chaos, a state of orthogrsmhic anarchy
in which Shtyedrzhik for Stédfik might be the least remarkable of metamorphoses,

The second practical difficulty facing the Congress is that of
getting international agreement to a system of “transliteration”. The attain-
ment of uniformity in the romanization of a single language within one
orcanization in one country is never en easy matter; the prosrects of finding
any accord on the transliteration of perhgps 2 dozen languages among a dezen
or more countries are not likely to be very bright. To take just two of the
letters for which an apreed transliteration would have to be found:= Czech 8
(which is pronounced as the sh in ship) represents a sound that would normally
be written as SH in English, CH in French, SCH in German, SJ in Swedish,

SC in Italian, S in Hungarian; Croat dz represents a sound (that of j in jug)
which is normally written J in English, DJ in French, DSCH in German,

Y in Spanish, C in Turkish, DZS in Hungarian, Xi in Albsnian, My om
experience of these things is that even if international agreement is obtained
in principle on one or other symbol of transliteration it will not be long
before national bodies fall back on a qualified use of their ow orthographic<
conventions.

I have deliberately dealt with the extremes of the problem
facing you, and much of it may well be more easily susceptibie to sclution
than my remarks would indicate. Nevertheless, however easy agreement might be,
I remain convinced that the whole idea of the transliteration of roman-alphabet
languages is unwise. It will be found unsound in principle, unsatisfactory
in practice, and will certainly be detrimental to the progress that has been
so hardly won over the decades of this century for the recognition end acceptance
of the roman-slphabet tule, i.e. the use of all roman alphabets in their native
form complete with diacritics,

I agree that the omission of diacritics when these camnot be
typed or printed may lead to ambiguity and invalid homonyms, but I cannot
believe that these will be numerous in practice. A far Simpler Solution to
the problem, in my opinion, would be to devise an additional set of rules for
your International Code of Nomenclature which ensured that no new name be
permitted which differed from an existing name only in the use of a diacritic,
and which provided for the changing of those names which are at present liable
to confusion on this account.

a

‘
— SS ee ee en

er,

a Se ae oe

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 1051

APPENDIX 3

On the relative status from the standpoint of the Law of Homonymy
of names differing from one another in spelling through the presence
in one case, and the absence in the other, of a diacritic mark

By E. M. HERING
(Zoologische Museum der Humboldt-Universitdt zu Berlin)

(Letter dated 11th August 1951)

(Reprinted from 1952, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 6 : 252)

In answer to your question whether generic names differing from one
another only by the presence in one case and the absence in the other of a
diacritic mark should be regarded as homonyms, I give you my opinion on the
four points raised :—

(1) Words differmg by reason of a diacritic mark possess in most cases a
different pronounciation and mostly a different sense. Zoological
names differing in this manner are derived from different words and
should not be regarded as homonyms.

(2) The difference between two zoological names so created is sufficient
to make them suitable for concurrent use in every case. It is not
desirable that the Régles should provide that any pair of such names
should be treated as homonyms of one another. (Térnquist means
thorn-twig, Tornquist means literally tower-twig. In the Czecho-
slovak language r is spoken =r, but f is spoken rsh and words
differing in “‘r” and “¢” have a different sense !)

(3) In the example of “ Miilleria ’ and “‘ Mulleria ’ the diacritic mark is
sufficient to distinguish the two names; the difference points out
also the difference between the grandfather and grandson !*

* The reference here is to a question in my letter to Dr. Hering of 5th August 1951, regarding
a hypothetical case in which a generic name Miilleria was based upon the name of a German
zoologist and another generic name Mulleria without an umlaut based on the name of the
foregoing zoologist’s grandson who was an American citizen and who had discontinued the
use of the umlaut. (Signed) Francis Hemming 5th February, 1952.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

(4) In the present language use Tornquist cannot be regarded as a German

name ; in the most cases one may assume that this is the surname of
a man, the ancestor of whom came from Sweden. But there are
so many names in German which were common to Germany and
Sweden in older times that it may be that in parts of Germany there
are to be found families bearing names identical or nearly identical
with Swedish names. There are also many names in Sweden with
alternative modes of spelling but with the same sense, especially
the composita with twig; -quist, -qvist, -kvist, etc. All these
have the same sense and the same pronounciation, but zoological
names derived from these composita cannot be regarded as homo-
nyms of another. There is no other possibility than to use them
as different zoological names, and the same must be binding for the
names differing by reason of a diacritic mark.

—— eee ee

tae et te:

he eA sang ae

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 1053

CASE No. 61

DRAFT “ REGLES”’’?: RELATIONSHIP OF, TO DECISIONS BY
PREVIOUS CONGRESSES

(Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 1364)
DOCUMENT 61/1

Criticisms of the style and content of the Draft of the English text
of the ‘‘ Régles ”’

By K. H. L. KEY

(Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation,
Canberra, A.C.T., Australia)

(Letter to the Secretary dated 10th March 1958)

I have read with mixed feelings Professor Chester Bradley’s draft
International Code of Zoological Nomenclature as Amended by the Paris and
Copenhagen Congresses (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 14 : parts 1-9). On the one hand
I am conscious of relief that here at last is a consolidated presentation of all
the numerous and varied amendments and additions to the old Régles enacted
by the two zoological Congresses over a period of ten years. On the other hand,
I feel that this draft is not the sort of thing I expected and wanted.

In trying to find the reasons for this rather unspecific yet strong sense of
disappointment, I have arrived at the following general criticisms :

(1) The draft does not represent a “‘ harvest ” (in the terms of the President-
designate of the London Congress) of the progress made at Paris and Copenhagen,
but revives a number of issues thought to have been settled, and raises a great
many new ones. There is no certainty that all of these can be finally decided
at the London Congress, so that the draft as it stands exposes us to the danger
of a further five years with no agreed Code. The new material could, however,
be excised without leaving too-evident scars, a process that would be greatly
facilitated by the comprehensive tabulation of these deviations prepared by
Mrs. Ann Wilson of the Commission’s secretariat and published as Document
24/1 in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 15 : parts 12/15.

1054 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

(2) The draft comprises a completely new arrangement in which all the
Articles of the old Régles are re-numbered. I would not regard this as a defect
in itself, but the new arrangement does not seem to be an altogether happy or
logical one. As a rather extreme example, repetition of the same provision under
different headings in different parts of the Code seems to contravene the basic
principles of good drafting.

(3) The style of the draft is didactic and interpretative—almost vernacular
—instead of straightforward and precise. In places it reads almost like an
introduction to the Code for beginners rather than the Code itself. In thus
falling over backwards to achieve “ simplification ’’, the compiler has obscured
many fine but essential distinctions that were admirably drawn in the carefully
chosen wording of the original Congress decisions. There are, however,
several instances where the re-wording reveals a fundamental misunderstanding
of a Congress decision. If this draft were accepted, it would be found that
dozens of its provisions could only be interpreted by reference to the original
Congress decisions.

If criticisms such as these are at all widely shared among the Members
of the Commission and of the Colloquium on Nomenclature, it may be impossible
to reach agreement in London on the basis of the Chester Bradley draft. For
the criticisms cannot be met by minor drafting amendments : they strike too
deeply at the foundations of the document. It is possible, therefore, that Con-
gress members may be faced with the alternatives of approving a draft which,
in spite of much modification, is fundamentally not what they feel the new
Code should be, or of accepting the responsibility for deferring for another five
years the promulgation of the Code.

What is badly needed is an alternative draft, drawn up in a different style
and with a somewhat different objective, which could be presented to the
Congress along with the Chester Bradley draft. The great difficulty in the
way of this solution is the very inadequate time remaining, before the opening
of the Congress, in which to prepare, publish, and consider such a draft.
However, it occurs to me that some codification of the Paris and Copenhagen
decisions must have been undertaken by the Commission’s secretariat to enable
it to deal with the great range of topics coming before the Commission in which
those decisions have had to be taken into account. Is it possible that this
could be worked up fairly quickly into a second draft that would retain broadly
the old arrangement of the material and adhere much more closely both to the
meaning and to the wording of the Congress decisions, while avoiding un-
necessary legalism ? Ifso, I would like you to put a proposal along these lines
to the Commission for immediate decision.

I need hardly say that a vote in favour of such a proposal would not
constitute in any sense a vote against the Bradley draft, and could well be
recorded by a Commissioner who enthusiastically supported the latter.

\ os

i ee al et te

i —— — S aes oe

—— re ! a

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 1055

DOCUMENT 61/2

Reply by Mr. Hemming to Commissioner Key’s criticisms of
Professor J. Chester Bradley’s Draft of the English
text of the ‘‘ Régles ’’

Letter dated 12th March 1958

The Draft of the Revised English Text of the ‘‘ Régles ”’
published in 1957 in Volume 14 of the Bulletin of
Zoological Nomenclature

I write to acknowledge receipt of your letter of 10th March, in which, after
advancing criticisms of the Draft of the Revised English text of the Régles
prepared by Professor J. Chester Bradley and published in November last in
Volume 14 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, you enquired whether
there was in existence in the Office of the Commission a working draft reflecting
the decisions relating to the amendments to the Régles adopted by the Paris
(1948) and Copenhagen (1953) Congresses, and asked that, if there was such
a document, the Commission should be invited to authorise its publication
in the Bulletin for consideration jointly with the Draft prepared by Professor
Bradley.

In reply I have first to state that there is in existence a document prepared
in this office in which the decisions taken by the Paris and Copenhagen Congresses
have been strung together under the existing Article Numbers. This docu-
ment, which we know by the title of the “ Office Working Text ’’, was compiled
for internal office use shortly after the close of the Copenhagen Congress, such
a document having been found to be necessary for purposes of consultation
in connection with day-to-day work on applications regarding individual
names submitted by specialists for publication in the Bulletin. I should add,
however, that this document is not at present quite complete, for it does not
take account of the interpretative decisions taken by the Commission in
Declarations adopted by the Commission since the close of the Copenhagen
Congress.

I have carefully considered the proposals contained in your letter and
I must tell you that the relevant decisions by the Copenhagen Congress—namely,
Decisions 187-190 as recorded in the volume entitled Copenhagen Decisions on
Zoological Nomenclature (: 96—98)—are concerned only with the preparation

1056 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

and submission by Professor Chester Bradley of a revised text of the Régles
there being no mention of the possibility of any second draft being submitted.
I accordingly take the view that, so far as the Copenhagen decisions are
concerned, there is no authority for the submission to the Commission—and
the publication in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature—of a second draft
compiled for different purposes and built up on different principles.

I recognise that my view in this matter is no more than that of a single
individual and, although personally I do not doubt its correctness, I consider
that this is a matter which ought not to be settled administratively by myself
as Secretary but should be the subject of a decision by the Commission as a
body. I feel it is my duty however to place my views on this subject before
the Commission at the same time that it considers your letter to me of 10th
March. I am accordingly arranging for the circulation to the Commission
of copies of the present letter simultaneously with copies of your letter. At
the same time a Voting Paper will be issued in which the Members of the Com-
mission will be invited to state whether they accept my view on the procedural
issue involved or alternatively whether they approve your proposal and
accordingly direct that arrangements should be made by this Office for the
publication as soon as possible in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature of
the document known as the “ Office Working Text” referred to earlier in
the present letter.

—— ee . e

'
ey

pede

pe

oes se

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 1057

DOCUMENT 61/3

Action taken by the Office of the Commission on Dr. Key’s Proposal

(Reference : Document 61/1)

By FRANCIS HEMMING

(Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature)

(Report dated 16th May 1958)

In accordance with the procedure set out in the last paragraph of my
reply to Commissioner Key of 12th March 1958 (Document 61/2), a Voting
Paper (V.P.(O.M.)(58)3) was issued on 14th March 1958, in which Members
of the Commission were invited to vote either for, or against, ‘‘ the proposal
submitted by Dr. Key in the foregoing letter [i.e. in the letter dated 10th
March 1958 reproduced above as Document 61/1] that the Secretary be instruc-
ted to arrange for the publication as soon as possible in Volume 14 of the
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature of the document referred to in the above
correspondence as the ‘ Office Working Text’, that is, the working draft of
the Régles prepared in the Office of the Commission for internal office use
shortly after the close of the Copenhagen Congress ”’.

2. Particulars of Voting: The Voting Paper (V.P.(O.M.)(58)3) referred
to above was issued under the One-Month Rule and the Prescribed Voting
Period therefore closed on 14th April 1958. During the period in question
the membership of the Commission amounted to twenty-four. As one Com-
missioner (Miller (A.H.)) was on Leave of Absence, the effective voting strength
of the Commission was then twenty-three. At the close of the Prescribed
Voting Period it was found (a) that eight (8) Commissioners (Holthuis ; Lemche;
Key ; Jaczewski; Mertens; Hanké; Riley; Kiihnelt) had voted in favour
of the above proposal, (b) that thirteen (13) Commissioners (Bodenheimer ;
Sylvester-Bradley ; Hering; Mayr; Vokes; Prantl; Stoll; do Amaral;
Cabrera; Bonnet; Tortonese) had voted against the above proposal; (c)
that two (2) Commissioners (Bradley (J.C.); Hemming (F.)) had abstained
from voting, and (d) that two (2) Commissioners (Dymond ; Boschma) had
not returned their voting papers. [Later, negative votes were received from
Commissioners Dymond and Boschma.]

1058 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

8. Declaration of Result of Vote : On 15th April 1958, the day following
the close of the Prescribed Voting Period, I signed a Certificate, as Returning
Officer for the vote taken on Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(58)3, that the votes
cast were as set out in paragraph 2 above and declaring that the proposal
submitted with the foregoing Voting Paper had been rejected by eleven (11)
votes to eight (8) votes with two (2) abstentions and that the decision so taken
was the decision of the International Commission in the matter aforesaid.

~~. A

ee

:

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 1059

CASE No. 62

DRAFT “REGLES”’’, ARTICLES 5 AND 6; THE QUESTION
OF NEW NAMES AND OTHER NOMENCLATORIAL ACTS
PUBLISHED ELSEWHERE THAN IN “ PRIMARY LITERATURE“
AND OF THE DEFINITION OF “SECONDARY LITERATURE ”’

(Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 1359)

DOCUMENT 62/1

By R. V. MELVILLE

(Assistant Secretary, International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature)

In a comment published as paragraph 11 of Opinion 444 (1957, Ops.
Decls. int. Comm. zool. Nomencl., 15 : 186) Professor Ernst Mayr implied that
a difference ought to be recognised between “‘ primary literature ” and “ second-
ary literature’ so far as the publication of new zoological names and other
acts of consequence in zoological nomenclature is concerned. Every zoologist
will probably have an instinctive idea of the difference that Professor Mayr
had in mind, and will be able to quote from his own experience instances of
such publication having taken place in undesirable ways. It is perhaps easier
to understand the right purpose behind the idea than to define it in a satis-
factorily objective manner.

2. The Opinion referred to dealt with the case of two specific names in
the Class Aves (Cyanecula obscura Brehm, 1831 and Larvivora obscura Berezov-
sky & Bianchi, 1891) which had become secondary homonyms of one another
by reason of both being subjectively referred to the same nominal genus.
The senior secondary homonym was suppressed by the use of the Plenary
Powers because it had not entered into common usage since the time of its
first proposal, and of the half-dozen uses of the name quoted in comments on
the original application, three related only to citations of the name as a sub-
jective synonym. Professor Mayr urged that mere citation of a name in this
way ought not to rank in censuses of usage and, in effect, that synonymies
should not be counted as “ primary literature ’’ for nomenclatorial purposes.

1060 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

3. Most zoologists would probably agree with this contention, and there
would probably also be general support for the suggestion that nomenclators
and serials devoted to recording literature or to publishing abstracts should
also be excluded from the category of “ primary literature”. It would
probably be widely felt that new names published in such places ought to be
considered as invalid because failing to satisfy the requirements—in the spirit,
if not in the letter—of Article 6 (the Rules of Availability) of Professor J.
Chester Bradley’s draft English text of the rules ; and that other nomenclatorial
acts so published ought to be considered as failing to satisfy the requirements
of Article 5 (the Principle of Conservation). It is relevant here to refer to
Professor Bradley’s draft Article 7, Section 1, based on Decision 108 of the
Copenhagen Congress (Copenhagen Decisions : 61)—‘‘ All provisions .
relating to what does or does not constitute publication of a new name shall
apply with equal force to publication of any information that would affect
nomenclatural practice”. I would also quote the cardinal principle of English
law, that justice must not only be done, but it must also be seen to be done.
Many zoologists would hold that names published in the non-scientific press
should also be banned (draft English text, Article 7, Section 2, Recommendation
3, based on the more strongly worded Paris decision, see Bull. zool. Nomencl.
4 : 220), but it seems to me impossible to give satisfactory definition to the
limits between the “ scientific press ’’ and the “ non-scientific press’. In the
past, authors of reviews have often made nomenclatorial acts, renaming
homonyms, selecting lectotypes for species and type-species for genera, etc.,
and the propriety of this kind of procedure may also be questioned.

4, Apart from the difficulty of determining precisely the limits between
primary and secondary literature, it must be recognised that many names in
current use, and many nomenclatorial acts (such as type-selections at various
levels) which have helped to condition current practice, are based only on
publication in what would by general agreement be regarded as secondary
literature. It is thus of the greatest importance that no rules or recommend-
ations should be adopted that would, by being endowed with retroactive force
upset the stability of such names and practices. Insofar as draft Article 5
(the Principle of Conservation) is concerned, this aspect of the matter may be
held to be covered by Section 1 of the Article, which expressly excludes the
provisions of the Article from having retroactive effect.

5. Looking further at draft Article 5 in the present connection, it is seen
that Section 3 of that Article is the fittest place for the inclusion of provisions
relating to names published in secondary literature. Similar provisions would
also be appropriately included in Section 6 of Article 6 and as an additional
item at the end of Article 7. In the proposals outlined below a tentative list
of categories to be regarded as secondary literature from the nomenclatorial
point of view is included as a basis for discussion.

NT

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 1061

6. It is therefore proposed that the second paragraph of Section 3 of
Article 5 of the draft English text be deleted and that a new paragraph (i)
be adopted as follows :—

(i) No name or any act affecting nomenclatorial practice first published
in secondary literature after the date of coming into force of the
present Code shall be used to vary any name or nomenclatorial
practice in general use, unless expressly sanctioned by the Commission
exercising its Plenary Powers.

«

(a) For the purposes of this Article, the term “ secondary litera-
ture ” is defined as including the following :—

Nomenclators

Serial publications devoted to the recording of
literature and any compilation or catalogue of
literature

Abstracts of published works

Synonymies in primary literature

Publications designed expressly as field-guides to
collectors and students

Sale-catalogues and publications designed to pro-
mote or further commerce in living, dead or
fossil animals.

(b) For the purposes of this Article, the term “ primary literature ”
is defined as including all publications not expressly com-
prised in the definition of secondary literature.

The paragraph now numbered (i) would be numbered (ii) and its opening
words might be amended to read “A zoologist wishing to reject permanently
a senior synonym under the terms of the first paragraph of this Section ...”.

7. It is further proposed that a new paragraph (e) be added to Section 6
of draft Article 6, as follows :—

(e) No name or any nomenclatorial act shall acquire the status of
availability if it is published in secondary literature after the
date of coming into force of the present Code. [Here may be
repeated subparagraphs (i)(a) and (i)(b) of paragraph 6 of this
paper. ]

8. It is further proposed that a new paragraph (9) be added at the end of
Section 4 of draft Article 7, as follows :—

(9) publication in secondary literature after the date of coming into force
of the present Code. [Here may be repeated subparagraphs (i)(a)
and (i)(b) of paragraph 6 of this paper.)

1062 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

DOCUMENT 10/6
(continued from page 856)

The Substantive Languages of the International Rules: proposal designed to

ensure simultaneous discussion by the Colloquium of English and French

amendments to Professor J. Chester Bradley’s Draft English Text and to the
French text based on this

(Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 1259)

By R. V. MELVILLE, M.Sc.

(Assistant Secretary to the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature)

(Statement dated 12th May 1958)

In a note prefaced to the French text based on Professor J. Chester
Bradley’s Draft English Text of the International Rules of Zoological Nomen-
clature, the members of the Commission appointed by the Société Zoologique
de France to prepare this text express the hope that the discussions in
the Colloquium will proceed simultaneously on the basis of both the English
and French texts, and that no modifications shall be approved for either text,
in part or in whole, that are not simultaneously approved for the other. This
suggestion is made so that the Colloquium can produce, at the end of its work,
two texts, discussed and approved in complete equality with each other (or
the raw materials of such texts), neither of which can be regarded as a
‘translation ” of the other.

2. It is considered that this proposal offers the best practical means of
ensuring the co-equality of the French and English texts of the Rules as these
will be presented to the XV International Congress of Zoology for approval,
in accordance with the direction given by Professor Ragnar Sparck in his
minute of 7th November 1953 (Copenhagen Decisions : 128—131; reprinted
in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 15 : 855—856). The International Trust has therefore
arranged with Professor H. Munro Fox that he will be responsible for providing
translations both from and into French at such times as this may be necessary.
The French authorities concerned have approved this arrangement and have
offered their co-operation. In addition, they have been asked to nominate a
French zoologist to serve on the Bureau of the Colloquium and to assist in
preparing the revised French text of the Régles.

a a

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 1063

DOCUMENT 15/3
(continued from page 295)

On the interpretation of ‘‘ oldest’? name

(Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 1291)

By C. E. TOTTENHAM
(University Museum of Zoology, Cambridge, England)

(Letter dated 7th May 1958)

Section 2 of Article 8 will involve work for some zoologist in order to
provide material upon which a decision can be based, work for the secretariat,
work for the commissioners, expense to the subscribers to the Bulletin, and
delay probably of several years before the matter can be settled. I suggest a
much simpler solution which would involve no labour, no expense, no delay
and which would probably result in no more (perhaps fewer) changes of name.
Some of the names affected by the identical date of two publications would
be already established by one or other of the provisions of Article 5. It is
proposed that ‘‘ If two names for one taxon were established in publications
of identical date and neither of these is validated under Article 5 and both
are available, then the name which comes first in (the Latin) alphabetical
- order shall be the valid name of the taxon ”’.

1064 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

DOCUMENT 21/4
(continued from page 859)

Draft “ Regles ’’, Article 28, Section 11, (d) (iii) (1) : proposed attribution of
the neuter gender to certain generic names consisting of compound words

(Commission Reference Z.N.(S.)996)

By AFRANIO DO AMARAL
(Instituto Butantan, Sao Paulo, Brazil)

(Extract from a letter dated 8th February 1958)

I should like to suggest the omission of Article 28, Section (d) (ii) (1)
(Bull. 14: 213, lines 3—5) for the reasons set forth in the note—of which I
annexe a copy—which I attached to Voting Paper V.P.(57)62 on Case Z.(S.)1278
(relating to the gender attributable to certain names having the terminations
“* -rhynchus ” and “‘ -gnathus ’’).

ANNEXE
Note dated 20th November 1957, attached to Voting Paper V.P.(57)52.
As a matter of fact, the latinization of all such names, which are real

nomina agentis, induces us to consider them as adjectival nouns. It would
be linguistically incorrect to keep the genders of their respective Greek etyma.

eS ee SK

— ee

ee TC ee ee

——— a |

a te

— : 4 cin
tai Oe ee ee

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 1065

DOCUMENT 21/5

Draft “ Régles ’’, Article 28, Section 11 (gender to be attributed to
certain classes of generic names)

(Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 996)

By R. V. MELVILLE

(Assistant Secretary, International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature)

When the Copenhagen Congress laid down certain rules for determining
the gender of generic names (Copenhagen Decisions : 49—51, paragraph 84),
it at the same time directed the International Commission (: 51, paragraph 85)
to consult with its Classical Advisers so that the rules then provisionally adopted
could be revised to such extent as might be necessary before they were finally
included in the Régles. The results of this consultation were not fully available
at the time when Professor J. Chester Bradley was drafting the relevant
portion of his draft English text of the Rules, at which time the Commission’s
decision on the reports received from its Classical Adviser had not been
completely rendered in the form of Declarations. When these Declarations
had been adopted Professor Bradley submitted a paper (published as Document
21/2, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 15: 731—735) incorporating the revised rules for
determining the gender of generic names in the form of corrections to Section
11 of Article 28 of the Draft Rules. Unfortunately, these corrections do not
embody all the points made by the Commission in its Declarations on this
subject, and it is thought desirable that the Colloquium should have before it
a clear statement of the position as it now stands.

2. The classes of generic names concerned are those which end in “ -ops ”
and “ -opsis ” (Declaration 36) and those ending in “‘ -cheilus ” (and “ -chilus ’’),
“ -gnathus ”, “ -rhamphus ”, “ -rhynchus ”’, “ -stathus”’ ,“ -cera’”’ and “ -metopa’”’
(Declaration 39; see also Direction 100). The two last-mentioned endings
were not mentioned by Professor Bradley in the relevant paragraph of the
emending paper referred to (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 15 : 733, paragraph beginning
“P.212, after line 9 add: («)”’). It is therefore now proposed that the
following words be added at the end of this subparagraph («) and before
subparagraph (8). Examples: ‘“-cera” from Kkép%s (Greek neuter) Latin-
ized as -cera; “ -metopa ” from petwzrov (Greek neuter) Latinized as -metopa.

1066 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

3. It is not clear why Professor Bradley has re-worded the passages in
Declaration 36 and 39 in which the rule-bearing parts were already expressed
in language that can only bear a single construction. It is open to the
Colloquium, if it so wishes, to substitute the wording of the Declarations for
that chosen by Professor Bradley.

4, The position as it now stands in relation to these endings in Declarations
36 and 39 (or in Copenhagen Decisions), in Professor Bradley’s draft, in his
paper of emendations to the Draft and in this note is shewn in the accompanying
table.

edoqour
(€)(4)(P)T 1/82 oe poqqruz0 68 a wumsor
oO Jopun ., seduexg ,, sv :
= poppe eq 0} posodoad mou 109
= poqgrur0 68 a ndam
snyyeqs ‘snyqoqs
N 0341p 68 W Soglito
snyoudyt
N 0941p 6E W soXdad
SEL—TEL : GT snydureys
“puauoN “joor ‘yng ‘Z/1G 1 N (1™M)(P)IT/8z “ee 68 W sodrnd
< guetMINdo(T Ul GE woUnsmpIa(T ;
= YJIM ULIOJUOD 04 apey snyyeus
8 a (e(H)(P)IT/8% “BIz : 68 W sogpad
LQ
3 snyryo ‘snjroyo
S N (I(H)(P)IT/8Z “BIe : 6E W Soy19X
a i ((@)(P)IT/8z “zIe: (8)¥8°6r : GO a 104908
s dhrond
S sdo
8 c pez4Ta0 9& WwW sory ‘oko) fh O
= W 10° poeydaooe 9AOgR se
= - pe7}1UI0 9¢ Ajjeioues se 4dooxo ‘sdo
Ss SéL—TeL: cE |
Ss “pouauo xT “jooz yng ‘Z/1z 1 sdo
> quoUINIO UI YE woynsnjoaqT a 0991p 9 A (oxy) 9
is) YJIM wWIoyUOD 07 opey
a 0791p 9¢ ri ag
(e010) fo
A (s\((P)IT/sz “z1z 98 a stsdo
Sipo
a pee Se MS 2 er
s}uSUIUIOD Jepue*) yeiq Aolpeig UoIsIoaq ~ueseyUedoD OIP poziuney
JO wonerepeq Jopuexy “UOneUIUIEL, YoorD

SOUBN I1euey Jo sopuey

ee al a <_ a

1068 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

DOCUMENT 25/15
(continued from page 910}

Order/Class Names

(Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 1242)

By L. R. COX
(British Museum (Natural History), London)

(Letter dated 7th April 1958)

I wish to bring for the attention of the Congress certain problems arising
out of the publication of Order/Class names in vernacular form which call for
consideration in the interests of nomenclatorial stability. French workers
such as Cuvier and Lamarck were so active at the period when many of the main
taxonomic divisions were being defined in all phyla, that I am sure that similar
problems must exist in most groups. Now that attention is for the first time
being directed to the application of rules of nomenclature to the names of higher
taxonomic categories, I am sure that it is in the interests of uniformity and
stability that action should be taken before workers go any further in dis-
interring the names of nonentities who (so far as they can ascertain) appear
to have been the first authors to have published in Latin form the names of
major taxa founded by French authors such as the two I have mentioned.

I would, therefore, gladly propose at the Congress in July that classically
derived names of higher taxa first published in vernacularized form should be
regarded as Invalid Original Spellings which the Commission might correct
at its discretion without affecting the title to authorship, and without having
recourse to the Plenary Powers. All the names which I have in mind were
published in the French vernacular, but in the international rules it would be
wise not to exclude from consideration any names which may have been
published in other languages, provided that such names were of classical
derivation.

. he , we le

es eee ee a ee

ee Oe a

eee ee a eo

ni

————eE— ee lhl Oe

ae ie

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 1069

DOCUMENT 25/16

ORDER/CLASS GROUP NAMES FOR THE FLEAS

(Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 1242)

By G. H. E. HOPKINS
(British Museum (Natural History), The Zoological Museum, Herts, England)

(Enclosure to a letter dated 25th April 1958)

In my list (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 15 : 549—552) of the names which have
been used for Orders and Suborders of fleas I inadvertently left in the manu-
script a paragraph which I had intended to check at a later date and which
proves to be incorrect, for Dr. Curtis W. Sabrosky has been kind enough to
bring to my notice the fact that the names Proboscidea and Eproboscidea
Walker, 1851, do not refer to fleas but to Diptera. He tells me that the names
date from 1815, [Leach] in Brewster’s Edinburgh Encyclopaedia (ed. 1) 9 : 161,
162.

Dr. Sabrosky also tells me of another ordinal name for the fleas which is,
to the best of my knowledge, quite unknown to workers on the group. This is
Pulicaria, which he has noted in Gravenhorst, 1843, Vergleichende Zoologie,
p. 164 but which may well be earlier (I have seen a presumably invalid plural
variant Pulicarii, quoted from Rondani, 1841, but without a proper reference).
Gravenhorst used it as a name for the fleas, which he (in common with other
zoologists of the period) regarded as a suborder of Diptera. My belief (Bull.
zool. Nomencl. 15 : 547) that many names in the Order/Class group have
probably been overlooked is strongly confirmed by this discovery.

1070 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

DOCUMENT 25/17

Order/Class names : the case for Bryozoa and Ectoprocta

(Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 1242)

By JOHN D. SOULE

(Allan Hancock Foundation, University of Southern
California, Los Angeles)

I note with interest document 25/5 by D. A. Brown, appearing in the
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, vol. 15, double-part 16/17, pp. 540-542.
The article by Dr. Brown entitled : ‘‘ The relative merits of the Class names
‘ Polyzoa’ and ‘ Bryozoa’”’, presents the Polyzoa side of the controversy
that has been with us for almost eighty years. (See “On the term Bryozoa
and Polyzoa ’”’, A. W. Waters, pp. 34-36 ; “‘ On the terms Polyzoa and Bryozoa”’,
Thomas Hincks, pp. 127-129 ; and “‘ On the nomenclature of Polyzoa, Busk ”,
T. R. Jones, p. 220; all appearing in The Annals and Magazine of Natural
History, ser. 5, vol. 5, 1880.)

2. It is my desire to state some of my views on the term “ Bryozoa ”’, and
then offer a suggestion that I hope may help to settle the question.

3. No one denies the priority, with regard to the publication date, of
J. V. Thompson’s paper on the Polyzoa. Memoir 5, here on my desk is dated
December 1830. The earliest date accepted for the Ehrenberg Symboliae
Physicae is March 1831. Nor does anyone fail to understand that J. V.
Thompson recognized in the “ Polyzoa”’ a distinct morphological type. In
reading Thompson’s memoir, I note that he is introducing a new concept,
that there is not a single type of zoophyte, but two, the animal of the structural
type he refers to as the ‘“‘ Hydra”’, and the newly observed structural type
the ‘‘ Polyzoa’’. In the second paragraph, on page 541 of the Bulletin of
Zoological Nomenclature, vol. 15, Dr. Brown states with reference to J. V.
Thompson’s work : “ It was not what he did but what he said that provided

MW tre

Ri aro, (igs

OO

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 1071

excellent piece of research. What Thompson did, and what he said are entierly
compatible. He pointed out the anatomical structure and compared it with
the other zoophytes known in his day, namely, “ Campanulariae ”, “ Plumu-
lariae ”, and the “ genuine Sertulariae of Lamarck ”’.

4. And that is just the point, while he did clearly recognize the structural
differences, he did not anywhere in his memoir designate the “ Polyzoa” as
a new class or order of animal. On page 92, Thompson says : “ The Polyzoa

This further was quoted by Hincks, 1880, p. 128, coupled with a sentence further
along in the memoir, and used to indicate a class designation on the part of
Thompson. A sentence that Hincks overlooked, however, was written by
Thompson immediately following the sentence quoted above, and states as
follows: ‘‘ Thus this discovery will remove that portion of Sertularia not
provided with distinct oviferous receptacles, to the class Mollusca acephala,
as well as such other genera as may hereafter be found similarly circumstanced.”
Instead of setting up either by designation or by implication a new class for
his polyzoans, Thompson inserted them into the established class Mollusca
Acephala.

5. Dr. Brown criticizes Ehrenberg’s diagnosis of the Class Bryozoa as
being scarcely precise. By present day standards, obviously this is true,
and not even good by nineteenth century standards, but the fact remains,
Ehrenberg did set up two distinct classes, Circulus I Anthozoa and Cireculus IT
Bryozoa, and he did set forth a diagnosis for these groupings. If priority of
names be important, then Ehrenberg is the first to set up a classification of the
group, especially when we recall that Thompson’s “ Polyzoa ” was placed in
the class Mollusca Acephala by its own author. Dr. Brown’s statement that
Ehrenberg had not really discovered that the bryozoa were unique is disputed
by two things. First, Ehrenberg could hardly by mere chance have set up
his “ circulus Bryozoa ” with no basis of understanding. Secondly, the state-
ment is disputed clearly by George Johnston’s “ History of British Zoophytes ”,
2nd ed. 1847, vol. 1, p. 460 : “ It was proof of Ehrenberg’s clearer views of their
great difference in structure when he divided the zoophytes into grand sections,
the Anthozoa and the Bryozoa ”

8. I am in complete accord with Dr. Brown in my respect and admiration
of the works of Sir Sidney Harmer, the Rev. Thomas Hincks, and Dr. Anna
B. Hastings. I would also like to state that I feel the same way about the work

1072 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

of Dr. Brown, besides holding him in high personal regard as a friend as well
as a colleague. It is quite true that there has been wider usage of the term
‘“‘ Bryozoa ” from the geographical point of view, the term “ Polyzoa”’ being
used by the British workers. Dr. Brown names twelve authors who used the

name “ Polyzoa”’. Compared with this a quick survey of the literature
discloses forty-five authors, not including those with just a minor paper to
their credit, who used the term “ Bryozoa”’. Today there are two major

students of the group using the term “ Polyzoa”’, namely, Dr. Hastings in
England, and Dr. Brown in New Zealand. In contrast to this there are living
today at least twenty workers using the term “ Bryozoa”’, including such
authorities as Marcus in Brazil, Silen in Sweden, and Rogick in the United
States.

7. Historically this controversy has always reached an impasse, both
sides certain of their correctness. While I feel confident that the weight of
the argument is in favour of ‘“‘ Bryozoa ”’, the current issue can be resolved by
a compromise. There seems to be sufficient anatomical and embryological
evidence, on the basis of our present knowledge, to raise the term “ Ecto-
procta ”’ to higher status, in the hope that this will be agreeable to both sides.
That this term is acceptable to some of the invertebrate zoologists in England
is indicated by its adoption, p. 652, Phylum Ectoprocta, in the latest (1958)
edition of ‘“‘ The Invertebrata”’, Borradaile and Potts, 3rd revision, 1958,
by G. A. Kerkut of the University of Southampton. It is my understanding
that Dr. Libbie Hyman in the United States, has included as a portion of her
forthcoming volume 5 in the invertebrate series a section on the Phylum
Ectoprocta.

Se

a

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 1073

DOCUMENT 25/18

Order/Class names : problems in the selection of type genera

(Commission Reference Z.N.(S.) 1242)

By JOHN 0. CORLISS*
(University of Illinois)

I. Relationship of types of highest categories to their major included taxa.

Considering first the highest taxonomic levels, what should be the relation-
ship of the types of orders to those of classes, and the types of classes to those
of the phylum or subphyla 2

It seems sensible to conclude that the single type-genus of a phylum
should also be the type of one of the included subphyla and, at the same time,
of one of the latter’s included classes, and so on down the taxonomic ladder to
and including the family-group level. But which order is to be chosen to
supply the type-genus for the subphylum, and possibly the phylum, of which
it is a subordinate member? The best-known order (if so, how is this deter-
minable for certain)? The largest ? The most widely distributed ? The most
extensively studied in experimental research 2 The oldest? The most
primitive or the most specialized or intermediate ? The most fully or precisely
characterized ? The most representative (but considerable subjectivity

becomes involved here) ? Must it be one of the orders originally included in the
subphylum (or phylum) ?

In the case of the protozoan subphylum cr1oPHora, I believe that the
type-genus also should be type of the single included class and of one of the
latter’s two subclasses as well as of one of the included orders. The genus
Paramecium is my choice for this type, in spite of several minor complications
(see Section IV below). Kent (1880-81) listed this familiar genus as “ typical ”
of his order (= my subclass) Holotricha, and it has long since enjoyed the
reputation of being well known, widely distributed, and often studied. Its

*The investigation described in this Paper was carried out under Grant 3887 from the
National Science Foundation.

1074 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

name is even pre-Linnean, a rare occurrence among protozoa ; it was introduced
into the post-1758 literature by O. F. Miller, in 1773. Selection of Paramecium
as the ciliophoran type-genus necessitates rejection of Copeland’s (1956) recent
designation of Vorticella, also a genus of long-standing but containing species
quite atypical of ciliates in general.

The ciliate subclass not containing Paramecium also should have as type-
genus the type of one of its included orders, in my opinion. The genus Huplotes,
well known although rather specialized anatomically and presumably very
highly evolved, is my choice here because its species exemplify so well the
most distinctive characteristics of its subclass, the Spirotricha.

II. Relationship of types of higher taxa to their subtaxa.

What should be the relationship of the type of a class to the types of its
included subclasses ; of an order, to its included suborders ?

This question is answered in part in the revised Code (Bradley, 1957).
Article 18, entitled ‘‘ Types ’’, states in its first section : “‘ The type of a taxon
is always the type of its nominate subtaxon, if there be one, and vice versa”’.
But what about the many instances in which none of the subtaxa is nominate ?
In such instances should one of the suborders be considered more “ representa-
tive ’”’ than the others, and its type-genus designated type of the order? But
if there is no suborder clearly typical of the order, should a primitive one or
a more complex one be favoured to provide a genus as type of the whole order ?

In the subphylum cin1oPHoRa there are at present, in the classificational
scheme followed here (see Corliss, 1957), five orders which contain suborders,
but in only one case is there a nominate suborder (Order Heterotrichida,
Suborder Heterotrichina). Therefore, an arbitrary decision has to be made
regarding which suborder will supply the type of the order in the other instances.
In all four of them the choice has to be made between the more (or most)
primitive and the more (or most) highly evolved group of ciliates. As a
general principle, I favor designation of an ordinal type from the more
primitive of included suborders ; for example : from Suborder Rhabdophorina
of Order Gymnostomatida ; Suborder Arhynchodina of Order Thigmotrichida ;
Suborder Sessilina of Order Peritrichida. But in the remaining case I have
been more or less forced to choose the most specialized suborder as source of
the type genus, for it is in the order Hymenostomatida that one finds Para-
mecium (older and most current textbooks notwithstanding !), a member of the
most highly evolved suborder Peniculina, already selected (see above) as type
of the entire subphylum of ciliates. Following the principle espoused in
Section I, one cannot choose any other genus to represent the hymenostome
ciliates.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 1075

III. Relationship of Types of orders to their included families.

What should be the relationship of the type of an order or suborder to its
included families ?

If the higher taxa concerned have, in effect, nominate families, it would
seem that the types of those families should without question be declared
type-genera of the appropriate taxa in the order-group. When such is not the
case, however, essentially the same questions as posed above (Section I, p. 1)
with regard to orders within the subphylum apply here: if the ‘‘ most repre-
sentative ”’ family is to be used as source of the ordinal type, how does one
determine the identity of that family within the order, etc.? Families
automatically have type-genera, since a family-group name is based upon the
name of the included genus which must then be recognized as the type ; but
what if such types taxonomically seem quite atypical of the order, represent
poorly known genera, have names in danger of becoming buried as synonyms
or homonyms, etc., etc. ?

Among the ciliated protozoa, there are only three cases of suborders which
contain families having their names formed from the same stem as the sub-
order: the family Tetrahymenidae in the suborder Tetrahymenina, Pleuro-
nematidae in Pleuronematina, and Licnophoridae in Licnophorina. In all
other instances, save two, I have endeavoured to recognize the most appro-
priate families as sources of types for the higher categories, employing the
type-genera of those familial groups as the ordinal or subordinal types as well.
In the two exceptional cases*(Saprodinium as type of Odontostomatida and
Entodinium as type of Entodiniomorphida) extenuating circumstances (see
Section IV below) have obliged me to turn to genera not types of the families
to which they belong.

IV. Relationship of newly designated types to those previously chosen.

3°

To what extent, if any, should the “‘ Committee of Specialists ’’ consider
as binding past actions related to the designation, directly or by implication,
of types in the phylum-, class-, and order-groups ? That is, to what extent
should priority become involved if or when different types have been indicated
by different workers at various times in the past ?

In some cases type-genera have been selected in the past ; in other instances
the stem of certain generic names has been used in forming the name of an order
or suborder. What if the genera so chosen are not types of families? Or
what if they are not genera originally included in the higher taxon at the time
of its establishment ? What about ill-chosen types, names of poorly described
genera, or names now existing only as synonyms or homonyms? To what
extent, if any, are ethics involved ?

1076 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

To my knowledge, types for the higher groups within the subphylum
CILIOPHORA seldom have been deliberately selected to date. There are a few
cases. Copeland (1956) quite recently designated Vorticella as type of his
‘Phylum ” crtioPpHoRa (and of his strange “‘ Order Stomatoda ’’) and Acineta
of his Order “-Tentaculifera’’. As implied above (Section I, p. 2), I do not
feel bound by Copeland’s decision regarding the type of the entire ciliate
assemblage since I consider it an inappropriate one ; however, I am in agreement
with his designation of Acineta for the order Suctorida. Tetrahymena has,
in effect, been indicated as type of its nominate suborder Tetrahymenina, and,
similarly, Pleuronema of Pleuronematina, and Licnophora of Licnophorina
(Corliss, 1956, 1957). Kent (1880-81), over 75 years ago, mentioned some
“typical genera’ of his “Sub-Kingdom”’ protozoa in his “tabular view
of the sections, classes, [and] orders”’. Paramecium, Acineta, Euplotes, and
Vorticella were among those listed opposite the several ciliate groups recognized
at that time, but solely in the case of Paramecium (representing ‘‘ Order ”
Holotricha) was only one generic name matched with a given higher taxon.
Nevertheless, I have allowed myself to be influenced by Kent’s choices in my
own thinking. The order Tintinnida (originally described by Kofoid &
Campbell, 1929, as “‘ Suborder Tintinnoinea ”’) employs as stem of its name the
base of the generic name Tintinnus ; therefore, I believe that this genus
must be considered as type of its order. Order Entodiniomorphida (originally
erected by Reichenow in Doflein & Reichenow, 1929, as ‘Suborder Ento-
diniomorpha ”’) definitely was set up with the genus Hntodinium in mind;
therefore, I consider it as the ordinal type in spite of its primitiveness and its
happening not to be type of a family of its own.

There are two cases in which I have not chosen names of types of included
families in selection of ordinal types :

(1) In the one just mentioned above, involving the order Entodinio-
morphida, the genus Ophryoscolex, type of the major family Ophryoscolecidae,
ordinarily would be a much more reasonable choice, in my opinion, But
I believe that the similarity between the names Hntodintwm and Entodinio-
morphida and the wishes of the originator of the higher taxon should be
honored: Reichenow (in Doflein & Reichenow, 1929) wrote : “ Die wenigst
spezialisierten Formen werden durch die Gattung Hntodinium dargestellt,
deren Namen wir daher zur Kennzeichnung der Unterordnung wihlen .. .”

(2) In the case of the curious Odontostomatida (a replacement name for
the preoccupied Ctenostomatida : see Corliss, 1957), I have decided to propose
Saprodinium, ordinarily not the most likely candidate, as type because the
name of the type (Zpalxis) of the most important family, the Epalcidae, is
probably destined to fall as a homonym of Epalzis, the name of a genus of fossil
molluses described earlier. Saprodinium is a member of the same family.
Discomorpha, type of a second family and possibly the second most reasonable
choice as type-genus of the order (for reasons too detailed to mention here),
also has a name which should fall as a homonym : in this case a coleopteran

a

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 1077

insect is implicated. As a general policy I think that it is unwise to become
involved with genera whose names eventually will be contested on grounds of
preoccupation, unless it seems absolutely necessary. I am aware, of course,
that it is the organism, not the name, which is considered the type ; but Ishould
prefer to make exceptions in order to avoid the possibility of compounding
rather than alleviating the confusion. Further discussion of this matter or
citation of additional examples is beyond the scope of the present brief report.

The case of the familiar genus Paramecium, a member of the order Hymeno-
stomatida, is a little complicated for two reasons : the controversy over the
spelling of its name (see Woodruff’s review, 1945), and the fact that it is still
considered by many as the best-known genus of the order Trichostomatida,
its taxonomic location of long-standing, in spite of its dubious affinities with
genuine trichostomes (see Corliss, 1956, and comments on pp. 2 and 4, above).
Also Copeland’s (1956) choice of Vorticella as type of the subphylum (see pp. 2
and 6) possibly introduces a problem of ethics regarding my own presently
proposed selection of Paramecium as type of the same major group of protozoa.

V. Relationship of representative drawings to proposed type-genera.

Ifit is desired to represent the type-genus of a higher category by a drawing,
must the species depicted be the type-species of that genus? And must it be
the type-specimen of that species, if either it or a previously published usable
illustration of it is available 2

Many complications arise here, at taxonomic, phylogenetic, and even
nomenclatural levels. The foreword of the draft of the new Article 18 states,
in part : “A type is an individual specimen or a taxon, not the name of the taxon.
Of a species, it is a specimen, of a genus, it is a species, of a higher group, a
genus, but in the ultimate analysis each can be carried back to the individual
specimen that is the type of a species’. [Italics mine. |

In the case of most protozoa, and particularly free-living ciliates, type-
Specimens just do not exist, Type-species of some genera may never have
been figured ; it will be recalled that drawings are not required by the rules.
Many drawings of species apt to be involved in the matter under discussion
are poor or only partial. What is the best procedure for the person interested
in portraying “ representative types ” of ciliophoran orders and suborders 2
T endorse this fairly conservative point of view : to favor priority and to employ
type-species of type-genera whenever possible, modifying original figures
judiciously to show the features of greatest “‘ typical ” significance.

Summary

The purpose of this communication has not been to make formal proposal
of type-genera for the higher ciliophoran taxa but to reveal some of the major
problems involved in the background preparation for making such designations

TTT

1078 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

at a more appropriate time and place. In general, the problems which I have
encountered and which I have considered above tend to point up, in my opinion,
certain definite inadequacies and an over-all incompleteness in the proposed
new rules concerned with choice of types for higher categories.

The tentative conclusions or “‘ answers ’’ which I espouse as general pro-
cedures in regard to the five major problems considered in the body of this note
are these :

1. That the type-genera of the highest categories should be chosen from
among the types of their major included taxa.

2. That the types of classes or orders should also be types of their most
appropriate included subclasses or suborders, with nominate subtaxa, when in
existence, given first consideration.

3. That ordinarily the type of an order (or suborder) should also be the
type of the most “ typical” included family, with families whose names have
been formed from the same stem as that of the higher taxa being given first
consideration ; and that the type should be an originally included genus of the
higher taxon whenever possible.

4. That the I.C.Z.N., or its “ Committee of Specialists ’’, should not feel
bound by selections of types in the past literature if there is good reason to
judge such designations as inappropriate or as contravening (new) procedures
which may be established with regard to such selections ; and that, in the interests
of stabilization and common sense, exceptions be allowed to the proposals
suggested in points 1-3 above, when good reasons exist for such divergence
from the rules.

5. That, if it is desired to represent type-genera by publication of drawings,
such illustrations generally should be based upon existing figures of type-
species unless the figures are inappropriate, entirely inadequate, or represent
organisms whose nomenclatural status is controversial to a confusing extent.

Literature cited

Bradley, J. C., 1957. Draft of the English text of the International Code of
Zoological Nomenclature as amended by the Paris (1948) and Copenhagen
(1953) Congresses. Bull. zool. Nomencl. 14 : 11-285

Copeland, H. F., 1956. The Classification of Lower Organisms. Pacific Books,
Palo Alto, California

5 i ae

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 1079

Corliss, J. O., 1956. On the evolution and systematics of ciliated protozoa.
Syst. Zool. 5 : 68-91 ; 121-140

— 1957. Nomenclatural history of the higher taxa in the subphylum
crmuiopHoRA. Arch. f. Protistenk. 102 : 113-146

Doflein, F., & Reichenow, E., 1929. Lehrbuch der Protozoenkunde .. . Part II,
2nd half. 5th ed. G. Fischer, Jena

Hemming, F., editor, 1953. Copenhagen Decisions on Zoological Nomenclature.
London

Kent, W. S8., 1880-81. A Manual of the Infusoria ... Vol. I. David Bogue,
London

Kofoid, C. A., & Campbell, A. S., 1929. A conspectus of the marine and
freshwater Ciliata belonging to the suborder Tintinnoinea ... Univ.
Calif. Publ. Zool. 34 : 1-403

Woodruff, L. L., 1945. The early history of the genus Paramecium with
special reference to Paramecium aurelia and Paramecium caudatum.
Trans. Conn. Acad. Arts Sci. 36 : 517-531

Addendum

The preceding comments relating to the subject of selection of type-genera
for the suprafamilial zoological taxa were drafted several months before the
appearance of the “Seventh Instalment of the London Congress Agenda
Paper ” (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 15 (Double-Part 16/17) : 489-556). Thus inde-
pendently I have arrived at some of the same conclusions reached by Melville

& Durham (Document 25/2) which are also clearly expressed in the brief

discussion by Hemming (Document 25/1). My own earlier note (Document
25/3) also appears in the above cited issue of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomen-
clature. [I should like here to correct a serious typographical error in that
paper ; the last two lines on p. 521 should read : “‘ Kahl : same as for the order ;
suborder Mobilina Kahl : Urceolaria Lamarck, 1801 ”’.]

The matter seems to me to be of such basic importance that a little repeti-
tion is not without value. Furthermore, I have raised other questions not
previously voiced by anyone else. In my opinion the presently proposed new
Code (as drafted by Bradley, 1957) is quite inadequate in regard to the general
problem of “ types’, whether the animals under consideration belong to the
Protozoa or the Metazoa. Such weaknesses are discovered only when serious
attempts are made to apply the rules to actual cases.

1080 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Document 27/7
(continued from page 913)

Draft “‘ Régles ’’, Article 5: Continuity and Universality of
Usage : Discussion and Proposals

(Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 861)

By C. E. TOTTENHAM
(University Museum of Zoology, Cambridge, England)

(Enclosure to Letter dated 7th May 1958)

Writing as one who has done some work on the nomenclature of
Coleoptera I am delighted with Prof. Bradley’s Draft Code as a whole ; I feel
that many obscure points have been made clear. I am far from satisfied,
however, with Article 5 and am of the firm opinion that if it is enacted in its
present form it is going to prove a great stumbling block and will prove to be.
impracticable. For this reason I am discussing the subject at length.

2. While fully in agreement with the Principle of Conservation in itself,,
I deeply regret its introduction into the Code as a Rule. It is often directly
contradictory to the Principle of Priority and therefore its introduction means.
a fundamental change of Rule. If the Rules themselves are subject to such.
fundamental change and are themselves unstable, how can the nomenclature
which is based upon them be stable? Furthermore, its introduction as a.
Rule would mean that a large amount of zoological nomenclature would be
based upon the errors of present day zoologists ; this is wholly undesirable ;,
accuracy is a hall-mark of good scientific work. It is sad to think that this
system of basing much nomenclature on errors should be introduced into the.
Code this year when we are celebrating the bicentenary of Linnaeus who laid
the foundations of our zoological nomenclature. It is still more regrettable
that the Conservation Principle should be applied to names “ in general current,

Seer -

f

A
;
i
;
Zz
e
%
“g
a

a
'.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 1081

use’, for we today are the very zoologists who have the least excuse for errors
in nomenclature having had the International Rules in force for a longer period
than any of our predecessors.

It seems to me essential that the Colloquium in discussing the Code and
the Congress in enacting it should be quite clear as to its purpose. Is the
New Code designed to amplify the existing Rules to cover as many cases as
possible, to make the rules clearer, to facilitate their application and so to
hasten law and order in nomenclature ? Or is it designed to please as many
conflicting personal preferences as possible and thus prolong differences of
usage ? Most of the Code points definitely to the former, Article 5 to the
latter.

8. There are three basic facts, or difficulties, which we must face. The
first is that a Code of Rules, in itself, accomplishes nothing. The desired
uniformity and stability are not automatic products of the Code, they can
only be established when individual zoologists (or all if they like to multiply
the work for the sake of producing the same results) study the Code, and
strictly apply it to the nomenclature of their own special field of zoology and
when other zoologists, grateful for having had the work done for them, readily
adopt the names which are the only valid names under the Code. The second
is the fact that we are all zoologists, and being zoologists, whether by profession
or because we have taken up some branch of zoology as a hobby, we are
interested in the animals themselves rather than in their names. Zoologists
can hardly be expected to set aside their main interests and devote themselves
to weeks or months of nomenclatural work if all that they can reasonably
hope for is the (rather dubious) mental satisfaction of knowing that the results
of their labours will be very largely ignored by their fellow workers. (I have
put forward a proposal which, if adopted, might encourage more work being
done on nomenclature.) The third fact is that order cannot be produced out
of chaos without some change, and therefore changes necessitated by the
application of the Code should be gladly and speedily adopted.

4, I am convinced that the inconvenience of substituting a valid name
in the place of an invalid name which has been in general usage has been
magnified out of all proportions in the minds of many zoologists. In fact,
except in that very insignificant percentage of cases where the name has been
widely used in some branch of zoology other than the systematic literature of
the animals themselves, the inconvenience is so trifling as to be unworthy of
mention. In England and Wales alone annually over 350,000 people change
the name in general use (Miss X.) on marriage to some other name which has
never been applied to them (Mrs. Y). No serious difficulty is encountered, any
inconvenience is slight, the change is made as a matter of course in accordance
with rule and nobody complains. The actual situation in taxonomic Zoology
with regard to name changes can be well summed up by repeating a recent

1082 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

conversation. I was talking to a zoologist who was especially interested in
the genus K-us, and I pointed out that the type-species was probably a-us.
He replied “‘ Then the name K-us must be transferred to the genus L-us, the
name L-us must be rejected as a junior objective synonym, the subgenus L-us
Smith will become the subgenus K-us s. str, a new name will have to be found
for the old subgenus K-us s. str. Quite simple; that’s all there is to it.”
Of course he was right. Since facts are more convincing than opinions, I
put this case to the test and found that within fifteen minutes I could change
all the names in question in my cabinet, make the necessary changes in a world
list and in the British list and also make out cross reference index cards for all
the names. Since any one of these actions would have been sufficient it will
be seen that the trouble caused by such a name change to 100 zoologists is
equivalent to one day’s work for one man. Either 100 zoologists have to spend
five minutes each in making the required changes or one of them must spend
at least a day in preparing a case for the Commission, at least another day’s
work will be imposed upon the Secretariat, work in studying the case and
recording votes will be imposed upon each of the Commissioners, and every
subscriber to the Bulletin will be inflicted with the additional expense of at
least 2s. 6d. It should be clearly borne in mind (1) a change in name does not
cause confusion and only causes a few minutes’ trouble, (2) the use of an invalid
name in literature does not in itself cause confusion, it only causes a little
inconvenience and trouble to others, (3) what does cause confusion is the use
of the wrong name in literature without the author saying so or giving any
indication that it is not necessarily the valid name that he is using.

5. With regard to the Sections of the Article as published in the Draft,
Section 1 is so generalised and so obvious as to be almost entirely superfluous.
“Any action or usage of a name” would cover such things as the policeman
tying up his bootlace or a titled lady calling her pet Pekinese “ Toodle-ums”’.

6. Sections 1 and 3 of the Draft seem to me to be contradictory. Section
1 states “‘ Nothing in this Code shall be construed to render invalid any action
or usage of a name which was valid before the final enactment of this present
Code”. This seems clear and definite. It would mean that if a valid name
for a taxon has been used in accordance with the Régles, i.e. since 1903, nothing
in the new Code shall retroact to invalidate that usage. For all practical
purposes this section would establish permanently the usage of a valid senior
synonym provided that it has been used at all during the last 55 years, and
such a name might be regarded as virtually placed upon the Official List of
Accepted Names. If this interpretation is correct Section 1 will be of immense
value, not only because in many cases it will get over the difficulty of estab-
lishing “ general use”’ and will avoid the subjective element, but particularly
it will be a clear indication that the Congress makes Rules with a view to their
being observed and not broken: it supports those zoologists who in the last
55 years have obeyed the Rules.

i i

¢

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 1083

7. Section 3 on the other hand states “ If a name for a taxon that is not
an invalid homonym is in general current use and has been available for fifty
years or more, it shall not be replaced on nomenclaturial grounds by a senior
synonym, unless the latter has been widely used during some part of the
fifty years preceding its proposed substitution ”’. If a senior synonym has
been validly used at all during the last fifty years, and section 1 definitely
validates that usage, how can it be replaced by a junior synonym which has
been more frequently used during that period ? Section 3 cannot be applied
unless the word “ widely ” in line 22 is omitted. Then under this section the
Principle of Conservation comes into use for all cases in which after the enact-
ment of the Code it may be found that there is a senior synonym which might
replace the junior synonym in general use.

>

8. The words “is in general current use”’ are unsatisfactory for three
reasons. (1) A name cannot be in use if it is not in current use: the word
“current ” is redundant. (2) The second criterion for usage, that the name
“has appeared ten or more times in literature’ does not necessarily mean
“current use’, the name may have dropped out of use entirely fifty years
ago. (3) The word “general” is ambiguous. Does it mean ‘general’ in
the original meaning of the word ‘ applying to the whole class ’, as used, for
example, in the title General Post Office (where all forms of postal service are
transacted) or does it mean ‘ general’ in the more common modern usage
“applying to the large majority of the class ’.

9. The most serious objection to Section 3 is that it is so impracticable,
and in some cases would involve so much labour, that it can only result in a
policy of laissez faire and the perpetration of diverse usages. The introduction
of the Principle of Conservation may result in the fact that many names in
common use are in accordance with the new Code, but this will be entirely
fortuitous. A sound zoological nomenclature depends upon zoologists deliber-
ately applying the rules to every name. Whether the Principle of Conservation
is introduced or not, each zoologist still has to ensure that the nomenclature
he is using is in accordance with the Code. Under Section 3 the work involved
is greatly increased. Suppose that in the year 1965 a zoologist is trying to
apply the Code to see whether he must use the generic name X-us Jones (to
which he is accustomed) or Y-ws Smith. Under the old Code he would have
to find out date, original reference, availability and type species of both nominal
genera. At this point he would stop and apply the senior name. Under the
new Code, in many cases he cannot stop at this point. He must find out if
Y-us (if that happens to be the senior name) has been used between 1903 and
1958 ; he must find out if X-ws is in general use at the time he is writing, and,
if it is, he must find out whether Y-ws has only been used in a minor percentage
of cases (any positive number up to 49 represents a minor percentage). He
will at once be discouraged by the subjective elements and the doubts which
will arise. “Ten times or more in literature’. Would twelve papers by the
original author in twelve successive volumes of the same periodical count ?

1084 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Would twelve papers by the same author in twelve different periodicals count ?
Would twelve papers by twelve different authors in two or three volumes of
the same periodical count ? Would the use of the name by twelve different
authors, in such papers as ‘ List of the A-idae found in Anglesey’ count ?
To be fair it would be necessary to search the literature of all countries in
which the genus occurred, this might mean the literature of the whole world.
Usage is often geographical. Usage is by no means confined to literature.
Usage is far more likely to be influenced by the recent date, quality or usefulness
of one work than by the number of times the name has occurred in literature.
The usage of a name in a book, published during the last fifty years, is a very
clear indication as to whether the author of the book has paid attention to
the rules of nomenclature or not, it does not in any sense reveal the usage of
either contemporary or later zoologists. I am quite sure that any sane
zoologist, as soon as he realized the difficulties that lay ahead, would stop at
the same point as that at which he would have stopped under the old Code,
and would either apply the Principle of Priority and use the senior name,
or, if he preferred the junior name he would use it trusting to luck that his
action was justified under the new Code.

10. Section 3 is also impracticable because, if applied, it does not necessarily
promote stability. If the junior synonym has not been available for 50 years,
the senior synonym must be used ; when the junior synonym reaches its fiftieth
birthday, under Section 3, if it is still in general use, it shall not be replaced by
the senior synonym unless the latter has been widely used during some part
of the fifty years, but under Section 1 it is invalid (assuming that the senior
name had been used at all during the part of the fifty years which was prior
to the enactment of the Code). Absurd situations may arise; for example,
in a genus Z-us a number of specific names established by Jones in 1930 may
be junior synonyms. The senior synonyms may not be recognised until after
the enactment of the Code. An author writing a revision of the genus Z-us
in 1979, under the Code would be required to use the senior names; if he
refrained from publishing his work until 1980 he would be required by Section
3 to use the junior names if they were still in general usage. If he intended
to publish in 1979, with the senior names as required by the Code, and his
publication were held up at the last stages by a printers’ strike and consequently
did not appear until 1980, his nomenclature would be contrary to the Code,
Section 3. In this case also, if the senior names had been used at all prior to
the enactment of the Code, Section 1 would invalidate the junior names which
would be required by Section 3. Section 3 makes a mockery of Zoological
nomenclature. Of course, one of the great troubles lies in the words “ general
use ’’ which, being incapable of precise definition, constitute a serious weakness ;
the Rule cannot have the precision which a rule requires to make it effective.

11. Another grave inconsistency is to be found between Section 3 and
the Procedure which follows. Section 3 states “the junior name shall not
be replaced by the senior synonym”; this is mandatory. The Procedure

>

says ‘‘A zoologist wishing to reject permanently such a senior synonym...”

a, a ae

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 1085

The inconsistency can be easily overcome by the substitution of the word
“junior ”’ in the place of “ senior ”’ in line 2 of the Procedure. This substitution
would also bring the Recommendations 2 and 4 into line with the Procedure.

12. Recommendation 1, “ Criteria of usage’ (p. 44): Here it is suggested
“(b) That the name is of sufficient importance to have appeared ten or more
times in literature’. There is no importance ina name: ‘“‘ What’s ina name ?
That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet’. The
sentence should read ‘“That the name has been used ten or more times in
literature ”’.

13. In the following proposals I believe I have (1) removed or avoided the
contradictions in the original Draft, (2) preserved the general intention of both
Sections 1 and 3 and of the Copenhagen resolutions, (3) removed the subjective
elements, (4) defined exact limits for the application of the Principle of Con-
servation, (5) made it possible for a zoologist not only to apply the Code but
also in so doing establish immediate and permanent validity of a name under
the Code. It will be noticed that if the following proposals are adopted the
** Procedure ” and ‘‘ Recommendations ”’ of the Draft will be unnecessary.

Proposals

(a) It is proposed that Section 1 should read “‘ Nothing in this Code shall
render invalid any action or usage of a valid name in matters of zoological
nomenclature which action or usage was valid under the Régles before the
final enactment of this present Code except as provided in Article 11, Section
1(d). Any name for any taxon which has been established in accordance with
the Régles shall not be invalidated by the application fo Section 3”’.

(b) It is proposed that Section 3 should read :

Principles of Priority and Conservation

1. If the valid senior synonym for a taxon has been used during the 50
years preceding the enactment of this Code (i.e. during the period in which
the Régles have been in force, allowing 5 years grace for them to become known)
as the name for the taxon, either in systematic literature, or in catalogues or
check-lists of genera and species, the senior synonym shall be the valid name
and shall not be replaced by a junior synonym. (This is in accordance with
Section 1.)

2. The Principle of Priority shall be applied to all names established after
the enactment of this Code.

1086 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

3. The Principle of Priority shall be applied (a) in the case of generic names
if the usage of the junior synonym is invalid because it is inconsistent with the
valid type designation and (b) in the case of specific names established as new
nominal species as defined in Article 19, Section 2(c), unless the generic name
of the binomen is rejected under the Code.

[Note.—The part (b) has been inserted because the advantage of having the type species
of a genus permanently known by the name under which it was designated as type species will
be felt by zoologists both of the present and of the future, whereas the inconvenience caused
by a few simple nomenclatural changes which may possibly result now will be insignificantly
small and will only be experienced by a few zoologists in the immediate future.]

4, The Principle of Conservation shall be applied when the senior synonym
has not been used as the valid name for the taxon during the 50 years preceding
the enactment of this Code either in systematic literature or in catalogues of,
or check-lists of, genera and species ; in such cases a junior synonym, which
is not itself a junior homonym and which is in use, shall be the valid name of
the taxon—

(a) if it has been available for at least 50 years, or

(b) when it has acquired 50 years use, if it has not been replaced by the
senior synonym during those 50 years.

(“« Replaced” is not to be regarded as synonymous with “used”. To
replace the junior synonym the senior synonym must be accompanied by a
definite statement that the name is being brought into use to ‘ replace’ the
junior synonym and the statement must be accompanied by full references
as to authorship, dates and original publications of both names, and in the
case of generic names the type species of each nominal genus must be cited
with references to the original valid type designations. Any usage of the
senior name prior to the “replacement ”’ shall be invalid and without prejudice.)

5. If two or more junior synonyms are in use they shall be regarded as
invalid and the senior synonym shall be the valid name.

Recommendation. Authors, especially of systematic works or catalogues,
should preface their works with a statement to the effect that either the
nomenclature therein is strictly in accordance with the Code or that a specified
nomenclature has been followed, whichever is applicable.

(c) It is proposed that Section 4 be altered to “‘ Names which have been
long overlooked, that is to say are not to be found (either as the names of taxa
or as synonyms) in the systematic literature, or in the catalogues or check-lists
of genera and species (of the animals whose names are concerned) over a period
of at least fifty years prior to their discovery shall be rejected if their adoption
would replace any name validated under any previous Section of this Article ”’.

OO ee ee ae

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 1087

(d) It is also proposed that, if the above proposal be adopted, there should
be added to Recommendation 5 the words “so that the names may be
immediately placed wpon the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Names ”’.

Discussion on Dr. H. Lemche’s comments and proposal.

Since writing the above, I have received and have been studying the
comments and proposal of Dr. Lemche (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 15 : 639—642).
Whereas I consider his proposal to be preferable to that of Prof. Bradley’s
Draft, yet I still feel that there are some inconsistencies which should be
removed. Dr. Lemche’s comment in paragraph 5 (p. 640) “...at present...
then, the shift is made legal and obligatory to others . . .” would appear to
be consistent with Section 1 of the Draft Code. This is supported by the
opening words to Dr. Lemche’s proposal for Section 3, ‘‘ Whenever after (here
insert date on which the Revised Text of the Régles comes into force) a well-
established name is found to be a junior synonym of some other available
name...” (italics mine). Thus far I am fully in agreement. After the Code
comes into force it would be impossible, or it would at least involve some labour,
to discover and bring into use some early, long-forgotten or long-overlooked
name. Dr. Lemche then says “ it shall be the duty of the author discovering
this synonymy, if changing to the older name in some publication, to cite also
at least two different papers—written by different authors and published less
than fifty years before the change is publicly introduced—in which the senior
name has been accepted as the valid name of the said taxon.”” This is where
the difficulties arise. If either (or both) of the papers cited had been written
before the date in which the Code comes into force, the use of the senior name
would be already validated under Section 1. If both were written subsequently

to the coming into force of the Code, the authors would have had no right
(under Dr. Lemche’s proposal) to make the change to the senior name and
their actions would “ be invalid and without prejudice ” (p. 642). The author
“ publicly introducing ”’ the change would be citing papers in which an invalid
change had been made. Again, if the change has been made in at least two
different papers has it not been publicly introduced? I do not like the
distinction between “ cite two different papers ”’ and “‘ citations in synonymies
or works of reference do not qualify’. Catalogues and Checkelists often aim
at a greater accuracy in nomenclature than small papers, and they play a much
greater part in influencing usage. I fully agree, however, that citations in
synonymies should not qualify.

Dr. Lemche (paragraph 11, p. 641) asks ‘“‘ why strict priority has failed to
produce stable names during the past sixty years during which the old Rules
were operating ’. I do not believe this is due to the inadequacy of the Rule
of Priority. In some branches of zoology it is doubtless because zoologists
have not studied the early literature in order to establish the nomenclature
according to the existing Rules. In other cases it is because zoologists have

1088 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

chosen to ignore the Rules because they prefer some later names. In many
cases it is probably simply that zoologists will not be bothered about nomen-
clature. However excellent the Rules are, however willing zoologists may be
to study them and observe them strictly, I think it very probable that we
shall still have to endure a number of nomenclatural changes ; the Rule of
Homonymy, especially when applied to names which have become homonyms
because of a temporary sojourn in a genus, will undoubtedly mean that in
course of time many names will be found to be homonyms and therefore must
be rejected. Faulty synonymy may also result in some name changes. Other
changes may be necessitated on taxonomic grounds.

A careful study of Dr. Lemche’s comments and proposal has not induced
me not to put forward the alternative Proposals to the original Draft as set
out above.

s
{
;
ae

ee ee ee ee ed

ee it ae el 2 ia

al ee

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 1089

DOCUMENT 28/3
(continued from page 661)

Homogeneity of zoological names
(Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 1299)

By
BENEDETTO LANZA & ALBERTO SIMONETTA
(Istituto dt Zoologia dell Universita, Firenze, Italy)

(Letter dated 3rd May 1958)

We herewith state our support for the proposals of Professor Bonnet
(Document 28/2) concerning the emendation of names based on Greek and
Latin words and on classical names. We think indeed that the rare instances
of emendation which would involve such a change in the spelling of a name as
to make it difficult to recognize can be easily handled by the Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature, while the enforcement of the provisions advocated
by Professor Bonnet will probably stimulate authors wishing to establish
new names to consult people proficient in the classical languages in order to
avoid mistakes, which, being easily avoidable, are not to the credit of the
author.

We however disagree with Professor Bonnet where he suggests that
Latin words having two equally correct spellings should be spelled in zoological
nomenclature in only one way. Such a ruling would be indefensible on
philological grounds and of little if any practical advantage.

1090 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

DOCUMENT 30/2
(continued from page 666)

The gender to be attributed to infra-subspecific names
when consisting of adjectives

(Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 1292)
and

DOCUMENT 31/2
(continued from page 668)

Citation of names of infra-subspecifie forms

(Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 1313)

By

BENEDETTO LANZA & ALBERTO SIMONETTA
(Istituto di Zoologia dell ’Untversita, Firenze, Italy)

(Letter dated 3rd May 1958)

We wish to support the proposals of Dr. Hering (Documents 30/1 and
31/1) concerning the formation of infra-subspecific names.

EE

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 1091

DOCUMENT 30/3

Draft ‘‘ Régles ’’, Article 28, Section 13 : Support for Proposal that
adjectival infrasubspecific names should be feminine in gender

(Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 1292)

By T. JACZEWSKI
(Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw)

(Extract from letter dated 8th May 1958)

_ I wish to give full support to the proposals of Prof. Erich M. Hering,
Zoologisches Museum der Humboldt-Universitaét zu Berlin, Document 30/1,
Bull. zool. Nomencl. 15 : 664-6, concerning the feminine gender of adjectival
infrasubspecific names! . . .

I would like to add in this connection that also in the Slavonic languages
the words used to denote infrasubspecific units seem to be mostly of the
feminine gender, as in Polish “forma” (= form), “‘ odmiana”’ (= variety),
“ aberacja ”’ (= aberration), or in Russian ‘“ dopma” (= form),
“ paSHOBHHOCTS ”’ (= variety), ‘ aSeppayua ”’ (= aberration).

1 The part of Professor Jaczewski’s letter here omitted is reproduced on p. 1092 below as
Document 31/3.

1092 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

DOCUMENT 31/3

Draft ‘‘ Régles ’’, Article 4, Section 4: Support for proposal to give
revised ‘“‘ Examples ’’ of infrasubspecifie names

(Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 1313)

By T. JACZEWSKI
(Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw)

(Extract from letter dated 8th May 1958)

I wish to give full support to the proposals of Prof. Erich M. Hering,
Zoologisches Museum der Humboldt-Universitaét zu Berlin? . . . concerning
the substitution of revised ‘‘ Examples ” in Section 4 of Article 4 of the revised.
Régles, Document 31/1, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 15 : 667-8.

1 The part of Professor Jaczewski’s letter here omitted is reproduced in Document 30/
on p. 1091 above.

CONTENTS
(continued from front wrapper)

THE LONDON AGENDA PAPER

(a) New Proposals

Case No. 50: Draft “‘ Régles ’’, Article 28, Appendix, Table 2, Part B
Greek [Words]: Guidance as to Formation of Family-Group Names
based upon
D.50/1 A.do Amaral ..

Case No. 51: Draft “* Régles ”’ Retiels 98, SGaciion 162 ‘Specific Nailios
based on Modern Surnames
D.51/1 Hobart M. Smith a a =

Case No. 52: Draft “‘ Régles’’, Article 20, Sette 1(b) : “ Recommenda-
tion’? 1 relating to the Desirability of Type Specimens being
Deposited in Public Institutions
D.52/1 P. Viette :

D.52/2 Francis Hemming 3

Case No. 53: Draft ‘“ Régles’’, Article 24, sedans 8(a) a 10(a) ; :
Relationship for purposes of the Law of Homonymy of Variant
Spellings of names based on Geographic terms
D.53/1 Teiso Esaki .. ee ae eid
D.53/2 Tadeusz Jaczewski p

Case No. 54: Draft “ Régles ’’, Article 98, Sestlin 8: Gepainabion to
be Adopted for the Names of Tribes and Superfamilies “wey
D.54/1 Francis Hemming " a ‘ c
D.54/2 R. A. Crowson :

Case No. 55, Existing ‘‘ Régles ”’ Loe Racoiniiemaed tor the purpose of
Consolidating in the Revised ** Régles ’’ the Provisions appearing in
Sections ““A’’? to “E’’ of the ‘* Appendix ’’ of the Existing
** Régles ”’

D.55/1 Francis Hemming Ks SA “fi

Case No. 56: Draft “ Régles ’’, Article 19, Section 1: Interpretation of
the Expression ‘“‘ Type-Species »? in Relation to a nominal genus
D.56/1 Francis Hemming Fe aa we a ad

Case No. 57: Draft ‘‘ Régles’’, Article 15: Proposed insertion of
provisions recognising the concept ‘‘ Superspecies ”’

D.57/1 8S. G. Kiriakoff and Z. Lorkovié ce he se

Case No. 58: Draft “ Régles’’, Article 15: Proposed insertion of
provisions recognising the concept ‘‘ Semispecies ”’

D.58/1 Z. Lorkovié and S. G. Kiriakoff ae

Case No. 59 : Draft “‘ Régles ’’, Article 12 : Question whether the edtenti
** Superfamily ’’ should be treated as belonging to the Family-Group
or to the Order-Group and of the categories with which it should be
treated as co-ordinate
D.59/1 BR. V. Melville

Page

999

1000

1002
1004

1006
1010

1012
1016

1017

1021

1024

1031

1034

CONTENTS
(continued from inside back wrapper)

" Case No. 60: Draft “ Régles ’’, Article 28, Section 4: Names published
with Diacritic Marks over individual letters
D.60/1 Francis Hemming

Case No. 61: Draft ‘‘ Régles ’’, Relationship of, to Decision by ‘Providas
Congresses
D.61/1 K.H.L. Key ..
D.61/2 Francis Hemming
D.61/3 Francis Hemming

Case No. 62: Draft “‘ Régles ’’, Articles 5 and 6: The Questia: of new
names and other nomenelatorial acts published elsewhere than in
“Primary Literature’? and of the definition of ‘“‘ Secondary
Literature ”’

D.62/1 R. V. Melville

(b) Comments on previously published proposals

Case No. 10: Substantive Language of the International Rules
D.10/6 RB. V. Melville

Case No. 15: Draft ‘ Régles ’’, Article 8, Section 2
D.15/3 C. E. TGtbendeiaa,

Case No. 21: Draft “ Régles ’’, Article 28, ‘peedion 41a )(iii)(1)
D.21/4 A.do Amaral .. ; aig 4
D.21/5 RB. V. Melville ..

Case No. 25: Order/Class Names
D.25/15 L. R. Cox
D.25/16 G. H. E. Hopkins
D.25/17 John D. Soule ..
D.25/18 John O. Corliss

Case No. 27 : Draft “‘ Régles ’’, Article 5_
D.27/7 C.E. Toperienn

Case No. 28 : Homogeneity of zoological names
D.28/3 B. Lanza and A. Simonetta .. a 5 +
Case No. 30: Gender of infra-subspecific names when Sided of
adjectives
D.30/2 B. Lanza and A. Simonetta
D.30/3 T. Jaezewski :
Case No. 31. Citation of names of infra-subspecific {eins
D.31/2 B. Lanza and A. Simonetta ..
D.31/3 T. Jaczewski

© 1958. THe INTERNATIONAL TRUST FOR ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE
Printed in England by METCALFE & Cooper LimiTeD, 10-24 Scrutton St., London E C 2

Page

1040

1053
1055
1057

1059

1062

1063

1064
1065

1068
1069
1070
1073

1080
1089
1090
1091

1090
1092

|
3

VOLUME 15, Triple-Part 34/36 2nd July 1958
pp. 1093—1188

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

SH i
pOHASeD le

cn CONTENTS Nf>,

me kt

Fifteenth 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 Three Pounds

(All rights reserved)

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL
NOMENCLATURE

A. The Officers of the Commission

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

President: Professor James Chester Brapiey (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 Hummina (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 Lemcue (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark) (27th July 1948)
Professor Pierre Bonnet (Université de Toulouse, France) (9th June 1950)

Mr. Norman Denbigh Rinry (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 Mrrrens (Natur Museum wu. Yorschungs-Institut Senckenberg, Frankfurt
a. M., Germany) (5th July 1950)

Professor Dr. Erich Martin Hmrine (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. Voxus (University of Tulane, Department of Geology, New Orleans, Louisiana,
U.S.A.) (12th August 1953)

Professor Béla Hanx6 (Mezdgazdasdgi Museum, Budapest, Hungary) (12th August 1953)

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

Mr. P. C, SyLvESTER-BRADLEY (Sheffield University, Sheffield, England) (12th August 1953)

Dr. L. B. Hoxrauis (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. Miner (Museum of Veriebrate 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. Wilhelm Kiunett (Zoologisches Institut der Universitat, Vienna, Austria) (6th
November 1954)

Professor F. S. Bopunsrermer (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 TortonresE (Museo di Storia Naturale “ G. Doria”, Genova, Italy) (16th
December 1954)

Dr. Per Brixox (Lunds Universitets, Zoologiska Institution, Lund, Sweden) (19th May 1958)

:
:

BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

Volume 15, Triple Part 34/36 (pp. 1093-1188) 2nd July 1958

CASE No. 63

DRAFT ‘‘ REGLES ’’, ARTICLE 24: THE QUESTION OF
HOMONYMY BETWEEN NAMES AT DIFFERENT TAXONOMIC
LEVELS

DOCUMENT 63/1

2 7
at nl

ati 950 (Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 1361)

By R. V. MELVILLE

(Assistant Secretary, International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature)

=

Professor J. Chester Bradley’s draft English text of the Rules, Article 24,
deals with the question of homonymy between names in the same group, that
is with homonymy between specific and subspecific names within a single
nominal genus, between generic and subgeneric names, and between names
within the Family-group, or within the Order/Class-group or within the Phylum-
group as the case may be. Brief reference is also made, in Section 7 of the
Article, to the question of homonymy between names at different levels, as
when, for example, a generic name and a name in the Order/Class-group are
found to consist of identical words.

2. The question of homonymy between names at different taxonomic
levels was considered by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology
at Paris in 1948 (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 164) in connection with Opinion 102
and with special reference to the ordinal name Siphonophora Eschscholtz,
1829 and the generic name Siphonophora Koch, 1855. The Congress then
ruled ‘‘ that words should be inserted in the Régles to make it clear that the
Law of Homonymy does not apply as between generic or trivial names on the
one hand and the names of units belonging to categories above the family level
on the other, and therefore, that, where such a name consists of a word which
has already been used as the name of a unit of sub-ordinal or higher category
that name is not to be rejected as an invalid homonym ”’. The purport of this
ruling is incorporated in Article 24, section 7 of the draft English text. The
Paris Congress added a Recommendation “‘ deprecating the selection as generic

uuu

1094 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

or trivial names of words previously published as the names of units of sub-
ordinal or higher category’. This Recommendation is incorporated in Article
10, Recommendation 9(f8) (for generic names) and 15 (for specific names) of
the draft English text (Bull. 14 : 81-82).

3. No mention was made by the Paris Congress, nor is any to be found
in Professor Bradley’s draft, of possible homonymy between names in the
Family-group on the one hand and names at lower levels on the other except
in so far as the use of names terminating in -idae and -inae was prohibited in all
groups except in families and sub-families respectively. This is the only
provision at present in the Régles (although omitted from Professor Bradley’s
draft) which prescribes standard terminations for taxa of particular categories
while prohibiting the use of those terminations for any other category. This
provision must certainly be re-examined by the London Colloquium in the
light of the Copenhagen Decision to include subtribes, tribes and superfamilies!
in the Family-group of taxa, for since there is no scheme of prescribed
terminations for these categories, so there is no provision dealing with
homonymy between the names of taxa in these categories and generic and
specific names.

4. Instances of homonymy between names in the Family-group and
generic names were brought to the notice of the Commission by Mr. D. E.
Kimmins (British Musewm (Natural History), London) in two letters dated
12th May 1954 and 11th July 1956. In the first of these letters Mr. Kimmins
raised the question of the use. of unchanged generic names to designate
“ Sections ” of the Family EPHEMERIDAE by Eaton in 1883-1888 (TJ'rans. Linn.
Soc. [2] Zool. (3)). According to Mr. Kimmins, the Family EPHEMERIDAE as
understood by Eaton was equivalent to the modern Order Ephemeroptera,
and his “‘ Sections ’’ had acquired general acceptance as subfamilies or families,
with correctly formed names and with authorship and date as from Eaton’s
use of the unchanged generic names to designate “ Sections ’’. The Copenhagen
Congress decided (Copenhagen Decisions : 36, Decision 33(1)) that “‘ a Family-
group name was to be accepted as acquiring availability and as ranking for
priority from the date of its original publication, irrespective of whether it was
then published with one of the terminations now prescribed or currently
accepted, provided that it is clear that the term concerned was used to denote
a suprageneric category and was not employed merely as a plural noun or
adjective’. Mr. Kimmins asked whether this rule would cover cases of Family
group names published with no termination added to the stem of the name of
the type-genus, as with Eaton’s name for “ Sections ’’. While it seems unlikely
that this contingency was envisaged by the Copenhagen Collouium, it seems
clear that such a conclusion is not expressly excluded, and that a case can be
made out for the establishment of current practice in the order Ephemeroptera
in the interests of stability of nomenclature.

1 The question of the transfer of the superfamily category from the family-group to the
Order/Class-group is discussed in Document 59/1 see p. 1035 above.

Sn ee

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 1095

5. In his second letter, Mr. Kimmins drew attention to the homonymy
existing between the generic name Lestoidea Tillyard, 1913, and a superfamily
name based on the generic name Lestes, Leach, 1815, which, if formed in
accordance with the practice prevailing in the order Odonata, would be named
LESTOIDEA. According to Mr. Kimmins, it was to avoid this homonymy that
Fraser (1951, Entom. News 62 : 61-69) formed the superfamily name as
LESTINI, but this was thought to be undesirable because the termination -ini
is commonly used to designate the names of tribes. If the category Superfamily
is to be treated as belonging to the Order/Class-group, then this case is covered
by the decision of the Paris Congress referred to in paragraph 2 above. It
must be noted, however, that that decision refers only to generic names that
are junior homonyms of names of taxa above family level and does not provide
for cases of the converse kind where it is the Order/Class-group name that is
the junior homonym.

6. While it will be generally agreed that homonymy between names of
categories at different levels ought to be avoided, it will also be agreed that
whatever steps are taken to this end ought not to cause disturbance to names
that are currently accepted, especially in the various fields of applied zoology.
So far as the future is concerned, one means of avoiding homonymy of the
kind discussed here would be to adopt a scheme of uniform terminations for all
categories above the generic level, at the same time prohibiting the use of
names with any of the prescribed terminations at any other than the relevant
taxonomic level. The Copenhagen Congress rejected a proposal for the
introduction of a scheme of prescribed and uniform terminations for categories
in the Order/Class-group (Copenhagen Decisions : 42, Decision 67) and the
present writer feels that it was right to do so, since the introduction of any
such scheme would result in the widespread disturbance of many long familiar
names and would only replace existing homonyms between names of supra-
generic taxa on the one hand and generic and specific names on the other by a
new, and probably equally irritating set of homonyms. Moreover, it seems to
me that homonymy between a generic name in one class and the name of a
higher category taxon in quite a different class is not a likely cause of confusion.
It is only where this kind of homonymy exists within a single class or order,
as in the cases of the Ephemeroptera and Odonata illustrated by Mr. Kimmins,
that action is urgently called for.

7. Viewed from this more restricted angle, the problem of homonymy
between names at different taxonomic levels is more susceptible of treatment.
It is necessary only to require that, in each Class of the animal kingdom, the
terminations of names of each category recognised in the Class in question in the
Family-group and in the Order/Class-group must be distinct from those of
names in every other category in the same groups within the Class concerned.
This will, in fact, do little more than give legal form to current practice. It
will be necessary also to prohibit the future formation of names having any of

_the prescribed terminations for taxa in any category other than that to which

the termination in question relates. Violations of this rule should not be

1096 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

subject to automatic correction, but should be submitted to the Commission
for a decision. Names in current use which violate the rule must not be altered
or replaced without the express sanction of the Commission exercising its
Plenary Powers.

8. The draft of Article 24 in the English text prepared by Professor
Bradley is difficult to interpret in the light of the present problem, for Section 1
of the Article expressly rejects all homonyms at whatever level, without
exception for homonymy between names at different levels as provided for at
Paris. This review of the problem should have shewn that the rigid application
of this Section would cause considerable disturbance to many established names,
and this can only be avoided if the Section is drastically reworded.

9. It is therefore proposed that Section 1 of draft Article 24 be amended
to read as follows :—

Section 1. The Law of Homonymy.—Any name that is a junior
homonym of another objectively different available name in the same
taxonomic category above the species-level shall be rejected unless the
Commission exercising its Plenary Powers directs to the contrary.

(i) Homonymy between names at different taxonomic levels.

(a) If a name at a given taxonomic level in a given Class is found
to be a homonym of another available name at a different
taxonomic level in a different Class, the junior homonym is
not to be automatically rejected. Specialists wishing to
reject such a junior homonym must apply to the International
Commission for a decision under (draft) Article 29, Section
6(b).

(b) As from the date of coming into force of the present Code, the
terminations of names in each category in the Order/Class-
group and in the Family-group within each Class shall be
distinct from the terminations used for every other category
in the same groups in the same Class. As from the date
specified the formation of new names having any of the said
terminations for taxa in any other category in the said
groups or for genera (and subgenera) and species (and
subspecies) in the Class concerned is prohibited. Violations
of this rule, and cases in which it is doubtful on taxonomic
grounds whether a condition of intra-Class homonymy
exists, are to be referred to the International Commission
for decision under (draft) Article 29, Section 6(b).

(c) No name in current use that contravenes the provisions of
paragraph (i)(b) of this Section is to be rejected or replaced
except by the sanction of the International Commission
exercising its Plenary Powers.

os

ADULTE POO, MS

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 1097

CASE No. 64

DRAFT “ REGLES ”’’, ARTICLE 4 : REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERA-
TION OF THE TERMS “TRIVIAL NAME”? AND “BINARY
NOMENCLATURE ”’

(Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 1362)

DOCUMENT 64/1

By HOBART M. SMITH
(Department of Zoology, University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois, U /S.A.)

(Enclosure to a letter dated 14th September 1955)

The Copenhagen Decisions on Zoological Nomenclature require a number
of revisions of definitions of infrageneric group names—that is, of specific
names, subspecific names, and infrasubspecific names, collectively. The
terms involved in the present discussion are, briefly, defined as follows in the
Copenhagen Decisions: (1) binomen, the combination of two names, for the
genus and the species ; (2) trinomen, the combination of three names, for the
genus, for the species, and for the subspecies ; (3) specific name, the single-word
name applied to any species of any genus; and (4) the subspecific name, the
single-word name applied to any subspecies of any species. The term “ trivial
name ” was discarded at the same time as the preceding terms and definitions
were adopted.

2. Definite acceptance of these changes would lead to two undesirable
results of concern here : (1) no collective term is made available for those names
(whether specific or subspecific) of lesser rank than the genus (and subgenus) ;
and (2) the assigned meaning of “ binomial nomenclature ” (i.e., a system of
nomenclature involving two ranks—the genus on the one hand and the species
or species with subspecies on the other hand) is rendered inconsistent with the
definition of binomen. These two points are discussed hereinafter.

1098 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
I

3. Any systematist who considers the pros and cons of the specific vs.
subspecific rank of any named populations is faced with the inconsistent
necessity of referring either to “ subspecific’’ (as opposed to ‘‘ specific ’’)
names, or to “‘ binomina”’ (as opposed to “ trinomina’”’), when actually the
rank of the population is open to question. Some term not explicitly indicative
of rank is essential for use in such situations wherein specific or subspecific
rank is indeterminate.

4, A second advantage in provision of a collective term for specific and
subspecific names is brevity, since a single word will suffice in many cases
otherwise requiring three words (“ specific and subspecific ’’).

5. The proper collective term for specific and subspecific names is not
immediately evident. ‘‘ Trivial name” has the advantage of considerable
usage in recent years, but some systematists have expressed dislike on the basis
of different original meaning and the discrepancy between the special meaning
in taxonomy and the belittling connotation of more general usage (see Mayr,
Linsley and Usinger, 1953, Methods and Principles of Systematic Zoology,
p. 247). Ifa more suitable name cannot be coined for or cannot be assigned
the special meaning here required, then the term “trivial name” merits
revival in taxonomic procedure. Certainly the complete elimination of any
collective term is not the logical sequel of admission of the belittling ring of the
term “trivial name”. Terms worthy of consideration as alternatives for the
term “trivial name” may reasonably include “prenomen”’, “‘ qualifying name ”’,
“nomen qualis ’’, ““ secondary name ”’, “ infrageneric name ”’, “ specific name ”’,
and no doubt others. Ambiguity eliminates “‘ specific name ” from further
consideration. Unfortunately coinage or limitation of other terms may be more
difficult to agree upon than acceptance of the term “ trivial name ”’.

II

6. On reasonable and well-accepted grounds a substitute term (“ binomen’’)
was adopted in place of the ambiguous term “ specific name ”’ by the Inter-

national Commission at the 14th International Congress of Zoology in 1953. —

Unfortunately, however, the term selected conflicts with that adopted earlier
(1948) in the form of “ binominal nomenclature ”’ in place of the term “ binary
nomenclature ’” The conflict lies in the fact that the term ‘‘ binomen ”’ clearly
refers to a two-name taxon consisting of a generic and a specific name, whereas
“binominal ” or “‘ binary ’” nomenclature refers (by arbitrary official restriction)
to a two-group name with its presently (1953) approved meaning, then a
reversion to “binary” or “ binomial” in reference to the two-group-name
system of nomenclature seems preferable, not only on a basis of consistency of

="

ee eee ee ee

Bae ee. itn ee kn ie ee

+ 24-8

‘
Pe OPE Ans renee eal.

a ee

Bipot 2

~

3

~

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 1099

meaning, but also because virtually every general text uses the term ‘‘ binomial”
or “binary” in reference to the epochal standardization beginning with
Linnaeus of biological nomenclature as a two-group-name system of nomen-
clature. It is, of course, understood in utilization of the terms ‘‘ binomial ”’ or
“binary ” in this context, that where desirable either or both of the groups
in the two-group-name system of nomenclature may be subdivided into two
subgroups (the generic name supplemented with a subgeneric name, the specific
name with a subspecific name). The long-established and clearly proper
understanding of “ binomial” or “ binary ’’ (generally the former) in general
biological literature would seemingly outweigh any other considerations
pertaining to official recognition of the terms by the International Commission.

Ill

7. In accordance with the preceding discussion, it is hereby requested
that the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature reconsider
the problems of (a) official adoption of a collective term for species and sub-
species; and (b) reinstatement of the term “binary nomenclature ”’ or
“binomial nomenclature’ in place of ‘“‘ binominal nomenclature” in the
general sense of Articles 25 and 26, as a move to establish consistency with the
officially adopted term ‘“‘ binomen ” and with the virtually universal practice
in general accounts of elementary zoology.

1100 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

DOCUMENT 64/2

DRAFT “ REGLES’’, ARTICLE 4; COMMENT ON PROFESSOR
HOBART M. SMITH’S PROPOSAL FOR THE REVIVAL OF THE
TERM “ TRIVIAL NAME ”’

(Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 1362)

By R. V. MELVILLE

(Assistant Secretary, International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature)

Professor Hobart M. Smith’s paper (Document 64/1) draws attention
to the need for a collective term to cover the categories “‘ species”? and
“subspecies ’’, but in proposing to revive the term “trivial name” in this
sense, he gives it a meaning different from that attributed to it by the Paris
Congress (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4: 128). As then defined, the term “ trivial
name ” had no independent existence but was always to be qualified either by
the adjective “ specific ” (indicating the second term of a binominal combina-
tion) or “ subspecific ’ (indicating the third term of a trinominal combination).
Arguments can be adduced both for the revival and for the continued suppression
of the term, but its revival by the London Congress, five years after its
suppression by the Copenhagen Congress which in turn followed only five years
after its adoption at Paris, would give an impression of vacillation and infirmity

of purpose.

2. The need expressed by Professor Smith can be met in a simple way by
the extension of the idea of groups of taxonomic categories first introduced
by the Copenhagen Congress when it established the Family-group and the
Order/Class-group. Moreover the need for a collective term to cover species
and subspecies is not greater than the need for a similar term to cover genera
and subgenera. The recognition of a genus-group and a species-group of
categories would thus solve both questions. These groups may be defined
as follows :-—

Genus-group : The genus-group shall be defined as including the categories
genus and subgenus and optional categories below family-group level
which include groups of units of the species-group. All -categories
in the genus-group are to be defined by reference to a type-species.

oh, lie

ee ee eee

a
iy i=

ora ae

—_—. =a. oe

a eae ars ee, Ai Gat

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 1101

Species-group: The species-group shall be defined as including the
categories species and subspecies and other optional categories above
the level of infra-subspecies. All categories in the Species-group are
to be defined by reference to a type-specimen (holotype, lectotype or
neotype).

3. The terms “ genus-group name” or “ species-group name” will be
found useful in discussions such as those mentioned by Professor Smith in

subtaxon that is in question, as well as in discussions of @ nominal unit that
has been variously referred to a taxon and to a sub-taxon by previous workers.

4. In paragraph 6 of his paper, Professor Smith discusses the conflict
between the term “ binomen ” (meaning a name consisting of two words of
which one is the generic and the other the specific name of a particular taxon)
and the term “ binominal nomenclature ’’ (meaning a system of nomenclature

5. There is still, however, a possible double usage of the term “‘ binomina] ”

(i) in the broad sense as embracing binomina, trinomina and quadrinomina,

and (ii) as the adjective meaning “ of or pertaining to a binomen”’. It is in
this latter sense that the term is used in Article 4, Section 2 of Professor
J. Chester Bradley’s draft English text of the Rules. If it is desired to have

“ binominal ” should certainly be attached to the first of the two; for the
term “ binominal nomenclature ” is by now so fundamental in the primary
understanding of zoological nomenclature that its application ought always
to be on the broadest possible basis. In the particular case of draft Article 4,

1102 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Section 2, the use of the word ‘‘ binominal ”’ in a more restricted sense can easily
be avoided if the sentence in question is altered to read (by analogy with
Section 1 of the same Article) ‘‘ The scientific name of a species is a binomen ”’.
Section 3 of this Article can also be amended to read ‘‘ The scientific name of a
subspecies is a trinomen ”’.

6. The attention of the Colloquium is now directed to the need for
distinguishing between two kinds of trinomina and two kinds of quadrinomina.
According to both the Berlin Code and to Professor Bradley’s draft, the term
“ trinominal ” applies to the name of a subspecies, so that the term “ trinomen ”
ought to apply only to a name consisting of three words of which the first is
a generic name and the other two are species-group names, being respectively
a species name and a subspecific name. There are, however, very many
three-word names of which the first two words are genus-group names, being
respectively a generic and a subgeneric name, and the third word a specific
name. Names of this sort of construction are perhaps more commonly met
with in palaeontology than in neontology, but in the former discipline they
are numerous and important. If the proposal outlined in paragraph 2 above
for the recognition of the genus-group and species-group of names is approved,
then clearly a distinction should be drawn between the two converse kinds of
three-word names just defined. It will obviously be helpful if the words used
as names for each sort are readily distinguishable, and fortunately a word of
Greek origin—trionym—is available with the same basic meaning as the word
trinominal which is of Latin origin. It is therefore suggested that the term
“‘trionym ” be introduced for three-word names consisting of a generic name, a
subgeneric name and a specific name. According to the Oxford English
Dictionary the word has already been used to denote “a trinominal name in
botany and zoology ” and an adjective ‘“‘ trionymal ”’ is also recorded. It is
thought, however, that the adjectival form ‘‘ trionymous ”’ is not only more
euphonious but also involves less risk of confusion with ‘“ trinominal ’’, besides
being analogous in form with ‘‘ homonymous ”’, “‘ synonymous ”’, ‘‘ anonymous”
and “‘ eponymous ”’.

7. A precisely similar case exists as regards four-word names. According
to Professor Bradley’s draft, Article 4, Section 4(b), quoting a Paris decision,
the term ‘‘ quadrinominal ” is applied to the names of infrasubspecific forms,
that is, to names consisting of a generic name, a specific name, a subspecific
name and an infrasubspecific name. Another kind of four-word name, again
perhaps more frequently met with in palaeontology, is one that consists of a
generic name, a subgeneric name, a specific name and a subspecific name. In
other words, the first kind of four-word name consists of one genus-group name,
two species-group names and an infra-subspecific name, whereas the second
kind consists of two genus-group names and two species-group names. For
this second sort, the term “tetronym” (of Greek origin; adjective
“ tetronymous ’’) is suggested.

a

ee

‘
ee ee a a

Se es ee

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 1103

8. It is therefore proposed that the following alterations be made in draft
Article 4 of the Rules :—

(i) Section 2 shall read “ The scientific name of a species is a binomen.
The combination of a specific name with a generic name and a
subgeneric name is a trionym’”’.

(ii) Section 3 shall read “ The scientific name of a subspecies is a trinomen.
The combination of a subspecific name with a generic name, a
subgeneric name and a specific name is a tetronym ”’.

1104 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

CASE No. 65

DRAFT ‘“ REGLES’’, ARTICLE 29, SECTION 6(c), PROPOSAL
FOR REWORDING OF

DOCUMENT 65/1
(Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 1365)

By R. V. MELVILLE

(Assistant Secretary, International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature)

The resolution adopted by the International Congress of Zoology at
Monaco, 1913, giving the International Commission Plenary Powers to “ suspend
the Régles as applied to any given case, for the purpose of preventing confusion
and of promoting a stable and universally accepted nomenclature ” was not
written into the Régles by that or any subsequent Congress prior to the 1948
Paris Congress. Up to that time it was quite appropriate that an instrument
for suspending the Régles should be separate from the code itself. Once the
resolution had been included in the code, however, the position immediately
became illogical, since no code can contain a clause annulling the code itself ;
for all of the parts must be subordinate to the whole.

.

2. Furthermore, the phrase “‘ suspend the Régles”’ carries a derogatory
connotation which is quite inappropriate to the present circumstances. It
implies that those who apply for the use of the Plenary Powers are in some
way in the wrong and are, as it were, copying a practice common in the
English courts of law, of admitting to one offence so that a number of others
can be taken into consideration, in the hope that the sum total of the individual
penalties will be diminished. If the sole function of the Commission were to
administer a draconic code of laws in a narrow and legalistic way, the picture
presented might be a proper one. In fact, however, the prime purpose of the
Régles is to provide a stable and uniform nomenclature, and the Commission
should clearly pay greater regard to the spirit than to the letter of the law.
Experience has proved conclusively that the Plenary Powers are not a means of
cheating justice, but are in fact one of the most potent weapons in the fight
for a stable and uniform nomenclature.

es ae a

rn ae

Ee ee ee ee

ad fe

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 1105

3. Since the Plenary Powers have been unable, since the incorporation of
their defining instrument into the code, to suspend the Regles of which they

all the publications of the Commission in the last ten years, is “ Plenary Powers’’.
Whatever term is finally adopted as the one to be entered in the Régles, it

pre-existing Opinion. A plural form is, from this point of view, obviously to be
preferred to a singular form. Moreover, the term “ Pleins Pouvoirs ” has for

simultaneously with the draft English substantive text. It is therefore
proposed that the Colloquium adopt the term “ Plenary Powers” as the
official term in all relevant passages of the Régles.

5. It is therefore proposed :—

(i) That the first sentence of paragraph (c) of Section 6 of Article 29 of
the draft English text of the hégles be altered to read “ (c) Plenary
Powers.—The Commission, acting on behalf of the International
Congresses of Zoology, shall have Plenary Powers to vary any
Rule the application of which to any particular case would disturb
stability or cause confusion.”

(ii) That the phrase “ Plenary Powers ” be inserted in place of “ Plenary
Power ” wherever the latter phrase is found in the draft English text
of the Régles,

1106 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

6. It is further suggested that the “ Note of Guidance ”’ to authors wishing
to invoke the Plenary Powers should contain words requesting authors to
indicate in their applications to the Commission the particular clause or clauses
in the Régles that they wish to have varied in any given case.

pra ey}

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 1107

CASE No. 66

THE RELATIVE MERITS OF THE ADJECTIVES ‘“ NOMEN-
CLATORIAL’’ AND ‘ NOMENCLATURAL’”’ FOR USE IN THE
ENGLISH TEXT OF THE “ REGLES ”

Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 1261
DOCUMENT 66/1

Views of J. CHESTER BRADLEY
(Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.)

(Letter to the Secretary dated 13th September 1957)

The term ‘‘ nomenclatural” is another term that differs from what you
have been accustomed to employ, and I wish to explain why I have used it.
The definitions of ‘‘ nomenclatorial’’ and of “nomenclatural” in three

dictionaries is as follows :

Standard Dictionary

nomenclatorial, a. Pertaining to nomenclature or naming.

nomenclatural, under the noun nomenclature, nomenclatural is given
without definition as the normal adjective form.

Webster’s Dictionary

nomenclatorial, not included in Webster.
nomenclatural, a. Pertaining or according to a nomenclature.

Oxford Dictionary

nomenclatorial, a. rare. In connection with, in relation to nomenclature.
nomenclatural, a. Relating to or concerned with nomenclature.

1108 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

From these definitions it is clear that ‘‘ nomenclatural ” is the straight-
forward adjective form, certain to be found in lexicons that translate English
words to any foreign language, and that “‘ nomenclatorial”’ is a rare word
not even appearing in one of the three dictionaries, and very unlikely to occur
in lexicons translating English into a foreign language.

“ Nomenclatorial ” could be easily misunderstood to mean “ pertaining
to nomenclators ”’.

** Nomenclatural ”’ is the shorter, simpler word, and for that reason would
be preferable if all other things were equal.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 1109

DOCUMENT 66/2

Views of FRANCIS HEMMING

(Secretary to the International Commission)
(Letter to J. Chester Bradley dated 23rd September 1957)

I write to thank you for your letter of 13th September on the relative
merits of the adjective “‘ nomenclatural ” versus ‘‘ nomenclatorial ” in which
you explain your reasons for adopting in your draft of the English text of the
Régles the word “‘ nomenclatural ”’. This is a case where the difference between
two competing words having the same meaning is due to differences of usage
in England and the U.S.A. respectively, and neither spelling is therefore
correct in the sense that it alone is the correct spelling and every other spelling
is incorrect.

Which spelling would be the more appropriate to include in the official
English text of the Régles to be adopted by the Congress next year will be a
matter for discussion at that Congress.

1110 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

CASE No. 67

EXISTING ‘“ REGLES ’’: ACTION PROPOSED TO BE TAKEN BY

THE LONDON (1958) CONGRESS FOR THE PURPOSE OF

CONSOLIDATING IN THE REVISED ‘‘ REGLES’’ THE

PROVISIONS APPEARING IN SECTION ‘‘F’’ OF THE
“* APPENDICE ”? TO THE EXISTING “ REGLES ”’

(Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 1343)

DOCUMENT 67/1

By L. W. GRENSTED, M.A.

(Conculting Classical Adviser to the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature)

[Introductory Note by the Assistant Secretary: The original Section F
of the Appendice to the Régles was not considered in detail by the Paris (1948)
Congress, a proposal relating to the transliteration of the Latin letters ‘‘ v ” and
“i” being postponed. This matter was considered at the Copenhagen (1953)
Congress, which ruled (Copenhagen Decisions : 83, Decision 163) that the
Latin letter ““v”’ should be written as a “‘u’”’ before a consonant and as a
““v” before a vowel; and that the Latin letter “‘i’’ should be written as an
“‘i” before a consonant and as a “j”’ before a vowel.

2. On 2nd January 1958 Professor J. Chester Bradley wrote to the
Secretary of the International Commission saying that he had not considered
it part of the task assigned to him at Copenhagen to take any decision about
the incorporation of the provisions contained in the old Appendice into his new
draft of the Régles. The Secretary thereupon undertook to prepare proposals
relating to Sections A to E of the Appendice and asked Professor L. W. Grensted
to deal with Sections F and G in separate papers, taking note, so far as Section F
was concerned, of a paper by Professor Bonnet (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 3 : 199).
After these arrangements had been made, Professor Bradley sent his own
suggestions concerning Section F direct to Professor Grensted, but later (31st
March 1958) expressed his satisfaction with the measures already taken to
procure a revision of this Section from Professor Grensted.

ee.

© SWO66e eee Ade &

bed

ae
>

PORE xenee nc

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 1111

8. Professor Grensted’s proposal follows. It is proposed that Section F
of the Appendice to the existing Régles be deleted and that the following
document be inserted as a Schedule to Article 28 of the draft English text of
the Reégles.]

SCHEDULE

Transliteration and Latinization of Greek words

When a Greek word is transliterated its letters are given their exact
equivalents. When it is Latinized it is given the form which is determined
by the usage of classical Latin or, where that differs, of modern scientific
Latin. The following Schedule illustrates the correct procedure.

The Greek Alphabet, Aspirated Letters and Diphthongs, with Latin Equivalents
and Mode of Latinization

ALPHABET AND ASPIRATED LETTERS

Greek Latin | Latin- Example Latinized
letter Name | equiva- | ized as
lent as
A « | alpha a a ava Anax
‘Aa ha aBpos in Habrobracon
B £B | beta b b Bdaravos Balanus
r y | gamma g g yAdoou in Glossina
YY gg ng ayyos in Angiospermia
yk gk ne a yKLOT pov in Ancistrodon
a4 gx nx odAmeyé Salpina
YX gch neh ayxe in Anchisaurus
4 8 | delta d d duvdorn s Dynastes
E « | epsilon é e eAatnp Elater
‘E é he eAcé Helix
Z ¢ | zeta Zz Z Cadov in Protozoa
H 7 | eta é e Ads in Hohippus
(final) 7 e a yAnvn in Euglena
‘H 47 he qAos in Heloderma
@ @ | theta th th Opi Thrips

1112 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Greek ‘| Latin | Latin- Latinized
letter Name | equiva-| ized Example as
lent as
Ie | iota i i ixvevpwv ZIchneumon
or j iwavvn s in Joannisia
gS hi immos in Hippocampus :
K « | kappa k ce KUmpls Cypris |
A 2X | lambda|] 1 1 AevIis in Lepidoptera .
M p» | mu m m pvppen€é Myrmex |
N v | nu n n vautiros Nautilus
Be hm x x Eévos in Xenotoma
O o | omicron| o oO op8ds in Orthoptera
*O 6 ho opos in Homoptera
(final) ov on um puyxtov Rhynchium
(final) os us Bop Bos Bombus
II aw | pi p p Tapa in Paramoecium
Pp} tho r r TT Epov in Hemiptera
rp rh pea Rhea
pp IT 1rh TUppos in Pyrrhomutilla
2o,s | sigma 8 s odivé Sphinx
TY. \tau t t TeTTLe Tettix
Y v | upsilon u y Bop Bvé Bombyx
ge hy vd pa Hydra
® ¢ | phi ph ph dvAAov in Phylloxera
X x | chi ch ch xiTwOV Chiton
Y y | psi ps ps yvx7} Psyche
2 w | omega Oo oO ®KvUTous Ocypus
‘Qe ho pa as in
Horiostomella
DIPHTHONGS
AI um ai ae TAWLO Taenia
AI‘ ai hae ata in Haematopota
AY av au au avrAak in Aulacus
EI e ei i xeip in Chiroptera
EY ev eu eu ed in Humenes
(or ev) evayns in Evagetes
EY‘ ed heu evpickw as in Heuretes
OI ot oi oe oloTpos Oestrus
OY ov ou u TOUS in Platypus
Q w o(i) oO @ov in Ootypus

The remaining diphthongs are unimportant in zoological nomenclature.

ne er eye a Je et

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 1113

Notes

(1) The sign ‘ placed over a vowel or rho, or before a capital or after a capitalized
diphthong, is represented in Latin by the letter h. The reversed sign ’,
placed over a vowel, is silent and is disregarded.

(2) When rr (pp) occurs in the middle of a Greek word it becomes rrh on
Latinization. Thus zuppos becomes Pyrrhus.

(3) Of the two Greek forms of s, c is used in the middle of a word and s at the
end only.

(4) The three long vowels written with iota subscript, ¢, 7, , are in principle
diphthongs, but the iota is normally ignored in Latinization. The only
important case in taxonomy is in the words derived from dv, an egg,
which are always formed as in Ootypus, Oodes.

(5) In Latin, but not in Greek, the vowels u and i are also used as consonants.
It has become customary to represent u by v, which appears whenever
the Latin u is followed by a vowel, as in ‘“‘ Evander ’”’, “ evangelize”.
This principle is varied whenever euphony demands, especially when eu,
representing the Greek ed, is followed by the vowel 0, as in Euomphalus,
Euonymus. Similarly in modern Latin an initial I is usually written J.

(6) The substitution of “a” for the final 7 is the substitution of the Latin
feminine nominative singular case-ending of the -a stem declension
(first declension) for the Greek ending. Similarly in the o-stem declension
(second declension) the Latin masculine nominative singular case-ending
“us ” is substituted for the Greek “ os’, and the neuter ending “ um ”
for the Greek “ ov”.

This brings the nouns into better conformity with normal Latin
usage. It is advisable to do this in coining new names, but there are many
instances in which such Greek words have been taken over into Latin
unchanged, e.g., Cyrene, Pelion. Similarly in Neo-Latin we have many
such zoological names as Ennomos from évvoyos and Theridion from
Onpidiov

There are also many cases where the nominative case-endings of
Greek nouns of other declensions have been unnecessarily altered, even
changing the gender and declension (and therewith the stem) in forming
zoological names. Thus words ending in xépas, a third declension neuter,
are normally Latinized as “ -ceras ” (e.g., Calliceras). But in T'richocera,
the first declension case-ending -a has been substituted for the Greek
ending, changing not only the gender and declension, but also the stem
itself, which now ends in -a instead of -at. In Heterocerus, similarly, a
second declension masculine ending has been used, and the stem of that
word ends in -o. These are not examples of the Latinization of xépas
but of the creation of wholly new words, as, of course, an author has the
right to do.

1114 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

CASE No. 68

DRAFT “ REGLES ’’, MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS : PROPOSED INCOR-
PORATION IN, OF PROVISIONS PROMULGATED IN “ DECLARATIONS ”’
RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL
NOMENCLATURE IN THE PERIOD BETWEEN THE COPENHAGEN
CONGRESS OF 1953 AND THE COMING LONDON CONGRESS

(Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 1366)

DOCUMENT 68/1

Report on the “ Declarations ’’ rendered by the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature in the period between the Copenhagen
(1958) and London (1958) Congresses : Report prepared under
the procedure prescribed by the Paris (1948) Congress

(Report dated 27th May 1958)

By R. V. MELVILLE

(Assistant Secretary, International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature)

I. INTRODUCTORY

The present Report is concerned with the twenty-four Declarations (being
Declarations 18 to 41) rendered by the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature since the close of the Copenhagen Congress in 1953. This Report
has a twofold purpose, namely : (1) to provide the Commission with the material
needed to enable it to prepare for the consideration of the coming (London)
Congress the Report which it is required to submit to that body under the
procedure prescribed by the Paris (1948) Congress (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl.
4 : 136-137) ; (2) to submit proposals as to the manner in which the provisions
in the foregoing Declarations should be incorporated into the revised text of
the Régles.

4
bes ee “i

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 1115

The arrangement adopted in the preparation of the present Report is as
follows. First, each Declaration is quoted, with a bibliographical reference
to its position and date of publication in the Opinions and Declarations of the
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature ; in each case a brief
historical note is appended explaining the origin of the Declaration in question.
Secondly, after all the Declarations have been catalogued, tables are given
showing which Article of the Régles Internationales de Nomenclature Zoologique
is affected by each Declaration. In these tables there is also shown the place
in the new Draft English Text of the Régles where each Declaration is to be
assimilated. This Draft English Text has been prepared by Professor J.
Chester Bradley, President of the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature for adoption by the Section on Nomenclature of the Fifteenth
International Congress of Zoology. As will be seen, five of the Declarations
in the series considered have not been considered by Professor Bradley in his
Draft ; in addition, eight Declarations have been published since the sending
to the printer of Professor Bradley’s draft as Parts 1-9 of Volume 14 of the
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. In all these thirteen cases, therefore, it
has been necessary to indicate in the fourth Section of this report, where,
in the opinion of the International Commission, the Declarations referred to
should be assimilated into the Draft Régles. Finally, a recommendation is
submitted that a formal request be made by the Commission to the International
Congress for the adoption of these twenty-four Declarations as integral parts
of the Régles Internationales de Nomenclature Zoologique in the manner, and at
the points indicated, in the immediately preceding section of this Report.

II. CATALOGUE OF “ DECLARATIONS ” 18-41

DECLARATION 18

(Ops. Decls. int. Comm. zool. Nomencl. 6 : i-xx, 6th December 1954)

ADOPTION OF RULES RELATING TO THE MAKING OF ENTRIES

ON THE “ OFFICIAL LIST OF FAMILY-GROUP NAMES IN ZOO-

LOGY”? AND ON THE “ OFFICIAL INDEX OF REJECTED AND
INVALID FAMILY-GROUP NAMES IN ZOOLOGY ”’

DECLARATION :—In pursuance of the Directive issued by the Fourteenth
International Congress of Zoology, Copenhagen, 1953, that every family-group
name which in any of its Opinions the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature may accept as a valid name shall be entered on the Official List
of Family-Group Names in Zoology and that every such name which the
Commission may similarly reject or declare to be invalid shall be entered on
the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology,
it is hereby directed that the making of entries on the foregoing Official List
and Official Index shall be subject to the following Rules :—

1116 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

(1) Every entry of a family-group name on the Official List of Family-
Group Names in Zoology is to include, in addition to a full bibliographical
reference for the family-group name concerned, the name of the type genus of
the family-group concerned, the name of the author of the name of that genus
and its date of publication, but is not to include bibliographical references in
respect of that generic name, since in every case the generic name in question,
if not already on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology, is to be placed
on that List at the same time that the family-group name in question is placed
on the Official List of Family-Growp Names in Zoology and the requisite biblio-
graphical references in respect of that generic name will be included in the
entry in relation thereto made on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology

(2) Where a family-group name based upon a generic name consisting of a
word of Greek or Latin origin was originally published in a form contrary to that
prescribed in Decision 50(1)(a) taken by the Fourteenth International Congress
of Zoology (1954, Copenhagen Decisions zool. Nomencl. : 34) and where in conse-
quence it has been necessary, under Decision 50(1) (b) of the foregoing Congress
(1954, ibid. : 34-35), to correct the spelling originally employed, the family-
group name in question, on being placed on the Official List of Family-Group
Names in Zoology, (i) shall be attributed to the author by whom it was published
in an incorrect form, (ii) shall rank for priority as from the date on which it was
so published, but (iii) shall be entered on the Official List in its corrected form
with a statement as to the incorrect form in which it was originally published
and with particulars as to the author by whom the incorrect form was corrected,
and the date on which, and the place where, that correction was published.

(3) The Rules prescribed in (1) above regarding the form of notation to be
adopted in entering a family-group name on the Official List of Family-Group
Names in Zoology shall apply also to the notation to be adopted in entering
a name belonging to the foregoing category on the Official Index of Rejected
and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology.

(4) Where there is any reasonable doubt as to whether a given family-
group name was published as a new name or merely as a record of a previously
published name based upon the same generic name, that name shall be entered
on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology
as being a junior homonym of the earlier published name.

Historical Note : This Declaration is the result of certain difficulties that
were encountered in applying certain of the decisions in regard to family-
group names taken by the Copenhagen (1953) Congress, namely (i) the difficulty
of ascertaining where a family-group name was first published ; (ii) the difficulty
of determining whether a family-group name is not only the oldest available
such name based upon the name of the type-genus concerned but is also the
oldest family-group name for any genus subjectively associated on taxonomic
grounds with the family-group taxon concerned ; (iii) the notation to be adopted
for entries of family-group names on the Official List of names of that group ;
(iv) the notation to be adopted in these entries of names originally published

SPR Age ene oo

ards

ger

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 1117

in an incorrect form ; (v) the notation to be adopted for entries of family-
group names on the relevant Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Names ;
and (vi) the notation to be adopted for entries on the Official Index in cases
where it is not clear whether or not a given name was published as a new name.

DECLARATION 19

(Ops. Decls. int. Comm. zool. Nomencl. 6 : xxi-xl, 6th December 1954)

ADOPTION OF RULES RELATING TO THE MAKING OF ENTRIES

ON THE “ OFFICIAL LIST OF SPECIFIC NAMES IN ZOOLOGY ”’

AND ON THE “ OFFICIAL INDEX OF REJECTED AND INVALID
SPECIFIC NAMES IN ZOOLOGY ”’

DECLARATION :—In pursuance of the Directive issued by the Thirteenth
International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948, that every specific name which
in any of its Opinions the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
may accept as a valid name shall be entered on the Official List of Specific
Names in Zoology and that every such name which the Commission may similarly
reject or declare to be invalid shall be entered on the Official Index of Rejected
and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology, it is hereby directed that the making
of entries on the foregoing Official List and Official Index shall be subject to the
following Rules, supplementary to the Rules in regard thereto prescribed by
the foregoing Congress as specified in the Official Record of the Proceedings
of the Commission in Conclusion 42 of the Ninth Meeting held by it during its
Paris Session (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 270-272), as amplified in Con-
clusion 20 of its Twelfth Meeting and Conclusion 61 of its Fourteenth Meeting
during that Session (1950, ibid. 4 : 334 and 627-628 respectively) :—

(1) In order to minimise the risk (a) that through inadvertence the entry
on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology of a specific name in connection
with the generic name in combination with which it was originally published
might be misinterpreted as indicating that approval had thereby been given
not only to the specific name in question but also to the combination in which
that name was cited in the foregoing Official List, or (b) that the insertion of
a name on the foregoing Official List might be misinterpreted as implying that
the taxon so named is to be regarded as a distinct species to the exclusion of
the possibility of its being regarded as a subspecies of some other species, the
following Warning Notice shall be printed in bold type at the head of each page
of the said Official List : “‘ (1) The generic name cited in connection with each
specific name inscribed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology is the
generic name in combination with which the specific name in question was
originally published. The citation of that generic name carries no implication
on the question of the name of the genus to which on taxonomic grounds the
species in question should be referred. (2) Similarly, the insertion of a name

1118 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

on the foregoing Official List involves no implication on the question whether
the taxon so named should on taxonomic grounds be regarded (a) as a distinct
species or (b) as a subspecies of some other species.”

(2) The entry to be made when a specific name is inscribed on the Official
List of Specific Names in Zoology shall consist of the following items arranged
in the order specified below and separated from one another by commas : (a)
the specific name so placed on the Official List ; (b) the generic name in combina-
tion with which that specific name was originally published ; (c) the name
of the author of the specific name: (d) the date of publication of that specific
name: (e) the full bibliographical reference for that name. Example : When,
as has already been decided shall be done, the specific name (machaon) of the
Common European Swallowtail Butterfly, which was originally published
in the combination Papilio machaon, is inscribed on the Official List of Specific
Names in Zoology, the entry to be so made shall be as follows :—“ machaon,
Papilio, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 462”.

(3) Wherever in an application published in the Bulletin of Zoological
Nomenclature a specific name proposed for addition to the Official Last of Specific
Names in Zoology is cited without a bibliographical reference, the citation shall
consist of the specific name in question, the name of the author of the specific
name and its date of publication, followed by the words “ as published in the
combination ”’, whatever that combination may have been. Haample: “ the
specific name machaon Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination
Papilio machaon”’.

(4) Wherever in a Ruling given in an Opinion or Direction rendered by the
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature directions are given
that a given specific name shall be placed on the Official List of Specific Names
in Zoology and the bibliographical reference for that name is not cited in that
Ruling, the specific name in question shall be cited in like manner as that
prescribed in (3) above.

(5) The Rules specified in (2), (3) and (4) above in relation to the entry
or proposed entry of a specific name on the Official List of Specific Names in
Zoology shall apply also to the entry or proposed entry of any given specific
name on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology.

Historical Note : This Declaration was proposed in order to decide the form
of notation to be adopted in making entries in the Official List of Specific Names
in Zoology and in the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in
Zoology. It was decided to adopt a standard form of notation of which the
following is an actual example :—

machaon, Papilio, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 462

It will be noted that this form of notation is the same as that adopted by
C. D. Sherborn in his Index Animalium.

i
%
Zz
¥

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 1119

DECLARATION 20
(Ops. Decls. int. Comm. zool. Nomencl. 10 : i-viii, 14th July 1955)

CLARIFICATION OF THE STATUS OF A FAMILY-GROUP NAME
WHERE THE NAME OF THE TYPE GENUS OF THE TAXON SO
NAMED IS SUPPRESSED UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS

DECLARATION :—Where the name of a genus which is the type genus
of a taxon of the family-group is suppressed by the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature under its Plenary Powers, the decision so taken
is to apply equally to the family-group name based upon the generic name in
question.

Historical Note : This Declaration was proposed in order to generalise the
action taken in a particular case. In Opinion 305 (Ops. Decls. int. Comm. zool.
Nomencl. 8 : 297-312), the generic name Ammonites Bruguiére, 1789 was placed
on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology and the
generic name Arietites Waagen, 1869 was at the same time added to the Official
List of Generic Names in Zoology. When, later, the question of the family-group
names involved in this case came to be considered, it was found that there were
family-group names based on both the generic names involved. It was decided
in Direction 14 (op. cit. 10 : 463-480) to suppress the names in this category
based on the generic name Ammonites and to add that based on the generic
name Arietites to the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology. This
action was clearly justified because it prevented the revival at the family-group
level of the controversy which had aroused bitter and intense feelings among
the specialists concerned, and which had been settled at the generic-name level
by the decision taken in Opinion 305.

DECLARATION 21
(Ops. Decls. int. Comm. zool. Nomencl. 12 : i—viii, 19th June 1956)

CLARIFICATION OF THE INTERPRETATION OF ARTICLE 30 OF

THE “ REGLES’’ REGARDING THE SPECIFIC NAME TO BE

ACCEPTED AS THE NAME FOR THE TYPE SPECIES OF A GENUS

WHERE THAT SPECIES HAS TWO OR MORE OBJECTIVELY
SYNONYMOUS SUCH NAMES

DECLARATION :—Where one of two or more objectively identical nominal
species is designated, indicated or selected as the type species of a genus, that
genus shall be cited as having as its type species the oldest established of the
nominal species concerned.

1120 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

EXAMPLE: The nominal species Cancer gammarus Linnaeus, 1758, and
Astacus marinus Fabricius, 1775, are objectively identical with one another.
The second, but not the first, of these nominal species was placed by Weber
in his genus Homarus in 1795. Astacus marinus Fabricius, 1795, was the first
of the originally included nominal species to be selected to be the type species
of Homarus Weber. Since the name Cancer gammarus Linnaeus is (a) an avail-
able name and (b) a senior objective synonym of the name Astacus marinus
Fabricius, the nominal species Cancer gammarus Linnaeus is to be treated as
the type species of the genus Homarus Weber.

Historical Note : The purpose of this Declaration is to-remove an anomaly
in the existing Régles, Article 30, Rule (g) whereby any subsequent selection
of a type-species for a nominal genus originally established without a type-
species was not subject to change. Declaration 21 allows change in cases of this
kind when the type-species by subsequent selection is an objective junior
synonym of another nominal species.

DECLARATION 22
(Ops. Decls. int. Comm. zool. Nomencl. 12 : ix-xviii, 19th June 1956)

CLARIFICATION OF RULE (a) IN ARTICLE 30 IN RELATION
TO THE STATUS THEREUNDER OF A DESIGNATION OF A
TYPE SPECIES FOR A GENUS MADE AT THE TIME OF THE
PUBLICATION OF THE GENERIC NAME CONCERNED WHEN THAT
DESIGNATION OR SOME PART OF IT IS AMBIGUOUS OR IS
QUALIFIED BY A MARK OF INTERROGATION

DECLARATION :—For the purposes of Rule (a) in Article 30 the expression
“ designate a type species ” is to be rigidly construed and is not to be held to
cover a designation made in an ambiguous or qualified manner.

Historical Note : This Declaration has the effect of adding to Rule (a) in
Article 30 of the existing Régles the provision already incorporated in Rule (g)
of that Article prescribing that the meaning of the phrase “ select the type ”
is to be rigidly construed. This provision was thus extended from cases of
subsequent selection of a type-species (Rule (g)) to cases of original designation
of a type-species (Rule (a)). The problem arose out of an application submitted
to the Commission by Professor F. C. Hottes in the case of the genus Cinara
Curtis, 1835.

<d

or

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 1121

DECLARATION 23
(Ops. Decls. int. Comm. zool. Nomencl. 13 : i-xvi, 24th July 1956)

CLARIFICATION OF THE STATUS UNDER THE LAW OF HOMO-

NYMY OF EACH OF THREE PAIRS OF SPECIFIC NAMES BASED,

IN THE CASE OF THE NAMES COMPRISED IN EACH PAIR,

UPON THE SAME GEOGRAPHICAL TERM AND DIFFERING
FROM ONE ANOTHER ONLY IN SPELLING

DECLARATION :—The names comprised in each of the under-mentioned
pairs of specific names are to be treated as homonyms of one another in any
given genus in like manner as though the names concerned were identical
with one another in spelling :—

(a) saghalinensis and sakhalinensis ;

(b) sibiricus and sibericus ;

(c) tianshanicus and tianschanicus.

Historical Note : This Declaration was adopted in order to clarify the general
aspect of a particular case submitted by the Marquess Hachisuka relating to
the name of two Japanese birds. The two nominal species concerned in this
application bore the names saghalinensis and sakhalinensis, and the question
to be answered was, whether these names were to be regarded as homonyms |
when the species in question were referred, on taxonomic grounds, to the same
nominal genus. The Copenhagen (1953) Congress considered the general
question and instructed the Commission to give rulings upon the relative
status of such names under the Law of Homonymy when such names were
submitted to it for a decision (Copenhagen Decisions : 81, Decision 158).

The Commission has given Rulings in two Opinions dealing with cases of
the kind which Declaration 23 was intended to clarify. In the first of these
(Opinion 402), Picoides tridactylus sakhalinensis Buturlin, 1907 and Dryobates
leucotos saghalinensis Yamashina, 1931 were ruled to be homonyms when both
taxa were placed in the genus Picoides Lacépéde, 1799 ; and Dendrocopus (sic)
major tianshanicus Buturlin, 1910 and Picoides tridactylus tianschanicus
Buturlin, 1907 were also ruled to be homonyms when both taxa were placed
in Picoides. In the second (Opinion 403) Alauda sibirica Gmelin, [1789] and
Tanagra siberica Sparrmann, 1786 were ruled to be homonyms when both were
referred to the genus Melanocorypha Boie, 1828.

DECLARATION 24
(Ops. Decls. int. Comm. zool. Nomencl. 13 : xvii-xxvi, 14th August 1956)

CLARIFICATION OF THE STATUS UNDER ARTICLE 25 OF THE
“REGLES ” OF A NAME FOR A TAXON PUBLISHED CONDITION-
ALLY AND MATTERS INCIDENTAL THERETO

DECLARATION.—(1) Where for a taxon of any category an author
publishes a name conditionally, the name so published does not lose its status

1122 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

of availability by reason of being so published (amplification of a provision
relating to the publication conditionally of specific names adopted by the
Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948 (1950, Bull. zool.
Nomencel. 4 : 144-145, Decision 17(a)).

(2) The Recommandation deprecating the publication of specific names
conditionally inserted in the Régles by the Thirteenth International Congress
of Zoology, Paris, 1948 (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 144—145, Decision 17(b))
is hereby extended so as to apply also to the publication conditionally of names
for taxa belonging to other categories.

Historical Note : This Declaration is self-explanatory. It extends to all
taxonomic categories the provision relating to names published conditionally
for species ; and expressly extends to cover names at all levels the Recom-
mandation adopted at Paris condemning the publication of names conditionally,
which already covered all names by implication.

DECLARATION 25
(Ops. Decls. int. Comm. zool. Nomencl. 13 : xxvii-xxxvi, 14th August 1956)

CLARIFICATION OF RULE (g) IN ARTICLE 30 IN RELATION TO
THE SELECTION OF THE TYPE SPECIES OF A GENUS IN A CASE
WHERE THE NOMINAL SPECIES SO SELECTED, THOUGH NOT
ITSELF CITED AT THE TIME OF THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE
GENUS IN QUESTION, IS OBJECTIVELY IDENTICAL WITH
ANOTHER NOMINAL SPECIES WHICH WAS SO CITED

DECLARATION :—Where two or more nominal species are objectively
identical with one another (the two species being based upon the same type
specimen, those names being in consequence objective synonyms of one
another) and where one of those nominal species is one of two or more such
species included in a nominal genus established prior to Ist January 1931,
a later author is to be accepted as having made a valid type selection under
Rule (g) in Article 30 if he so selects any of the objectively identical nominal
species in question, irrespective of whether the nominal species so selected is
that which was cited by the author of the generic name at the time when he
established the nominal genus so named.

EXAMPLE: The nominal species Astacus marinus Fabricius, 1775, is
objectively identical with the nominal species Cancer gammarus Linnaeus,
1758 (the name marinus being no more than a substitute name (nom. nov.)
for the earlier published name gammarus). Accordingly, as Weber (1795)
cited Astacus marinus Fabricius, 1775, as one of the species included in the
genus Homarus Weber, 1795, the selection by a later author (Rathbun) of
the objectively identical nominal species Cancer gammarus Linnaeus, 1758,

— [= So ee

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 1123

as the type species of Homarus Weber, 1795, is a valid type selection for the
purposes of Rule (g) in Article 30, notwithstanding the fact that that nominal
species was not cited by Weber when he established the nominal genus Homarus.

Historical Note : The purpose of this Declaration will be immediately clear

if it is read in conjunction with Declaration 21, since the two general issues
involved arose out of the same individual case.

DECLARATION 26

(Ops. Decls. int. Comm. zool. Nomencl. 13 : xxxvii-l, 14th August, 1956)

CLARIFICATION OF THE EXPRESSION “‘ MONOTYPICAL GENUS ””
FOR THE PURPOSES OF RULE (c) IN ARTICLE 30 OF THE
“ REGLES ”

DECLARATION :—(1) The definition of the expression “ originally
included species” prescribed by the Thirteenth International Congress of
Zoology, Paris, 1948 (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 179-180, Decision 69(3)(a))
is to be interpreted as applying only to Rule (g) in Article 30, that is, for the
purpose of providing guidance as to what are the nominal species from which
alone an author acting under the foregoing Rule may select a type species for
a nominal genus established prior to Ist J anuary 1931, for which no type
species was designated or indicated by the original author under the earlier
Rules in the said Article.

(2) Where an author, when publishing a new generic name, cites by name
only one species as belonging to the genus so named, the nominal species so
cited is to be accepted as the type species of the genus in question, irrespective
of whether the author concerned either (a) cited in the synonymy of that
Species the name of another, or the names of other, nominal species or (b)
associated with the sole nominal species placed by him in the genus the name or
names of taxa regarded by him as being the names of subspecies or infra-
subspecific forms of that species (type species by monotypy).

Historical Note : The purpose of this Declaration is to resolve an apparent
inconsistency in the decision of the Paris (1948) Congress referred to. As
worded, this decision could be read as applying not only to cases covered by
Article 30, Rule (g) of the existing Régles, but also to cases covered by Rule (c)
of that Article, besides casting doubt on many type-selections that had been
thought in good faith to comply with Rule (c) of Article 25 as adopted at the
Budapest (1927) Congress.

1124 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

DECLARATION 27
(Ops. Decls. int. Comm. zool. Nomencl. 14 : i-ix, 5th December 1956)

CLARIFICATION OF THE QUESTION OF THE SPECIES TO BE

ACCEPTED UNDER RULE (f) IN ARTICLE 30 AS THE TYPE

SPECIES OF A NOMINAL GENUS ESTABLISHED AS A SUBSTITUTE

FOR A PREVIOUSLY ESTABLISHED SUCH GENUS BUT WITH

A DESIGNATED TYPE SPECIES DIFFERENT FROM THAT OF
THE NOMINAL GENUS SO REPLACED

DECLARATION :—(1) Where a generic name, when first published, is
expressly stated to be a substitute (e.g., by the use of such an expression as
“nom. nov.” or ‘nom. mut.”) for a previously published generic name but
where the author of the substitute name designates as the type species of the
genus bearing that name a nominal species other than that which is the type
species of the genus the name of which is so replaced, the type species of the
genus bearing the substitute name is in all circumstances the nominal species
which is the type species of the genus the name of which is so replaced.

Historical Note : This Declaration, which is self-explanatory, arose in con-
nection with the generic name Neanura MacGillivray, 1893, which was one of
a number of names involved in a case centring around the generic name
Achorutes Templeton, 1835. It covers not only cases where the nominal
genus replaced by a substitute nominal genus already possesses a valid type-
species (either by original or by subsequent designation), but also cases where
the nominal genus so replaced possesses no valid type-species at the time when
the replacement name is proposed, but the nominal genus of which the name
is proposed as a replacement name is given a type-species which was not one
of the originally included species in the replaced nominal genus.

DECLARATION 28

(Ops. Decls. int. Comm. zool. Nomencl. 14 : xi-xxiv, 5th December 1956)

CLARIFICATION OF THE STATUS OF A NAME GIVEN TO A FAMILY-
GROUP TAXON BASED UPON A MISIDENTIFIED TYPE GENUS

DECLARATION :—(1) Except as is provided in (2) below, an author
publishing a new family-group name is to be assumed to have correctly deter-
mined the nominal genus selected by him as the type genus of the nominal
family-group taxon so established.

(2) Where in the opinion of later authors there is evidence in the original
publication that the author of a family-group name treated the type genus of
the family-group taxon so named as having as its type species some nominal

PR Pat SST

Cn Sr Fag

ae Re"

reat

se a

j

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature : 1125

species other than that which either already was or later became the type species,
the case is to be referred to the International Commission on Zoological Nomen-
clature for decision.

(3) On receipt of an application submitted under (2) above, it shall be the
duty of the International Commission to give a Ruling on the question (a)
whether the author of the family-group name in question correctly determined
the genus selected by him to be the type genus of the nominal family-group
taxon so established or (b) whether he misdetermined that genus and thus
in effect established a family-group taxon based upon a different genus bearing
an invalid homonymous name.

(4) Where the said Commission gives a Ruling that a given nominal
family-group taxon was based upon a misdetermined type genus, the family-
group name in question is to be rejected as possessing no rights under either
the Law of Priority or the Law of Homonymy.

Historical Note : This Declaration, like Declaration 27, arose out of the
consideration of the problems surrounding the generic name Achorutes Temple-
ton, 1835. As first drafted, the Declaration would have provided that a family-
group name based on a misidentified type-genus should possess no status under
the Law of Priority and would thus not invalidate a subsequently published
family-group name based upon the name of the same type-genus, but with this
type-genus correctly determined. In returning affirmative votes on the draft
Declaration in the above form, four Commissioners expressed the view that the
provisions for dealing with family-group taxa based on misidentified type-
genera ought to follow, so far as practicable, those laid down for dealing with
genera based on misidentified type-species. In redrafting the Declaration
accordingly, the Secretary pointed out (a) that, whereas the use of the Plenary
Powers was necessary in cases of genera based on misidentified type-species,
this was not so in cases of family-group taxa based on misidentified type-genera,
since it is objectively ascertainable whether or no the author of a family-group
name correctly identified the type-genus in terms of its type-species ; and (b)
that whereas generic names based on a misidentified type-species remain avail-
able nomenclatorially, a family-group name based on a misidentified type-
species should possess no status in nomenclature.

DECLARATION 29
(Ops. Decls. int. Comm. zool. Nomencl. 14 : xxv—xxxii, 2nd April 1957)

INTRODUCTION AND DEFINITION OF THE EXPRESSION

*“ LINNEAN TAUTONYMY ” IN RELATION TO THE DETER-

MINATION OF THE TYPE SPECIES OF A NOMINAL GENUS
UNDER RULE (d) IN ARTICLE 30

DECLARATION :—Where the type species of a nominal genus is deter-
mined under the extension of the provision in Rule (d) (type species by absolute

Www

1126 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

tautonymy) in Article 30 made by the Thirteenth International Congress of
Zoology, Paris, 1948 (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 155), the type species of
the genus concerned is to be said to have been determined “ by Linnean
tautonymy ”’.

Historical Note : The purpose of this Declaration is simply to establish a
technical term for the particular type of extension of Article 30 Rule (d) in the
existing Régles (type-species by absolute tautonymy) to cover the case of
nominal genera of which one only of the originally included species had as one
of its synonyms a pre-Linnean univerbal specific name consisting of the same
word as the generic name. It is for generic names of this type, where there is
no apparent tautonymy (the genus Hippopotamus Linnaeus, 1758, type-species
amphibius Linnaeus, 1758 is a case in point), that the type-species is said to
be be determined by “ Linnean tautonymy ” for it is in the works of Linnaeus
that this type of case is principally found.

DECLARATION 30
(Ops. Decls. int. Comm. zool. Nomencl. 15 : i-xii, 2nd April 1957)

CLARIFICATION OF THE QUESTION OF THE GENERIC NAME IN

COMBINATION WITH WHICH A SPECIFIC NAME IS TO BE

TREATED AS HAVING BEEN PUBLISHED WHEN THE SPECIES

SO NAMED WAS (a) PLACED IN A PREVIOUSLY ESTABLISHED

NOMINAL GENUS AND (b) ALSO REFERRED TO A NEW NOMINAL
GENUS CONDITIONALLY ESTABLISHED

DECLARATION :—(1) Where an author, in publishing a name for a new
nominal species, cites that name in combination with a previously published
generic name but at the same time establishes conditionally a new nominal
genus for the taxon so named, the specific name in question is to be treated
as having been first published in combination with the previously published
generic name.

Example : The specific name gracilis published by Lowe in 1848 for
a new species of fish which was placed by him in the previously established
genus Seriola but for which also he then established conditionally the new
genus Cubiceps is to be treated as having been first published in the
combination Seriola gracilis.

(2) An author who establishes a nominal species in the manner specified
in (1) is to be treated (a) as having first published the name for that species in
combination with the previously published generic name and (b) as having
later transferred the species so named to the nominal genus then conditionally
established for it.

= 3 a a . me m
a ee

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 1127

Example : In the case cited in (1) above Lowe is to be treated as
having first published the binomen Seriola gracilis and as having later
transferred the species so named to the genus Cubiceps then conditionally
established, the name for the species thus becoming Cubiceps gracilis
(Lowe, 1843) (a new combination for the name of the previously established
nominal species Seriola gracilis Lowe, 1843).

Historical Note : This Declaration deals with a particular sort of condition-
ally published name. The more general aspects of this problem were disposed
of in Declaration 24.

DECLARATION 31
(Ops. Decls. int. Comm. zool. Nomencl. 16 : i-x, 14th June 1957)

CLARIFICATION OF THE EXPRESSION “ TYPE GENUS ” IN THE
PROVISIONS RELATING TO THE PUBLICATION OF FAMILY-
GROUP NAMES

DECLARATION :—A name for a family-group taxon is not to be rejected
either (a) on the ground that its author did not specify the name of its type
genus or (b) on the ground that, when specifying the name of that genus, he
treated it as a junior synonym of some other generic name.

Recommandation : Authors publishing names for taxa belonging to the
family-group category are recommended :—

(i) to specify by name the genus selected as the type genus of any nominal
family-group taxon so established ;

(ii) to select as type genera of such family-group taxa only nominal genera
which bear the oldest available names for the generic taxa concerned.

Historical Note : The need for this Declaration was felt as a result of the
decision of the Copenhagen (1953) Congress (Copenhagen Decisions : 33, ;

Decision 45) that family-group names are to be subject to the Law of Priority,

_ at the same time deciding that names of this kind were not to be regarded as

unavailable by reason of being defectively formed in one way or another.

Doubts as to the precise meaning of these rules were hindering the work of

_ the Commission in giving decisions in particular cases.

1128 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

DECLARATION 32

(Ops. Decls. int. Comm. zool. Nomencl. 16 : xi-xxiv, 14th June 1957)

CLARIFICATION OF THE MEANING OF ARTICLE 21 OF THE
‘““REGLES’’ IN RELATION TO THE AUTHORSHIP TO BE
ATTRIBUTED IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES TO ZOOLOGICAL
NAMES AND TO ANY ACT TAKEN UNDER OTHER PROVISIONS
OF THE ‘ REGLES ’”’ AFFECTING THE STATUS OF SUCH NAMES

DECLARATION :—(1) Where (a) in connection with the presentation of
an unpublished paper before a meeting of a learned society or with the exhibition
of a specimen before such a meeting, a name is published with an “ indication ”
in an abstract prepared for use at, or in a report of the proceedings of, such
a meeting, and thus acquires the status of availability in zoological nomen-
clature, the name so published is to be attributed to the author of the un-
published paper or, as the case may be, to the zoologist by whom was proposed
the name attached to the specimen exhibited and not to the author of the
abstract or report.

(2) Where in any abstract or report similar to those specified in (1) above,
there is published the record of any act affecting the status of a previously
published name (such as the selection of a type species for a genus or of a lecto-
type for a species), that act is to be attributed to the author of the unpublished
paper concerned or to the person responsible for the exhibition of the labelled
specimen in question and not to the author of the abstract or report.

(3) The provisions set out in (1) and (2) above apply equally in a case
where a new name or the record of any act affecting the status of a previously
published name is published in a semi-popular account of the work of a scientific
expedition or the like in advance of the publication of the scientific record of
that part of the work of the expedition in question.

Recommandation : Officers of learned societies, editors and others are
urged not to include new names or the record of any act affecting the status of
a previously published name either (a) in abstracts prepared for, or in the reports
of meetings of, learned societies communicated to such meetings or (b) in
semi-popular accounts of the work of scientific expeditions or the like in advance
of the publication in the first case, of the paper concerned or of the communica-
tions so made to the Society and, in the second case, of the scientific record
of the relevant part of the work of the expedition in question.

Historical Note : This Declaration was originally drawn up in connection
with cases concerning two generic names of early date (Inoceramus J. Sowerby,
1814 and Buchia von Buch, 1845). Situations of the same kind, can however,
be found in more recent literature, as in the case of the subspecies dyala Riley,

=

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 1129

1921 of the species Zegris eupheme (Esper, [1805]), but the main usefulness of
the Declaration will undoubtedly be in establishing current usage, as regards
authorship and priority, of older names.

DECLARATION 33

(Ops. Decls. int. Comm. zool. Nomencl. 16 : xxv-xxviii, 21st June 1957)

CLARIFICATION OF THE STATUS UNDER ARTICLE 25 OF A

NAME FOR A TAXON PUBLISHED IN THE INDEX OF A WORK

IN THE TEXT OF WHICH THAT TAXON WAS DESCRIBED ONLY
UNDER A VERNACULAR NAME

DECLARATION :—(1) A Latin or Latinised name for a taxon of any
rank published in the index to a work by a binominal author who in the body
of the work concerned had described and/or figured that taxon without giving
it such a name is to be accepted only where there is an unambiguous link
between the name in the index and the “indication ”’ provided in the text
and/or on a plate, i.e. where the entry in the index contains evidence, by the
addition of a footnote or otherwise, that the name was there published as a new
name, additional to the evidence provided by the reference there given to a
page or plate in the body of the work.

(2) A Latin or Latinised name for a species or genus but not for a taxon
of higher rank published in the index of a work by a non-binominal author
is to be accepted only (a) where, as in (1) above, there is an unambiguous link
between the name in the index and the indication provided in the text and/or
on a plate, and (b) where evidence is provided in, or in connection with, the
index that, when publishing the name in question, the author applied the

_ principles of binominal nomenclature.

(3) In all cases other than those specified in (1) and (2) above, a name
published only in an index is to be rejected, save, where, prior to 4th August
1953, a name so published had already come into common use, in which case
that name is not to be rejected without the prior authority of the Commission.

Historical Note : In the paper accompanying the Voting Paper sent out
with the draft of this Declaration, the Secretary drew attention to the great
_ variation in the manner in which duly formed binominal names have first
_ been published in indexes to wholly or partly non-binominal works. Two
_ examples were cited as extreme cases:—(i) the name Antirhynchonella
published in the Index to F. A. Quenstedt’s Die Brachiopoden in 1871, where
it was clearly a nomen nudum not expressly related to the vernacular term
“die Antirhynchonellen ” used in the main text ; this name was accordingly
suppressed as from this usage in Opinion 374: (ii) the index to Dru Drury’s

1130 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Illustrations of Natural History, 1770-82, which contains properly formed,
Latin or Latinised binominal names, expressly proposed as the scientific names
for the forms described or figured in the main part of the work under vernacular
names. It was also decided to restrict the provisions of the Declaration to
generic and specific names, since much disturbance might be caused to
established names of higher categories if recognition were given to names cited
in the plural in indexes as being given to taxa of suprageneric categories.

DECLARATION 34
(Ops. Decls. int. Comm. zool. Nomencl. 17 : i-xii, 3rd September 1957)

CLARIFICATION OF THE PROCEDURE TO BE FOLLOWED BY
THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMEN-
CLATURE WHEN AT THE CONCLUSION OF A VOTE ON AN APPLI-
CATION FOR THE USE OF ITS PLENARY POWERS IT IS FOUND
THAT A MAJORITY BUT NOT A TWO-THIRDS MAJORITY OF
THE MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION VOTING THEREON HAS
VOTED IN FAVOUR OF THE APPLICATION IN QUESTION

DECLARATION :—(1) Where in any vote by the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature on an application involving the possible use of
its Plenary Powers it is found at the close of the Prescribed Voting Period
that a majority, but not a two-thirds majority, of the Members of the Com-
mission voting thereon has voted in favour of the use of the foregoing Powers,
the vote so taken shall be treated as being a preliminary vote only, and it shall
be the duty of the Secretary (a) to report the result of the vote to the Com-
mission as soon as possible, (b) simultaneously therewith to re-submit the
proposal for the use of the Plenary Powers to the Commission for final decision,
and (c) at the same time to furnish a statement setting out the affirmative
action on the name involved in the case which would require to be taken in the
event of the rejection of the proposal for the use of the Plenary Powers.

(2) In any case resubmitted to the Commission under (1) above, the
procedure to be followed at the close of the Prescribed Voting Period is to be
as follows :—

(a) If not less than two out of every three Members of the Commission
voting have voted in favour of the use of the Plenary Powers, the
proposal in question is to be treated as having been approved and
adopted ;

(b) If less than two out of every three Members of the Commission voting
have voted in favour of the use of the Plenary Powers, that proposal
is to be treated as having been rejected and in its place the proposal
involving affirmative action in the opposite sense submitted under
(1)(c) above is to be treated as having been approved and adopted.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 1131

Historical Note : Up till 1948, the application of the Plenary Powers
required a unanimous affirmative vote, but cases in which there was a two-
thirds, but not a unanimous, vote in favour of the use of the Plenary Powers
were referred to a specially appointed Board of Three, which was empowered
to take an effective decision by a simple majority. The Paris (1948) Congress
substituted the present two-thirds majority rule for the former practice, but
omitted to make any provision for occasions where a majority of the Com-
missioners voting were in favour of the use of the Plenary Powers in a particular
case, but this majority was not a two-thirds majority. In the particular case
from which this Declaration arose, the Secretary had submitted two alternative
motions to the Commission. Alternative ““A’’ required the use of the Plenary
Powers and received a simple majority affirmative vote; Alternative “B”
did not require the use of the Plenary Powers and could thus have been adopted
as the decision of the Commission by a simple majority, had it not failed to
secure such a majority. A position of stalemate was thus reached which
could only be broken by the adoption of a Declaration on the lines of the one
here reported.

DECLARATION 35

(Ops. Decls. int. Comm. zool. Nomencl. 17 : xiii-xxvi, 10th October 1957)

CLARIFICATION OF THE MEANING OF THE EXPRESSION
“SYNTYPE”? AS USED IN THE “ REGLES”’

DECLARATION :—Where, in publishing a name for a new nominal species
established without a designated holotype, an author (a) states that that
nominal species is based upon certain specimens before him and/or upon
certain descriptions or figures previously published under some other name
and (b) elsewhere in the same paper identifies certain other specimens, whether
before him or not, or certain other previously published descriptions or figures
with the nominal species so described, the specimens, descriptions or figures
so identified are not to be regarded as being “‘ of equal nomenclatorial rank ”’
with the specimens, descriptions or figures upon which the author states that
that nominal species is based, and specimens, descriptions or figures so identified
are not to be regarded as syntypes of the nominal species in question.

Historical Note : This Declaration was proposed to cover cases of the kind
illustrated by the particular case of the Lepidopteran Megathymus aryxna
Dyar, 1905. According to the degree of latitude allowed in the interpretation
of the term “syntype ’’, this species is either a subjective junior synonym of
M. newmoegeni Edwards, 1882 or the oldest available name for the species
currently known as M. evansi Freeman, 1950. Of the specialists interested
in the case, some were of the former opinion, others of the latter. The case
turned upon the interpretation to be given to the phrase “ of equal nomen-

1132 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

‘

claterial rank” written into the definition of the term ‘‘syntype’’ by the
Paris (1948) Congress (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 186). Under the terms of this
Declaration, the particular case of Megathymus aryxna Dyar, 1905, became a
subjective junior synonym of M. neumoegeni Edwards, 1882.

DECLARATION 36
(Ops. Decls. int. Comm. zool. Nomencl. 18 : i-xii, 24th January 1958)

DETERMINATION UNDER DECISION 85 OF THE FOURTEENTH
INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS OF ZOOLOGY, COPENHAGEN, 1953,
OF THE GENDER TO BE ATTRIBUTED TO GENERIC NAMES
HAVING THE TERMINATIONS “ -OPS ’’? AND “ -OPSIS ”
RESPECTIVELY

DECLARATION :—In accordance with the provisions of Decision 85
taken by the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology, Copenhagen,
1953 (1953, Copenhagen Decisions zool. Nomencl.: 51), it is hereby directed
that the following revised Rule be substituted for the Rule provisionally adopted
as Rule (7)(b)(iii) in Decision 84 of the above Congress, the Rule relating to
the gender to be attributed to generic names having the terminations “ -ops ”
and “‘ -opsis”’ in those cases where the termination in question is obviously
derived from the corresponding Greek word :—

Revised Rule
(1) The feminine gender is to be attributed to :—

(a) generic names having the termination “ -opsis ”’ ;

(b) generic names having the termination “-ops” in cases where
it is clear from the context that the “ ops’ portion of the name
is derived from the Greek word 6% having a short “o” and
meaning “‘a voice” ;

‘ b

(c) generic names having the termination “-ops”’ in cases where
it is clear from the original description that the “ ops ”’ portion
of the name is derived from the Greek word oy having a
short “‘o”’ and meaning “a face”’.

(2) Except in the cases specified in (1)(b) and (1)(c) above, the gender
to be attributed to a generic name having the termination “ -ops ”
is to be :—

(i) whatever is the gender in general use for that name ; or

Py eee os ee a Ce Oe re es ee

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 1133

(ii) if there is no generally accepted gender, the masculine gender,
that being the gender most commonly attributed to the more
widely found of the two Greek words concerned, i.e. the word

ce 9?

# having along “o” and meaning ‘“‘ an eye” or “a face”.

Historical Note : This Declaration was prepared in part discharge of the
duty placed on the International Commission by Decision 85 of the Copenhagen
(1953) Congress (Copenhagen Decisions : 51) to review the provisional rules
laid down in Decision 84 of that Congress for the determination of the gender
of generic names. The case of names ending in “‘-ops” was found to be
more complicated than had been supposed by the Copenhagen Congress, and
the Declaration here reported was drawn up as the result of consultations with
the Commission’s Consulting Classical Adviser.

DECLARATION 37

(Ops. Decls. int. Comm. zool. Nomencl. 18 : xiii-xxii, 24th January 1958)

CLARIFICATION OF THE PROVISIONS IN THE ‘“ REGLES ”
REGARDING THE METHOD TO BE FOLLOWED IN DETER-
MINING THE RELATIVE PRECEDENCE TO BE ACCORDED TO
ANY TWO NAMES FOR NOMINAL FAMILY-GROUP TAXA
PUBLISHED IN THE SAME WORK AND ON THE SAME DATE

DECLARATION :—(1) The relative precdence to be accorded to any two
names for nominal family-group taxa published in the same work and on the
same date is to be determined in accordance with the “ First Reviser”’
Principle, that is, when two such taxa are united on taxonomic grounds, the
name to be used for the combined taxon so recognised is to be whichever of the
previously published family-group names is selected for use as such by a
“First Reviser”’ (‘selection by a ‘First Reviser’”’).

(2) For the purposes of (1) above, the expression “‘ selection by a ‘ First
Reviser ’” is to be rigidly construed and such a selection is to be deemed
to have been effected only when an author, after citing two or more family-
group names published in the same work and on the same date, clearly indicates,
by whatever method, (a) that he is of the opinion that the respective type
genera of the nominal family-group taxa concerned are referable to a single
family-group taxon, and (b) that he is selecting one of the family-group names
concerned, to the exclusion of the other name or names, to be the name for the
combined family-group taxon so recognised.

Historical Note : Article 28 of the existing Régles laid it down that the
relative precedence to be accorded to generic and specific names published
in the same book and on the same day was to be determined in accordance
with the “ First Reviser”’ principle. The Paris (1948) Congress substituted

1134 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

the ‘‘ Page and Line Precedence ” precedence for the “ First Reviser ” principle,
on account of the feeling of many taxonomists that the action that an author
is required to take to qualify as a “ First Reviser ”’ could not be, or had not
been, sufficiently clearly defined. The Copenhagen (1953) Congress restored
the “ First Reviser ” principle, at the same time providing a definition of the
action so required. This Declaration extends the same principle to cover
cases of the same kind at the family-group level.

DECLARATION 38
(Ops. Decls. int. Comm. zool. Nomencl. 18 : xxiii-xxx, 11th April, 1958)

CLARIFICATION OF THE PROCEDURE TO BE ADOPTED FOR
DETERMINING THE AUTHORSHIP TO BE ATTRIBUTED FOR
THE PURPOSES OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE TO ANY
GIVEN WORK IN CASES WHERE THE ACCURACY OF THE
AUTHORSHIP STATED IN THE TITLE HAS BEEN QUESTIONED

DECLARATION :—Where a work bears a statement purporting to specify
or indicate the name of the author or the names of the authors, that statement
is to be deemed to be correct, unless and until evidence is published purporting
to show that that statement is incorrect, in which case the issue so raised is
to be referred to the International Commission for decision.

Historical Note : This Declaration was proposed in order to cover the sort
of case of which the Prodrom einer Monographie der béhmischen Trilobiten,
by Hawle and Corda, 1847, provides an example. In his accompanying
note, the Secretary suggested that this type of case should be treated in a similar
way to the problem, discussed by the Paris (1948) Congress, of works of which
the stated date of publication is challenged as being incorrect (Bull. zool.
Nomencl. 4 : 223-4), except that where the true date of publication could often
be ascertained objectively, this would rarely be the case in questions of disputed
authorship. Reference of disputed cases to the Commission is therefore a
necessity in cases of this kind.

DECLARATION 39
(Ops. Decls. int. Comm. zool. Nomencl. 19 : i-xviii, 30th May, 1958)

REVIEW UNDER COPENHAGEN DECISION 85 OF THE RULES
RELATING TO THE GENDER TO BE ATTRIBUTED TO CERTAIN
CLASSES OF GENERIC NAMES PRESCRIBED IN THE PROVI-
SIONAL RULES NUMBERED AS RULE (7)(b)(i) AND RULE (7)(¢)(i)
RESPECTIVELY IN DECISION 84 OF THE FOURTEENTH INTER-
NATIONAL CONGRESS OF ZOOLOGY, COPENHAGEN, 1953

DECLARATION :—In accordance with the provisions of Decision 85
taken by the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology, Copenhagen, 1953

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 1135

(1953, Copenhagen Decisions zool. Nomencl. : 51) it is hereby directed as
follows :—

(1) The provisional Rules numbered respectively as Rule (7)(b)(i) and
Rule (7)(c)(i) in Decision 84 of the foregomg Congress are hereby
deleted.

(2) The provisional Rule bearing the number (7)(a) (containing examples
of generic names to which the masculine gender is to be attributed)
is hereby divided into two portions and the revised number (7)(a)(i)
is hereby allotted to the Rule recorded as Rule (7)(a) in the Copen-
hagen Decision referred to above.

(3) The following new Rule giving further examples of generic names to
which the masculine gender is to be attributed is hereby inserted as
Rule (7)(a)(ii) :—

(ii) any name consisting of a compound word, the final part of which
is a Greek noun fully Latinised with a suffix of the masculine
gender, notwithstanding the fact that, prior to Latinisation,
the final part of the compound word in question was a Greek
word of some other gender.

Example :
“* -cheilus”’ (and “-chilus”’); “-gnathus”’; “ -rhamphus ” ;
* -rhynchus”’ and “ -stathus”’.

(4) The following new Rule giving examples of generic names to which
the feminine gender is to be attributed is hereby inserted as Rule
(7)(b)(i) in place of the Rule bearing that number deleted under (1)
above :—

(i) any name consisting of a compound word, the final part of which
is a Greek noun fully Latinised with a suffix of the feminine
gender, notwithstanding the fact that, prior to Latinisation,
the final part of the word in question was a Greek word of some
other gender. Hxample: “-cera”’; “-metopa”’.

(5) The Rule which at present bears the Number (7)(c)(ii) (relating to the
attribution of the neuter gender to “ -soma”’ and similar names) is
in future to be known as Rule (7)(c).

Historical Note : This Declaration forms the second part (the first part
having already been reported above as Declaration 36) of the review, called for
by Decision 85 of the Copenhagen (1953) Congress (Copenhagen Decisions : 51)
of the rules for the determination of the gender of generic names laid down in
Decision 84 of that Congress. It had at first been hoped that this review
could have been presented as one comprehensive document, but the urgent
need to clarify certain questions relating to the gender of generic names on the
Official List of Generic Names in Zoology, if the instalment of that List was to be

1136 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

published in book form before the present Congress, led to the decision being
taken to ask the Consulting Classical Adviser to the International Commission
to submit interim reports on the problems of special urgency dealt with in
Declarations 36 and 39.

DECLARATION 40

(Ops. Decls. int. Comm. zool. Nomencl., in the press)

DECLARATION :—Generic names having the terminations “ -ides”’,
“* ites’, and “ -oides”’ are to be treated as being masculine in gender.

Historical Note : This Declaration was adopted in order to unify divergent
practices among zoologists in regard to the gender attributed to generic names
having the terminations indicated above. It was formerly the practice of
some zoologists to regard all such names as masculine, but others thought
that the gender of the noun with which any of these endings was combined
should determine the gender of the whole. The ruling given in the Declaration
is in conformity with advice received from the Commission’s Consulting Classical
Adviser.

The proposal for the adoption of this Declaration was published in Bull.
zool. Nomencl. 13 : 203-5. The Declaration has not yet been published, but the
Commission has voted for its adoption by a large majority.

DECLARATION 41

(Ops. Decls. int. Comm. zool. Nomencl., in the press)

DECLARATION :—Where in any work written in the Latin language :—

(1) a noun (or a word treated as a noun) is employed as a generic name, it
is to be accepted as having been validly published as such, provided
that it was published in the nominative singular ;

(2) a noun or adjective is associated binominally with a word accepted
under (1) above as having been employed as a generic name, the
noun or adjective concerned is to be accepted as having been validly
published as a specific name ;

ata Sy Rives Fe

Lh Sb NG i IE LI EP LENE A

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 1137

(3) a noun or adjective is associated trinominally (either directly or by
being linked to a binomen by an expression such as “ ssp.”’, “* var.’’,
etc.) with a word accepted under (2) above as having been employed
as a specific name, the noun or adjective concerned is to be treated

as having been published as a subspecific name.

Historical Note : It is obvious that, in works written in Latin, or in which
the descriptions of taxa are written in Latin, there may at times be difficulty
in deciding whether particular words are to be read as zoological names or as

part of the general text of the passage in question. The issue is clarified by
this Declaration.

This Declaration has not yet been published, but the Commission has voted
for its adoption by a large majority, subject to a drafting amendment designed
to show that names of the kind dealt with are to be accepted only if they
comply with the other requirements of the Régles as regard availability.

III. THE RELATIONSHIP OF “ DECLARATIONS ” 18-41 TO THE
EXISTING ‘“ REGLES”’ TO THE REVISED DRAFT OF THE
‘“ REGLES ”

Tables I and II, appended immediately below, show the relationship of
Declarations 18-41 to the existing Régles and to the draft English text of the
revised Régles. In Table I, the first column lists the Declarations in numerical
order. The second and third columns show which Article in the existing
Régles, or which decision of the subsequent (Paris and Copenhagen) Congresses
is affected. The fourth column shows at what point each Declaration has been
incorporated by Professor Bradley into his draft English text of the revised
Régles. Table II shows in the first column the Article in the existing Régles
and in the second column the Paris and Copenhagen decisions, affected. The
third column shows the incorporation into the draft English text of the revised
Régles and the fourth column the Declaration Number.

The following abbreviations are used in these Tables. A capital B followed
by the figure 4, a colon and figures indicates a reference to the proceedings
of the Paris (1948) Congress (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4), page-numbers. A capital
C followed by a colon, numbers, oblique stroke and numbers indicates a reference
to the Report of the Copenhagen (1953) Congress (Copenhagen Decisions),
page and paragraph (Decision) number. References to the draft English text
of the revised Régles are in the form Article number, oblique stroke, Section
number (paragraph) (subparagraph).

1138

* Declaration ”’
Number

18

19
20

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

TABLE I

Reference to
Existing ‘“‘ Régles ”’ Subsequent
Article No. etc. Congress
Decision

or

New Schedule

(Family-group
Names)

New Schedule

(Specific Names)

New Article
(Family-group
Names)

30, Rule (g)

30, Rule (a)

35

25

30, Rule (g)

30, Rule (g)

30, Rule (f)

New Article
(Family-group
Names, homo-
nymy in)

30, Rule (d)

New Article
(Specific Names)

New Article

(Family-group
Names)

21

25

New Article
(Plenary Powers)

New Article
(syntypes)

New Schedule
(Gender Rules)

New Article
(Family-group
Names)

New Article
(authorship)

New Schedule
(Gender Rules)

Coot
Decision 58

B 4: 270-2, 334,
627-8

B 4 : 55-6
B4: 186

C: 51, Decision
84-5

C : 51, Decision
84-5

New Schedule

(Gender Rules)
25(c)

Reference to
draft English text
of revised ‘‘ Régles ’’
Article No. ete.

omitted

omitted

omitted

19/2(d)

19/3(a) (ii)
24/12(a)

6/5(c)

19/5(i)(ii)
19/3(b)

19/4(b) and 8 (f)
24/6(d)

omitted
15/8(b)

omitted

7/3 and 22/1(b)

6/8(c)

Declarations 34-41
were published
after Professor
Bradley’s draft
English text had
been sent to the
Printer

i

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Reference to
or Subsequent

Existing ‘‘ Régles ”’
Article No. etc.

21
25
25
30, Rule (a)
30, Rule (d)
30, Rule (f)
30, Rule (g)
30, Rule (g)
30, Rule (g)
35

New Article

(Family-group Names)
| New Article

(Family-group Names)
New Article
(Family-group Names)
New Article
(Family-group Names,
homonymy in)
New Article
(Specific Names)
New Article
(syntypes)
New Article
(authorship)
New Article
(Plenary Powers)
New Schedule
(Gender Rules)
New Schedule
(Gender Rules)
New Schedule
(Family-group Names)
New Schedule
(Specific Names)

TABLE II

Congress
Decision

B 4: 186

B4:55-6
C: 51/84-5
C: 51/84-5
C: 37/58

B 4: 270-2,
334, 627-8

Reference to
Draft English
Text of revised

* Régles ”’
Article No. etc.

7/3 and 22/1(b)

6/5(c)
6/8(c)
19/3(a)(ii)
omitted
19/4(b) and 8 (f)
19/2(d)
19/5(i), (ii)
19/3(b)
24/12(a)
omitted
omitted
omitted

24/6(d)

15/8(b)

omitted
omitted
omitted
omitted
omitted
omitted

omitted

1139

** Declaration °’
No.

* Declarations 34-41 were published after Professor Bradley’s draft English Text had been

sent to the Printer.

1140 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

IV. THE ASSIMILATION OF ‘“‘ DECLARATIONS” 18-41
INTO THE REVISED DRAFT OF THE “ REGLES ”

Examination of Tables I and II above will show that certain of the
Declarations with which this Report is concerned have been incorporated at
the points shown in Professor Bradley’s draft English text of the revised
Régles. These are Declarations 21-28, 30, 32 and 33, and it is not proposed to
discuss them further in this Section. Of the remaining Declarations, those
numbered 18-20, 29 and 31 had been published before the draft of the revised
Régles had been sent to the printer and those numbered 34-41 were published
after that date. The question of the assimilation of these Declarations into
the Régles is discussed in the two following Subsections of this Section, in order
of Declaration numbers.

(a) “* Declarations ’’ published before the printing of the
revised draft of the “ Régles ”’

Declaration 18 : This Declaration is concerned with the manner in which
entries in the Official List of Family-group Names in Zoology and in the Officiel
Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-group Names in Zoology are to be made.
The instructions so given, while mandatory in scope, are addressed to the
International Commission rather than to zoologists generally, and concern
the procedure of the Commission. As such, they clearly relate to Draft Article
29 and to Section 9, paragraph (e) of that Article. In this paragraph, which
is concerned with the maintenance of the Official Lists and Official Indexes,
Item (iii) deals with the list and index for family-group names. Declaration 18
should therefore be appended to the revised Régles as a Schedule to Article
29/9(e) (iii).

Declaration 19 : This Declaration is of a similar kind to the preceding
in that it is in the nature of a procedural instruction to the Commission. It
relates to the manner in which entries are to made in the Official List of Specific
Names in Zoology and in the corresponding Official Index. It should therefore be
appended as a Schedule to Article 29/9(e)(x).

Declaration 20: This Declaration clarifies the status of a family-group
name based upon the name of a genus that has been suppressed under the
Plenary Powers. Section 4 of Draft Article 13 deals with the question of
changes in the names of type-genera of family-group taxa and it is recommended
that Declaration 20 be incorporated as a new paragraph (c) in this Section, the
paragraphs now numbered (c) and (d) becoming paragraphs (d) and (e).

Declaration 29: This Declaration introduces the term “Linnean
tautonymy ”’ to describe the determination of the type-species of a genus
by reference to a pre-Linnean tautonymous univerbal specific name having

Bo a wile se ALR i ac sty

P|
|

~——

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 1141

been cited in the synonymy of one of the included species. The substance of
the Declaration is to be found in Draft Article 19/3(d)(ii) and it is only necessary
to add the phrase in quotation marks and parentheses (“type by Linnean
tautonymy ’’) at the end of the subparagraph.

Declaration 31: This Declaration clarifies the expression “ type-genus ”
in relation to family group names. Draft Article 18B deals with the application
of the type-principle to names of the family-group, and it is suggested that
Declaration 31 be incorporated into Article 18B as a new Section to be
numbered 6.

(b) ‘* Declarations ’’ published after the revised draft of the
** Régles ’? had been sent to the printer

Declaration 34 : This Declaration provides a mechanism whereby a condi-
tion of stalemate that could (and in a particular instance did in fact) arise
in taking votes from the Commission on matters requiring the application of the
Plenary Powers can be broken. It should be incorporated into the Article
defining the powers of the Commission, namely as a new subparagraph (iv)
in Article 29/6(c). The subparagraphs now numbered (iv) to (vi) will then
be numbered (v) to (vii).

Declaration 35 : This Declaration clarifies the meaning of the word “ syn-
type’ as used in the Régles. The proper place for its incorporation into the
revised Régles is clearly as an additional paragraph (iv) of Article 20A,
Section 2.

Declaration 36: This Declaration deals with a part of the problem of
providing rules for the determination of the gender of generic names. Its
incorporation into Article 28, Section 11 of the revised Régles has been proposed
by Professor Bradley in a proposal placed on the Agenda Paper for the London
Colloquium on Zoological Nomenclature in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 15 : 731-735.

Declaration 37 : This Declaration restores the “‘ First Reviser ’’ principle
in determining the relative precedence among family-group names published
in the same work and on the same date. The proper place for its incorporation
in the revised Régles is as a new paragraph (d) of Section 3 of Article 13.

Declaration 38 : This Declaration provides that questions relating to the
disputed authorship of works are to be referred to the Commission for decision.
As such it should be incorporated into the revised Régles as a new Section 5 of
Article 7.

Declaration 39 : This Declaration continues the provision of rules for the
determination of the gender of generic names begun in Declaration 36. As

xxx

1142 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

in the case of that Declaration, so should this be appended as a Schedule to
Section 11 of Article 28 of the revised Reégles. ,

Declaration 40 : This Declaration provides that generic names ending in
-ides, -ites and -oides are to be treated as masculine in gender. It should
therefore be incorporated into the revised Régles as a Sehedule to Section 11 of
Article 28.

Declaration 41: This Declaration clarifies the interpretation of names
published in works written in Latin from the point of view of their availability.
It is proposed that it be incorporated into the revised Régles as a new para-
graph (f) of Section 1 of Article 6.

V. RECOMMENDATIONS

The following recommendations are submitted for the consideration of
the International Commission, namely, that it should :—

(1) formally report to the Fifteenth International Congress of Zoology,
London, 1958, the adoption since the close of the preceding Congress
of the twenty-four Declarations numbered 18 to 41, and recommend
that approval be given to the Rulings so given ;

(2) recommend the incorporation in the revised text of the Régles of the
provisions specified in the Appendix to the present Report for the
purpose of giving effect to the Rulings given in the above Declara-
tions, in so far as this has not already been done in the Draft Text
published in Volume 14 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature.

APPENDIX

Proposals for the incorporation in the “ Régles’’ of the Rulings given in
“ Declarations ’’ 18 to 41 (being ‘“ Declarations ’’ rendered since the
close of the Copenhagen Congress), in so far as the required provisions
have not been included in the draft text of the “ Régles’’ published in
volume 14 of the ‘‘ Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature ”’

Point 1

Draft Article 6/1 : Declaration 41 clarifies the problem of recognition, for
the purposes of the Law of Availability, of names published in works written

in Latin. It is therefore proposed that it be incorporated into the revised a

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 1143

Réegles as a new paragraph (f) of Article 6, Section 1. The paragraphs now
numbered (f) to (n) would then be numbered (g) to (0).

Point 2

Draft Article 7, Section 5 : Declaration 38 provides that questions of the
disputed authorship of works are to be submitted to the Commission for decision
and is analogous in some respects to the existing provisions (draft Article 7 /2(e))
relating to the solution of questions of works of disputed or uncertain date.
It is suggestion that Declaration 38 be incorporated as a new Section 5 of
Article 7.

Point 3

Draft Article 18, Section 4 : Declaration 20 deals with the status of a family-
group name based upon the name of a genus that has been suppressed under
the Plenary Powers. Draft Article 13/4 deals with questions of changes in
family-group names, and it is proposed that Declaration 20 be incorporated
aS a new paragraph (c) in this Section.

Point 4

Draft Article 13, Section 3 : Declaration 37 deals with the question of the
relative precedence among family-group names published in the same work
on the same date and restores the “ First Reviser ” principle for these cases.
It is proposed that it be incorporated as a new paragraph (d) of the Section
named.

Point 5
Draft Article 18B : Declaration 31 clarifies the expression “ type-genus ”

in relation to family-group names. It is proposed that it be incorporated as
_ & new Section 6 in Article 18B.

Point 6

Draft Article 19/3(d)(ii) : This section deals with the determination of the
type-species of a genus by reference to a pre-Linnean univerbal specific name
that is tautonymous with the generic name. Declaration 29 introduces and
_ defines the term “ Linnean tautonymy ” for cases of this kind. It is proposed
_ that this Declaration be incorporated in the Régles by the addition of the phrase

(“type by Linnean tautonymy ”’) at the end of the subparagraph indicated.

1144 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
Point 7

Draft Article 20A/2: Declaration 35 clarifies the meaning of the word
“‘ syntype ” as used in the Reégles. It is proposed that it be incorporated as an
additional paragraph (iv) of draft Article 20A, Section 2.

Point 8

Draft Article 28, Section 11: The Copenhagen Congress (Copenhagen
Decisions : 51, Decision 85) instructs the Commission to review the rules for
the determination of the gender of generic names laid down in Decision 84 of
that Congress. Declarations 36 and 39 consist of parts of this review. The
first deals with names ending in -ops and -opsis and the second with names
ending in -cheilus (and -chilus), -gnathus, -rhamphus, -rhynchus and -stathus.
It is proposed that these two Declarations be incorporated in the form of
Schedules to Section 11 of draft Article 28.

Point 9

Draft Article 28, Section 11 : Although Declaration 40 forms no part of the
review, under Copenhagen Decision 85, of the gender rules provisionally adopted
under Copenhagen Decision 84 (since the terminations -ides, -ites and -oides,
dealt with in the Declaration, are not mentioned in Decision 84), nevertheless
it must clearly be assimilated into the revised Régles at the same point, namely,
as a Schedule related to Section 11 of Article 28.

Point 10

Draft Article 29/6(c) : Declaration 34 provides a mechanism for breaking
a stalemate that can (and in one actual case did) arise in taking votes from the
Commission in cases requiring the application of the Plenary Powers. It is
proposed that it be incorporated as a new subparagraph (iv) in draft Article
29/6(c). If this proposal is adopted, the subparagraphs now numbered (iv)
to (vi) would be numbered (v) to (vii).

Point 11

Draft Article 29/9(e)(v) : Declaration 19 prescribes the manner in which
entries are to be made in the Official List and Official Index of Specific Names
in Zoology. It is proposed that it be incorporated in the form of a Schedule
to the subparagraph and item given.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 1145

Point 12

Draft Article 29/9(e) (iii) : Declaration 18 prescribes the manner in which

Sines in Zoology. It is proposed that it be incorporated in the form of a
schedule to the subparagraph and item given.

1146 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

CASE No. 69

EXISTING “ REGLES ” : ACTION RECOMMENDED TO BE TAKEN

BY THE LONDON (1958) CONGRESS FOR THE PURPOSE OF

CONSOLIDATING IN THE REVISED “ REGLES’’ THE PRO-

VISIONS APPEARING IN SECTION “G’’ OF THE “APPENDICE ”’
TO THE EXISTING “ REGLES ”

(Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 1357)
DOCUMENT 69/1

By R. V. MELVILLE

(Assistant Secretary, International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature)

Up to the time of the Paris Congress, Section G of the Appendice to the
Régles laid down rules, considered to be mandatory, for the transliteration! into
Latin characters of names formed from geographical names in languages with
no alphabet or with some alphabet other than the Latin alphabet. The Paris
Congress, having first relegated these rules to the status of Recommandations
(Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 73), went on to exclude from the Section names formed
from geographical names in the Greek and Cyrillic alphabets, names of the
former origin to be dealt with in Section F of the Appendice, and those of the
latter origin in a new schedule (see Case No. 67). The same Congress also
declared that Item 16 of Section G, which stated, inter alia, that the Arabic
ain could be represented by the soft aspirate, should be amended in this
respect ; for Professor Boschma had shown (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 3 : 109) that the
Arabic ain corresponded in fact to the spiritus asper or esprit rude, and this
correction was accepted.

2. The Copenhagen (1953) Congress made no recommendations concerning
Section G of the Appendice, but since that time the subject has been discussed,
in letters to the Commission, by Professor J. Chester Bradley and Professor

1 A proposal to use the term “ Latinisation ” in place of “ transliteration” submitted by
Professor L. W. Grensted is reproduced as Document 38/1 on p. 753 of this volume.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 1147

L. W. Grensted. First, Professor Bradley (2nd January 1958) informed the
Secretary that he had not considered the treatment of the Appendice to be

Congress. The Secretary thereupon invited Professor Grensted, as Classical
Adviser to the Commission, to prepare papers on Sections F and G. Professor
Grensted’s report on Section F is reproduced as Document 67 /1 on p. 1110 above.
His comments relating to Section G were sent to the Secretary in an enclosure
with a letter of 26th March 1958. Secondly, Professor Bradley submitted a
paper of suggested alterations on 23rd March 1958, but as this paper was
marked “ not for publication ” it would not be proper to present it here for the
consideration of the Colloquium.

3. It therefore only remains to present the comments that are availabl©
for publication (namely, those submitted by Professor Grensted) in the form of
amendments to the existing text. Professor Boschma’s emendation of Item 16
is included for completeness, but since this has already been adopted by
Congress resolution, no affirmative vote is called for in this case,

4. It has already been proposed that Sections A to E of the Appendice
should be distributed among the various Articles of the revised Regles to which
they relate (see Document 59/1, p. 1017 above) and that Section F should be
consolidated into the revised Regles as a Schedule to Section 11 of Article 28.
It is now proposed that Section G should also be consolidated into the revised
Reégles as a Schedule to Section 11 of Article 28, with the following alterations :—

(i) Second introductory paragraph, first line, for “ paragraphs ” read
“rules ”’

(ii) Rule 2, for ii read ue (following recent discussions of diacritic marks)

(iii) Rule 5, delete the words following the semicolon. Alter the remainder
to read “An interrupted vowel sound is represented by an apos-
trophe ”

(iv) Rule 9 should read “ Kh represents the harsh guttural and gh the soft
guttural of Arabic ”

(v) Rule 10, delete the last phrase in parentheses. (The fact stated is
untrue ; there is no soft “th ” sound in Greek and ¢ is represented
by “ce VA od

(vi) Rule 16, for “ soft aspirate ” read “ spiritus asper”’,
95. The revised Section G of the Appendice (now proposed to be incorporated

into the revised Regles as a Schedule), therefore reads as shown in the attached
Annexe.

1148 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

ANNEXE
Revised Draft of Section G of the “ Appendice ”’

Latinisation of Geographical and Proper Names : The geographical names
of nations which employ the Latin characters are to be written with the ortho-
graphy of the country in which they originate.

The following rules apply only to the geographic names of countries
which have no true alphabet or which use letters that are different from the
Latin alphabet.

Names of places, however, which have been established by long usage
preserve their usual orthography. Examples : Algiers, Moscow.

(1) The vowels a, e, i and o are pronounced as in French, Italian, Spanish
or German. The letter e is never mute.

(2) The French sound u is represented by we, as in German.

(3) The French sound ow is represented by wu, as in Italian, Spanish, German,
etc.

(4) The French sound eu is represented by oe, pronounced as in the French
word oevl.

(5) The long sound of a vowel is indicated by a circumflex accent ; an
interrupted vowel sound is represented by an apostrophe.

(6) The consonants b, d, f, j, k, l, m, n, p, q, 7, t, v and z are pronounced
as in French.

(7) The letters g and s always have the hard sound, as in the French
words gamelle and sirop.

(8) The sound represented in French by ch is designated by sh. Examples :
Shérif, Kashgar.
(9) Kh represents the harsh guttural and gh the soft guttural of Arabic.

(10) Th represents the sound which terminates the English word path
(@ in Greek). Dh represents the sound which commences the English word
those.

(11) Aside from such employment (9, 10) of the letter 4 modifying the
letter which preceeds it, h is always aspirated ; the apostrophe is therefore
never used before a word commencing with h.

(12) The semivowel represented by y is pronounced as in yole.

(13) The semivowel w is pronounced as in the English word William.

(14) The double sounds dj, tch, ts, etc., are indicated by letters representing
the sounds which compose them. Example : Matshim.

(15) The fi is pronounced gn, as in seigneur.

(16) The letters 2; c and qg are not used, since they are duplicates of other

letters representing the same sounds ; but g may serve to indicate the Arabic
qaf and the spiritus asper may be used to represent the Arabic ain.

An attempt should be made to indicate as exactly as possible, by means
of the letters given above, the local pronunciation without trying to give
a complete representation of all the sounds which are heard.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 1149

CASE No. 70

DRAFT “REGLES’’, ARTICLE 28, SECTION 10: GENERAL
PROVISIONS RELATING TO THE FORMATION OF GENERIC
NAMES

(Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 1368)

DOCUMENT 70/1

Proposed re-casting of Section 10 of Article 28 of the Draft of the
revised English text of the “‘ Régles ”’

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

(Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature)
(Note dated 15th May 1958)

When early in 1956 the International Commission came to vote upon an
application regarding the name Hemiprocne Nitzsch, 1829, (a name published
for a genus of bird) submitted by Dr. John T. Zimmer (The American Museum
of Natural History, New York) two members of the Commission (J. Chester
Bradley ; P. C. Sylvester-Bradley) drew attention to an inconsistency between
Decisions 78 and 79 of the Copenhagen Congress (1953, Copenhagen Decisions
zool. Nomencl. : 47-48). The case in which the foregoing situation came to
light was later embodied in Opinion 457 (1957, Ops. Decls. int. Comm. zool.
Nomencl. 15 : 419-432). In that Opinion the point raised by the Commissioners
referred to above was set out for purposes of record in a Minute executed by
myself as Secretary on 13th March 1956, the text of which was reproduced
in paragraph 8 of that Opinion.

1150 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

2. In order to simplify the presentation of the issue here involved the
Minute referred to above is annexed to the present paper as Appendix 1.
Reference to this Minute will show (i) that in Section (1)(a)(i) of the formula
set out in Decision 78 the Copenhagen Congress reaffirmed the Ruling previously
given by the Commission in its Opinion 457 that it was an essential condition
that in order to acquire the status of availability, a generic name . . . should
have been ‘‘ published in the nominative singular”’, this requirement being there
incorporated in the mandatory provisions of Article 8 (as the Article relating
to the formation of generic names then was) and (ii) that in Decision 79 con-
traventions of the “‘ mandatory ” provisions of Article 8 were to be subject
to automatic correction. It will be immediately apparent that, so far as
concerns the provision that a generic name must be a noun in the nominative
singular the application of “ automatic correction ’’ under Decision 79 would
completely nullify the provision in Decision 78 that publication in the nomina-
tive singular is an essential prerequisite to the acquisition by a generic name of
the status of availability.

8. On the occasion discussed above the foregoing subject was duly noted
as one which would require to be brought before the Colloquium on Zoological
Nomenclature and the International Congress of Zoology to be held in London
in July 1958. The appearance of the text of the Revised Draft of the Regles,
where the Copenhagen Decisions 78 and 79 are dealt with in Section 10 of Article
28 (1957, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 14 : 205-206) created a new situation which called
for a fresh review of the question of the procedure to be adopted for remedying
the inconsistency between Copenhagen Decisions 78 and 79. The reason for
this is that, as compiler of the draft of the revised text of the Régles, Professor
Chester Bradley has omitted the greater part of Copenhagen Decision 78 on
the ground that (as he explains in his compiler’s notes), there is, in his view,
no need as regards most of the provisions concerned to be included (as decided
upon at Copenhagen) in the Article relating to the formation of generic names
[i.e. the equivalent of Article 8 of the existing Régles]. In accordance with this
view Professor Bradley has spread out among other Articles most of the
components of the Article here in question as that Article was envisaged at
Copenhagen. It is necessary to examine what is left of Copenhagen Decision 78
in the new provision (Article 28, Section 10) as a preliminary to considering
whether the provisions transferred from Copenhagen Decision 78 to the new
Article are in any way inconsistent (as was Decision 78 itself) with the
provisions of Copenhagen Decision 79.

4, In the Draft of the Revised text of the Régles Copenhagen Decision 78
is reproduced in the following truncated form :—

Existing Draft of Section 10 of Article 28

Section 10 :—A generic or subgeneric name must be a noun in the
nominative singular, or be so treated.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 1151

5. It is necessary for the present purposes to draw attention to an undesir-
able ambiguity introduced into this provision through a departure from the
terms of the relevant decision by the Paris Congress (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl.
4 :139—140). The point missed by the present over-simplified version is
that, in order to acquire the status of availability, a generic name must
consist of a noun “ published” in the nominative singular. The point is of
importance for in the case of many nouns it is not possible if the word is cited
in some case other than the nominative to be sure what is the correct form
for the nominative singular. It was for this reason that the Commission in
its Opinion 183 and later the Paris Congress of 1948 expressly stipulated that
a generic name must have been published in the nominative singular before it
could be treated as being acceptable nomenclatorially. In this connection
it appears to me that the meaning of the subordinate phrase “ or be so treated ”’
[i.e. be treated as a word in the nominative singular] is rendered obscure by the
unfortunate decision on the part of the compiler to omit the example originally
suggested by Professor H. Boschma which appears in the Copenhagen Decision
78—namely the generic name Potamon. That name, though a Latin-alphabet-
ised version of a Greek noun in the genitive plural (meaning “ of the rivers ’’)
is nonetheless acceptable as a generic name by reason of its having been treated
by its original author as though it were a noun in the nominative singular.

6. Another portion of Decision 78 which for some reason does not find
a place in Section 10 of Article 28 as at present drafted is the requirement in
Article 8 of the existing Régles that a generic name must be written with a
“capital initial letter’, though this provision is referred to with approval
in lines 37 to 39 in the “ Discussion ”’ relating to this part of the Draft which
appears on page 207 of Volume 14 of the Bulletin. This provision should
certainly be included in the revised text of the Régles and Section 10 of Article 28
of Professor Bradley’s Draft seems to be the most suitable place in which to
insert it. The publication of a generic name with a small initial letter has not
in the past been treated by the Commission as invalidating that name, the view
having been taken that this was a minor error which should be regarded as
subject to automatic correction by subsequent authors. In the provision
now to be inserted this matter should, I recommend, be provided for accord-

ingly.

7. Before passing to consider the principal issue involved in this case,
I should like to refer to one minor point of drafting which arises in connection
with the draft of Section 10 of Article 28. This is the addition by the compiler
of the words “ or subgenus ”’ after the word “genus”. I suggest that these
words should be omitted. First, they are, I think, unnecessary, having regard
to the provision elsewhere in the Régles (in Article 7 of the existing Régles and
in Article 14, Section 1(a) in the Draft now before the Congress (Bull. zool.
Nomencl. 14 : 100)) that generic and subgeneric names are co-ordinate in status.
Second, it would appear illogical to include an express reference to subgeneric

1152 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

names at this point without doing so at every other point in the text of the
Regles where any reference is made to a generic name.

8. We must now turn to examine the circumstances in which Decisions 78
and 79 of the Copenhagen Congress came to be drafted in an inconsistent manner.
Those zoologists who took part in the Copenhagen discussions will recall that
a number of speakers at the Colloquium urged that as few as possible of the
provisions already agreed upon in relation to the formation and orthography
of generic names should be mandatory in character, as many as possible being
reduced from mandatory rank to the status of Recommandations. In the
time then available it was not possible for the Colloquium and Congress to
re-examine the whole of the numerous provisions then included in, or associated
with, Article 8 for the purpose of determining which should continue to be of
mandatory force and which should be reduced in status in the manner described
above. It was accordingly decided that this task should be delegated to
myself as the Chairman of the Colloquium. The formula so prepared is that
which was later embodied in Decision 78. At this point I have to express
regret for having—as draftsman—been responsible for the discrepancy now
found to exist between Decisions 78 and 79. I should explain that, as the
result of having examined the various provisions associated with (the old)
Article 8, I came to the conclusion that of the particular, as contrasted with the
general, provisions concerned the only one which should retain its mandatory
status was that relating to names based on modern patronymics, the first
portion of which consists of certain specified particles (Copenhagen Decision 80)
and all the remainder should be reduced to the status of Recommandations.
It was in the light of this conclusion that Section (1)(b) and Section (2) of the
formula set out in Decision 78 were drafted. It was with the same considera-
tions in mind that, as had been agreed in the Colloquium I prepared the draft
of Decision 79 regarding the automatic correction by later workers of any
infringement of provision (1)(b) in Decision 78 referred to above. At this
point I thought that it would be convenient to include also in Decision 78 par-
ticulars of the other portions of the existing Article 8 which need to be retained
Hence it was that Section (1)(a) was included in the draft. Unfortunately,
in preparing that draft I failed to insert words making it clear that, although
the “automatic correction”? procedure was to apply to infringements of
Section (1)(b), they were not to apply to infringements of Section (1)(a). In
order to clear up this matter which, as is clear from the ‘‘ Discussion ”’ printed
on pages 206 and 207 of Volume 14 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature,
has proved a source of difficulty to Professor Chester Bradley as compiler of
the draft of the Revised Text of the Régles, it is necessary that, so far as the
provisions as to corrections are concerned, Sub-Sections (a) and (b) in Section (1)
in Decision 78 should be separated from one another. Breaches of Sub-Section (b)
should remain subject to automatic correction. Section (a) should be re-
drafted so as to make it clear which are the portions, breaches of which are to be
subject to correction by later workers and which are not to be so subject,
breaches of the provisions in question being regarded as so serious as to invalidate
the name in question.

PE Ee

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 1153

9. If we leave on one side for separate consideration (if such is desired)
the question whether the compiler was well-advised in departing so radically
from the form of the decision by the Copenhagen Congress recorded as Decision
78, I recommend that, in order to meet the points noted in the present paper :—

the drafts of Section 10 (Bull. 14 : 205, lines 20-22) of Article 28 of the
Draft Regles and Sub-Section (a) of that Section (ibid. 14 : 206, lines
1-4) be replaced by the suggested revised provision set out in Appendix 2
to the present paper.

APPENDIX 1

Minute by the Secretary dated 13th March 1956 and included in “‘ Opinion ’’
457 in paragraph 8 (1957, Ops. Decls. int. Comm. zool. Nomencel. 15 :
429-430)

An apparent inconsistency between Decisions 78 and 79 taken

by the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology,

Copenhagen 1953, in regard to the formation of generic
names

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

(Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature)

Two members of the International Commission (Professor J. Chester
Bradley ; Mr. P. C. Sylvester-Bradley) have drawn my attention, with reference
to Mr. John T. Zimmer’s application regarding the generic name Hemiprocne
as published by Nitzsch in 1829 in the nominative plural as Hemiprocnes, to
an apparent inconsistency between Decisions 78 and 79 taken by the Fourteenth
International Congress of Zoology, Copenhagen, 1953 (1953, Copenhagen
Decisions zool. Nomencl. : 47-48) which will require to be considered by the
Fifteenth International Congress of Zoology when it meets in London in 1958.
In the first of these decisions the Copenhagen Congress reaffirmed without
discussion a decision taken by the Thirteenth Congress in Paris in 1948 that
the Ruling given in Opinion 183 that, in order to acquire availability, a generic
name must first be published in the nominative singular should be incorporated
in the Régles (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 139-140). Under the decision so
taken the foregoing provision adopted by the Paris Congress was included
both by that Congress and by the Copenhagen Congress among the mandatory

1154 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

provisions of Article 8. Under the second of the decisions referred to above
(Decision 79) the Copenhagen Congress inserted in the Régles a provision
under which any breaches of the mandatory provisions in Article 8 became
subject to automatic correction. So far as concerns the mandatory provision
embodying the Ruling originally given in Opinion 183, Decision 79 prescribing
automatic correction is incapable of application in many cases, for, as is obvious,
it is impossible in many cases to determine what is the correct form for the
nominative singular of a Latin noun if the only evidence available is a version of
that word in some other case or number. The fact that Decision 79 was so
drafted as to bring within its scope the portion of Decision 78 dealing with the
foregoing matter was due solely to inadvertence.

2. The case raised by Dr. Zimmer illustrates very clearly the impossibility
in certain cases of applying Copenhagen Decision 79 to the provision discussed
above, for more inspection of the nominative plural Hemiprocnes published by
Nitzsch in 1829 would not be sufficient to establish beyond question that the
nominative singular intended by Nitzsch was Hemiprocne, even though it
might establish a high degree of probability that this was Nitzsch’s intention.

3. Fortunately, the inconsistency in the record of the Copenhagen Decisions
discussed in paragraph 1 above does not affect the particular case under
consideration, for in his application Dr. Zimmer asked that the object which
he sought should be attained by the use by the Commission of its Plenary
Powers. In the present case therefore the question discussed above is of
academic interest only.

APPENDIX 2

Draft “ Régles ’’, Article 28, Section 10 and 10(a) : suggested revised
text for

Section 10. Grammatical nature :—A generic name must be a noun or a
word treated as such by its original author, and, in order to acquire the status
of availability, must be published in the nominative singular or, if it is not
a word of classical origin as though it were a word cited in that case and
number.

Examples :—

Productus : Although an adjective, this word is available as a generic
name because it was treated by its original author as though it were a
noun.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 1155

Potamon: Although a Latinised version of a Greek word in the
genitive plural, this word is available as a generic name because it was
treated by its original author as though it were a word cited in the

- nominative singular.

(a) Citation : A generic name must be written with a capital initial letter,
_ and a name not so published is to be corrected by subsequent authors but
_ should continue to be attributed to its original author and date.

1156 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

CASE No. 71

DRAFT “ REGLES ’’, ARTICLE 24, SECTION 12: DIFFERENCES
IN SPELLING TO BE IGNORED FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE
LAW OF HOMONYMY

(Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 1369)

DOCUMENT 71/1

By R. V. MELVILLE

(Assistant Secretary, International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature)

The problem of differences of spelling among specific names that are to be
ignored for the purposes of the Law of Homonymy has long caused difficulty,
partly because it is only possible to illustrate the principle by examples, and
no list of such examples is ever quite complete. Hence zoologists, especially
if they have no knowledge of the classical languages, may at any time be
faced with the problem of whether two specific names that are found in the
same genus, either primarily or secondarily, and, being of the same meaning
and origin, differ in spelling by only a single letter, are to be regarded as
homonyms or not.

2. The problem as regards names of this kind where the difference arises
from the Latinization of geographical names that originate in languages with
no alphabet or in one with some other than the Latin alphabet, is dealt with
in Declaration 23 (see Document 68/1, p. 1121 above). The majority of cases
that are not of this sort probably arise from different spellings of Latin words
themselves, as in Examples 5 and 6 given in Draft Article 24, Section 12 (Bull.
zool. Nomencl. 14 : 181)—‘‘ autumnalis and auctumnalis”’ and “ litoralis,
littoralis’’. Other similar cases have been mentioned in correspondence
addressed by zoologists to the Commission, such as quatuor, quattuor and
litera, littera.

re oe

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 1157

3. In so far as this question is concerned with Latin words, it was obviously
proper to seek the advice of the Commission’s Consulting Classical Adviser.
Professor Grensted gave several further examples of the kind under discussion,
and pointed out that spelling was not uniform even in classical Latin, let alone
the Latin of mediaeval and recent times. He proposed a clause to cover all
cases of this general sort, and the following proposal is based on his draft, with
grateful acknowledgment.

4. It is proposed that Examples 5 and 6 given in Section 12 of Article 24
in Professor J. Chester Bradley’s draft be deleted and that the examples now
numbered 7 to 12 be now numbered 5 to 10 ; that the resulting Examples 1 to
10 be grouped as paragraph (i) of the Section referred to; and that a new
paragraph (ii) be added as follows :—

(ii) Where two spellings of a single Latin word have come into current use
in zoological nomenclature, whether the two spellings are of classical,
mediaeval or recent origin, generic names, or specific names within
a single genus, having either of these spellings are to be regarded
as homonyms. Any zoologist who believes he has detected a case
of homonymy of this sort should refer the matter to the Commission
for decision.

_ Examples : autumnalis, auctumnalis ; anul-us (-aris), annul-us (-aris) ;
decem-, decim-; liter-a (-atus), litter-a (-atus); litoralis, littoralis ;
mamill-a (-aris, -atus), mammill-a (-aris, -atus) ; quatuor, quattuor.

5. If this proposal is adopted, then the position with regard to names that
may or may not be homonyms in terms of the proposal will be analogous with
names originating from geographical names dealt with in Declaration 40.
Since doubtful cases of this latter kind that are met with in the future are to be
submitted to the Commission for decision, the same course should clearly be
adopted with doubtful cases of the kind considered in the present paper. This
will entail a slight emendation of the clause covering the Commission’s duties
in this respect (draft Article 29, Section 7 (aa)), and the following is proposed :—

(aa) Similar generic and specific names.—It shall be the duty of the
Commission to decide whether two generic names, or two specific
names in the same genus, derived from the same geographical name
in a language without an alphabet, or in a language with some other
than the Latin alphabet, or from variant spellings of the same
Latin word are to be treated as homonyms.

1158 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

CASE No. 72

DRAFT “ REGLES ’’, ARTICLE 28, SECTION 4(a) :
' THE DIAERESIS SYMBOL

(Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 1013)

DOCUMENT 72/1

By R. V. MELVILLE
(Assistant Secretary, International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature)

In the draft English text of the revised Régles, Article 28, Section 4, para-
graph (a), the diaeresis symbol is excluded from the category of diacritic marks.
The Copenhagen Congress decided (1953, Copenhagen Decisions : 79, Decision
155) that diacritic marks were to be replaced by the equivalent letters according
to a schedule to be prepared, but clearly the diaeresis symbol cannot be treated
in this way, since its function is not to represent a suppressed letter, but to show
that two adjacent vowels are to be pronounced separately.

2. In a paper published in 1957 (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 13 : 292-293), the
Secretary discussed the question of the diaeresis in zoological names in a draft —
Declaration as follows :—

In the case of a zoological name which either consists of, or is com-
_ pounded with, a word in which, prior to its use for taxonomic purposes,
two adjacent vowels were separated into two syllables by a diaeresis, this
division is to be indicated by the use of the symbol [*-] placed over the
vowel which constitutes the second syllable.
Example : The vowels of the name “Chloe” are to be divided into two
syllables by a diaeresis. Accordingly, when this word is used as a ZOO- —
logical name, it should be written as Chloé and not as Chloe.

8. The publication of this paper elicited comments from three sources.
Two of these comments (by Professor Charles H. Blake and Mr. C. F. dos
Passos) favoured the retention of the diaeresis symbol ; the third (from Mr. C. W.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 1159

Sabrosky, on behalf of Dr. P. W. Oman, Dr. C. F. W. Muesebeck and Dr. Alan
Stone as well as himself) recommended its discontinuance. These comments
are reproduced as Annexes 1, 2 and 3 to this paper. Owing to the limited
interval of time between the publication of this paper and the date of the
London Congress, it has been decided to remit the question to the Colloquium
instead of proceeding with the proposed Declaration.

4, The correspondence on which the Commission’s file on this subject was
first opened, however, dealt with a name of a kind that was not covered by the
draft Declaration, since the name in question neither consists of nor is compounded
with a word in which, prior to its use for taxonomic purposes, two adjacent
vowels were separated by a diaeresis. The name in question was the specific
name first published by J. Sowerby in 1812 in the combination Terebratula
tetraédra and applied to a species of Brachiopod which is one of the common-
est fossils of the Marlstone Rock-bed in the British Middle Lias (Jurassic).
This species was later transferred to the genus Rhynchonella and in 1918 was
made type-species by original designation of the genus Tetrarhynchia by S. S.
Buckman. The question of the correct orthography of this name was brought
to the attention of the Office of the Commission by Dr. D. V. Ager who was then
preparing the text of the first part of his ‘“ Monograph of the British Liassic
Rhynchonellidae ” for publication by the Palaeontographical Society, of which
I was at that time the editor, in 1956.

5. The specific name in ‘his case is compounded from the Greek words
tétpx and édpov, which should be correctly Latinized as “tetra” and
“hedron”’. Sowerby was thus guilty of an error of Latinization when he
first published the name in the form tetraédra, for he introduced a diaeresis
where none had existed before and he altered the ending of the second com-
ponent. Article 11, Section 1(a) of the draft English text of the revised
Régles (referring to Copenhagen Decisions 43 : Decision 71(1)(a)(i)), rules that
errors of Latinization [transliteration] are not to be regarded as “ inadvertent
errors ” and are thus not to be corrected. Sowerby’s name must thus retain
its diaeresis symbol in virtue of the terms of this article, but must discard it in
virtue of the terms of Mr. Hemming’s draft Declaration.

6. Thomas Davidson, the pre-eminent nineteenth century authority on
British Brachiopods, seems to have been the first to introduce the spelling
tetrahedra, although he sometimes used this spelling and sometimes the original
spelling in his “ Monograph of the British Fossil Brachiopoda”’ (Palaeonto-
graphical Society, 1851-1886) (information kindly supplied by Dr. H. M.
Muir-Wood). R. Tate (1876, in Tate and Blake, The Yorkshire Lias) used
tetrahedra, but Buckman in 1918 spelt the name tetraedra. There is, however,
no doubt that the name is most familiar to British palaeontologists, field
geologists and students, to all of whom the species in question is an important
one, in the spelling tetrahedra. It was this consideration of usage among
both the “ pure” and the “applied ” users of the name that was uppermost

1160 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

in my mind when, as editor of Dr. Ager’s monograph, I requested him to use
the spelling tetrahedra and to explain his action in the following passage (Ager,
1956, op. cit., pp. 7-8) :-—

J. Sowerby originally named this species T'erebratula tetraédra. The specific
name has commonly been transliterated since the later part of the last century
as tetrahedra. Under Article 20 of the International Code of Zoological Nomen-
clature (Schenk and McMasters 1948) this was not valid since “the exact
original spelling including diacritic marks is to be retained”. At the Zoo-
logical Congress at Copenhagen in 1953 the suspension of this Article was
proposed in paragraph 101 of the Recommandations (Hemming, 1953 : 57)
and this was subsequently approved by the Congress. It was recommended
that the respelling of words following the dropping of diacritic marks was to
conform with a schedule not yet published. It is not clear whether the diaeresis
is to be regarded as a diacritic mark or not but for the present it is proposed
to adhere to the spelling tetrahedra not only because this is the form in which the
word is most familiar but also on the grounds that Sowerby was guilty of
a manifest error when he transliterated the word from Greek to English. The
Greek words are terpx and dpa and should have been written “tetra”.
and “‘ hedra’’. The diaeresis in this case separates two vowels each belonging
to different parts of a compound word and ought to be considered in a different
way from such cases as “ alcinoé ”’, “‘ chloé”’ etc., where this is not so. The
question of the diaeresis will be raised at the next meeting of the International
Congress in 1958 and a definite ruling on this matter may then be expected.

7. The sort of case represented by the present instance can be dealt with
in one of two ways. Either every case of the irregular or anomalous use of the
diaeresis symbol can be submitted to the Commission for a ruling in an Opinion,
or the draft Declaration can be amended by the addition of words to cover
the general issue. The latter course, however, is not easy for me to recommend
at present, for I know of no other case of the false intrusion of a diaeresis than
that here discussed. If a satisfactory form of words could be devised, their
adoption would help to bring all cases of the same sort into the domain of
“ automatic nomenclature ’’, so that this course is so much the more to be
favoured if it can be made feasible. The addition of the following words to the
draft Declaration is therefore suggested (as a basis for discussion) at the end of
the first sentence and before the Example :—

Names in which a diaeresis symbol has been introduced as a result
of an error in Latinization of a Greek word or of a compound word in
which both components are of Greek origin are to be automatically corrected
by the substitution of the correctly Latinized form of the syllables
concerned.

8. It is proposed that the draft of the proposed Declaration, as amended
by the addition of the above sentence, be incorporated in the draft Regles
as a new Section 4 of Article 28. The Sections now numbered 4 to 18 would
then be numbered 5 to 19.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 116)

ANNEXE 1
(Extract from letter from CHARLES H. BLAKE dated 12th October 1957)

In connection with the proposal to make a Declaration relative to the use
of the diaeresis, I present the following considerations. So far as the ordinary
languages of western Europe are concerned, the diaeresis has only one function
namely to indicate that two successive vowels are pronounced separately
rather than as a diphthong. Since scientific names are, by definition, either of
Latin origin or Latinised words of other languages, it would seem that the
diaeresis can only be used in places where the Romans themselves would have
used it. For example, it is necessary in aédon. On the other hand it is not
necessary in Picoides. This is in spite of the fact that the diaeresis was originally
published on the second i because it was used to show that the diphthong was
pronounced as in Greek and not as in French. I cannot at the moment call
to mind any case in which the same spelling with and without a diaeresis has
different meanings but would not be surprised if such cases occur.

It should be noted further that the Germans do not appear to use the
diaeresis, presumably on the theory that a German always knows how to
pronounce a German word and ignores the problem of pronouncing words
from other languages.

It should be noted also that it is more or less customary to ignore the
proper form of the diaeresis [**], German Umlaut ["] and the double acute
accent in Hungarian ["’].

It is evident that I favor, then, the retention of the diaeresis in its
proper places with the proviso that it not be confused with other diacritical
marks.

ANNEXE 2
(Extract from letter from CYRIL F. DOS PASSOS dated 16th December 1957)

I have read the draft of a suggested provision contained in your paper
entitled “‘ Proposed adoption of a Declaration clarifying the question whether
in the case of a zoological name in which two adjacent vowels constitute
separate syllables a symbol signifying the diaeresis should under Article 20
of the Régles be placed over the second of the vowels concerned ’’, and amin
complete accord therewith.

1162 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
ANNEXE 3

(Extract from letter from CURTIS W. SABROSKY dated 22nd November 1957)

The problem has been discussed with my colleagues P. W. Oman, C. F. W.
Muesebeck and Alan Stone. This letter reflects the view of all four of us.

We doubt that any serious confusion would arise from dispensing
altogether with the use of the diaeresis symbol. The modern trend is toward
simplification, and many words which once carried the diaeresis (zodlogy,
codperate, etc.) are now customarily printed without it. We suspect that
many scientific names have also lost their original diaeresis symbol, without
causing any difficulty. For example, in the dipterous family LARVAEVORIDAE
(Tachinidae), Roéselia and Thelaira were both proposed with the diaeresis
symbol by Robineau-Desvoidy (1830) but are now regularly used without it.
The first appears now only in synonymies, but Thelaira is a common well-known
name. It appears without the diaeresis symbol in such standard works as
Neave’s Nomenclator Zoologicus, Aldrich’s Catalogue of North American Diptera
(1905), Bezzi and Stein in vol. 3 of the Katalog der Palaérktischen Dipteren
(1907), Stein’s ‘‘ Die verbreitetsten Tachiniden ” (1924), Townsend’s Manual
of Myiology (1936, 1939), Kloet and Kincks’ Check List of British Insects (1945),
and van Emden on Tachinidae in the Handbooks for the Identification of British
Insects (1954). The dropping of the diaeresis symbol has caused no difficulty
or confusion whatsoever. We note that in some cases the diaeresis symbol
has been added (e.g. Aedes and Meloe, which were proposed thus, were emended
to Aédes and Meloé), but it was recognised long ago that no good was served
and the symbols were dropped.

Like the decision to avoid the use of diacritic marks, dropping the diaeresis
symbol would be another step in the direction of simplifying names. The
less complicated the names, the fewer errors there will be when they are
printed in other countries and in other type faces.

Accordingly, we oppose the suggested provision which would require
the diaeresis, and suggest instead that a section be added to the new Code to
provide that the diaeresis symbol shall not be used.

é

eS PRS SS St

=~

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 1163

CASE No. 73

DRAFT “‘ REGLES ” : THE QUESTION OF THE STATUS OF THE
“ GLOSSARY ”’

(Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 1370)

DOCUMENT 73/1

By R. V. MELVILLE

(Assistant Secretary, International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature)

In the draft English text of the revised Régles Professor J. Chester Bradley
has relegated all definitions of technical terms and “terms of art’, together
with definitions of many words used in their ordinary sense, to a “‘ Glossary ”’.
No provision for such a ‘Glossary’ is to be found in any of the existing
Régles or in any of the Congress decisions which have had as their object the
definition of the form and structure of the revised Régles. On the contrary,
the various formal definitions that were formulated by the Paris (1948) and
Copenhagen (1953) Congresses were directed to be incorporated into the
substantive text of the Régles. In excluding them from the legislative part
of the text, Professor Bradley has thus presented the Colloquium with a
serious problem, for consideration will have to be given to the question whether
these existing official definitions are to be replaced in their authorised positions
in the legislative text, or whether a new Article, forming an integral part of the
Regles (after the pattern of the ‘defining clause’ incorporated in British
Acts of Parliament) is to be created for their reception.

2. The question outlined in the preceding paragraph is not, however, the
only one to which the Colloquium will have to find an answer, since, apart
from giving in his “ Glossary ”’ definitions of terms which previous Congresses
had decided should be defined (and often in words other than those authorised
by those Congresses), Professor Bradley has added definitions of other terms
for which no prior authorisation existed. Some of the definitions so introduced
for the first time are clearly necessary and useful, as, for example, those in
which the various taxonomic categories other than those for which the Paris
Congress provided definitions, are defined. Others relate to technical terms,
such as “ nomen conservandum’”’ and ‘‘ nomen conservatum’”’, which have no
authorised usage in the Régles and which seem to introduce an undesirable
element of jargon. Yet a third group of definitions applies to words used

1164 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

either exactly in the sense in which they are defined in any standard
dictionary, or in a sense so little different that all zoologists will immediately
comprehend their meaning. Thus, if the Colloquium follows the instructions
of previous Cogresses relating to the incorporation of the existing official
definitions in the Régles, there will remain an unplaced residue of Professor
Bradley’s new introductions. Some of the definitions so introduced will no
doubt find their proper places in the Régles without difficulty, but this will not
be the case with those of the second and third kinds mentioned above. If, on
the other hand, the Colloquium decides to recommend the creation of a new
Article to contain the “Glossary”, then the content of that ‘‘ Glossary ”
will have to be decided. There seems little reason why it should contain
definitions of some, but by no means all, of the words used in the Régles with
their ordinary meanings as given in standard dictionaries.

3. Study of Professor Bradley’s draft reveals that, in fact, a number of
necessary definitions have been embodied in the legislative text, and it is not
always clear what principle has determined whether a given definition was
included in the text or relegated to the ‘‘ Glossary’. This, coupled with the
fact that the other required definitions will be more likely to be noticed and
understood if they are placed in direct relation to the relevant parts of the
Régles, is a strong argument in favour of dispensing with a “‘ Glossary ”’ as such.
On the other hand, a defining Article would be of great utility, especially to
those in the early stages of their acquaintance with nomenclature, since it
would facilitate an understanding of the terms employed and would make it
unnecessary to search for the definitions of these terms in the legislative text.

4, The following instances point out some of the anomalies created by the
unregulated position of the “ Glossary ”’ as it stands in the draft :—

(i) The definition of the term “Family-group” provided by the
Copenhagen Congress is the only definition of a taxonomic category not placed
in the ‘‘ Glossary ’’ ; it has been placed in draft Article 13, Section 1(a).

(ii) Article XXI of the existing Régles defining the term “author”,
has been deleted from the code and placed in the “ Glossary ”’.

(iii) The definition of the term ‘“‘ date of publication ’’ which, according
to a decision of the Paris Congress (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 223, Conclusion
18(a)), was to have been placed “in or near” Article XXV of the existing
Régles, has been removed from the code and placed in the “ Glossary ”’.

>

(iv) The phrase ‘‘ nominal taxon ”’ is fundamental to zoological nomen-
clature, but its meaning is often not understood by zoologists. A definition of
it might be expected in the ‘‘ Glossary ”’ (and in my view should certainly be
included in a defining article if such an article is to be included in the revised
Régles), together with a definitition of “taxonomic taxon”. The Foreword
to draft Article 18 contains words which could form the basis of such definitions.

if OPI NL ERENT

sys

wae Sty,

gee OR:

a ee - se ee —_ . - wes r
Peasant EE ES TLE LAD ED LILI NEON Ne sida eta: cae ae ne oe

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 1165

(v) The Paris Congress (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4:118, Conclusion 1(2))
provided definitions of the terms “ homonym”’, “ primary homonym” and
“secondary homonym ” to be included in Articles replacing Articles KX XV and
XXXVI of the existing Régles. These definitions have been excluded from the
draft Réegles and placed in the “ Glossary ”’.

5. It is therefore proposed that provision be made for the addition of a
defining Article to the Régles. It is suggested that the best position for this
Article would be after draft Article 29 (which prescribes the organisation,
functions, powers, duties and procedure of the Commission) and before Article
30 (the terms of which affect the whole of the rest of the Régles, and thus
affect the definitions, whether these are distributed throughout the legislative
text or segregated in a special Article). If this proposal is found acceptable,
the “Glossary ’’ would bear the Article-number 30 and the Article now
numbered 30 would become Article 31. It is further proposed that the
defining Article should define only those terms used in a technical sense or as
“terms of art ” in the legislative text, and that all other terms and definitions
be excluded.

6. The appended Table gives in its four columns, (i) the expressions listed
in Professor Bradley’s “Glossary”; (ii) reference to any previous official
definitions, together with the wording of each definition as officially approved
by the relevant Congress, where Professor Bradley’s wording differs ; (iii) a
sign to indicate those definitions introduced for the first time by Professor
Bradley ; and (iv) remarks on sundry items. An asterisk is prefixed to each
term in the first column which ought to be included in the proposed defining
Article.

-qns unou ev SuIeq 4sIG 94} “SpsosM
omy jo Suysistoo omvu & soroeds
Aras Butats Jo ‘ggL] ‘anunoyy vmashsy
ayy Jo UOTHTpe WOT oy} wr snowuury Aq
poonposqur ‘w194shs oyy SB ECT: Ga UT
pougop ‘,, cNzepUSUTOU [VUTULOUTA ,,%
jo oroymAue ueAald st uoryTUyep ON
‘amosgo st (q ‘Z) € “LZL: VA OF 90U0

p ~dogoy “SopTeUOT}OIP prepueys ul pouyod xX yeuraroulq
=
Ss
3 soroods @ Jo oureu
5 _, oueu oytoeds ,, Suruyop oyTUSIOS oy} soqyngzIysuU0D YOM Oly
> (q ‘Z) € ‘LBL? PA JO SULIO} UI SpIOMOY ~eurquioo yeurumourq ogy, “91 “sed 0:9 UOTIOUIG »
S soLIVUOTpIp prepueys Ul peuBod, X snoreqreq
aS)
S uondiosep 10 UoTyUBep “WOr1yeoTpul
> Sy pue oUeU pres oy} JOF o[qisuodsoar st
Ss uosied s0y30 ouIOS yey} UOTyeoTTqnd oT}
S& Jo syusquoo oY} WOU Ive] ST 41 ssofuN
F ‘aomdiiosep 8 10 UOTPUyep @ ‘WOl}eoTpUl
popr0omed We YYIM UOTeUUOD UI ou oY} SOUST]
pue Aressopy) 0} sabey wor poaouloy -qnd ysag oym uossed yey, “IXX'al " Joune,
soLeUuoTpIp prvpueys Ul pouged X snouAuoue

PSR RGR EOS OEE he | ee eee a ee

3X0}
s ysysuq 3Jeip (WoIsIOep SSeISUOD 1048] JO ,, S9132H 55
= syeuley Ul pouljop ISILT Suljsixe) UONTUTJep SsNorAdd uolsseldxy

1167

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

qq pesuodsip oq pmmoys wey}

jo ouo ‘Suruvom owes oy} YPM poesn

Que SUII0} OM} 94} JI “WOryeAdosuUo/-)
jo qidioursg 0} yueyeamnbe st pougep SV
soleuoryrp prepueys Ut pougod

solBUOIpOIp pavpueys Ul pouyod,

uoMTUyep yeuorstaoad ¥ Jog 1/63 9PVAV
qyeap cog ‘UoTUgop @ you St SUL,

solzeUoTjoIp prvpurys Ul pougod

goleUoTpIp prvpureys UT pouyody
soLIvUOTpOIp prepueys Ul pouyod,

(oureu oytoods oy) ourett o119ues
oy} WILMA oseo pue Joquunu ‘Jgpues Ul
Zuroose oatjolpe uv (MT) 10 ‘reTNSUIS
aatytues oy} Ul unoU ¥ (m) ‘oureu
oleues oY} OF uomsodde ur sejnsuts
oAIyeuTMIOU oy} UT UnoU w (1) Joq}O
puooes oy} pus (omeU olzeues 913)
ren3uis oatyeuTmou oy} UT oAT}URAS

KK OK

6) jo MOT
Aqmuryaoo

‘9 Jo odious
u0TyeAIOSUOO

UOISSTUITAO/)
[Borsseyo
SSBOy

Ai0Z0ye0

yoxoe1q

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

1168

syeodoyy
SOLVUOT}OIP prvpueys Ul pougog

SOLIVUOTJOIP prepULys UT pouyaq

(e)(Z) IL ‘red FH: -O UOTyepuduo,

qusUINdoOp

yseul o1Loerp

«, JVpUsTVO UBIIOSeIN) oY} 04 Burpsoooe
peuoyxoor ,, JO UoTppe YYM syvodoy £66: VA 28

quoumnoop
peyejor Aue 10 poo oY UI UeATS oq you
Pnoys uortuyop @ “(9 ‘soy /OZ ePrAVy
qeIp 9988 < 16]? pq) W419, styy osn
0} JOU posIApe Useq aAVY sAOYyNE oOUTG Xx ad.4400
dnoa3-ATrorey oy} ut £1080}"0 Jamo IO
JOYSTY B 04 SuiSuojoq sev poyeos, Apyuonb
-osqns st yun yeyy jr uoao Aqto1d
yey}, ureyor yeys pue dnoss-Ayruorey
oy} ut AroZeq"0 Aue ur qrun & JOF UOT}eOT]
-qnd jeursi10 841 wouy oyep [[eys snued

pueysiepun 04 4Moyyrp
SI yorym _, ofqevoyddeur oimyeu soy4
ut 10 poydeoxe Ayetodse ,, sors08eq80

-odAy aejnoryszed @ uo poseq pue dnoad
-Ajrorey oy} ur Ar0Z0y"0 Aue ur 4run v JOy
peysyqnd oureu v ‘A411011d Jo sosodaind

10} uolydeoxe uv sepraoid pue spromory aoq *(dnois-Aproey 103) gp ‘avd ge: 9 04BUTP10O-00y
REE LC EN EE LP ee OER. So Ae el Dae tae See Ae ey |
4X0}
ysyszuy 3yeip (WoJsJoop Sso1ZUOD 10}¥] JO ,, So[ZeH ,,
syIvuey Ul peuljep IsuLy SUNSIX) UONTUTJep snolAeig uolssoldxq

1169

if Zoological Nomenclature

mM O

Bullet

souvu oytoodsqns
0} 9dUeLeJol sepnpour yt yey, 4dooxe

‘Surpiom ALopRsyes ssep pue MEN

poumbar uorruyep oN

‘poaoidde
QIV S[OAI|T OLULOUOXRY JUOLOFJIP 4
souvu usenjoq AviAUOWOY Surpaedor
cl ‘mq ut opem syesodoid oy} pue
pezyep oie ,, Soloeds yuoreyIp OM9 IO
BI9UED JUaIAyIP OM} 04 ‘ofdurexe s0F ,,
Sp10OM 94} Jt spoou Avp-quosead syoour

A}oexe uoylUyep seg ey, ‘spromoyy

«, AUB Jt ,, Surppe ‘syvodoyy

Z/PI 9PNAY yeIp
ur pouyop ore ,,sdnois oatyoeT[og ,,
“Ct ‘2g ut poysyqnd ore spesodoad pue
T/T 9pHzY aeap ur peuyep st ,, dnoss
Ayre ,, °4X9xUOO SITY} UT AOF poTeo

St pom wv ArvuIpIO os Jo uoyTUyep ON

x

a

(WAY A3ojourar104 uesey
-uodop yyM) uoyvorqnd [eurst0 sey}
JO OUll} 04} 48 [voryuept OULeU oYOods &
pue ouleu ol10ues B JO SUOT}RUTGUIOD Jo

Suysisuoo vurwmourq jo sleqg “OOT: og wAuowmoy Areurtid,

Joyo 94} Jo ., wAUOMOY ,, B st pasn
OS soureu oY} JO YoRa ‘soroeds quoseyIp
0M} IO vIoUAs JUAIOYIp omy 07 ‘ofdurexa
Ioy ‘AroBoy"0 oTuIOUOX'R} oUTeS 9Y} 04
SuLsuojeq szrun yusIeyIp 0M 07 pordde

SI oUIvU OUT¥S 94} O10UM ‘SIL: b'T

981: aA

wAuouloy sorunf

wAuouL0Yy,

ad A,0[0Yy,

dnoi3
snuds,
ATrOrey y

YSTT{2 489,

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

1170

(‘Jo ‘SUOI}R.LINGe ‘SULIOF [BUOT}ISUBIY
‘gUIIOF [eNxes se Yons ‘sotoeds @ UTM
spury [[@ jo syuewers Ayuourm pue
SULIOJ [euOSves ‘3'9) sorsodsqns & ueyy

SUOT}eIIOGe SOpNpoxe pue ‘sp1oOMeyy, Joyjo soroods ev jo wu0y AuY ‘06: FE ULLOF "Ty
x ogtoodsqnseajur,
OUll} FSI OY} IOF JopsO Sty} UL
posuviie ore suo} OY, “SUTPIOMeI eULOg ag ‘red ‘cg: 9 ‘GbE ‘GGZ ‘6FI ‘08: FA UOTYBOIPUL,y
x ‘HP “0Ts
SoLIBUOTPOIP PIVpuULys UL pouyod Xx Avuakuow0y
poambor uoryruyep ON : 4 uiAUOU0Y JOTUES

e@19U03 OIOUL 10 OM} JO

uorun ey} Yysnory} IO snues sJeyjouR

0} poursou0s someds oy} jo Y4z0q

IO 9UO JO JOJSULIy OY} YSNoIy} oueU

oleues oules 94} YIM UO0r}eUTqQUIOD

Ul posh oq 0} oud ATJUeNbesqns

qnq oueu oloues oules oY} YIM

UOTZeUIqUIOD ut poyst{qnd ATjeuLsi1o you

soueu oytoodsqns e1oMm YoryM soureu oyioeds [Roluepr

0} 90UeJeje1 sopnpur 4t yey} ydeoxe jo sued Ajoueu ‘suAuowoy Areutid
‘Burpiom A1ozpRjsIyVVS sset pue MON wey} soyjo suAuomoy [Ty ‘OOL: pg wWAuoUY Arepuodes,

9X0}
Yssuy Yep (WOIST9ep ssolsUON 1078] IO ,, SOlseY ,,

syIewey UO! pourjop SILT

ZUSIX®) MONIUIJep SNOTAcId worssa1dxq

EEA

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

«« Aqrpeooy
Teord4y ,, ATqeaoyoad—yarm pesuedsrp
oq plmnoys wey} jo suo pue ‘fem
[eoryuopr Ue UL peuyop ore sutI0q osoyy,

ssutposso1d
oy} JO psooer Teroyjoun ue 04 syayor
pue uorstoeq ueseyuedoy 043 spromoy

ssurpesooid
64} JO psooer TeIoyyoun ue 04 suazor
pue uoIsloag] uesequedog oy4 SpIoOMoy

4X97U09 SITY} UI 10F poreo
SI pom @ Areurpso os Jo uolTUyep ON

SolTeUol}oIp prepueys ut pougaq,

uoreoTqnd
Moge UOHTpUod 94} SuryQIWWIO ‘sproMmeyy

SelTeUoloIp prepueys Ul pougoy

(1)1g ‘red ‘9g: 9

(Z)1g ‘red “43:9

uoryeorqnd & ut psounouue
Sureq ysnory} uMOwy opeut UOTPITES B
8q 07 9ATJOOHO 0q 04 Japso ur ‘UOTZoaTas
yons ‘,,0d4y 949,, oq 03 soddquds
JO Soles @ WoIZ “UoNdtosep yeurStI0
oy} JO uoyeorqnd oy} 07 yuonbesqns
‘poqooqes uoumpeds o[suis W -9gT: rd

=s- 4

T peordé4

T [word £4
PeoLysel,

T jeordA4
poyeusisop,
Ayrpeooy

oIn4yesty

0d440409y
OSTUT}O'T y

SULIOF ‘Tt [orfered,

l Nomenclature

in of Zoologica

Bullet

1172

- a? ee ee

e10Y 1OF pey[vo st uUOTUYEp ou ‘asuas
«, SMB ,, 84 Ul posn oq 0} Jesu, ou
ST 4 OOUIS 4nq ‘,, SUIVU IeTMOVUIA ,, Jo
uAuOUAS & ST ULI94 SIU} YVY} ONT} 4OU st 47 ‘UL [RIALIY

<¢ SUIBU [BIALIY oYtoodsqns ,,

@ pouyop ssoisuoy sieg oyy, ‘s}vodoxy 6-8ZI ‘u oytoodsqns,

<
=

¢¢ OUIVU [RIALIY oyToods ,

® pouyop sseisuop seg oy, ‘syeodey 82l: FA ‘u ogwods,
eureU “I ue 4OU 4nq ‘WIOF oOYToedsqns ‘u ogtloedsqns
“eur uv peuyep uolsbep seq ey], x 06-68 : 12 Sac at
9€€
MOTO ,, oUTeU > P_ Ayewoedsa ‘suorsioop ueseyuadoy
PHBA ,, 9G “9 SPIyTY yexp 07 sIozox pue sieg snowea pure (9)AXX ‘YT ‘U O[QvTeAv,

4X04U09 SITY} UL IOF poTfeo

Sf piom e Areurpio o8 Jo uoMUyep ON 4 eureu
«, [RoIdAjouow ,, st pom ysysuq oy, X ord Ayououl,
SOLVUOT}OIP prvpuLys UL pouyog xX edAjouour
FN a aa
9X94

YSisugq yep — (Wo[sfoop sseiZM0g 104%] JO ,, So[Zey ,,
syIewloy Ul pouljop ISITT SUIjSIXe) UONTUTJep snolAcIg uolssodx

1173

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

uoSief snongaoedns ore suis04 asoyy,

SoLIBUOTZOIp UIYeT prepueys ul pougeq

}x9}U00 stg} UT pesmnber uoyTUyep ON

syeodoyy

Yq 4re4s 0} oUIeU o[QeTIeAe
ue 4OU SI oUIeU OY} ‘poystyes you ore |
WOIpeg “g sPlVY yep Ul UMOpP PIeT
F JO ¢ ‘T suoyTpuoD Jo Aue JT *poyooy,
-I9AO0 U9aq SBY 81949eU OTUIOUOXLy JOF
« PUVA ,, PIOM OY} PUL sUOTZeIOpIsUOD
[eL107e[oUIMIOU JO PoAIOSeI oq OF SBM
cc GBR ,, PIOM oy} YeUY Sus ste
gueyiodut oyy, ‘ouleu prea oy} st
soulBU o[qereAe JO Joquinu @ Jo qoryM
SOUIMIEJEp SUOTe g 9PTIW yyeIp yeu

soyeys ‘uoeuedxg ‘T/9 opury yeiq

Tun}zeAIESu0D UOTIOU

: UMpuUBAIOSUOD UDTIOU

eg ‘sed ‘gz: 9

usuIou

MOU

od Ayoou,

‘U J@MOBVUIOA,

"U PHtsg

8

stseyyuered

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

1174

SoLIVUuOrPOIp Plepueys Ul pouygoqy x
x I9PIQ~
yxoyuoo sty} Ur pormber uoryruyap oN X unou
asessed afoym oY} JO 0105 ayy PoLofod SI 4t YoryM 07 soroeds peuTuoU
foaysop pus oy} ye ,, (Aue jr) ,, sprom oy} se ueutoeds odAy owes oy} uodn
ouL ‘dnois-sse[9/iopig ay} UI suOIssNO poeseq st yorum sorseds o1dAyAjod wv jo
-Jodod snowes oavy 44s ‘exe, ig soroedsqns oy} * * * pure ‘poisoyzor st snuod
0} soydde Ayyu0redde Yyorya ‘aouezUes -qus 94} YOIYM 07 snues oy4 Jo saroeds
puooes oY], ‘solmvuOTjoIp parepueys UT edéy 9y} suIeyu0O YoIyM snuasqns
punos st uoryuyep sty} jo qaed ysxy oy, oy} ** sayouap gt ‘aed ‘1Z:0 ‘I6L: #A 9} CUIULOUy,
SOLIVUOTJOIP prepuRys UI pouyo X . jeurmiou
sesodind ormouoxe}4
JO} Osn JOZ gIQeTEAR you oIOFoI0y4
pue wniqnp uawou e se poyeoiy oq
0} you st soloeds Jeurmou 4eyy Jo oweU
ey} ‘uoysenb ur sormeds yeurutou oy}
Aq poeyuesoidor soroods ormouoxey oy4
JO UoTyeoyTyUApT oyy Jo yrunsed 04 yuoToy
sysipetoods Suowe “JUSUI SI 9OUBPLAS gIGeITVeEAR oY} 4ey4
quewoeeise 10; Suyeo oseryd sqrug poeise ore sysrpetoods o10yM*** “QO, HT ulniqnp uowou,
a oe AO LT 1 WS. RE oe Ore PLANS AOS)
3X04
qsljsuq iyerp (WoIs}o9p sso1SU0D I10}¥{ IO ,, SeTsey ,,
syIvweYy Ul poUuljep IsuTy SUTjSIX9) UOTUIJEp snoAelg uolssoldxy

1175

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

SolLIVUOTJOIP prepuRys Ul pouyod

SelIvUOTpOIP prvpueys Ul pougod,

_, uorutdo ormouoxey ut sesueyo
0} onp sowvu ut sasueyo 4yiqryoid
gou soop Aywomg jo efdioulg ey}
‘g[quIvoIg oY} UI poyeys SY “WOISSTUTUO:)
ay} 0} doulerejor Joye [AZMUTZUOD Jo
Me] Jo] woyeAresu0Q jo odioung
ay} rapun poystqeyso oq Avur opdrourad
ey} eueAvIyUOD 4yeyy soweNY “UOXe}
eures oY} OF soweU JozeT [Te Io Aue
JOAO QoUEpadeid soyey uoxe, Aue JOF
OUILU JIQUTIeAR 4SITY oY ‘omMyepousuIOU
yeotdojooz ut Aywomg jo efdioutg oy
Jopuy) ,, : eAT}eUIEy[e ue se posodoid
St SuIMOTOF oy, “9poo oY} Jo 4x04
oATURISGNS oY} OFUT WOTYeIOdIOOUT OF

uvotomy 00} sdeyied st uoyruyep sty],

4xoyuoo sty} Ut pormber uorUyep ON

Sh. et
paeasoz ynd useq Apeorye sey 4xez00

sty} ul ,, puedsns ,, w10} oy} 0} Uoryool[qgO

XK

4oo1
yeuruourzpenb,

roysyqnd

Aquao1id y

Adnoo001d

siomog Areuopg

umnyAqd»

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

1176

amosqo sul00eq
0} SB pouez0Ys Os Useq eALY UOISIOAG

uesequedog 9y4 Ul UeAIS sUOTyTUgap OT,

<< Pesn ,, 19972
., 10 eweu Ajruresqns Jo Aprurey & JOF ,,
JO UOlyIppe ey} Sspseu UOISIO9g UeseY
-uadop ey, ‘seureu dnois-sse[g/19pi9
jo ssurjeds oy Suruyep 10; Aj1Z0y4Ne
ou st a10yy ynq ‘uoMeoydut Aq exe}

[eurmMoU [Je S19A0D UBAIS UOT}TUyEp sq,

uoryluyep o7e1edes spoou
Apporeos yons sev pure ‘uolyepusulg pre A
e £q Suyjedg yeursig pyeauy ue But
-oejdar Jo yoe oy} UReU ATUO UO 41 NG
“8 JO UOIQDELI0D OTYRUTIOYNK ,, UIE 044

esn jou sa0p UOIsIOaq] UeseyUedOD osyJ,

=." oy wz |

yoryas Surjeds e st Suyjedg yeurs1¢Q ue
e1euM (HT) “Sumjedg jeusugQ pyeauy
ue st Suyjeds snosuo1e oy} (savuweu
peyuud st oureu oy} 4ynq snoevuurT
snjore) Imouoy 07 sureu ev Sutsodoid
SI oY 4eYy} so7B9s IOyyNe Ue oIOyM
“$'9) JO1I9 yUoJIeApeut ue uodn paseq
sea Suyjedg yeusug ue yey} u0y
~eoyqnd [euis110 94} UI doUpLAG aBaTO

st o10y} a10y A (1) “(q)(Z)IL ‘sed ‘FR: —

uorzeorqnd
[®UISIIO szI JO uOCIseo00 944 UO oWReU
oytoeds @ 10} 10 ouTeU OLI0UaS & 10J pasn
(9u0 Ueyy eIOU a10M o10Y} JI sBureds

me Pee ate > ¢MD 4S

‘s'O PICAUl,

qo) sumjeds oyy, (1)IL “aed ‘gp: 9 Sumjeds yeurBu0,

eyep pue drysioyyne Surpnyo
“ul ‘syodser [fe ur surjedg jeusug
pyeauy ey} Ssueder (uorepuoma
PH®A 94} “‘a't) Sunjeds poyoors0o 043
‘S1N990 41 JAABIOYM P9}0I1I00 se payee}
eq 0} pue poqdel109 eq 09 st Sumjedg

yeusuQ pyeauy uy “(z)zy ‘aed ‘cp: 9

‘$ JO UWOTYaII00
oryeumoyne
surjeds

soroeds,

winyeredos,

eee

syIvwWey

qssugq 4yeIp
U] peuyop IsIL

(WOIs}Oep sso1ZMOD 10}¥] JO ,, SolZaH ,,
SUTSIXe) UOT}TUTJop snoyAeIg

wOoIsseldxq

oureu oy} JO Jes—) yuonbesqng
WIT 949 Aq posn sBuqjedg yeusuG
oy? JO ouo yey} st Suyjedg pemsup
PHBA OY} ‘IoL10 JueyJoapeUT Ue Jo 4[NsoI
OY} SBM 4I 4BY} soUEPIAS Iee[D o10q}
sem ssuljeds osey} Jo ouou JO o8vo 044
ur pue Surjedg yeurs1GQ ouo uey o10ur
SBM or0Y} OIOY AA (I) “prom punoduos
% uodn poseq oureu ® jo UOTYBUIIOF oy
UL [PMOA oATJO9NUOD 97eLIdoIddeut Ue
JO osn 04} Jo [UOKezIUyeT] Jo s0I10
Ue epNfOUL you seop ., JOLIE yuazZIEApR
“UI ,, UOIsseidxo oy} ‘asodind sty} 10,7
[8% 9P1HAy 4yeap] Jo suorstaoid A10yep
“ueut ey} Jo Aue ouaAvIZUOD you seop
oulBU oY} Fey} pu JOLIa s.1aqUTId 410
8.4stXdoo @ 10 [2wnpno] snsdp) @ se yons
‘IOLI9 QUOJIOAPBUT Ue UO poseq sem
Sureds sty} 4243 uoreorqnd jeurstio
oy} Ul soueplAe reed OU st ozoqy
vey? peplaoaid ‘Surjedg yeursug prea
out St 9eq “Suyfedg [eutsG ouo Ayuo
SBM o10Y} OLGA (1) *(8)(T) TL ‘red ‘gz : re) ‘sO pryea,

1177

if Zoological Nomenclature

im Oo

Bullet

Surjedg [eurs19 PlVauy ue st ssurjedg
[eursug Surureuos oyy JO yore ‘Bury
“Tedg yeursg pre, oy} eulodeq ‘10sq
quonbesqng 4ysanq 9043 4&q_ poXojdura
yeyy Suteq Jo ongata Aq ‘sey ssurjeds
9soq} Jo ouo pue Sumjedg yeursip
ouO UBY} SIOUL sem atoyy oL0y AA (TH)
‘Burjedg peurs1i9 pyBauy ue st Suyjods
vy} [8% efHry yyerp] Jo suorstaoad
Aioyepueut oy} jo Aue sauoar, 00

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

1178

drysuoryepor yey} YIM ofqiywdut0o
wo; snormoydne o1ow pue sojdutts oy4
gepraoid pue 9430 oy uo ATrUrey O44
jo ourvu oy} pue puvy ouo oy} UO ouTvU
olieues oY} UooMyoq drysuoryRfer 94
A[res]o YSOUL SMOYS YIOG Spoyyour SuL0Z
-910J oY} JO JOAOYOIYAM JO AMOAVJ UL

8}SIBOTOOZ OPRUL oq 07 BdIOYO oY} ‘UI948 oY Jo aed

0} [nFdjoy oxour oq Apropo [IM uOTyTUg @ (Z) JO ‘ULO4s [voIssR[O 10 [ROIyeUUTRIS

-op slivg oY], ‘Sseleuoorp prepueys ay} ({) Joye Suruveur sv pojordaoqut oq
UL puUNoJ yey St UOAIS UOTUYSp oyy, 0} SI ,, Wo4s ,, UoIsserdxe OY, “OFZ? PA u104s
4xoquoo sy} Ul posmbor UOIUyep ON x snyeqs

Sujodg yuonbasqng snosu0Liy
ue st UOepuomM ue uUeYyy JEq30
eueu poysyqnd A[snoraeid @ Jo Surjeds
ey} ut osueyo Auy ‘(q)(Z)[L ‘sed ‘FH: ‘S'S SNOBUOLIO,y

Burjedg yuonbesqng
e st porvodde ysiy oweu oy} Yorym
UL 9eY} 0} yuonbesqns uoryeoyqnd v ut
oureu v jo Surjeds Auy *(z) [Led ‘Fp: 9g “8 Juenbosqns,

—

enn nnn nnn nL UII UEEIEIIEIEEESE SSS ESSE Sa

4x0}
Ysljsuq jyeIp (WO[SsTOOp SSAIZUOD 10}e[ 10 ,, SO[SEY ,,
syIeuleYy Ul pouljop ISIL SUljSIXe) UOLTUIJep SNOIACIT moIsseldxy

1179

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

[euIstI0 oy} sv SuravouL
eurvs oy} oymMb svaq you seop pur
pestuvououry useq sey oseryd 4svt OY,
‘UOI}TUYEp SLIVG 94} UT pooysiopuN SBA
qeyM Ul SITY ,, [Boyeur ,, 10qye ,, soroods
[BUTULOU B JO ,, SpPIOM OY} JO UOTYIPpe oY],

SeLIBUOTJOIP prvpusys Ul pouyod

pepriomor AYsIg

x Kw wR OM

ed kyojoy v 07¥vorput
IO 9}VUBISep Jou prIp 1OYANe 4eYy soy
gosvo osoy} Ul ‘AOYyNe yeUIsIO oy}
aL0foq [elIoyeUT oy} JO yaed IO []e pouts0y
YIM YUL pewoyepouowmou penbo jo
suowttoods jo saquinu % JO WUD “98T: $

sorods oures 04}
UTyyIM uoTye[ndod yons royyo Aue Woy
sLoyIp Yoram soreds v urgyLM ([eoIdOTO
‘peorydeis008 *3'9) uoryetndod y ‘68: FF

edAquds,
xygns

Japig-isedng,

Ajroreysodns,

sse[Q-sodng,

sorodsqns,

wunAgd-qngs
TOPIO-GNGs

snuosqns,

Apromeyqns',

ssvpoqns,

of Zoological Nomenclature

mn O

.

Bullet

1180

suieg y@ pougep
SVM Ue} 484} Sv ., ole oyTOedsqns ,,
seovfder ,, UsMOUTIY ,, yey} patUNsse st 4] 9t zed ‘03'D «“(Z)(F)8Z1: Ha WoTIOULI}y

x OqIt}

Xx qSIMOU0Xey,

Xx 4 ormouoxX 4},

UOxe} JaYysIY 4xou 944
jo .,(xtgns posueyo yyIM soumeur0s)
euvu oy} siveq ,, dnois-sse[p/1epi9
oy} JO UOxXe}, oyeuTMIOU ev yey} Surtes
oy AZIIOYANe Ou st s19q4 yNq ‘sarI10Be4"e0

Tre 04 Ajdde 03 opeur orey st w109 sty, Xx "4 oyeulmOU,
x "7 [BUruOU,
gt ‘xed ‘0g: 9 UOXt}y
“Papa rere rr a li beret td he epee aes fie bie Dot ee
1x9}
Ysysuq yep (WoIsIoep sse1sU0D 10}¥] IO ,, SOTFOY ,,
SyIVUEY Ul! pouljep SIL SUIjSIXe) UONTUYep snomaelg wolssoidxy

1181

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

SeLIBUOT}OIP PIvpueys Ul pouyocy

4x0yU00 Yuasord oY} UT IOZ poT[eo
you oe suolyuUyep pue solreuororp
prepuejs Ul pouyep ore sut104 osoy} [TW

SOLIBUOTPOIP prepueys UL pougeqy

c

yIom

*M punoduloo
oroeyuds
*M 9][durts
*‘M OATYBALIOP
‘mM punoduioo
pom

od A},
“4 poyrenb,

yeurmoursy

1182 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

CASE No. 74

DRAFT “ REGLES’’, ARTICLE 5, SECTION 1: QUESTION OF
THE APTNESS OF THE PRINCIPLE OF “STARE DECISIS ’’ TO
THE “ REGLES ”’

(Commission’s Reference : Z.N.(S.) 1372)

DOCUMENT 74/1

By R. V. MELVILLE

(Assistant Secretary, International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature)

In the “ Discussion” appended to Section 1 of Article 5 of Professor
J. Chester Bradley’s draft English text of the revised Régles, it is stated that
the acceptance of the principle of stare decisis in connection with the “ Law of
Continuity ” is an implied consequence of the decisions taken at the Copenhagen
(1953) Congress. The purpose of the present paper is to examine the meaning
of that phrase and to discuss the appropriateness of its recognition as one of the
principles on which the Régles are based.

2. So far as I am aware (though time has not permitted exhaustive
research), the phrase stare decisis is not an accepted Latinism in English legal
terminology. Its usage in English is generally held to indicate an affected
style, and the natural reaction is to translate it into the vernacular as “ stick
to your guns”. These two factors—the pretentiousness of the phrase in
English eyes, and the fact that it is not part of the English legal vocabulary—
shew that if the expression were incorporated into the Régles, it would mean
nothing to many English readers, while others, besides finding it ludicrous,
would attribute to it a meaning other than that in which it appears to have
been used in Professor Bradley’s draft ; for, so far as I can understand, it
is not there used in the sense of “ stick to your guns’”’, but in quite another
sense.

3. In interpreting the meaning attached to the expression stare decisis
by Professor Bradley, it is pertinent to note that he gives as his authority
Professor Charles H. Blake of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

———

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 1183

Professor Blake discussed the principle involved in a comment on the case of
the generic name Ligia Fabricius, 1798 published in Opinion 330 (1955, Ops.
Decls. int. Comm. zool. Nomencl. 9 : 321-338). In this Opinion, one part of
the Ruling given validated the name Ligia Fabricius, 1798 and suppressed the
name Ligia Weber, 1795. Professor Blake’s comment was published as
paragraph 13 of the Opinion cited and paragraphs 2, 3 and 5 of his comment
are reproduced here :—

2. In 1904 the International Commission regarded Weber’s work
as legally published in spite of the fact that for more than a century it
had not been regarded by most authors as legitimately, that is ethically,
published. There seems to be no doubt that Weber was, in fact, a sort

- of zoological pirate. The question whether Fabricius deliberately crossed
Weber up in 1798 when he himself published his own names is not
important. The difficulty seems to arise from the fact that the Commission
in 1904 took a strictly legalistic view of the matter, and from that point
of view their decision is correct ; but they failed to take account of two
things: (1) that the non-use of Weber’s names had in fact established an
unwritten precedent, and (2) that, based on the maxim stare decisis, the
Commission would have been better advised to have followed that use
rather than to overthrow it on technical grounds. Zoological nomenclature
as a whole has suffered in part from the fact that unwritten and traditional
decisions have been either accepted or ignored in a rather uncertain fashion.

3. In a previous letter I mentioned the maxim stare decisis I believe,
and I take the liberty here of quoting from Baldwin’s 1928 edition of
Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, pages 1127-1128 as to the view taken of the
maxim in the United States and I would assume that the English view of it
would be essentially similar. The maxim may be defined as follows:
“When a point has been settled by decision, it forms a precedent which

is not afterwards to be departed from”’. ‘‘ A court . . . should consider
how far its action would affect transactions entered into and acted upon,
under the law as it exists; 11 Tex. 455”; ‘‘ but where a decision relates

to the validity of certain modes of transacting business, and a change of
decision must necessarily invalidate everything above in the mode
prescribed by the former case . . . the maxim becomes imperative .. . 15
Wisc. 691 ”’.

5. With reference to file Z.N.(S.) 209, on the basis of usage I think
we should certainly accept Ligia Fabricius, 1798, in spite of the fact that
the Weber application of Ligia is older. Here we might argue that Ligia
is a genus not much treated by American authors who tend to accent
Weber and hence the weight of opinion rests on the Europeans. However,
this would mean contravening the decision of the International Commission,
while upholding it in the previous case. If this be done, then we have in

1184 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

effect nullification and while nullification is a time-honoured American
method of popular legislation, I think it would be unsafe to introduce it
into the legislation with regard to zoological nomenclature. Hence...
I would like to see the Opinion of 1904 stand in spite of the fact that it
may appear to cause some confusion. Here I think, no further confusion
will be caused than already exists.

4. It is not clear to me how Professor Blake would have applied the
maxim stare decisis in the case just quoted. From his paragraph 2 it would
appear that the maxim should have been applied so as to preserve the names of
Fabricius, 1798 and to suppress the senior homonyms of Weber, 1795; from
his paragraph 5 I gather that he would have preferred the principle to have
been applied so as to endorse Opinion 17, that is, to preserve Weber’s names.
A legal principle that can be applied with equal validity on opposite sides of
the same case may be as good as a pension fund to lawyers, but it is not likely
to be welcome to zoologists who are concerned to cut the nomenclatorial
cackle and get to the taxonomic horses.

5. From the quotations provided by Professor Blake, I gather that a
decision once taken in law is to be respected as a precedent controlling
subsequent decisions in law. The only decision in law that could have guided
the Commission in 1904 (when Opinion 17 was rendered) was the Law of
Priority ; no amount of usage by zoologists constituted then, or would constitute
today, a decision or precedent in law. Had Opinion 330 given a ruling on the
basis of the maxim stare decisis, it could only have endorsed Opinion 17.
American zoologists are perhaps not surprisingly prone to treat zoological
nomenclature like the pioneering of the West, where actions taken in the
absence of law, or even in defiance and breach of the law, have gradually
come to be regarded as setting legal precedents. There is no reason, however,
why a practice that is natural and right in a local and temporary phase of
human society should also be right in a world-wide and permanent scientific
discipline.

6. From the time when the Commission was first granted Plenary Powers
to vary the Régles (by the Monaco Congress of 1913), the principle has been
strictly observed that usages that have become generally adopted, whether
because of the absence of a covering rule, or whether in defiance of a rule, can
only be legalised individually after thorough examination of each separate
case by the Commission. If all such acts are to be regarded as legitimate as a
class of actions, then the Régles will cease to have any force. Owing to my
inability to understand precisely how Professor Blake would incorporate the
maxim stare decisis into the Régles, I am left with two alternative conclusions :
either the maxim would entail the strictest adherence to the Law of Priority,
or it would mean the abolition of the Plenary Powers, so that usage alone
would prevail. Since either course could lead only to anarchy, I propose that
all reference to the maxim stare decisis be deleted from the draft Régles.

op ee ee

éniebis Cie ji hatin, eae A

Beetle tm thy, ee

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 1185

DOCUMENT 33/9
(continued from page 996)

Draft ‘‘ Régles ’’: Miscellaneous drafting
amendments

(Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 1329)

By C. E. TOTTENHAM
(University Museum of Zoology, Cambridge, England).

(Letter dated 7th May 1958)

Point (1)
Article 7, Section 2(a)(ii) (: 64)

It must be noticed that the description of the nature of the document
given in the Draft excludes dealers’ printed price-lists from being regarded
as ‘ published ” within the meaning of the Code. Although they were printed
and available to the public on request, they were not issued for scientific
study or record (except for the record of the dealer’s stock), they were intended
for “a restricted audience ” namely possible purchasers, they were issued for
“particular purposes ” namely the sale of specimens and the advertisement
of wares, and they were for “‘ temporary use”? namely so long as the stock
was available.

Since such lists have been used for the establishment of generic names in
general use in some branches of Zoology, but have not been used in other
branches, their acceptance or rejection en bloc as being “ published ” or “ not
published ” would be undesirable.

The situation could be easily met by some provision in the Code whereby
exceptions could be made in individual cases.

It is proposed, therefore, that there be added to Article 7, Section 2(a)(ii)
(page 64) the following paragraph :—

“ Dealers’ printed price-lists, since they do not conform to this definition
shall not be regarded as ‘“ published” except for the sake of well-
established generic names which would otherwise be validated under

Article 5.”

1186 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Point (2)
Article 9, Section 1(d) (: 75)

If there are two publications in the same year and the precise date of
only one of them is known, any names which are affected by the dates are in
a state of instability, since the precise date of the unknown might become
known and prove to be earlier. This might affect authorship, synonyms and
homonyms. Stability is desirable, therefore it is proposed “If two works
were published in the same year previously to 18— and the precise date (or
month) of only one is known, nomenclature based on the priority of the known
date shall not be invalidated by the subsequent discovery and publication of
an earlier date for the supposedly unknown exact date. It can only be in-
validated if it is shown that the earlier date has been published in bibliographical
or nomenclatural literature subsequent to 1903 and prior to the establishment
of the nomenclature in question.”

Point (3)
Article 10, “‘ Recommendation ’”’ 18 (: 83)

I appreciate the point of the “‘ Discussion ” on this ‘“ Recommendation ”
and fully agree with the last sentence. I do not agree with the concluding
subordinate clause of the second sentence and consequently do not agree
with the first sentence. So many original descriptions are practically useless
for the purpose of identification of a specimen simply because comparisons
have been made only with one (or more) closely allied species. A phrase like
“sculpture of elytra indistinguishable from that of a-us” (a well-known
species perhaps even of another genus) is much more useful than “ sculpture
of elytra very much closer and finer than in b-us”’ (a little-known species).
Many specific characters are comparative, defy description and are incapable
of being figured. Instead of the words in brackets (lines 10 and 11) of the
Recommendation it is proposed that the Recommendation should read :—

“And, especially if the latter is little known, if he thinks it would assist
in the interpretation of the description, he should make a discreet comparison
with one or more well-known and common species.”

Point (4)
Article 11, Section 4 (: 90)

This article seems so clear and complete that its application would be
simple. Unfortunately this is not so. Ifa definite emendation of an erroneous
spelling itself contains an erroneous spelling of the original valid spelling what
is the status? Is it to count as an emendation and enter into homonymy, or
is it to count as an erroneous spelling and not enter into homonymy? It

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 1187

was a definite emendation and therefore must be classed as such ; on the other
hand it was an emendation of an erroncous spelling and not of the original
valid spelling, and was an erroneous spelling of the latter and therefore should
be classed as an erroneous spelling. I know of one generic name of long
established usage whose validity depends on the answer to this question.
(Whether the status of this generic name will be determined by Article 5 will
depend upon the precise wording of that Article when enacted).

It is proposed that there be added to Section 4 (on p. 91) a paragraph
“ Doubtful cases. If there is any doubt as to whether a spelling should be
classed as an emendation or as an erroneous spelling, the choice should be made
in favour of the interpretation which is considered to be most likely to main-
tain general usage. Notice of the course adopted should be immediately
published in the Bulletin and if no protests are received within six months of
publication the case shall be deemed closed and the Commission shall take
whatever action may be necessary to validate the name chosen ”’,

Point (5)
Article 19, Section 2(c) (: 121—122)

It is proposed that in the Example (p. 122 line 3) after ‘1865’ there be
added ‘‘ or merely Arcus albus Smith”. This is advisable because in so much
of the literature of the last century such a simple statement was the usual
practice and still is often the practice: the use of ‘nec’ is comparatively
recent and could not have been used if the designator of the type species was
unaware that the species he designated as type was wrongly named owing to
a previous misidentification of some other species. In the example quoted
the fact that Jones said ‘albus Smith’ is a clear indication that he meant
albus Smith and not some other albus whose identity was unknown to him.

Point (6)
Article 19, Section 5(d) (: 132)
It is proposed that another paragraph be added as follows :—

“ (iv) If an author has designated a type species for a genus, but in the
same publication has employed the generic name for a taxon which excludes
that type-species, then that designation does not constitute a valid type-
selection. Similarly, if he has cited a type-species for a genus, and in the same
publication has employed the generic name for a taxon which excludes that
type-species, then that citation shall not be available as a type-designation,
if an earlier designation should be found to be invalid.

(Diseussion. It might be thought that such cases would not occur, but
I know of several, including some in recent literature. The addition of the

1188 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

above paragraph to the Draft Code would deal automatically with such cases
which otherwise would have to be submitted to the Commission for the rejection
of the type-designation. It would thus make it possible to retain the generic
names in question in accordance with their general usage.)

Point (7)

Article 22, E (: 165)

It is proposed that there be added to Recommendation 9 the sentences :
‘ He should also state whether or not he has verified the bibliographic reference,
and if he has not verified it he should state the source (or sources) from which
he has copied it. (Editors are requested to see that this Recommendation is
complied with.)”’

Errors in bibliographic references are very numerous ; the references given
are so frequently copied from some previous literature that the errors persist,
sometimes for more than a century. If the practice here proposed were
adopted, it would be a great help to taxonomists in getting the errors gradually
corrected.

y 4 JUL 1959

a

CONTENTS

(continued from front wrapper)

THE LONDON AGENDA PAPER

(a) New Proposals

Case No. 63 : Draft ‘‘ Régles ’? : Question of homonymy between names
at different taxonomic levels

D.63/1 BR. V. Melville

Case No. 64: Draft ‘“‘ Régles ’’, Article 4: Request for reconsideration
of the terms “ trivial name ’’ and “ binary nomenclature ”’

D.64/1 H. M. Smith
D.64/2 BR. V. Melville ..

Case No. 65: Draft ‘‘ Régles ’’, Article 29, Section 6(e) : Proposal for
rewording of

D.65/1 BR. V. Melville

Case No. 66: Relative merits of adjectives ‘‘ nomenclatorial’’ and
“nomenclatural ’’ for use in the English text of the “‘ Régles ”’

D.66/1 J. Chester Bradley
D.66/2 Francis Hemming

Case No. 67: Existing “‘ Régles ’’, Appendice F : Incorporation into
revised ‘‘ Régles ’’

D.67/1 L. W. Grensted

Case No. 68: Draft ‘ Régles ’? : Proposed incorporation of ‘ Declara-
tions ’’ 19-41

D.68/1 BR. V. Melville

Case No. 69: Existing ‘“‘ Régles ’’, Appendice C : Incorporation into
revised ‘‘ Régles ”’

D.69/1 BR. V. Melville ..

Page

1093

1097
1100

1104

1107
1109

1110

1114

1146

CONTENTS

(continued from inside back wrapper)

Case No. 70: Draft “ Régles ’’, Article 28, Section 10: General pro-
visions relating to the formation of generic names

D.70/1 Francis Hemming

Case No. 71: Draft “‘ Régles ’’, Article 24, Section 12 : Differences in
spelling to be ignored for the purposes of the Law of Homonymy

D.71/1 BR. V. Melville .

Case No. 72 : Draft “‘ Régles ’’, Article 28, Section 4(a) : The diaeresis
symbol

D.72/1 BR. V. Melville ..

Case No. 73 : Draft “ Régles ’’ : Question of the status of the “‘ Glossary ”’
D.73/1 BR. V. Melville ..

Case No. 74: Draft “‘ Régles’’, Article, Section 1: Question of the
aptness of the principle of “‘ stare decisis ’’ to the ‘* Régles ”’

D.74/1 BR. V. Melville ..

(b) Comments on previously published proposals

Case No. 33: Miscellaneous drafting amendments
D.33/9 C. E. Tottenham

© 1958. THe INTERNATIONAL TRUST FOR ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE
Printed in England by METCALFE & CoopPER LIMITED, 10-24 Scrutton St., London E C2

Page

1149

1156

1158

1163

1182

1185

VOLUME 15. Double-Part 37/38 7th July 1958
pp. 1189-1260

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

Sixteenth Instalment of the London Congress Agenda Paper

(continued inside back wrapper)

PURCHASED

ts 1 £ dtel 257
A 4 i
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 Five Shillings
(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 Casrera (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 Pierre Bonnet (Université de Toulouse, France) (9th June 1950)

Mr. Norman Denbigh Ritxy (British Musewm (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 Mzertens (Natur Museum u. Forschungs-Institut Senckenberg, Frankfurt
a. M., Germany) (5th July 1950)

Professor Dr. Erich Martin Herne (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. Vorss (University of Tulane, Department of Geology, New Orleans, Louisiana,
U.S.A.) (12th August 1953)

Professor Béla Hanxé (Mezogazdasdgi Muzeum, Budapest, Hungary) (12th August 1953)

Dr. Norman R. Sroxu (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. Hoxrauis (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. Muir (Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, University of California, Berkeley, California,
U.S.A.) (29th October 1954)

ere Dr. Ferdinand Prantn (Ndrodni Museum v Praze, Prague, Czechoslovakia) (30th October

54)

Professor Dr. William K@HNELT (Zoologisches Institut der Universitat, 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, M assa-
chusetts, U.S.A.) (4th December 1954)

professor Enrico TortonesE (Museo di Storia Naturale “G. Doria”, Genova, Italy) (16th

December 1954)
Dr, Per Brrxox (Lunds Universitets, Zoologiska Institution, Lund, Sweden) (19th May 1958)

BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

Volume 15, Double-Part 37/38 (pp. 1189-1260) Tth July, 1958

CASE No. 75

DRAFT “ REGLES’’, ARTICLE 17 : PROVISIONS RELATING TO THE
RESTRICTION AND DESIGNATION OF LOCALITIES FOR NOMINAL

SPECIES
“HASED
f (Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 960) 5 ve
' “a JUL, 1958

DOCUMENT 75/1

Comments on the insertion of regulations concerning the revision of
type localities into the “‘ Régles ”’

By JAMES A. PETERS
(Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island, U.S.A.)

(Enclosure to a letter dated 1st June 1955)

Among the other additions to, and modifications of, the Reégles
Internationales de la Nomenclature Zoologique, adopted by the Fourteenth
International Congress of Zoology, held in Copenhagen in 1953, were provisions
for the restriction and designation of localities for nominal species (Copenhagen
Decisions on Zoological Nomenclature ; Hemming, ed., London, 1953 : 26-27,
para. 31). This recommendation by the colloquium provides for both the
rule of the first reviser and the principle of priority to be applied to establishment
of type locality, when the original locality is lacking in sufficient precision or
has not been cited at all (i.e., restriction in the first instance and designation
in the second). There are several points of importance in relation to the
acceptability of this recommendation that do not seem to have been considered.
Mayr, Linsley and Usinger (Methods and Principles of Systematic Zoology,
New York, 1953; 244-245) discuss reasons for changing or rejecting type
localities, based upon standard practice by systematists, and give several
cogent reasons why the rule of priority cannot always apply. The discussion
of a specific case which follows serves to emphasize this fact, and should be
brought to the attention of the Commission before final printing of the newly
revised Régles.

AAAA

1190 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

The field of herpetology has recently seen a series of papers reviewing
and often rejecting certain type locality revisions, and the results of this work
should prove of value to the Commission. In brief, in 1950 Smith and Taylor
(Univ. Kansas Sci. Bull. 33(2) : 313-380) published a list of the type localities
of Mexican amphibians and reptiles. In their preparation of the work, they
““made an attempt to correct the lack of preciseness in statement of type
locality as much as possible, by restricting as many type localities as the
present state of knowledge will permit” (loc. cit.: 313-314). The type
localities of approximately 400 species or subspecies are restricted or designated
in the paper. According to the recommendations made by the Copenhagen
Colloquium, all are to be accepted, since they comply with the provisions in
Section 3, paragraph 31, of the Copenhagen Decisions, which concerns
restrictions made prior to its publication. Smith and Taylor, however,
certainly did not anticipate fixation of their revisions by the law of priority,
for Smith has pointed out that “ any considered revision of type locality should
be regarded valid until proved wrong’”’ (1953, Systematic Zool. 2(1) : 44).
Also, Smith and Etheridge (1953, Herpetologica, 8 : 153) reject one of the
Smith and Taylor restrictions, and re-restrict the name in question to another
locality. :

Two papers dealing with the Smith and Taylor restrictions have been
published by Dunn and Stuart (1951, Copeia (1) : 55-61, and 1951, Science,
113 : 677-678) in which they discuss both specific instances and the general
problem of legality of restriction of type locality. In the Copeia article they
reject restrictions placed on species from Central and South America, for a
number of different reasons. Ten restrictions are refused because the known
itinerary of the person who collected the type is not compatible with, i.e., does
not include, the locality used for the restriction. In four cases the known
range of the species does not include the designated type locality. (See also
Peters, 1955, Copeia.) In three cases information with the type specimen or
in the type description contradicts the restriction. In three cases the restriction
is rejected because it forces the identity of two valid names through their
restriction to a single type locality. More than fifty otherwise available names
will have been lost through this practice, for the new rule will preclude the
use of any of these names by later authors, even though a particular subspecies
may agree well enough with the type to permit the use of its name (see also
Peters, 1954, Occ. Pap. Mus. Zool. Univ. Mich., No. 554: 18). In one case it
was felt that the name might well be wrongly applied to recent specimens
which were used as a basis for restriction. In another case the authors felt
that Smith and Taylor had ‘‘ violated priority and first principles”. In three
cases the restrictions were considered to be ‘‘ unnecessary ”. Dunn and Stuart
finally concluded that “ the restrictions of Smith and Taylor were without
legal status (‘‘ incompetent, irrelevant, immaterial ’’) and do not consider them
as binding on us or other workers” (Science, loc. cit. : 678). Their remarks are
particularly pertinent in view of the fact that the restrictions now do have
legal status, as a result of the retroactive clause.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 1191

Even more disturbing is the fact that none of the objections mentioned
above has validity today, in view of the present wording of the rules.
According to the rules, all of Smith and Taylor's restrictions must be accepted,
and, although the rules do not specifically state what recourse is open to one
who wishes to reject a particular restriction, it seems obvious that it would
require exercise of the Plenary Powers. The rule, as stated, leaves no room for
acceptance or rejection of a restriction, but rather specifies that the first
published restriction must be accepted, with the proviso that a later author
may further restrict it by a selection of some part of an area specified by the
previous reviser.

Entirely apart from the points discussed above, which are evidence of an
omission from the tentative Régles, and of a situation that needs to be rectified
before final publication, is a question concerning the philosophical aspects of
regulation of type locality designation or restriction by the International
Commission. It seems that in this particular case the Commission is leaving
the realm of nomenclature and entering the domain of biological fact. Whether
the arguments below concerning this are cogent or not, they should not be
allowed to obscure the basic points debated above.

The author feels that the original type locality is not an idea or a concept,
it is a definite, concrete reality. Every type specimen came from somewhere,
and difficulties in assigning a type locality arise only from the failings of man.
As a consequence, additional evidence concerning the identity of the type
locality may completely alter the validity of an earlier restriction. To my
mind, at least, this additional evidence should weigh more heavily than the
date of publication of suggested changes. Designation, restriction and
rejection must all be based upon evidence, not on fiat.

There appears to be a distinct equivalence between the problem discussed
in this paper and the relationship of the rules to the species. It is acknowledged
by all systematists that the Régles deal only with legalistic or nomenclatorial
problems not with zoological ones. The Commission cannot decide on the
zoological validity of a species, it can only decide on the nomenclatorial validity
of a name applied to a species (or other category). Changes in the zoological
validity of a species are made on the basis of accumulated evidence. The same
reasoning can be applied to type localities. These have geographic reality
just as the species has zoological reality, and the only equivalent of the species
name would be the name of the type locality. The Commission ought not to
decide on the geographic validity of the type locality any more than on the
zoological validity of the species, nor should it try to regulate the handling of
purely geographical evidence in a decision on type locality validity by a
systematist.

1192 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

The International Commission has already recognized that the type
locality is an entity, and is the equivalent of a taxonomic character, in Opinion
52. Here it states that under certain conditions “‘ the type locality becomes a
part of the description and is to be considered as an important element in
determining the identity of species’. While the Commission can regulate and
decide what might constitute an adequate description, it cannot specify what
a particular portion of that description is to be. For example, it is within the
powers of the Commission to say that a description of a snake species is not
adequate unless a labial count is included, but it cannot specify that a particular
species must have six labials in order to be valid. Thus, it can require that the
type locality must be included in a description to make it adequate, but it
cannot specify where that type locality is to be.

Accordingly, I ask the International Commission to consider reducing
the proposed rule concerning type localities and their designation or restriction
to the rank of a recommendation.

I request further that a statement similar to the following be added to the
recommendation, embodying the suggestions made by Dunn (1934, Copeia
(4): 172): the designation and/or restriction of a type locality is to be
determined on one or more of the following bases: original description ; data
accompanying the type specimens; collector’s notes, itineraries, letters,
conversation, or other personal communication ; and, as a last resort only,
localities within the known range of the species or from which specimens
supposed to belong to the species in question are known to have been taken.
The latter basis is to be employed with caution, since it involves the question
of accuracy of identification of later material with the species the type
represents.

I request further that the International Commission withdraw the
recommendation of usage of the principle of priority in questions of restriction
or designation of type localities. If the suggestion made above that the item
be considered a recommendation rather than a rule be refused, it becomes more
important that this clause be removed, in view of the fact that this would then
necessitate usage of the Plenary Powers to reject a prior action, and result in an
increase of the work load of the International Commission that is totally
uncalled for and unnecessary.

I request further that, if the rule be retained rather than reduced to a
recommendation, that it should be provided that the restricted or designated
type locality must be consistent with all available information on the species,
and that a restriction or designation that is not consistent with such information
should not be binding upon subsequent authors.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 1193

DOCUMENT 75/2
Problems arising in connection with the determination of type localities

By KENNETH C. PARKES
(Carnegie Museum, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, U.S.A.)

(Enclosure to a letter dated 22nd April 1958)

In Professor Bradley’s Draft of the revised English Text of the Régles,
the ‘‘ first reviser’ principle is set up in connection with the designation or
restriction of type localities, with the provision that a later author may further
restrict a designated or too broadly-restricted type locality. There appears to
be no provision for the correction of a designated or restricted type locality
believed by a later author to be wrong. I am of the opinion that such a pro-
vision should be included.

I think it is important to differentiate clearly between two different
kinds of ‘‘ wrong” designations or restrictions of type locality. The first is
represented by cases in which there is tangible, unequivocal evidence that the
locality selected by the “ first reviser’’ was not that from which the type
specimen came. Such evidence might be in published form, overlooked by the
“ first reviser ”’, or, more frequently, unpublished but definite evidence such as
information on the label of the type specimen unknown to the “ first reviser ”’,
an entry in a manuscript catalogue, or unpublished journals, diaries, or
itineraries of the original collector. I believe that if a later author has access
to such definite information as to settle for all time the question of the designated
or restricted type locality, he should be permitted (in fact, encouraged) to
publish a correction, invalidating the incorrect designation or restriction of the
“ first reviser ’’, without recourse to any application to the Commission.

In certain other cases, however, the evidence may be less clear, and a
subjective element may enter. In some cases the opinion of the later author
may be based on taxonomic grounds; the “first reviser” may have
designated or restricted the type locality to a place not inhabited, in the
opinion of the later author, by the species or subspecies described by the
original author. Or there may be some confusion and room for difference of

1194 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

opinion in interpretation of the original author’s statements, such that a later
author may believe he has a more probable interpretation of the facts upon
which to base a designation or restriction. In any case in which there is no
unequivocal evidence of the kind described above to settle the matter, I believe
the later author should present his case for setting aside the action of the
“ first reviser ” to the Commission as is now done in the case of more purely
nomenclatorial matters. The Commission can then weigh the probabilities,
and, if the later author seems to have the weight of the available evidence on his
side, use the Plenary Powers to set aside the unlikely locality in favor of the
likely one. These matters could be placed before specialists for comment
just as are matters of nomenclature at present.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 1195

DOCUMENT 75/3

Support for the provisions relating to the restriction and designation
of localities for nominal species inserted in the “‘ Regles’’ by the
Copenhagen Congress of 1953

By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E.
(London)

(Statement dated 31st May 1958)

At Copenhagen in 1953 the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology
agreed to insert in the Régles provisions for the restriction and designation of
localities for nominal species (1953, Copenhagen Decisions zool. Nomencl. : 26-
27, Decision 31). This decision fulfilled a long-felt want and removed one of the
most important remaining causes of uncertainty in the interpretation of nominal
species. For without provisions of this kind it had proved—and would have
continued to prove—impossible in the case of polytypic species described
with inadequate particulars as to the provenance of the original type material
to determine which of the known subspecies should be regarded as being the
nominate subspecies, and to sink as a junior synonym the separate name
given to that subspecies.

2. The substance of the decisions taken by the Copenhagen Congress in
this matter has been included by Professor Chester Bradley in Article 17 of
his Draft of the English text of the Régles (1957, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 14 : 115-
116). In introducing this instalment of the decisions taken by the Copenhagen
Congress, Professor Bradley added a ‘‘ Foreword ’’, in which, after drawing
attention to the taxonomic importance of knowledge regarding type localities,
he admitted that knowledge on this subject is of importance also in nomenclature
where it is necessary in order to determine the taxon to which a given name
belongs, and added that this was a situation ‘‘ most apt to occur in dealing
with subspecies ”. If Professor Bradley had stopped at this point, no difficulty
would have arisen. Unfortunately, however, in a further paragraph headed
‘* Discussion ’’ Professor Bradley added some reflections of his own, in which
he questioned the appropriateness of this subject for inclusion in the Régles

1196 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

and then proceeded as follows: ‘‘ Admitting that locality is an important
attribute of a subspecies or species, it is no more so than the morphological
characters by which the taxon must be interpreted. The type has been set
up as the standard of the taxon, the name-bearer, and there can be no dual
standard ”’.

3. I think it unfortunate that, after having participated at Copenhagen
in the decision by that Congress to insert in the Régles the provisions relating
to type localities here concerned, Professor Bradley should have taken the
opportunity presented by the invitation to compile a draft on the basis of the
Paris and Copenhagen Congress decisions to introduce criticisms of those
decisions, advancing objections to them which were not voiced at Copenhagen.
In the circumstances, however, some comment on Professor Bradley’s
observations are certainly called for.

4, Professor Bradley’s comparison of the relative importance of a
knowledge of the type locality of a taxon on the one hand and on the other
hand of that of the morphological characters which that taxon exhibits is of
interest as illustrating his views on the taxonomic issues involved, but, as
Professor Bradley must be well aware, is wholly irrelevant so long as the
discussion is confined to the nomenclatorial field. For, as Professor Bradley
admits, a knowledge of the locality from which the original material of a given
taxon was obtained is of fundamental nomenclatural significance, while no one
can claim that the morphological characters displayed by a given species
possess any direct nomenclatorial significance whatever, though subjective
characters of this kind are naturally of great importance from the taxonomic
point of view.

5. The argument advanced in the concluding sentence of his “‘ Discussion ”
(quoted in paragraph 2 above) is equally fallacious and beside the point. It is
not a fact that the “‘ type specimen system ” and the “‘ type locality system ”
represent opposing elements in what Professor Bradley calls a ‘‘ dual standard ”’.
On the contrary, both are essential features of a single unitary system. Where a
nominal taxon (whether species or subspecies) has a type specimen—either a
holotype or a lectotype—the particulars regarding the place of capture of that
specimen stated on the label attached to it or otherwise associated with it
form a necessary and essential part of the data for interpreting that taxon.
Similarly, where a nominal taxon has no surviving type material and a neotype
is established for the interpretation of that taxon, the locality where that
neotype specimen was obtained forms an essential part of the information
provided by the neotype for the interpretation of the species concerned. In
both these cases the ‘“‘ type locality” is no more than one of a number of
nomenclatorially co-equal elements in the group of data which in the aggregate
provide the means needed—at the nomenclatorial level—for the interpretation

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 1197

of the nominal taxon concerned. Professor Bradley’s fears are thus seen to be
totally groundless, the dangers arising from the friction arising through the
anticipated existence of a ‘‘ dual standard ’”’ now being seen to be as non-
existent as the “‘ dual standard ”’ itself.

6. There remains for consideration the question of the procedure best
fitted for dealing with special cases (a) where the locality cited by the original
author is too wide or too vague to be of any practical value, and (b) where the
locality provided by that author is later either definitely shown to have been
incorrect or is so regarded by specialists in the group concerned. In the case of
any nominal taxon falling in either of the above groups and possessing no
surviving type material the desired end could be obtained either by the
establishment of a neotype or by recourse to the “ Designation-and-Restriction ”
system decided upon by the Copenhagen Congress; in the remaining cases,
that is, in those cases where some type material is still extant the neotype
method would not be applicable and the required relief is obtainable only
under the “ Designation-and-Restriction ” system. In those cases where no
need has hitherto been felt for the establishment of a neotype, the setting-up
of such a type solely for the purpose of providing a “ type locality ” seems to
me to be quite unnecessarily cumbrous and so slow moving as to be quite
unacceptable, in view especially of the fact that in this class of case all that is
required is obtainable much more readily under the “ Designation-and-
Restriction ’’ system, a system which, though not given the force of law until
the Copenhagen Congress, has, as is well known, been in wide informal usage
in numerous groups for many years past.

7. For the reasons set out above the provisions regarding the designation
and restriction of localities for nominal taxa (species and taxa of lower rank)
adopted by the Copenhagen Congress will be seen to be concerned with a
nomenclatorial matter which it is important should be covered effectively—
that is, by mandatory provisions—in the Régles. Of the two groups of cases
concerned one (that comprising the names of taxa for which no type material
is extant) the Copenhagen method, beside being the method in common informal
use, is simpler and quicker than the neotype system, the only possible
alternative, while in the case of the remaining group (that of names of taxa
where some of the original material is still in existence) the Copenhagen
method provides the sole means of obtaining the required relief. I accordingly
strongly recommend that the decision by the Copenhagen Congress for the
insertion in the Régles of provisions (a) recognising the designation and
restriction of localities for nominal species and taxa of lower rank and (b)
regulating the use of these procedures be upheld and confirmed.

8. The “ Designation-and-Restriction ” system approved by the Copen-
hagen Congress is based upon the principle that matters of this kind should be
left to be determined by the “ First Reviser’’. In this respect therefore the
foregoing provisions are fully in harmony with the spirit of the times, the “ First

1198 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Reviser ’’ principle having been considerably extended both by the Copenhagen
Congress and more recently by the Commission through interpretative
Declarations. No doubt occasions will sometimes arise where, for example, a
First Reviser restricts a locality for some nominal species and later investigations
will demonstrate or suggest that the “restricted” locality or area specified
by the “ First Reviser ” does not comprise the place where the type material
was actually obtained. What should be done in such cases? It appears to
me that the answer should follow the lines already prescribed by the Régles
in a number of different contexts, as for example, in that relating to the
interpretation of nominal genera based upon type species regarded by later
authors as having been misidentified, and in that relating to nominal family
group taxa based upon similarly misidentified type genera.

9. I accordingly recommend :—

(1) that the decision by the Copenhagen Congress that there be inserted
in the Régles provisions recognising and regulating the designation
and restriction of localities for nominal species (1953, Copenhagen
Decisions zool. Nomencl. : 26-27, Decision 31) be upheld and confirmed.

(2) that there be inserted a supplementary provision prescribing (a) that
a First Reviser designating or restricting a locality for a nominal
species under (1) above is to be assumed initially to have designated
a locality, or to have restricted the locality specified by the original
author in a manner, in harmony with the place of capture of the
original type material, and (b) that, if at any later date evidence
is forthcoming which, in the opinion of specialists in the group
concerned, demonstrates or suggests that the designation or
restriction made by the First Reviser was incorrect, the question
should be submitted to the International Commission for decision.

TOS ee ee el a

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 1199

CASE No. 76

DRAFT “ REGLES ’”’?: PROVISIONS IN THE EXISTING “ REGLES ”
OMITTED FROM THE DRAFT ENGLISH TEXT OF THE REVISED
“* REGLES ”’

(Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 1374)
DOCUMENT 76/1

Proposals for incorporating in the Revised “‘ Régles ’’ certain provisions
in the existing “‘ Régles ’’ omitted from the Draft prepared by
Professor J. Chester Bradley

By R. V. MELVILLE
(Assistant Secretary, International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature)

(Statement dated 3rd June 1958)

When the Copenhagen (1953) Congress entrusted to Professor J. Chester
Bradley the task of preparing a “first draft of the English text of the Régles
as amended at Paris in 1948 and as further amended at Copenhagen in 1953 ”
(Copenhagen Decisions: 96, Decision 187), it recognised that this would
‘inevitably be a very laborious and exacting task”’. It is therefore perhaps
not altogether surprising that some of the numerous amendments to the
existing Régles have been omitted from the draft English text of the revised
Régles, but it is nevertheless clearly the duty of the Colloquium to consider
these omissions and to place the provisions concerned in their proper positions
in the revised code. Mrs. Wilson has indicated where these omissions are in
her Index to Professor Bradley’s draft . . . by reference to the article numbers in
the existing Réegles (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 14 : 293-366) and it is the purpose
of this paper to present the omitted provisions to the Colloquium in detail,
with proposals for their incorporation into the revised Régles. These comments
and proposals are presented in the order of the draft Articles of Professor
Bradley’s text,

1200 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
Article 6/1(d)

This paragraph should be deleted. A name which is held to be offensive
on personal, religious or political grounds is available for use in zoological
nomenclature until it has been suppressed by the Commission under its Plenary
Powers. There are no means whereby the Commission can recognise the
existence of such a name until the case has been brought to their attention,
nor any means whereby individual zoologists can suppress a name alleged to be
offensive on any of these grounds without application to the Commission.

Article 10/2(a)

No rule exists whereby a zoologist can determine whether a new name
that he intends to propose is “‘ liable to give offence on political, religious or
personal grounds”. The name Jumala Friele, 1882 (suppressed in Opinion
469) was proposed in a bona fide way without any intention to give offence
and possessed full status until it was suppressed. The first two lines of this
paragraph should be re-worded to read “‘ It is prohibited to propose a new name
that is deliberately intended to give offence on political, religious or personal ”’.

Article 16

By a decision of the Paris Congress (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 68, Decision 5,
paragraph 1), a new name published in a form or manner which contravenes
any of the provisions of Articles 14 to 16 and 18 to 20 of the existing Régles
is to be subject to automatic correction. Articles 19 and 20 were deleted by
the Copenhagen Congress (Copenhagen Decisions : 43 and 57, Decisions 70 and
101), but Article 18 of the existing Régles deals, as does Article 16 of the draft
revised Régles, with the notation of hybrids. It is therefore proposed that a new
Section 3 be added to draft Article 16 providing that names formed in a form
or manner that contravenes any of the provisions of the Article are subject
to automatic correction.

Article 19, Section 3(d)(ii)

It has already been pointed out elsewhere (: 1125, Document No. 68/1) that
the term “‘ Linnean tautonymy ” was introduced by Declaration 29 to describe
a condition of tautonymy which arises because a pre-Linnean tautonymous
univerbal specific name occurred in the synonymy of one of the species originally
included in a nominal genus, and which thus determines the identity of the
nominal species which is the type-species of the genus in question. The
addition of the phrase “ (type by Linnean tautonymy) ” at the end of the para-
graph referred to has there been suggested.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 1201

Article 22

Article 21 of the existing Régles provides a definition of the term “ author ”’
for purposes of zoological nomenclature. As pointed out elsewhere (: 1164,
Document 73/1), Professor Bradley has deleted this Article from the Régles
and has relegated it to an unofficial ‘‘ Glossary’ ; and a proposal was there
made for the inclusion of the authorised definition in a new defining article.
It is now suggested that it would be well for the same definition to be inserted
as a new Section 1 of Article 22 of the draft of the revised Régles ; the existing
Sections 1 to 7 would then be numbered 2 to 8.

Article 23/1(a)(i)

The wording of this paragraph illustrates the inconsistency pointed out
under Articles 6/1(d) and 10/2(a) above.

The Paris Congress ruled (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 193) that a name found
to be offensive on political, religious or personal grounds was to be suppressed
for all purposes. In the only case of this kind hitherto dealt with by the Com-
mission, however (the generic name Jumala Friele, 1882, see Opinion 469),
the name in question was suppressed for the purposes of the Law of Priority
but not for those of the Law of Homonymy. This is obviously the correct
course, since it is the word itself that is objectionable, not its usage in connection
with a particular taxon, so that it is necessary to prevent subsequent usages
of the same word in a different connection.

Article 24, Section 12

The Paris Congress, in considering emendations to Article 35 of the existing
Régles, directed (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 163, Conclusion 43) “that, in deter-
mining whether two [specific] names, each consisting of an adjective, are
homonyms of one another, no account is to be taken of the gender in which
either is expressed and accordingly differences in termination due solely to
such differences in gender are to be ignored’. This provision, which has been
omitted from the draft of the revised Régles, should be inserted as a new
example (1) in Section 12 of draft Article 24 in the following words : “ (1) in
adjectival names, in the termination in so far as this indicates only a difference
in gender ’’.

Article 28, Section 13

The Paris Congress, having concluded that specific names formed from the
unchanged surnames of modern persons are to be corrected (Bull. zool. Nomencl.
4 ; 251, Conclusion 13(1) ; see draft Article 28/16(e)) went on to direct (: 251,
Conclusion 13(2)) that Article 14 of the existing Régles should be emended to
show that the provision “ that a [specific] name may be a noun in the nominative

1202 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

singular in apposition to the generic name does not apply to [specific] names
based on the surnames of modern personages’. This important provision,
which has been omitted from the draft of the revised Régles, should be added
to draft Article 28, Section 13 by making the second example in the first
paragraph read “ a noun in the nominative singular in apposition to the generic
name (except in the case of specific names based on the surnames of modern
personages), or ”’.

Article 28, proposed new Section 15

The Paris Congress concluded (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 140, Conclusion 14 ;
: 348, Conclusion 32) that “‘ where a new specific or subspecific name is published
in a list of species referred to a given genus and is there preceded by a serial
letter or serial numeral, that serial letter or serial numeral is not to be taken
as constituting part of the specific or subspecific name in question”’. It is
suggested that this provision should form a new Section 15 in draft Article 28 ;
the sections numbered 15 to 18 would then become 16 to 19.

Article 28/Tables

No reference is to be found in Professor Bradley’s draft of the decision
of the Paris Congress (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4:73, Conclusion 9) ‘“ that an
Article should be inserted in the Régles referring to the Second Schedule (i.e.
the present Appendice) and making it clear that the provisions included therein
were not mandatory but were in the nature of recommendations as to good
nomenclatorial practice”. If proposals put forward by the Secretary in
Document 55/1 (: 1017 above) are accepted, Sections A to E of the Appendice
will be incorporated in various Recommendations in the draft, so that their
recommendatory status in terms of the Paris decision referred to is already
clear. It has been suggested in Documents 67/1 and 69/1 (: 1110 and 1146 above)
that Sections F and G of the Appendice should be associated with draft Article
28 in the form of Schedules ; the Paris decision requires that a statement should
be prefixed to these Schedules indicating their reeommendatory, as opposed
to mandatory, status.

Re TO ee ee ee ee ee eee

wt ele!

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 1203

CASE No. 77

DRAFT “REGLES”’’: THE QUESTION OF THE DATE FROM
WHICH CERTAIN PROVISIONS BECOME EFFECTIVE

(Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 1321)

Document 77/1

By R. V. MELVILLE

(Assistant Secretary, International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature)

In January 1958, Professor J. Chester Bradley wrote drawing attention
to the fact that the Copenhagen Congress left open the question of the dates
from which certain provisions which were to be incorporated into the revised
Régles were to become effective. The present paper presents proposals on these
questions for the consideration of the Colloquium. It should first be
stated that the question of the time-interval to be allowed during which
certain actions (such as the selection of neotypes, the suppression of senior
synonyms in the interests of stability, and the suppression of nomina dubia)
are to be open to challenge, is not dealt with here. Each of the following
proposals is related by reference to the appropriate Article of the draft English
text of the revised Régles.

Article 6/1(m)

C : 41, Decision 64 provided that no name published for a taxon in the
Phylum-group or in the Order/Class-group after the introduction of the scheme
proposed in Decisions 59 to 69 should be an available name unless the name of
the type-genus was published at the same time as the higher-category name in
question. Many aspects of the subject of regulating the nomenclature of these
groups are to be discussed by the Colloquium (Case No. 25), but it appears
that the present issue can be dealt with in isolation, that is to say that, on the
assumption that the Copenhagen proposal on this point is accepted, the relevant
date can be fixed apart from other considerations. If the Copenhagen proposal
is rejected, then the fixing of the date has no further importance.

It is proposed that the date to be inserted in Article 6, Section 1, paragraph
(m) be “ the date of publication of the substantive text of the revised Régles ”’.

1204 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Article 6/7(b) and (ce)

C : 68, Decision 115 ruled that, as from a date to be specified, no name
should acquire availability by virtue of having been published in a synonymy
without fulfilling the other requirements of the Law of Availability. It is
proposed that this date also can be inserted as “‘ the date of publication of the
substantive text of the revised Reégles’’.

Article 12/1(a) and 2

Professor Bradley believes that C : 38, Decision 62 implies that names in the
Phylum-group and in the Order/Class-group published before a date to be
fixed are only to be available if they are included in the lists of such names
drawn up by the specialist committees envisaged by that Congress. The
comments on this matter that have been published as the documents in Case
No. 25 make it appear uncertain whether the method of proceeding by specialist
committees will in fact be universally adopted, but it may at least be envisaged
that the Commission will eventually be called upon to vote upon lists of such
names, by whatever means these lists are procured, and that such lists will not
be simultaneously available for all Classes of animals. In this event it will
clearly be desirable in the interests of uniformity of nomenclature at the
Order/Class-group level if bona fide lists put forward by specialists (working
singly or in groups) and published in the Bulletin can, after a suitable interval,
be either added to the Official Lists or definitely rejected. Once such a list
has been voted on by the Commission (assuming that the vote is in favour of
adding the names in question to the Official Lists), the Commission could be
required to publish as an Opinion a notice of the fact that the names in the
list in question had been so approved; and the date of publication of this
notice could, it is suggested, be the date from which the provision referred to
should operate in the group concerned.

It is therefore proposed that Article 12/1, paragraph (a) be emended so
that the antepenultimate line shall read “‘ among those proposed prior to the
date of publication by the Commission in an Opinion of a notice signifying that
the names in the list in question are to be added to the Official Lists ”’.

It is further proposed that the first line of the second paragraph of Section 2
of the same article be emended to read ‘‘ If both names in question have been
proposed prior to the date of publication by the Commission in an Opinion
of a notice signifying that the names in the list in question are to be added to the
Official Lists.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 1205

CASE No. 78

DRAFT “ REGLES ”’ (ALL ARTICLES) : PROBLEMS OF DRAFTING
ARISING THROUGH DIFFERENCES IN USAGE OF THE
ENGLISH LANGUAGE IN ENGLAND AND AMERICA
RESPECTIVELY

(Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 1336)

DOCUMENT 78/1

Proposals for dealing with problems arising in connection with
the preparation of the English text of the “‘ Régles ’’
owing to different usages of the English
language in England and America

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

(Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature)

(Note dated 5th June 1958)

The present note is concerned with the problems of drafting which
inevitably arise when it is necessary to prepare an English-language document
for international use, for the differences as between practice in England on the
one hand and that in America on the other hand in the meaning attached to
particular words, in the words used to denote particular concepts and in some
cases in the expressions used to convey particular ideas, are bound to lead to
ambiguity, if not actual confusion, on one side of the Atlantic or the other,
however great the care taken by the draftsman may have been.

2. The foregoing problem which arises acutely at various points in the
draft of the English text prepared by Professor Chester Bradley (1957, Bull.
zool. Nomencl. 14), is not a new one in the experience of the Commission, it

BBBB

1206 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

having arisen already on a number of previous occasions in the course of
day-to-day work. The following are examples of cases where this problem
presented itself during the Session held by the International Commission
in 1948: (1) the words ‘‘ wrappers”? (English) and ‘ covers” (American)
as the term to describe the binder for a portion of a work published in parts,
and (2) the words “‘ round brackets’ and “ square brackets ’’ (English) and
‘* parentheses ’’ and “ brackets”? (American). In dealing with these cases
it was decided that in a document for which the Commission was responsible,
both words belonging to any given pair should be included the English-usage
word to be cited before the American-usage word, the latter being placed in
round brackets (parentheses).

3. It appears to me that it would assist English-speaking zoologists on
both sides of the Atlantic if the following procedure were to be agreed upon :—

(1) Wherever in the English text a given word or expression is either not
the word or expression which would be correct or the word
or expression normally used to denote a particular meaning in
England and America respectively, the meaning is to be indicated
by the use of two words or expressions, the first the correct form
according to English usage, the second, placed in round brackets
(parentheses), the American usage.

(2) Any zoologist who may consider it desirable that this procedure should
be adopted in any particular instance should submit his suggestions
to the Bureau of the Colloquium.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 1207

CASE No. 79

DRAFT “ REGLES ’’, ARTICLE 29: QUESTION OF INCLUDING

IN THE REVISED “ REGLES’’ PARIS PROVISIONS ON THE

ORGANIC RULES OF THE COMMISSION NOT INCLUDED IN THE
DRAFT “ REGLES ”’

(Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 1375)
DOCUMENT 79/1

Clauses relating to the “* Official Lists ’’ and ‘‘ Official Indexes ”’,
to the cancellation of “‘ Opinions ”’ for interpretative purposes
and to the “‘ Completeness of Opinions ’’ Rule

By R. V. MELVILLE

(Assistant Secretary, International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature)

Many passages in Volume 4 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
show that the Paris (1948) Congress gave much thought to regulating the working
of the International Commission. The provisions then adopted show further
that the realities of the case were kept clearly in mind; for while the
Commission functions at all times, the Congresses to which the Commission
is responsible meet only once in each five years. Thus, while it is important
that successive Congresses should be able to review, and if need be modify,
the rules which define the powers and duties of the Commission, it is equally
important that the Commission should have some degree of self-control if it is
to fulfil the duties laid upon it, and to exercise its powers in the interests of
a stable nomenclature, without unnecessary frustration and delay.

2. It was clearly with this situation in mind that the Paris Congress ruled
(Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 327, Conclusion 16): that a provision should be
inserted in the Régles providing :—

(a) that the functions and composition of the Commission and its pro-
cedure and other matters concerned with the conduct of its affairs
shall be governed by By-Laws to be adopted by the Commission,

1208 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

consisting in part of Organic Articles specifying those matters on
which decisions have been taken by the Congress and in part of
Articles dealing with other questions relating to the matters afore-
said ;

(b) that the Organic Articles to be incorporated in the By-Laws shall not
be subject to change by the Commission, except that in so far as
the Congress may from time to time vary the provisions in the
Régles relating to the functions, composition and procedure of the
Commission, it shall be the duty of the Commission to amend the
relevant Organic Articles to such extent as may be necessary to bring
those Articles into harmony with the decisions so taken by the
Congress ;

(c) that, in addition to, and subject to the provisions of, the Organic
Articles, there may be included in the By-Laws such provisions as
the Commission may deem to be necessary or expedient relating (i)
to the election of officers during inter-Congress periods and the duties
to be assigned to each such officer, (ii) to the election of members
of the Commission, (iii) to the methods to be followed in voting
on matters requiring decision, and (iv) generally to any other matter
concerning the conduct of the business of the Commission ;

(d) that, subject to (b) above, the Commission may at any time vary its
By-Laws to such extent and subject to such conditions as it may
from time to time decide to be necessary or appropriate.

The functions, powers and duties of the Commission whose government was to
be managed in the manner prescribed in the passage just quoted were re-defined
by the Paris Congress in an earlier passage (: 291-292). But while Professor
Bradley’s draft of the revised Régles takes account of these definitions in draft
Article 29, no mention is made of the By-Laws which ought, on the instructions
of the Paris Congress, to have been included in the Régles, nor are any of the
detailed provisions of that Congress relating to particular duties and powers
considered.

3. The present paper brings before the Colloquium proposals for a more
definite version of the Organic Articles to be included as an integral part of the
Régles. First, as a matter of definition of terms, it is suggested that the subject
for discussion should not be the division of the By-Laws into Organic Articles
and other Articles, but rather the division of the instrument whereby the
Commission is governed into (i) Organic Articles, to be an integral part of the
Régles and, as such, to be subject to review and modification by the Congresses,
and (ii) By-Laws, to govern the day-to-day work of the Commission in accord-
ance with the Organic Articles as these may be from time to time determined
by the Congresses.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 1209

4, The Paris Congress concerned itself especially with the Opinions dealing
with individual nomenclatorial cases and with the Official Lists and Official
Indexes. It was directed that the regulations then framed were to be added
to the By-Laws, but in the terminology employed here, that is understood as
referring to the Organic Rules of the Commission. Before these rules are
considered. individually, however, it is suggested that many of them can be
consolidated into a single clause or article, instead of being broken up under
a number of subject-headings with consequent repetition of common factors.
There has grown up in the Commission’s office the custom of thinking in terms
of the ‘‘ Completeness of Opinions Rule ’’, whereby steps are taken to see
that every application covers all the aspects of its case. It is because this was
not done in earlier days that the Directions series was initiated. The need for
these Directions has imposed on the Commission’s office much work of a
peculiarly exacting sort and it is clear that the regulations provided by the
Paris Congress were in part devised so as to prevent future sins of omission
of this kind. A second clause can cover the provision whereby once the names
dealt with in a given Opinion have been added to the relevant Official Lists
or Official Indexes, that Opinion is repealed except for historical purposes,
and a third clause with the various provisions relative to the Official Lists
and Official Indexes.

5. It is therefore proposed that a new Section 2 be added to draft Article 29
as follows :—

«2. Organic Rules of the Commission.—(a) The functions and composition
of the Commission and its procedure and other matters concerned with the
conduct of its affairs shall be governed by the succeeding provisions of this
Article, specifying those matters on which decisions have been taken by the
Congress, and to be known as the Organic Articles of the Commission.

(b) The Organic Articles shall not be subject to change by the Commission,
except that in so far as the Congress may from time to time vary the provisions
of this Article relating to the Commission, it shall be the duty of the Commission
to amend the relevant Organic Articles to such extent as may be necessary to
bring those Articles into harmony with the decisions so taken by the Congress.

(c) In addition to, and subject to the provisions of, the Organic Articles,
the Commission may devise such By-Laws as it may deem to be necessary or
expedient relating to (i) the election of Officers during inter-Congress periods
and the duties to be assigned to each such Officer, (ii) the election of members
of the Commission, (iii) the methods to be followed in voting on matters requiring
decision, and (iv) generally to any other matter concerning the conduct of the
business of the Commission.

(d) Subject to (b) above, the Commission may at any time vary its By-
Laws to such extent and subject to such conditions as it may from time to time
decide to be necessary or appropriate.”

1210 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

If this proposal is accepted, the Sections of Article 29 now numbered 2 to le
will be numbered 3 to 13.

6. It is further proposed that draft Article 29, Section 7, paragraph (a)(i)
be amended to read from line 26 of p. 257 (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 14) ‘“‘ Bulletin
after the Secretary is satisfied (1) that all names mentioned in the case are
correctly cited, (2) in the case of specific names, that these are cited in the
binomen in which they were originally published, (3) in the case of generic names,
that the correct gender of the name is specified, that the name of the type-
species is cited with a full reference to its original place of publication and to the
place of its designation, indication or selection as type-species of the nominal
genus in question, and that application is made in respect of all family-group
names based on the name of the said genus, (4) in the case of names in all
categories in the Family-group, the Order/Class-group and the Phylum-group,
that the name of the type-genus is cited with a full reference to its original
place of publication and to the place of its designation, indication or selection
as type-genus of the taxon concerned, and (5) in all cases, that all relevant
bibliographic references have been supplied.”

Subparagraph (vi) of this paragraph should in consequence read “‘ Every
Opinion rendered hereafter in which a name or names is or are added to the
Official Lists or Official Indexes must include all the data specified in sub-
paragraph (i) above in so far as they are relevant to that Opinion ”’.

B. 4 : 340, 355; B.5 : 104-5

7. It is further proposed that a new subparagraph (vii) be added to the
paragraph referred to, as follows :—“ (vii). When the names dealt with in a
given Opinion have been added to the relevant Official Lists or Official Indexes,
the Opinion in question shall be cancelled for all except historical purposes ”’.

B. 4 : 332, 334-5

8. It is further proposed that draft Article 29, Section 9, paragraph (e)
be amended to read :—“ The Commission shall compile and maintain the
undermentioned Lists and Indexes, to be annexed to the Régles as Schedules...”
and that the following additional reference be cited :—“‘ B. 4 : 334, par. 20”.

9. It is further proposed that new paragraphs (f) to (j) be added to this
Section, as follows :—“‘ (f) Regulations concerning the Official List of Specific
Names in Zoology ” .—

(i) A specific name once added to the Offictal List is to be used in prefer-
ence to any other name for the species in question and that name is
not to be replaced by any other specific name even if later it is found
either (1) that the specific name in question is not an available
name or (2) that it is not the oldest available specific name for the
species in question, unless the Commission shall so direct.

as

SRO: Si roms eet te

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 1211

(ii) The names to be included in this Official List shall include (a) every
specific name validated by the Commission under its Plenary Powers,
(b) every available specific name on which the Commission has
rendered an Opinion, (c) the name of the type-species of any genus
the name of which is placed on the Official List of Generic Names in
Zoology, save that where such a name is not, either objectively or
subjectively, the oldest available name for the species in question,
there shall be added to the Official List the oldest available name for
the taxonomic species concerned, (d) the oldest available name for
species of importance in medicine, agriculture, veterinary science
and other fields of applied biology, in stratigraphy and in the teach-
ing of zoology, (e) the oldest available name for species the nomen-
clature of which the Commission, in consultation with specialists
concerned, considers it desirable to stabilise.

(iii) The insertion on the Official List of a given specific name is not to be
interpreted as an expression of opinion on the taxonomic question
whether the animal so named should be regarded as a distinct

species or as a subspecies of some other species.
B. 4 : 270, par. 42(1)

(iv) Specific names originally published as the names of subspecies (but
now regarded as the names of species) and specific names, whether
originally published as specific or as subspecific names (but now
regarded as subspecific names) are equally eligible with names
originally published as, and still regarded as, specific names, for
inclusion in the Official List.

B. 4 : 627, par. 61(1)

(g) Regulations concerning the “ Official List of Generic Names in
Zoology ”’.—

(i) A generic name that has been placed on the Official List is to be used,
in preference to any other name, for the species which is the type-
species of the said genus, save that where the Commission places
on the Official List the names of two genera the type-species of
which are regarded by some systematists as belonging to different
genera but by others as being congeneric with each other, the later
published of the two generic names in question is for use only by
those workers who regard the respective type species of the two
genera concerned as not being congeneric with each other.

(ii) The names to be included in this Official List shall be (a) every generic
name validated by the Commission under its Plenary Powers or
for which the type-species has been similarly designated, (b) the
name of every genus, when an available name, in respect of which
or of its type-species the Commission has rendered an Opinion,

1212

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

(c) the oldest available name for genera of importance in medicine,
agriculture, veterinary science and other fields of applied biology,
in stratigraphy and in the teaching of zoology, and (d) the name of
any genus which the Commission, after consultation with specialists,
considers it desirable to stabilise.

(iii) Where a generic name belonging to (b), (c) or (d) above is found,

after having been placed on the Official List, either not to be an
available name or not to be the oldest name available, there being
an older name for a genus having as its type-species a species either
subjectively identified with or subjectively regarded as congeneric
with the type-species of the genus in question, or to have as its
type-species some species other than that attributed to it in the
Official List, the generic name in question is not to be discarded
in favour of some other generic name or used in a sense different
from that specified in the Official List unless the Commission shall so
direct.

B. 4 : 267, par. 41(1)

(h) Regulations concerning the “ Official List of Family-Group Names in

Zoology ”’.—

(i) The Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology shall be subject

to rules similar to those prescribed above for the Official List of
Generic Names in Zoology.

(ii) The only entry to be made in this Official List in respect of any name

shall be a reference to the first publication of that name, irrespective
of the category within the Family-Group to which the taxon so
named was then assigned.

C : 37, par. 58

(i) Regulations concerning the “ Official List of Names in the Order/Class-

Group in Zoology ” and the “ Official List of Names in the Phylum-Group in
Zoology ”.—

(i) The Official List of Names in the Order] Class-Group in Zoology and the

Official List of Names in the Phylum-Group in Zoology shall be
subject to rules similar to those prescribed above for the Official
List of Family-Group Names in Zoology.

(ii) The only names to be entered on these Official Lists shall be those

so directed to be placed by the Commission after the names in
question have been submitted to the Commission by interested
specialists and published in the Bulletin at least two years prior
to the taking by the Commission of a decision in the cases of the

names in question.
C : 39, par. 62(5)

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 1213

(j) Regulations concerning the ‘“ Official Indexes of Rejected and Invalid
Names in Zoology ”’.—

(i) The Official Indexes of Rejected and Invalid Names in Zoology shall
give particulars of all names which the Commission has suppressed
under their Plenary Powers and all names which the Commission
has otherwise declared to be unavailable or non-existent.”

10. If the proposals contained in Paragraph 9 above, which embody
provisions which, by the direction of the Paris Congress, form an integral part
of the Régles, are approved, the paragraph of Section 9 of draft Article 29
now numbered (f) will be numbered (k).

1214 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
DOCUMENT 79/2

Proposed correction of certain errors in the Draft of Article 29 relating to the
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature and proposed
rejection of certain new proposals included in that Draft and
(b) in the Draft of certain other Articles associated therewith

(Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 1375)

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

(Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature)
(Statement dated 12th J une 1958)

The present note has been prepared in the light of a careful examination
of Article 29 of the Draft of the English text of the Réegles in which Professor
Chester Bradley has attempted to bring together the various decisions taken by
the International Congresses of Zoology in regard to the composition, functions
and duties of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature.
The task cannot have been an easy one and it is not surprising that here and
there Professor Bradley should have slipped into error.

2. In the following notes I have ignored the numerous cases where
Professor Bradley has employed wording different from that used in the Official
Record of the International Congresses and appears to convey a meaning
similar generally to that set out in the Congress decisions concerned. I have
accordingly directed my attention to those cases where Professor Bradley has
either inserted draft provisions differing in some respect from the relevant
Congress authority or has on his own motion introduced new provisions favoured
by himself for which at present there is no authority of any kind. For con-
venience of discussion the points raised, some of which are concerned only
to secure some minor, but desirable, improvement in drafting, are set out
serially so as to correspond with the order in which the provisions discussed
appear in the Draft of Article 29.

Point (1)

3. Section 2 (last line) : The expression “6 through 9” which appears
in the last line of Section 2 (1957, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 14 : 245) requires elucida-
tion for the benefit of English readers. It is suggested that, when this is done,

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 1215

this passage should be dealt with under the procedure recommended in
Document 78/1.

Point (2)

4. Section 3, sub-section (g) (introductory portion) : It is suggested that the
words “ the vacancy ” should be substituted for the word “ the fact ” in line 15
on page 248, for what is relevant here is the fact that a vacancy has arisen and
not that the seat now vacant was formerly held by a zoologist of a particular
nationality. The wording here recommended corresponds with the established
practice of the Office of the Commission.

Point (3)

5. Section 3, sub-section (g) (procedure suggested in sub-points (i) and (ii)
and the accompanying notes each headed “ Discussion ’’) : The process of
securing nominations to fill vacant seats in the membership of the Commission
is on occasion very delicate, regional, sectional or personal issues confusing
and rendering difficult the course to be pursued. What is required is that for
dealing with these issues the Executive Committee should be invested with
powers of a reasonable degree of flexibility. In my view the provisions as
drafted in the portion of the Draft Régles noted above are far too rigid. So
much so that if they had been in force at the time when not so very long ago
a particular seat in the Commission fell vacant a quite unnecessary amount
of friction and illwill would have been brought to light but which was avoided
by the more flexible procedure then adopted by the Executive Committee.

6. Turning to examine sub-points (i) and (ii) in sub-section (g) (Bull. zool.
Nomencl. 14 : 248) with these considerations in mind, I should like first to
suggest the omission of the proposal now embodied in line 21 that the nominating
authorities should be given only a specified limited period in which to submit
nominations. Some nominating bodies are very prompt and in their case a
time limit would be unnecessary ; other nominating authorities are either
dilatory or subject themselves to very slow-moving procedures. In their case
the specifying of a date would serve no useful purpose, for it would be quite
ineffectual. I accordingly suggest (a) that in (i) (line 21) the words “ within
a prescribed period” be replaced by words indicating that an early reply is
desired or by some equivalent expression, and (b) that in the first line of sub-
point (ii) the words “At the end of the specified period, or ” be omitted.

7. I consider that it is in the interest of the work of the Commission that
the Executive Committee should be free to seek nominations in whatever
way it may consider best suited to the special nature of the conditions obtaining

1. See page 1206

1216 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

in the country concerned. I agree with Professor Chester Bradley that the
substitution of the word “ organisations ” for the word “ institutions ” is an
improvement but, although it represents a step in the right direction, it does not
in my opinion go far enough. I suggest that in this delicate matter the best
course would be to substitute a new provision (i) for the provision so numbered
which at present appears on lines 17 to 22 on page 248 of the Draft :—

(i) The Executive Committee shall seek the nomination of well-qualified
persons either by the issue of invitations to appropriate leading
scientific organisations in the country concerned or otherwise,
invitations so issued being accompanied by a request for an early
reply and for the supply of particulars of the qualifications of the
persons nominated.

8. Unnumbered sub-item printed on lines 23-26 on page 248 of the Draft
of the “ Régles ’’ : I think that it should be recognised that the national
nominating bodies—and also the Executive Committee—will conduct themselves
in a responsible manner. I am of opinion therefore that there is no need to
include in the Régles a provision explaining how pressure—presumably either
in favour of, or against, a given zoologist—may be brought to bear upon the
nominating authority. It is my experience that, if persons or groups of persons
wish to act as pressure-groups, they will certainly do so and not need any guide
as to how they should set about operations. From this point of view the
provision printed on lines 23 to 26 on page 248 of the Draft is both unnecessary
and undesirable. It may be supposed also that a provision of this kind would
not be viewed with favour by the nominating bodies. I accordingly recom-
mend that the provision referred to above (page 248, lines 23-26) be deleted
from the text.

Point (4)

9. Section 3, sub-section (i)(i) (Election of Alternate Commissioners during
Congresses) : Several points arise on the draft of this provision. These are :—
(1) The Commission has never been given an unqualified right to elect individuals
to be Alternate Commissioners during Congresses, that right having always
been subject to the condition that the proposed election of particular zoologists
as Alternates shall be subject to confirmation by being reported by the Com-
mission to the Secretary-General of the Congress and to the Comité permanent
for approval. This provision is no mere formality, for, as I well remember
being told by senior members of the Commission at Lisbon in 1935, nominations
so submitted had not always been given the required confirmation. (2) As at
present drafted, the Commission would be bound to nominate an Alternate
in the place of every member of the Commission not in attendance at the
Congress concerned. This would run counter to the policy hitherto adopted
by the Commission of nominating Alternates at Congresses only to the extent
that it may itself judge desirable. In actual practice it is not always possible at

~s

a

un

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 1217

Congresses to find enough zoologists who would be willing to devote the
necessary amount of time to service as Alternates, if elected to that position,
or who possessed the necessary knowledge of, or interest in, nomenclature to
make their participation in the meetings of the Commission of practical value.
I may perhaps be allowed to remark that for the reasons set out above thenumber
of Alternates nominated never equalled the maximum number of (temporarily)
vacant seats at any of the meetings of the Commission and the Congress
that I have attended. I accordingly now recommend that in order to meet the
two points discussed above the text of sub-section (i) of Section 3 (page 249,
lines 17-23) be redrafted as follows :—

(i) During Sessions of the Commission held at Congresses.—At Sessions
held during Congresses the Commission may nominate suitably
qualified zoologists or palaeontologists from those present at the
Congress to be Alternate Commissioners to replace temporarily
members of the Commission not in attendance. Nominations so made
shall be submitted to the Secretary-General of the Congress for
transmission to the Comité Permanent and shall become effective
on being approved by those authorities. Alternates shall serve only
for the duration of the Session of the Commission concerned.

10. Section 3, Sub-section (i)(ii) (“ During leave of absence ’’) : In Sub-
section (i)(ii) of Section 3 it is proposed that the Executive Committee should
be given power to elect Alternate Commissioners to fill temporary-short-term
vacancies in the membership of the Commission arising through the grant of
Leave of Absence to some member of the Commission. In my view this provision
is unnecessary and, if adopted, would hardly ever be capable of being brought
into operation. For Members of the Commission, seeking Leave of Absence
from their duties, normally ask for leave for a few months only. In such cases
it would not be worth while to nominate an Alternate, for, after allowing for
the time needed by the Executive Committee to find a suitable candidate who
would be willing to act and then to elect that zoologist to be an Alternate,
the length of time remaining before the expiry of the period of leave of absence
of the other Commissioner would be so much reduced as to render the election
of the suggested Alternate of little or no practical value. I accordingly recom-
mend that the provision which appears on lines 25 to 28 on page 249 be deleted
from the Draft of the Régles. A further point in this connection is that no
provision is suggested whereby elections of Alternate Commissioners during
the absence of Commissioners on leave can be submitted to the Comité Permanent
for ratification. This requirement can only be met at the cost of imposing
yet another delay on the election of such Alternate Commissioners.

Point (5)

11. Suggested Section (j) (Duties of Commissioners) : Professor Bradley
has inserted in his Draft a provision (Sub-section (j) to Section 3) in which he
has put forward a tentative draft of a section preseribing the duties of the

1218 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

members of the Commission. I agree with Professor Bradley that it would be
logical to include such a provision in the Regles. As drafted, the provision
contains a number of defects of a mostly minor character which will need to
be put right before the suggested Sub-section can be regarded as satisfactory.
The points in question are noted below :—

(a) Attendance : In the draft submitted by Professor Bradley it is not
clear whether he is referring to attendance by Commissioners at
Sessions of the Commission held during Congresses or to attendance
at particular meetings of the Commission during such sessions.
It is clearly desirable that attendance should be as good as possible
both at Sessions and at individual meetings. The reasons which may
render non-attendance inevitable under these heads are, however,
likely to be different. As regards the attendance by Commissioners
at Sessions of the Commission held in countries—often far-distant—
the factors which normally lead to non-attendance are either (1)
lack of funds to cover travelling expenses, or (2) inability to obtain
the foreign exchange needed to cover travelling expenses even when
the necessary funds in national currencies are available or (3)
inability to obtain leave of absence to attend the Session of the
Commission from the authorities of the institution in which the
Commissioner concerned is employed. As regards attendance at
individual meetings of the Commission during a Session held at a
Congress, the practice has been to ascertain by preliminary consulta-
tions what would be the most generally convenient date. It appears
to me that no procedure for the formal grant of permission to be
absent would be appropriate in the case of complete “ Sessions ”
of the Congress, while as regards attendance at individual meetings
of the Commission during a Session formal arrangements for the
grant of permission to be absent would not seem to be necessary.

(b) Voting Duties of Commissioners : In the passage dealing with the voting
duties of Commissioners Professor Bradley has inserted (page 250,
lines 13 and 14) a suggested new provision under which a member
of the Commission when dealing with a Voting Paper submitted for
decision would be free to “ notify the Secretary that he is abstaining
from casting a vote”. I consider that this proposal is entirely
misconceived and should be rejected. The Commission is not a
privately established association of persons set up to pursue some
general purpose to the best of the combined abilities of its members.
Ifit were such a body, no harm would be done if its members abstained
from voting on matters put forward for decision. The Commission
on the contrary is an official body with certain specified duties
entrusted to it. In these circumstances it would be as inappropriate
that members of the Commission should be permitted by their terms
of appointment to pick and choose from among the matters submitted
to the Commission for decision which to vote on and which to set
on one side as it would for judges of a supreme court to abstain

%
"he
}
,
‘a

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 1219

from voting on any case brought before the court where they pre-
ferred not to commit themselves in public on the issues submitted
for decision. We must note here that, although Professor Bradley
has given the title ‘“ Duties of Commissioners ” to this Sub-section
of this draft, he has in fact included in it nothing beyond certain
provisions regarding attendance and voting. It seems to me that
the first item of Sub-section (j) should be one which laid it down that
it is the duty of a Commissioner to consider carefully all matters
submitted to the Commission for decision and to vote on every such
case without fear or favour. The adoption of a provision of this
kind which emphasises the judicial nature of the duties of Com-
missioners and underlines the need for impartiality on the part of
Commissioners would set the functions of the Commission against
their proper background. If, as I recommend, an introductory
provision dealing with this part of the subject on the foregoing lines
is adopted by the Congress, it should precede the item relating to
attendance (see (a) above). It would also render completely
unnecessary the item “ (ii) Voting”’ which at present appears on
page 250 of the Draft of the Régles.

(ce) Negative Votes : In the item “‘(iii) Negative votes ” on page 250 of the
Draft of the Régles Professor Bradley has inserted a provision
expressly authorising members of the Commission, when recording
a negative vote in any given case, to annexe “ an adverse opinion ”
to his negative vote. I agree that in the circumstances described
above a member should be free, if he so desires, to annexe such a
statement to a negative vote. I consider, however, that this is a
procedure which should only be followed sparingly, for in practice
its adoption by a body working by post instead of by sitting round
a table as do most judges may give rise to considerable difficulty,
especially when it is used by a Commissioner to air his views at the
expense of his less loquacious colleagues. That this is no imaginary
‘risk will be seen by an inspection of the older Opinions of the
Commission. There may be cases where such comments would
serve a valuable purpose but such cases are likely to be much rarer
than in the old days, since for a long time now the practice has been
followed of amending a proposal—by submission of a fresh Voting
Paper or otherwise—where after the issue of a Call for a Vote one
of the Members of the Commission draws attention to some defect
in the proposal submitted. This appears to me to be the proper way
of dealing with cases of this kind, where there is any real substance
in the issue raised. I accordingly recommend that the item “(iii)
Negative Votes ” be omitted from the Régles. The deletion of this
suggested provision will not act as a bar to submission by Com-
missioners of “an adverse opinion” with their votes on
any given case but it does avoid going out of one’s way to encourage
the submission of such statements, the receipt of which (at best)

1220 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

must lead to delay in order to present to the other side an opportunity
of stating their views, an opportunity which, as has always been
recognised, must in equity be provided in situations of this kind.

12. For the reasons set out in the preceding paragraph I recommend that
the existing text of Sub-section (j) (‘‘ Duties of Commissioners ’’) (page 250,
lines 1-18) be deleted and replaced by the following :—

(j) Duties of Commissioners

(i) Obligations : It shall be the duty of each Commissioner to consider
carefully the evidence submitted in regard to each case placed
before the Commission and in the light of that evidence to vote
on every such case without fear or favour.

(ii) Attendance : It shall be the duty of each Commissioner, so far as
possible, to attend each Session of the Commission held during
a Congress period and also each meeting of the Commission held
during such a Session.

13. Section 3, Sub-section (k) (grant of Leave of Absence) : This provision
corresponds with the decision taken in this matter by the Paris Congress in
1948. At that time the idea that members the Commission might appro-
priately be given leave of absence on personal grounds was a novel one, and in
consequence the provision on this subject approved by the Congress was
provisional also. Now that we have ten years’ experience of the working of this
provision, we may conveniently examine how it has worked. As regards this
we have first to note that in general applications for the grant of leave of absence
have been for limited periods only and have been supported in nearly every
case by what were clearly good reasons. In these circumstances it appears to
me that the provision that every such application should on receipt be sub-
mitted by the Secretary to the Executive Committee for decision which was
adopted by a safeguard by the Paris Congress has proved to be unnecessary.
I accordingly recommend that Sub-section (k) (page 250, lines 20-25) be replaced
by the following revised text.

(k) Grant of Leave of Absence : If a Commissioner notifies the Secretary
that for reasons then explained he will be unable to perform his
duties as a Commissioner, the Secretary shall not refuse to grant
Leave of Absence without first having consulted the Executive
Committee.

Point (6)

14. Section 4 (Officers): This Section sets out to regulate the position
as regards the Officers of the Commission. In its present form, however, the
wording of this Section is inconsistent or at least unhappily chosen, for in the
first sentence this Section specifies the titles of three officers as being those of

i

een (ee a
“<a - a 7 5 Ars 6 :

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 1221

the Offices of the Commission (President, Vice-President, Secretary), while
in the last sentence carte blanche is granted for the varying of the offices
previously specified and for the creation of additional offices. Apart, however,
from this inconsistency this sub-section is in its present form much too rigid.
It is true that provision is made in the Draft for the variation of the number of
Officers by later congresses—a provision which in any case is unnecessary in
view of the fact that any part—including this part—of the Régles can be
amended or revoked by any Congress—but there is no provision for the variation
of the number of Officers by the Commission itself during inter-Congress periods.
This is a serious shortcoming, for certainly once in my memory it was judged
desirable quickly to create new officers during an inter-Congress period. This
was in 1938 when following my election as Secretary in succession to Dr. C. W.
Stiles (U.S.A), both the Officers (President, K. Jordan ; Secretary, myself)
were British subjects ; in order to restore the previously existing geographical
balance it was thereupon decided to create two additional Offices, those of
Vice-President and Assistant Secretary respectively, to each of which an
American Commissioner was then elected. Of these Offices the Vice-Presidency
has become a permanent feature of the organisation of the Commission, but
the post of Assistant Secretary, as held by a Commissioner, was abolished by
the Paris Congress in 1948. I recall this piece of back history—which is not
unique—simply to show that it would be most unwise to insert unduly rigid
provisions in the Régles on the question of the number, etc. of the Officers
of the Commission.

15. Similar considerations would apply if any attempt—such as that in
the sentence printed in square brackets (brackets) in Section 4 of the Draft
of Article 29—-were made to define the respective functions of the various
Officers of the Commission. For what would be convenient and appropriate
with one grouping of Officers might be quite inappropriate or even unworkable
with different office-holders or with some different grouping of the Commission’s
Officers—by which I mean if some change were made (or found to be necessary)
in the number of Officers. In this connection it must be noted that the expression
“ generally appertaining to these offices’ use in the draft in relation to the
duties of the Officers of the Commission is particularly unfortunate, there
being in fact no system which can reasonably be called “ generally appertain-
ing ”’, there being marked differences, for example, between what, I am informed,
is the commonly adopted arrangement in the United States and that in the
United Kingdom. The use of an expression of the above kind would therefore
be most ill-advised, providing, as it would, an opportunity for friction where
none need exist. If any definition of the duties of the various Officers were
to be attempted, it should certainly take the form of a straightforward enumera-
tion of the functions of each Officer. For the reasons already explained I consider
that it would be a mistake to attempt an enumeration of the Officers of the
Commission, and it follows from this that in my view there is no place in the
Régles for an enumeration of the duties of the various Officers of the Com-
mission. Quite apart from this consideration, the present is, in my opinion,

CCCC

1222 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

a matter for settlement between the Officers of the Commission themselves
and the Commission as a whole.

16. For the sake both of clarity and accuracy I suggest that the title of
Section 4 (page 251, line 15) be altered from “‘ Officers ” (with which it is not
concerned) to “‘ Offices ’”’ (with which it is concerned).

17. For the reasons set out in paragraphs 14-16 above I recommend that
the opening portion of the draft of Section 4 of Article 29, that is, the portion
appearing on lines 15-21 on page 251 of the Draft be deleted and that in its
place there be inserted a provision on the following lines :—

Section 4. Offices : The number of Offices and the titles of those
Offices shall be determined from time to time by the Congresses, it being
understood, however, that during inter-Congress periods it shall be open
to the Commission to increase or reduce the number of such Offices, if it
considers it necessary or desirable so to do, provided that any changes so
made are reported by the Commission to the next Congress for confirmation
and approval.

Point (7)

18. Section 4, Sub-section (a) (“ Eligibility ’’) : This is a new provision
suggested by Professor Bradley and is concerned to lay down who alone are the
persons eligible to hold Office in the Commission. I am in agreement with
Professor Bradley’s object but not with the wording suggested for this provision
which I consider obscure and misleading. The purpose of the provision was no
doubt to lay it down that the holder of the Office of President now held by
Professor Bradley or of that of Secretary, now held by myself, must be a member
of the Commission but that, where (exceptionally) an “‘ Honorary ”’ Office
is created, such as the Office of ‘‘ Honorary Life President”? now held by
Professor Karl Jordan, the holder need not be a member of the Commission.
The difficulty which arises here in English as used in England—I do not know
what is the American practice in this matter—is that, in addition to the fore-
going meaning the word “ Honorary ” as applied to an Office (or Officer) has
the meaning ‘“ unpaid’, that is, an Office the duties of which are performed
by someone without remuneration. In this sense all the Offices of the Commission
are “‘ Honorary ” Offices and all the Officers are “‘ Honorary ” Officers. I see
no reason for complicating this provision by including in it a saving clause in
the case of “ Honorary ”’ Offices of the kind now held by Dr. Jordan, for it is
the essence of such “ offices ” not only that they are “ honorary ” in the sense
that no duties are attached to them but also that they are bestowed upon
persons of distinction formerly but no longer actively associated with the work
of the organisation concerned.

Se at oe) a

—

as
-
-
iF
}

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 1223

19. There is one other small point which calls for consideration here.
This is to secure that the wording used, while covering the posts—existing or
potential—which it is desired to cover, does not go further and create embarass-
ment by reason—through loose drafting—of covering or appearing to cover
administrative posts in the Office of the Commission. The most obvious example
of the kind of post which might be called in question if the drafting of this
provision was defective, is that of “Assistant Secretary ” which, as explained
in paragraph 14 above, was formerly what we may call a Commissioner-level
post (i.e. an office for which only a member of the Commission was eligible)
but which was reduced to its present status of a Secretariat-post (either paid or
unpaid) by the Paris Congress in 1948 (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 24-25).
It seems to me that this latter risk might best be overcome by applying to
Commissioner-level posts the adjective “elective”. This would be clearly
intelligible in English where the expression “ elective office ’ is well established,
and I hope that it would be equally intelligible to American readers.

20. I accordingly recommend that Professor Bradley’s proposal that there
be inserted in the Reégles a provision making it clear who alone are the persons
eligible to hold Office in the Commission be approved in principle but that in
lieu of the actual provision included in this subject in the Draft—Section 4(a),
lines 22-24 on page 251—there be inserted the following :—

(a) Eligibility : Only Commissioners shall be eligible for appointment to
the elective offices of the Commission.

Point (8)

21. Section 6(c) (“ Plenary Powers **) (two minor drafting points) : One
point of substance arises on Professor Bradley’s suggested provision regarding
the Commission’s Plenary Powers as set out in Sub-Section (c) of Section 6 (Bull.
zool. Nomencl. 14 : 253, lines 14-25). This matter is discussed in the immediately
following paragraph. The purpose of the present paragraph is to draw
attention to two minor drafting points which call for consideration. These
are as follows :—

(i) The use of the word “ Rule ” in the expression “suspend any Rule ”
is unfortunate from several points of view. First, we must remember
that the title of the substantive French text starts with the word
“ Régles ” and that throughout that text that word is constantly
used in those contexts where the purpose is to refer to the Code as
a whole. Accordingly, the use of the word “ Rule” at this point
in the English text would create a serious drafting difficulty in the
preparation of the French text, for, if the word “ Régle ” were to be
used in the present context, it would involve an awkward departure
from the sense in which that word is universally applied in relation
to the code as a whole. This might be unavoidable if there were some
pressing reason why it was desirable that the word “ Rule ” should

1224 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

be used at this point in preference to any other word. But there
is no such reason. Indeed quite the contrary. In the English
text the word “‘ Rule ”’ has in the past been restricted to members
of a particular series of provisions set out in Article 30 for deter-
mining the species to be accepted as the type species of nominal
genera. Thus from the point of view of the English text also the
use of the word ‘‘ Rule ”’ at this point is inconvenient and undesirable.
I accordingly recommend that in the present context the word
“ Rule ” be replaced by the unobjectionable (and also clearer) word
“ provision ”’

(ii) Throughout the Régles the word ‘‘ Commission ”’ is currently treated as
a word of singular number, though this has not always been so in
the past. In the present Draft Professor Bradley has correctly
adopted the singular number but in the present provision the plural
form ‘‘ they ’’ has inadvertently crept in at the end of line 20. It
is recommended that this be corrected by the substitution for the
word “‘ they ” of the word “it”’.

Point (9)

22. Section 6, Sub-section (c) (use of the expression “‘ suspend the Rules ’’) :
At the time when the Plenary Powers were granted to the Commission in 1913,
the Resolution of the Monaco Congress conferring the right to use those Powers
was a document quite distinct from the Régles themselves. At that time there-
fore it was not illogical for the Monaco Congress of 1913 to speak of suspending
the Régles of the Berlin Congress of 1901. Even then, however, the use of this
phrase was unfortunate, for it was grasped at by the ultra-supporters of priority
as evidence that the Plenary Powers Resolution was not only distinct from the
Régles but in addition was in some undefined way inferior to the Reégles in
status and could therefore legitimately be rejected (as it was by many such
zoologists in their day) as not possessing an authority equal to that of the
Régles themselves. Ever since the decision by the Paris Congress in 1948
to incorporate the Plenary Powers Resolution in the Régles the expression
“suspend the Rules ’’ has become not only inappropriate and misleading but
also incorrect. That this is so has been consistently recognised by the Com-
mission in the preparation of all Opinions and other Instruments rendered
during the last ten years by the avoidance of the obsolete expression “‘ suspend
the Rules ” and by the use in its stead of the expression ‘“‘ suspend the normal
operation of the Régles ’’. This expression serves to show first that the Plenary
Powers provisions are as much a part of the Régles as any other part and,
second, that their purpose is to provide a means for setting aside in certain
circumstances not the Régles as a whole—of which the Plenary Powers provision
forms part—but a certain part only of the Régles, namely, its ordinary or normal
provisions.

‘
a ee Cee

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 1225

23. It seems to me that the word “ suspend ”’ is in any case an objection-
able one to use in the present context, for it conveys an impression that any such
action is of a provisional or temporary nature, whereas, as Professor Bradley
has correctly and clearly stated in paragraph (iv) of Sub-section (c), “ any
decision taken by the Commission under its Plenary Powers shall be final and
not subject to appeal’”’. I therefore wish to support Mr. R. V. Melville’s
proposal (Document 65/1) that the word ‘‘ vary ” be substituted for the word
“suspend ” in the first paragraph of Sub-section (c).

Point (10)

24. Section 6 (conditions attaching to the use by the Commission of its
Plenary Powers) : The conditions attaching to the use by the Commission of
its Plenary Powers are set out in a series of rules on page 254 of the Draft.
These contain three departures from the relevant Congress decisions, one on
a subject on which an extensive discussion took place at the Paris Congress
and on which the decision reached was taken advisedly in order to ward off
a risk which could not be dealt with in any other way. The divergencies
concerned are set out below :—

(a) Under the Monaco (1913) rules relating to the use by the Commission’s
Plenary Powers it was provided that Public Notice of the proposed
use of the above Powers in any given case “ be given in ” any two or
more of certain specified serial publications (see Declaration 5
published in 1943, Ops. Decls. int. Comm. zool. Nomencl.1(A) :.31-40).
This was a careless piece of drafting, for clearly all that the Office
of the Commission could be required to do was to issue certain notices
to particular serials ; it could not reasonably be required to ensure
that the notices which it issued were in fact published in the serial
concerned, for that was a matter which, being solely in the hands of
the editors of the serials concerned was not a matter which it was
within the power of the Commission to control. In the conditions
of confusion and near-panic which reigned at the time when the
Plenary Powers Resolution was drafted, it is perhaps not surprising
that so strange and illogical a provision should have been inserted
in that Resolution, but it certainly is surprising that no steps were
taken to put this matter right until the meeting of the Thirteenth
International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948, when the unworkable
provision “given in” was replaced by the expression “ given to ”
(1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 56, Conclusion 7(3)).

(b) As regards the serials to which notice should be given of the possible
use of the Commission’s Plenary Powers, the Paris Congress decided
that the choice of these serials should be made by the Secretary to
the Commission. This was because it was felt that this was a matter
on which it was desirable that considerable discretion should be

1226

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

vested in the Secretary, having regard to the changes in circumstances
which might at any time arise in connection with whatever serial
might be selected. For example, a change of editorial policy might
lead to a reluctance to publish such notices or at least to an unwilling-
ness to do so except at some high charge. If in such circumstances
it were to be necessary for the Secretary to obtain a decision from the
Commission before being authorised to make any alternative arrange-
ments, unnecessary delays might arise in the handling of current
cases involving the possible use of the Commission’s Plenary Powers.
It was for this reason that the Paris Congress decided to vest in the
Secretary personally the responsibility for choosing the serial
publications to which the prescribed Public Notices should be given.
Unfortunately, in his draft Professor Bradley has overlooked the
decision of the Paris Congress in this matter and has suggested that
it should be by the full Commission that the choice of the prescribed
serials should be made.

(c) At the time of the Paris Congress in 1948 there was a strong general

desire that all possible means should be adopted for speeding up the
work of the Commission. One of the most serious elements in the
delays which had occurred had been the inordinate period during
which voting on a given Voting Paper could, and often did, extend.
Unfortunately, at that time there was no clear evidence of the amount
of time which would need to be allotted to a postal vote if the Com-
mission were working in conditions of reasonable efficiency. It was
suggested that a period of six months at the outside should be
sufficient for this purpose. Owing to the need for giving priority
to work on the preparation, printing and publication of the Official
Records connected with the proceedings on zoological nomenclature
at the Paris Congress over the important, though less urgent, work
involved in dealing with individual nomenclatorial cases, it was not
until the year 1952 that it was possible to make a start with the issue
of Voting Papers under the revised system approved by the Paris
Congress. It was then decided to introduce one technical modification
in the procedure previously laid down, namely, to arrange for all
Voting Papers, irrespective of destination, to be despatched by
airmail. This arrangement, though involving a substantial additional
financial burden for the Trust, had the great advantage that it elimin-
ated the substantial delays previously inevitable in transmitting
Voting Papers by surface mail to the Commissioners resident furthest
away from the Office of the Commission. It was judged that the
saving in time so secured amounted to at least three months and that
under this revised voting procedure a Voting Period of three months
would give the Commissioners concerned as long a period for con-
sideration as that which would have been available to them, if that
Period had been one of six months but their Voting Papers had been
despatched by surface mail. Accordingly, in the Voting Papers

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 1227

prepared in 1952—the first to be issued since the Paris Congress of
1948—the Prescribed Voting Period was set at three calendar months.
The results obtained showed conclusively that the Voting Period
allowed was amply sufficient, the whole of the available membership
of the Commission—there was at that time one Commissioner with
whom it was impossible to communicate—having duly recorded
their votes. A report on the procedure so adopted, together with
facsimile reproductions of two of the new-style Voting Papers
(Hemming, 1953, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 10 : 478-491), was submitted
to, and approved by, the Copenhagen Congress in the following
year (1953, Copenhagen Decisions zool. Nomencl. : 92). (In the period
since the close of the Copenhagen Congress over 250 Voting Papers
issued under the above procedure have secured an equally satis-
factory voting record from the members of the Commission.) In the
Draft of the Régles now under consideration the obsolete word “‘ six ”
which appears in Professor Bradley’s Draft should now be replaced
by the word “ three ”’.

25. The recommendations now submitted in relation to the amendment
of the drafting of the conditions attaching to the use by the Commission of
its Plenary Powers as set out by Professor Bradley on page 254 of his Draft
of the Régles are the following :—

(1) Section 6, Sub-section (c)(i)(1) (lines 8-11) : Delete the existing provision
and substitute the following :—

(1) Serials to which notice is to be given.—Such notice shall be published
in the Bulletin and in addition is to be communicated for
publication to two other serials, one of which must be published
in Europe and the other in America.

(2) Section 6(c)(i)(2) (Selection of serials).—

(a) line 14: Substitute the words “Secretary to the Commission
as being, in his ”’ for the words “‘ Commission as being, in its ” ;

(b) line 17: Substitute the words “ possible use of the Plenary
Powers ” for the words “ suspension of the Rules ”’ ;

(3) Section 6(c)(iii) (Method of Voting), line 36: Substitute “three” for
ce six me

Point (11)

26. Section 6, Sub-section (c)(vi)(3) (“‘ This subparagraph retroactive ’’) :
The paragraph here referred to (page 256, lines 20-22) records the decision
of the Paris Congress as to the form to be adopted by the Commission in

1228 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

recording decisions for the suppression of names under the Plenary Powers.
It is perfectly true that the Congress directed that the decisions in question
should be applied retroactively to all cases where the Commission had used its
Plenary Powers for the above purpose. There is, however, no need to insert
in the Regles a special provision to this effect, for all the provisions in the
Régles are retroactive, save in the very small number of cases where it is
expressly stated that a particular provision is to apply only as from a specified
commencing date. Incidentally, it may be of interest to note that in almost
all the cases to which the subparagraph in question applies the Commission
has during the last four years taken express decisions in the sense indicated
in the course of the review of its older Opinions in connection with the prepara-
tions for the publication (on 10th June 1958) in book-form of the First Instal-
ment of the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology.

27. It is accordingly recommended that Sub-section (c)(vi)(3) of Section 6
of Article 29 (page 256, lines 20-22) be deleted from the Draft of the Régles.

Point (12)

28. Section 7, Sub-section (a) (** Opinions ’’) : When during the Secretary-
ship of my predecessor the late Dr. C. W. Stiles (Washington, D.C.), the
Commission was first authorised by the Congresses to undertake judicial
functions and in consequence when the Commission first began to put forth
Opinions embodying its judicial findings, Dr. Stiles adopted the expression
“render an Opinion” as the term to denote the putting forth of decisions
of this kind. The word “ render ’’ was consistently used by Stiles in connection

with the preparation of the Opinions for which he was responsible and for their -

publication in the Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections. When in 1939,
(following my election to the Secretaryship) the Secretariat of the Commission
was transferred to London and it became necessary to devise a new method
for publishing the Commission’s Opinions, it was decided that in future these
should be published as units of consecutively paged volumes of a new work
established for the purpose. Once again the word “ render ” was adopted for
the sake of continuity, the title allotted to the new work being ‘“ Opinions
rendered by...” This title (amplified by the addition of the word “‘ Declara-
tions” after the institution of that class of Instrument) has been in continuous
use for the last twenty years. It is accordingly recommended that this
expression be retained in the revised text of the Régles. Apart altogether
from the reasons explained above the expression “‘ publish ’’ which at present
appears in the draft is not appropriate, for it concerns not the Commission but
the Trust.

29. It is recommended therefore that in Sub-section (a) of Section 7 of
Article 29 of the Régles (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 14 : 257, line 17) the word
“publish” be replaced by the word “render” customarily used in this
connection. A similar change is required in Sub-section (a) of Section 9 of the
same Article (Bull. 14 : 265, line 3).

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 1229

Point (13)

30. Section 7, Sub-sections (b) to (ec) : Section 7 in concerned with the
“ Judicial duties of the Commission ’’. As at present constructed, this Section
consists of an introductory passage setting out in general terms the judicial
functions of the Commission, followed by twenty-seven lettered sub-sections—
sub-sections (a) to (cc). The subject matter of these sub-sections falls into very
diverse groups. Group 1 consists of the single Sub-section lettered (a). This
is concerned exclusively with the procedure to be followed by the Commission
when performing its judicial functions. This is a matter which it is clearly
appropriate and desirable should be included in the Section under consideration.
The second group consists of all the other Sub-sections at present included,
namely the items lettered (b) to (cc). These are all concerned with various
functions falling within the Commission’s judicial field.

31. The question which arises for consideration at this point is one of quite
a general character. It is this. Is it helpful in practice or sound as drafting to
attempt closely to define the nature of the responsibilities conferred upon a
judicial body ? Or is it better that those powers should be specified in general
terms only ? Where more than one court is involved—as in the case of central
and state courts in countries having a federal constitution—it is clearly necessary
that the definition of powers should be sufficiently close to avoid the risk of dead-
lock arising through conflicting claims as to jurisdiction. We need not, however,
allow ourselves to be detained by this consideration, for this particular problem
does not arise in the present case where we are concerned with the functions of
a single court only. My view is that neither on grounds of practical utility nor
on grounds of drafting is it desirable that an attempt should be made in this
section to bring together a catalogue of the Commission’s judicial functions.
Such a catalogue could never be complete for it would never be possible to
anticipate every possible type of case on which the Commission might be
asked to give a judicial ruling. Not only would such a catalogue be inevitably
incomplete but the mere fact of its existence would be calculated to give rise
to doubt and confusion, for it could not fail to happen that, while some zoo-
logists argued correctly that the catalogue was incomplete and that it was for
this reason that a given function was not specified, others might well argue
that the catalogue was intended to be exhaustive and the fact that a given
function was not enumerated in it must be taken as meaning that the function
was one which did not fall within the scope of the judicial functions committed
to the Commission by the Congress. Thus the inclusion of an incomplete
catalogue of unfettered judicial functions is not only inelegant as a piece of
drafting but in addition it is positively harmful through the likelihood that its
insertion might be held to derogate from the generality of the overall provision
by which the judicial functions concerned were conferred.

32. For the reasons set out above it is accordingly recommended that
Sub-sections (b) to (cc) (both inclusive) be deleted from the Régles.

1230 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Point (14)

33. In the immediately preceding discussion I have recommended that
Sub-sections (b) to (cc) of Section 7 be deleted from the Draft of Article 29 as
being unnecessary and misleading. In case, however, it is decided that some at
least of the provisions concerned should be retained, it appears to me that it
may be convenient briefly to indicate certain points which, it appears to me,
would call for attention in connection with certain of the Sub-sections con-
cerned. The points in question are the following :—

(a) Sub-section (k) (“‘ works published on the same day ”’)

In preparing the Draft for the above Sub-section (page 260,
lines 17-20) the compiler has rightly borne in mind that under existing
Congress Decisions names published on unknown dates are to be
deemed to have been published on the earliest date on which it is
definitely known that the names in question were published, a provision
which not infrequently has the effect of allotting the same date of
* publication’? to each of two competing names. Unfortunately,
however, in preparing the present draft Professor Bradley failed to
provide for the simpler of the two situations which may arise, that is,
the situation where it is known for a fact that any two names con-
cerned were published on the same day. This minor defect could
readily be put right by inserting the words “on the same day ” after
the word “ published ” on page 260 of the Draft.

The provision here under consideration appears in a substantive
form in Sub-section (a) of Section 2 of Article 8. As there presented,
the Draft contains a number of other defects which require rectification.
These are discussed in paragraph 39 below.

(b) Sub-section (q) (“‘ Misidentified type species ’’)

The duties of the Commission in the matter of the determination
of the nominal species to be accepted as the type species of a nominal
genus believed by later authors to have been based upon the basis of
a misidentification are under Congress decisions subject to very rigorous
conditions. The wording of Sub-section (q) (page 261) is presumably
not intended to do more than give a general outline of the provisions
laid down in this matter but even so it must be admitted that it does
this in a very inadequate manner. The substantive provision set out
in Section 2 of Article 19 of the Draft (page 121-122) is also very
incomplete and unsatisfactory. This will need to be examined in a
separate note.

Point (15)

34. Section 9, Sub-section (d)(i) (‘‘ Publication of notices in the
‘ Bulletin’ ’’) : The long list of items here enumerated will need to be looked at

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 1231

after the examination of the Draft of the Régles has been completed for the

purpose of making sure whether any items need to be added to it, or deleted
from it.

35. In its present form this Sub-section is particularly obscure and un-
intelligible. It is suggested that this should be rectified by the insertion after
each of the Article Numbers cited a few words in brackets (parentheses) to
identify the nature of the notice referred to. .

Point (16)

36. Section 10 (“Action that it is not the duty of the Commission ’’) :
Section 10 of the Draft of Article 29 purports to set out certain matters on which
it is said that it is not the duty of the Commission to take action. This
suggested Section is not based on any existing Congress Decision and is a
novelty put forward by Professor Bradley. I am bound to say that I dislike
this provision very much. It seems to me not only to serve no useful purpose
but to be actively harmful. The purpose of this provision appears to be to
provide the Commission—and still more its Secretariat—with a ready-made
alibi, however serious and numerous may be the misstatements of fact or
omissions in applications submitted for decision.

Bulletin of Zoological N omenclature in spite of the efforts to promote accuracy
and completeness constantly made by the Office of the Commission in con-
junction with the applicants concerned. Whenever such mistakes have later
come to light, immediate steps have been taken to secure that they are corrected.
It cannot be disputed that it is only by the rigorous pursuit of this policy that
serious errors in individual cases can be avoided. Further, it is only by the
persistent and conscientious application of the highest degree of care that
entries on the Official Lists can be brought up to the requisite standard of
accuracy and completeness.

38. Personally, I should very much prefer to see the provision suggested
in Section 10 of Article 29 deleted from the Régles altogether. If for any reason
it were to be considered desirable that some reference to this subject should be
included in the Reégles, I would suggest that both the title and the wording of
this Section should be changed in order to place an entirely new emphasis
on the importance of securing the highest attainable degree both of accuracy
and completeness. A revised provision on the following lines would remove the
major part of the objections to which the existing draft is open, though I am
bound to say that the best course would, in my view, be to delete this Section

1232 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

altogether. The Revised Draft here suggested as a possible replacement of the
existing Section 10 (page 268, lines 1-19), the rejection of which in its present
form is strongly recommended is now put forward for consideration :

Article 29, Section 10 (Revised Draft)

Section 10: Responsibility of the Commission for ensuring as high
a degree as possible of accuracy and completeness in all documents issued
under its authority : It shall not be the duty of the Commission to secure
the highest degree possible both of accuracy and completeness in publica-
tions issued under its authority. Where, however, errors of the above
kind are found to have been committed by inadvertence or are later
detected in the light of new information, it shall be the duty of the
Commission to issue the necessary correction with the least possible delay.

Point (17)

39. Addendum : Note on Draft of Section 2 of Article 8 : In the discussion
(in paragraph 33(a) above) of certain defects in the draft of Sub-section (k)
(** Works published on the same day ”’) attention was drawn to the fact that
there were other and more serious defects in the Draft of Section 2 of Article 8
(page 71, lines 11 to foot of page). In this connection three points require to be
noted, of which the first two are verbal matters only, while the third is raised
by a serious defect in drafting. The two first points in question are the
following :—

(a) In the introductory portion of Sub-section (a) it is correctly stated
(line 14) that the point for determination is the relative “ precedence ”’
of two names published in certain circumstances. In sub-point (1)
(line 16) the word “ precedence ” is replaced by the incorrect word
“* priority ”’.

(b) In sub-point (1) (line 17) and sub-point (2) (lines 20 and 21) occurs the
expression “articles or works”. No doubt the meaning intended
to be conveyed by the first of these words is “‘ papers published in
serial publications” and that by the second “ books, pamphlets,
etc.” published as separate entities. There was considerable dis-
cussion at Copenhagen in 1953 on the question of terminology here
involved and it was then decided that for the purpose of the Régles
the colourless word ‘“ work” (or “ works”) should invariably be
employed to the total exclusion of all other terms. What is required
therefore is that in sub-point (1) the words “ articles or ” should be
deleted in line 17 and that in sub-point (2) the word “ article’ at
the end of line 20 and the word “or” at the beginning of line 21
should similarly be struck out.

&
4
x
~

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 1233

Point (18)

40. Draft “‘ Régles ’’ (throughout) : A point of substance arises in connection
with the use in Section 2 of Article 8 (paragraph 39 above) of footnotes. As,
however, the same problem arises at other points in the Draft of the Reégles,
it appears more convenient to treat this matter as one of general application
for the Draft of the Régles as a whole. Footnotes are often useful devices in
private works by individual authors but they are totally out of place in a
document which purports to be a code of law. If such footnotes were per-
mitted, it would be necessary to insert somewhere in the main text a provision
that rules set out in footnotes are to be treated as having equal force with those
actually embodied in the main text. By the time that this had been done,
it would clearly be much better that the normal method followed in drawing
up codes should be followed and that no footnotes should be permitted. This
is all the more desirable in the case of a document such as the Régles which
may be expected to remain in existence for many years, for as time goes on,
there will be a natural tendency on the part of editors in a desire to be helpful
themselves to add further footnotes. A situation would thus inevitably develop
in which zoologists, when reading a given footnote, would at the best be in
doubt as to whether what was before him was a definite—though strangely
placed—portion of the Régles or whether it was some possibly incorrect gloss
added by some editor of later date. I therefore strongly recommend that the
entire Draft of the Régles as published in Volume 14 of the Bulletin be re-
examined from the above point of view and that any provisions at present set
out in footnotes only should now be included at the appropriate point in the
main text of the Régles and all other footnotes be deleted.

1234 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

CASE No. 80

DRAFT “ REGLES ”?: THE QUESTION OF THE RETENTION OF
THE ‘‘ NOTIFICATION AND CHALLENGE ’’ PROCEDURE
ADOPTED BY THE COPENHAGEN (1953) CONGRESS

(Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 1376)
DOCUMENT 80/1

By R. V. MELVILLE

(Assistant Secretary, International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature)

The Copenhagen Colloquium on Zoological Nomenclature gave a high
priority in its discussions to seven problems bequeathed to it by the Paris
(1948) Congress for decision after consultations between interested specialists
and the Secretary to the Commission. These problems are listed in title in
Copenhagen Decisions : 9-10 and the outcome of the discussions is found in
Decisions 19 to 76 (: 22-46). In four of these cases the Copenhagen Colloquium,
in a sincere attempt to promote the cause of stability in nomenclature,
prescribed a “‘ notification and challenge ”’ procedure, the purpose of which was
to ensure that no irrevocable steps should be taken without opportunity to
comment on the proposals concerned being afforded to all speciaists with a
a legitimate concern, and at the same time to limit the length of the delay
imposed by taking account of this consideration.

2. The four problems in which the “ notification and challenge ’’ procedure
was introduced were (i) the question of promoting stability and universality
in nomenclature, (ii) the recognition of neotypes, (iii) family-group names and
(iv) Order/Class-group names. In addition, this procedure was also made use
of in connection with the rejection of secondary homonyms (: 83, Decision 162).
The purpose of the present paper is to examine the “ notification and challenge ”
procedure in the light of experience since the Copenhagen Congress and to make
appropriate proposals to the London Congress in each case.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 1235

8. It is appropriate first to draw attention to the misgivings about the
“ notification and challenge’ procedure already expressed by the Secretary
to the Commission (: 339-340 above). The views of one so experienced in the
handling of nomenclatorial problems of every sort deserve the most serious
consideration in any question concerning procedure.

4. The question of promoting stability and universality in nomenclature :
On this subject the Copenhagen Colloquium introduced the “ notification and
challenge ” procedure under two headings, (a) nomina dubia and (b) the principle
of conservation. The procedure in the former case was laid down as follows
(: 24, Decision 26) :—

(1) Where an author considers a specific nomen dubiwm which has been
either (a) virtually never used, or (b) used only sporadically in the
literature, to be a threat to stability and universality of nomenclature,
he may propose the suppression of the name in question by sending
a notice to that effect to the Secretary to the Commission, whose
duty it shall be to publish that notice in the Bulletin of Zoological
Nomenclature, and on the publication of such a notice, the action
proposed shall provisionally come into effect.

(2) The suppression of the name shall become definitive only after the lapse
of ten years from the publication of such notice in the Bulletin,
during which time any zoologist is to be free to lodge a protest
before the International Commission, indicating the particular sense
in which he desires to apply the name.

Further provisions were made prescribing (3) the suppression of the
nomen dubium after ten years if no challenge had been lodged, (4) giving the
Commission the duty of deciding challenged cases, and (5) stating that a
nomen dubium, once suppressed, can only be revived by the use of the Plenary
Powers.

5. So far as I am aware, no applications have been made to the Commission
for the suppression of nomina dubia by means of the Copenhagen procedure,
but several undesirable features are apparent in the scheme. In the first place,
there is the administrative difficulty of keeping a file, still more a number of
files of diverse dates of origin, alive for ten years, during which period changes
in the personnel in the Commission’s office might well make it difficult to
keep track of the progress of such cases. Secondly, it seems unnecessary to
invoke so cumbersome a procedure at all if some time later it can be overturned
by the use of the Plenary Powers. Thirdly, it is bad in principle for decisions
once taken to be reversed, since this would create the impression that zoological
nomenclature is even more unstable than it actually is. Fourthly, it is a fact
that nearly all the comments on any case are received in the Commission’s
office within two or three months of the publication of the original application
in the Bulletin ; after this time, unless counter-comments are submitted, most

1236 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

cases receive little additional documentation. Fifthly, it is most unlikely
that zoologists would read back-numbers of the Bulletin up to ten years after
publication. Sixthly, it is often difficult or impossible for the Secretary to
obtain comments on cases from specialists closely concerned, even after repeated
requests, and many draft Opinions have to be submitted to the Commission
for a vote without any comments having been received. For all these reasons,
it seems to me doubtful whether the “ notification and challenge ’’ procedure
is a suitable method for dealing with the problem of nomina dubia, and the
long-drawn-out machinery and the possibility that a decision once taken can be
reversed seems to me to be factors that would in practice actively militate
against nomenclatorial stability.

6. In my own experience, nomina dubia do not in fact present a very serious
threat to stability and universality of nomenclature, since in the fields where I
have worked they are generally ignored for practical purposes. It would seem
to me better, when faced with a doubtful identification of material under
study with a taxon based on a nomen dubiwm, to use an open nomenclature with
a “cf.” or a “?” if one’s material did not justify the description of a new,
objectively defined, thoroughly described and illustrated taxon. But one man’s
nomen dubium may be another man’s household word, and many alleged
nomina dubia are doubtful only because of defective original descriptions or
illustrations, and fresh study of the type-material will often remove all
reasonable doubt. Rather than initiating suppressive action in advance, I
should prefer to await cases of the continued usage of alleged nomina dubia
that accept and perpetuate the doubtful character of the name in question
and then, if mutual discussion proved fruitless, bring the matter to the notice
of the Commission, whose action should be called for only as a last resort,
after all co-operative attempts by specialists had proved in vain.

7. The Principle of Conservation. The long and earnest discussions of
this subject at Copenhagen failed to produce a draft satisfactory to all those
present, and it is not, therefore, considered necessary to reproduce here the four
alternative versions that were put before that Colloquium (Copenhagen
Decisions : 119-122). It is sufficient to recall that the final Plenary Session of
the Congress accepted a motion by Dr. Carl L. Hubbs that the Commission
should be charged with the preparation of a provision limiting the application
of the Law of Priority so as to preserve well-known names from being sunk as
junior synonyms of overlooked names, with safeguards against abuse by
unscrupulous persons; and that Article 5 of Professor J. Chester Bradley’s
draft text of the revised Régles is directed to the discharge of the responsibility
thus laid upon the Commission.

8. Professor Bradley’ s draft Article 5 contains provisions for a two-year
challenge period in proposals for the suppression of senior synonyms. This
seems to me objectionable for the same reasons as those alleged above in
paragraph 3. Experience shows that those specialists who are determined to

ee

ee ee ee eS ee ee

,

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 1237

submit comments on a particular case do so within a few months after the
publication of the first proposal. So far as others are concerned, it is most
unlikely that they will search back numbers of the Bulletin for cases in which
the challenge period is still open. The procedure at present available for getting
names added to the Official Lists ought to be adequate in all cases.

9. Neotypes. I do not wish to add anything to what the Secretary to the
Commission has already said (: 814-815 above) on the question of the
“ notification and challenge ” procedure in this connection, since I find myself
in agreement with him.

10.-Family-group Names. The “notification and challenge’ procedure
introduced in Copenhagen Decisions : 33, Decision 45 seems to me even more
superfluous than in the cases already discussed. An individual taxonomist
who wishes to preserve a family-group name that seems to him threatened
by the strict application of the Law of Priority has the remedy already to
hand. Moreover, under the “Completeness of Opinions” rule introduced
by the Paris Congress, he must also cover in any application in this connection
the name of the type-genus of the family-group taxon with which he is
concerned, as well as the name of the type-species of that genus, so that stability
will be served at all relevant levels. Here again, a two-years challenge period
seems to me unrealistic.

11. Order/Class-group Names. The procedure suggested by the Secretary
to the Commission in his Introductory Note to the papers included in the
Agenda Paper on this topic (Document 25/1 : 495-496 above) seems to me a
better method of approach in these cases than the Copenhagen “ notification
and challenge” procedure involving a two-year period of guaranteed
instability.

12. Secondary Homonyms. I am in agreement with the views expressed
by Dr. Sabrosky and the Secretary in Documents 22/1 and 22/2 (: 337-340
above) on this subject.

13. I therefore propose the following emendations to the draft English
text of the revised Régles :—

(i) That Article 5, Section 5 be deleted.
(ii) That Article 5, Section 3, paragraph (i) and Section 4 be deleted.

(iii) That Article 12, Section 2, second paragraph be replaced by the words
contained in whichever of the two “ Alternatives ”’ in the Secretary’s
paper reproduced as Document 25/1 (: 495-496 above) is accepted
by the Colloquium.

DDDD

1238 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

(iv) That lines 22 to 27 of p. 96 of the draft English text of the revised
Régles (Article 13, Section 3, paragraph (a)) be amended to read :
After the expiry of such period, not being less than six calendar
months, as the Commission may in any case consider necessary, it
shall be the duty of the Commission to issue directions as to which
of the names concerned is to be accepted as being an available name
and which is to be rejected as being unavailable.

(v) That Article 20, Section 5, paragraph (d) be replaced by the following :
The designated neotype shall be open to challenge for such period,
not being less than six calendar months, as the Commission may in
any case consider necessary, after which it shall be the duty of the
Commission to issue a direction either (a) establishing the neotype
in question, or (b) directing by what objective standard the species
in question is to be defined.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 1239

CASE No. 82

DRAFT “ REGLES ”’, ARTICLE 1, SECTION 3, STATUS OF A NAME
GIVEN TO A HYPOTHETICAL FORM

(Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 883)

DOCUMENT 82/1

Proposed exclusion from the category of a hypothetical form of a

nominal taxon based upon a specimen of a previously deseribed species

which has been altered or otherwise treated so as to appear to be a
new species

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

The purpose of the present note is to suggest a small clarification of the
provision in the Régles embodying the decision by the Thirteenth International
Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948 (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4: 144) to
incorporate into that instrument the substance of the Ruling originally given in
Opinion 2 (1910, Smithson. Publ. 1938 : 5) on the subject of the status to be
accorded to a name given to a hypothetical form.

2. Under the above decision a name based upon a hypothetical form was
held to possess no status in zoological nomenclature. The aspect of this
subject which calls for further consideration was first brought to notice when
in 1955 Sir Gavin de Beer (Director, British Museum (Natural History)) raised
with the Commission the question of the status (a) of the generic name
Eoanthropus Woodward, 1913, the name bestowed upon the so-called
‘“ Piltdown Man ” and (b) of the specific names bestowed by various authors
upon that “species” (de Beer, 1955, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 11 : 171-172).

1240 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

3. At the time when Sir Gavin de Beer first raised this matter, he advanced
the view that in the light of evidence since come to light the name Foanthropus
dawsoni Woodward, 1913, should be regarded as a name based upon a hypo-
thetical form and therefore as a name which under the decisions cited in
paragraph 1 above possessed no status of availability. He accordingly then
suggested that the generic and specific names concerned should be rejected on
the foregoing ground and placed on the appropriate Official Index of Rejected
and Invalid Names. Later, Sir Gavin modified his view in this matter
considering that, where, as here, a nominal taxon is based upon an actual type
specimen, the name given to that taxon ought not to be regarded as being based
upon a hypothetical form, even where that type specimen has been altered
in such a way as to give to that specimen the appearance of belonging to a
previously undescribed species.

4. In subsequent correspondence it was agreed between Sir Gavin de Beer
and the Office of the Commission that the best course would be (i) to withdraw
the application referred to above and (ii) in its place ask the Commission to
adopt an interpretative Declaration in the sense outlined above.

5. As the question discussed above was not one of pressing urgency, it was
judged that no harm would result if, instead of being dealt with under the
Declarations procedure, it were to be held over for submission to the Fifteenth
International Congress of Zoology, London, 1958, when the Congress would
have before it the draft of the Revised Régles containing the amendments
adopted by its predecessors in the Paris and Copenhagen Congresses respectively.
In the draft since prepared by Professor J. Chester Bradley the provision
derived from Opinion 2 has been included in Section 3 of the new Article 1
and it is here, it is proposed, that the clarification now suggested should be
included.

6. It is recommended :—

(a) that the existing sub-section (i) to Section 3 of Article 1 of the Draft
of the Regles (1957, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 14 : 35) be renumbered as
sub-section (ii) ;

(b) that the following new provision be inserted as sub-section (i) of
Section 3 of the above Article :—

(i) Where a nominal species is found to have been established upon a
specimen of a previously-established nominal species which
has been altered in order to give it the appearance of belonging
to a new species, the name so bestowed is not to be rejected as
being a name given to a hypothetical unit but is to adhere to
the material to which it was given.

.) <= a

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 124]

DOCUMENT 1/69
(continued from page 973)

New definitions of Organ Genera and Form Genera proposed for the
Botanical Code

(Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 1056)

By P. C. SYLVESTER-BRADLEY
(University of Sheffield)

(Enclosure to letter dated 31st May 1958)

Dr. C. A. Arnold, Chairman of the Committee on Palaeobotanical
Nomenclature, informs me in a letter dated 16th May, 1958, that he is making
proposals for new definitions of Organ Genera and Form Genera as substitutes
for those at present embodied in the Botanical Code (see D.1/63, pp. 834-840).
As these are likely to be of interest to the Colloquium if it is faced with the
problem of formulating definitions for the zoological code, Dr. Arnold’s proposals
for the new Article PB.1 are set out below.

Since the names of fossil plants are usually applied to detached parts
of which the connections to other parts can seldom be proved, it has been
customary to recognize organ genera and form genera where names of
natural genera are not feasible (and which is the case in most instances).

An organ genus is created for detached parts (or attached parts if
they are considered independently) of the same morphological rank that
are obviously related and whose affinity with some natural group is known.

A form genus includes parts of plants that are grouped together
because of their similarity in form or structure but without regard to
possible natural relationships.

1242 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

DOCUMENT 22/3
(continued from page 340)

The Status of Secondary Homonyms and the Concept of
Permanent Rejection

(Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 1275)

By PHILIP HERSHKOVITZ
(Chicago Natural History Museum)

(Enclosure to letter dated 21st May 1958)

A rule (cf. Article 25/1) stating in effect that a name once made a junior
secondary homonym by anyone must be permanently rejected by everyone
not only transgresses into the domain of taxonomy, it also censors the opinions
of taxonomists as well.

2. Secondary homonymy is a subjective, frequently an accidental or
transitory, and not always a universally recognized, condition. A secondary
homonym should be subject to nomenclatural regulation only at the time
when, and only by those zoologists who think, a state of secondary homonymy
exists.

3. Nearly all names, including all substitutes for rejected junior secondary
homonyms, are potential secondary homonyms. A rule providing for perman-
ent rejection of a unilaterally, erroneously, accidentally, or otherwise tem-
porarily caused junior secondary homonym invites instability and confusion
in nomenclature as well as gratuitous and unlimited multiplications of names.

4. Section 16 of Article 24, purportedly a safeguard against abuse of
provisions concerning permanent rejection of junior secondary homonyms
is merely a facet of the same attempt at thought control. The meaning of
this provision is that all zoologists must reject all junior secondary homonyms
caused by one zoologist unless the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature publicly stigmatizes that zoologist as having acted in bad
faith.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 1243

5. To avoid the abuses of the concept of permanent rejection of junior
secondary homonyms, the implications of censorship of independent thought
contained therein, and the threat of public condemnation of selected zoologists
causing secondary homonyms, all references to such permanent rejection and
to the challenging of rejection contained in Article 24 of the proposed
draft of the Reégles must be suppressed. It is proposed instead, that the
nomenclatural status of a junior secondary homonym be placed on a par with
a subjective junior synonym as defined in Article 25, Section 2, to wit :

(1) A name that has been rejected by an author as a junior secondary
homonym remains available if

(a) It fulfils all other requirements of validity.

(b) In the opinion of another author a state of homonymy does not
exist.

(2) A name proposed in replacement of a rejected junior secondary homo-
nym reverts to the synonymy of the latter at any time a zoologist
indicates that, in his opinion, a state of homonymy does not exist.

1244

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

DOCUMENT 27/8
(continued from page 1088)

Comment on the “ Prineiple of Conservation ””

(Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 861)

By C. W. SABROSKY
(Nomenclature Discussion Group, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.)

(Enclosure to letter dated 6th June 1958)

[Note by the Assistant Secretary, International Commission of
Zoological Nomenclature : The paper here reproduced as Document
27/8 conveying the results of a ballot conducted by the Nomenclature
Discussion Group was received in the Commission’s office on the same
date as the immediately following note was ready to be sent to the
printer. The two papers deal with the same general subject and
show a community of attitude that is best brought out when both are
read together in conjunction with Article 5 of Professor Bradley’s
draft English text of the revised Régles. Initialled R.V.M., 9th June
1958.]

Result of Ballot on Article 5 of Bradley Draft

Section 3—Principle of Conservation

Four alternatives were offered :—
31 votes : “ Section 3 should be rejected. The Code should be based on

priority in principle as an objective means of achieving

ultimate stability and universality. Section 2 offers a
sufficient escape mechanism for cases of sufficient importance
and severity.”

2 votes : “ Section 3 should be rejected but a recommendation should
be inserted under Section 2 (Suspension of the Rules) reading
essentially as follows: ‘Due consideration should be given
to current usage’. ”’

EERO RPS

oWods,

~~

a

EIR AeA,

ALSIP L AD PRE TIE T

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 1245

no votes: The section should be accepted in principle, but revised to

a2 6

clarify terms as “ current use’, “‘ widely used”, and “‘ some
part of fifty years preceding ”’.

no votes : The section should be accepted essentially as it stands (essentially
means except for minor editorial changes).

Section 4—Overlooked Names

Three alternatives were offered :

30 votes : ‘‘ The section should be rejected. It is impossible to define
‘long-overlooked ’ satisfactorily, it is unwise to require that
these names be treated as proposed in the section, and it is
undesirable to add the extra bookwork for zoologists ”’.

1 vote: ‘‘ The section should be accepted in principle, but revised to
clarify the term ‘ long overlooked’ ”’.

1 vote: ‘‘ The section should be accepted essentially as it stands ”’.

1 vote cast for either the first or second of the above choices.

Section 5—‘* Nomina Dubia ”’

Three alternatives were offered :

29 votes : “‘ The section should be rejected, as adding needless bookwork.
Normal process should be allowed to operate, i.e., ignore
the name, except for homonymy, or clarify its zoological
status ”’.

2 votes : “ The section should be accepted essentially as it stands ”’.

1 vote: ‘‘ The section should be accepted in principle, but subject to
drafting amendments ”’.

1 vote: either the first or the third of the above choices.

The relative uniformity of the voting makes it easy to summarize the
voting. The following votes were received, listed by fields of specialization :—

Parasitology: John S. Andrews, George R. LaRue, John T. Lucker,
Allen McIntosh, Benjamin Schwartz.

Acarology : Ivan Huber.

Entomology: B. D. Burks, A. B. Gurney, Phyllis T. Johnson, Sophy
Parfin, Louise M. Russell, C. W. Sabrosky, Alan Stone, E. L. Todd,
W. W. Wirth, L. W. Yates.

DDDD*

1246 Bulletin of Zoological N omenclature

Invertebrata (Neozoology) : Frederick M. Bayer, T. E. Bowman,
Fenner A. Chace, Jr., J. P. E. Morrison, H. A. Rehder, H. B. Roberts

(some of these also work on fossil forms).
Ornithology : H. G. Deignan, A. Wetmore.
Ichthyology : Robert H. Kanazawa, E. Lachner, W. R. Taylor.
Paleontology : Preston E. Cloud, Jr., J. T. Dutro, Jr., W. A. Oliver, ars
G. Sohn, W. P. Woodring, Ellis Yochelson.
Votes

tion 3 : 31 votes for the first alternative listed above ;
2 votes (Wirth and Woodring) for the second.

See

Section 4 : 30 votes for the first alternative listed above ;

1 vote (Parfin) for the second alternative ;
1 vote (Wirth) for the third alternative ;
1 vote (Lachner) for either the first or second alternative.

Section 5 : 29 votes for the first alternative listed above ;
2 votes (Huber, Wirth) for the second alternative ;

1 vote (Parfin) for the third alternative ;

1 vote (Lachner) for either the first or third of the above choices.

:
;
‘
f

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 1247

DOCUMENT 27/9

Objection to the Introduction of a “‘ Principle of Conservation ”’ into the
** Régles ”’

(Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 861

By R. V. MELVILLE
(Assistant Secretary, International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature)

Ever since the existing Régles Internationales de Nomenclature Zoologique
were first promulgated by the Berlin Congress, successive International
Congresses of Zoology have witnessed an unceasing struggle between those who
feel that unswerving fidelity to the Law of Priority will best produce a stable
and universal nomenclature, and those who stand out for the conservation
of long-used names that ought to be replaced under a strict interpretation of
that Law. The latter school have gradually, but almost continuously, gained
ground, their most notable victory to date being undoubtedly the granting by
the Monaco Congress in 1913 of Plenary Powers to the Commission, to enable
it to vary the application of any Article in the Régles in the interests of stability
and universality of nomenclature. The first stirrings of a movement to write
a Law of Prescription into the code were heard at Lisbon in 1935 and a
definite proposal to this end was laid before the Paris (1948) Congress by
Dr. Lemche. Finally, in 1953, the Copenhagen Congress, having rejected
four alternative drafts, charged the Commission to produce a version for
consideration by the London Congress. This is draft Article 5 in the draft
of the revised Régles. Meanwhile, at the XIX International Geological
Congress at Algiers in 1952, the International Paleontological Union considered
the same subject on the basis of proposals put before it by Professor R. C.
Moore and the present writer. So wide, deep and strong were the differences of
opinion, however, that the meeting broke up in disorder without voting on
any motion.

. 2. There can be little doubt that the opponents of the strict application
of the Law of Priority were right in their original conténtion that stability and
uniformity of nomenclature could be gained more quickly, with less friction —
and with more credit to the good name of zoology if long-familiar names were

1248 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

preserved from attack on legalistic grounds. In arguments of this kind,
however, there is seldom any such thing as complete victory. The aim is a
stable, uniform and universal nomenclature; that is, a condition in which
every species has but one name, and every name but one meaning, in all
countries and for all time. But it must be accepted that the ideal is unattain-
able so long as taxonomic differences of opinion are permitted. No systematist
can be dictated to in the matter of accepting his colleagues’ identifications.
All that can be ensured is that every objective type (holotype, lectotype,
neotype, type-species or type-genus) shall have but one name. The association
of other specimens or taxa with the relevant type under the same name must
always remain a matter of personal decision.

3. It therefore seems to me that, by pressing their case too strongly, the
conservationists risk defeating their professed ends. Extremism may score
points over the defenders of priority, but it will not achieve stability. Pursuing
a defeated enemy to destruction may be good tactics, but it is bad strategy
when both parties have to work together after the fight. Priority is, after all,
the only objective test of availability, and without it there can be no acceptable
code. I feel that the supporters of a Law of Prescription are doomed to defeat
on three grounds if they insist on their demands being met in full. First, they
are divided among themselves in what they want to attain and in the best
method of attaining it : secondly, it is impossible to define the desired law in a
way that will cover all possible cases without lying open to serious abuse :
thirdly, I believe that the law they seek to include in the code is a constitutional
impossibility.

4. Comments on Professor Bradley’s draft article incorporating the
Principle of Conservation are reproduced on pp. 621-642 and 911-913 of this
volume. They show that ideas on the subject are still diverse, to such an
extent that their reconciliation in a single article seems impossible. Dr.
Philip Hershkovitz (: 630-632) at first proposed that a line should be drawn
between the first Linnean century (1758-1858) and subsequent time, and that
names proposed during the first century but not subsequently adopted should
be regarded as unavailable. Later, however, (: 911-913) he recommended
that “any principle, rule or law that specifically provides for annulment or
circumvention of the Law of Priority shall not be incorporated in the Inter-
national Rules of Zoological Nomenclature’. Professor Hobart M. Smith
(: 633-636) was particularly concerned with interchange of meaning between
specific names within a single genus. Dr. Henning Lemche, by whom the
first request for a Law of Prescription was made, in 1948, stressed the
importance (: 639-642) of putting the onus of work on the name-changer
rather than on the conserver of usage. Neither Professor Bradley, nor Professor
Smith, nor Dr. Lemche have produced a numerical basis for the proposed Law
that can give general satisfaction, for although Dr. Lemche sticks to his original

ar} AS

ey ye ee I

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 1249

“ fifty years’, Professor Smith rightly points out that a vast amount of usage
can grow up in a very short space of time.

5. All those who have concerned themselves with attempts to frame a
Law of Prescription have recognised the essentially subjective nature of the
matter. It is to my mind impossible to define numerically the amount of usage
that a junior synonym must have enjoyed to qualify for conservation, or the
amount of neglect that a senior synonym must have suffered to necessitate its
rejection in a way that will cover both the household words of applied zoology
(in the medical, agricultural, veterinary and geological fields) and the usage
of highly restricted specialist fields; five usages in the latter may be as
important to those concerned as five hundred in the former.

6. The Law of Priority has been a fundamental part of zoological
nomenclature since the earliest days of the binominal system. It is surely bad
constitutional practice to write into any code a law that expressly contradicts
one of the basic principles on which that code is based. I do not believe that
Professor Bradley’s draft Article 5 will be found any more acceptable by the
London Colloquium than were any of the several drafts considered at
Copenhagen. I believe that the position as it stands under the existing Régles
has been insufficiently considered. This position stands as follows: (a) the
Commission has been granted Plenary Powers to vary the application of any
article in the Régles and has been instructed to use these powers “ for the
purpose of preventing confusion and of promoting a stable and universally
accepted nomenclature’; (b) the Preamble to the Régles expressly draws
attention to this point; (c) the Paris Congress laid it down in the clearest
terms that the Official Lists were to be used especially for the conservation of
names of importance in applied zoology and in the teaching of zoology. With
these safeguards in existence, any zoologist who allows a firmly entrenched
junior synonym to be replaced by an overlooked name of higher priority has
only himself to blame.

7. Dr. Lemche (: 641-642) would prohibit zoologists from using available
names unless they can cite references in support of their action, but this
seems to me an unconstitutional provision. Ifan author A revives an overlooked
name in a way that, in his opinion, does not threaten an established name, and
if a later author B considers that the taxon for which A revived the overlooked
name is subjectively identical with a taxon for which a junior synonym is in
current use, then it is wrong to stigmatise A for what he did. Assuming that
his action was legal from the point of view of the Law of Priority, then it is
absurd to pretend that it was illegal from the point of view of some other
article. He may be held by some to have acted against the spirit of the law,
but it would be foolish to attack him on the letter of the law. The co-existence
in one code of diametrically opposed articles cannot possibly contribute to
stability and universality of nomenclature.

1250 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

8. I therefore propose that draft Article 5 be deleted, and that
Recommendations 2 to 4 be incorporated in the Preamble in the following
words: Any zoologist who finds that a name in current use is objectively
invalid, and who considers that that name ought to be validated in the interests
of stability and uniformity in nomenclature, should at once take steps to have
the invalid name placed on the relevant Official List and the objectively
identical names placed on the relevant Official Index. Any zoologist who
considers that the stability of a long-established name is threatened by the
existence of one or more subjective senior synonyms should at once take
steps to have the long-established subjective junior synonym placed on the
relevant Official List by the use of the Plenary Powers. The subjective senior
synonym or synonyms shall thereafter be available for use only by those
zoologists who consider them to represent taxa different from that represented
by that name added to the Official List as a long-established subjective junior
synonym.

eee eee ee ee

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 1251

DOCUMENT 33/10
(continued from page 1188)

Miscellaneous Comments on the Draft of the ‘* Régles ”’

(Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 1329)

By L. W. GRENSTED

(Consulting Classical Adviser to the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature)

(Letter dated 17th May 1958)

I think that Points (83) and (84) in Dr. Sabrosky’s paper (Document 33/4 ;
Bull. zool. Nomencl. 15 : 795) are unnecessary and there is in any case a mistake
as to ‘noma’. It would be possible to put Piesma in as an example, but it is
a classical Greek word in its own right and not really an example of a name
consisting of a compound word. The example given, Pseudostigma, really
covers Dr. Sabrosky’s point. I don’t quite see the point, in (83), about -noma.

On Point (84), there is no classical Latin word ‘noma’. There is a rare
word ‘nome ’, plural ‘nomae’, but it is very doubtful whether this has ever
been used in zoological nomenclature. There may be names based on the
common Greek vou (‘ pasture’ or ‘ distribution’) and Latinised as -néma.
But the ant Tapindma Foerster is simply the Greek noun raréwwya, and
has nothing to do with véun. In any case the Rule as drafted (Bull. zool.
Nomencl. 14 : 213) fully covers the possibilities. It is not necessary to bring
in cases where names like Hurydema have quite different types of derivation.
They just don’t come under this Section.

My real point is that ‘noma’ must not be cited as a Latin noun. The
draft seems quite adequate as it is.

1252 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

DOCUMENT 33/11

Draft ‘* Régles ’’, Article 28, Table 2, Part B.

(Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 1329)

By R. V. MELVILLE
(Assistant Secretary, International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature)

This document summarises correspondence between the Secretary of the
International Commission and Professor J. Chester Bradley, Professor L. W.
Grensted intervening, on the question of rendering the Greek word oaAmyé in
Roman letters in Item 17 of Part B, Table 2 under Article 28 of the draft
Régles (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 14 : 240, lines 12, 13).

2. In the typescript draft of this table sent by Professor Bradley to the
office of the Commission for publication, the words and letters in Roman type
in columns 1, 2 and 4 of Item 17 read “ gs salpiggos salpigs”’. Mr. Hemming
wrote to Professor Bradley (2nd October 1957) pointing out that in Greek
words in which the letter gamma immediately precedes any of the letters
gamma, kappa, xi or chi (i.e., words in which the pairs of letters yy, yx yé
or yx occur) the pronunciation was as though the first letter of each of the
pairs mentioned was an “n”. He had therefore altered the words in the
columns referred to to “nx salping-os salpinx”’ (that is, into the form in
which they appear in the printed draft) and had added a footnote supplied by
Professor L. W. Grensted, Consulting Classical Adviser to the International
Commission, reading “ The Greek y in this position before y, x, € or x was
sounded as “‘n” and was always so transliterated when taken over into
classical Latin, e.g., Syrinx (from Ldpiyé), giving the genitive Syringis
(from Zdpryyos)”. This footnote now appears on p. 240 of the printed
draft. Mr. Hemming explained that he had done this because otherwise
there would have been, for zoologists without knowledge of Greek, a puzzling
lack of connection between columns 1, 2 and 4 of this item and column 7, where
the word SYRINGIDAE appeared in the typescript (as it does in the printed
draft).

i a)

Le eee ae a Oe

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 1253

3. Professor Bradley replied (20th October 1957; five weeks before the
draft was published) saying that “‘salpigs’ for ‘ salpinx ’ was a dreadful
error”’, but on 16th January 1958 he said “ when you wrote me about
SALPINGIDAE I failed to note that the first three columns of my table (as stated
in its headline) give the actual equivalents of the Greek letters, not
Latinizations, and it has therefore been necessary to change these back into
their original form”. He suggested revising the entries in columns 1,2 and 4
of Item 17 to read “ gx salpigg-os salpigx ” while leaving “ SALPINGIDAE ” in
column 7,

the rest of Item 17, note included, unchanged.

5. On 7th March 1958 Mr. Hemming wrote to Professor Bradley pointing
out that “nx ” had been agreed in correspondence before the draft had been
published and that it would thus be both unfair to himself and to Professor
Grensted, as well as incorrect, to introduce the change suggested by Professor
Bradley (in a proposed corrigendum) without some explanation, and he invited
Professor Bradley to contribute an explanatory note referring to the
correspondence. He added that the object of the Table was to help zoologists
with no knowledge of Greek and that hence an unqualified transliteration
would, in this case, be misleading.

6. Professor Bradley replied on 14th March 1958 quoting the headline to
Table B (as corrected ; see Bull. zool. Nomencl. 14 : 368) and added :—

No one can dispute that the equivalents of the Greek letters “ y” and
eae g” and “x”, and that it is only when we Latinize a word
containing them in combination that we write “nx ”. Therefore it would

line.

When you called my attention to what appeared to be erroneous
spellings in line 13, namely, “gx”, “ salpiggos ”, and “ salpigs ’’, I readily
agreed with you and was astounded that I should have made such a
mistake, but that was because the table had been prepared over two
years previously and I had completely forgotten my expressed intent
to adhere in those four columns to the strict equivalents of the Greek
letters in the Latin alphabet, and to avoid any Latinization. Of course
I should have restudied the table as a whole, and especially the
introductory lines, but I did not. Had I done so I would not have agreed
to the change that was made.

1254 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

I do not agree that “the formula in the shape now suggested leaves
Salpingidae quite unaccounted for ” because the printed footnote explains
at a length that could not be put into the table why the form of the family
name is “‘ Salpingidae ’’, as does Appendix F of the Régles.

My only purpose for entering the Latin letters at all was so the Greek
characters would become intelligible to those unfamiliar with the Greek
orthography. Had I entered into Latinizations, this purpose would
have been defeated and the whole matter would have become complicated.
I should have had also to write “c” for kappa, “ y” for upsilon, etc.

Since there is no dispute between any of us as to fact, but only as to
method of expression, I can see no good purpose in referring to earlier
correspondence with which the public has no concern. I am quite willing,
rightfully, to assume full responsibility for the error, which being obviously
a matter of copy and not of misprint would in any event be laid upon me.

The matter can be solved in either one of two ways, of which I should
prefer the second, but leave it to you and Professor Grensted to choose.

(1) To let line 13 stand as printed and add a footnote (hanging on
“nx ” in column 1) to the following effect :

“* +Nx, salpingos, and salpinx are Latinizations of the respective
Greek termination, or words, which arise for the reason
explained in the preceding footnote. The equivalent of the
Greek letters in the Latin alphabet are, respectively ‘ gx’,
‘salpiggos ’, and ‘salpigx’”’.

(2) To make the corrections that I have previously suggested in
columns 1, 2, and 4 of line 13, then to add as a footnote hanging
on “nx” in column |:

“+ the Latinization of this termination and the ensuing words
is, respectively, ‘nx ’, ‘ salping-os ’, and ‘ Salpinx ’, as will be
obvious from the preceding footnote”. The use of these
Latinizations in line 13 was the compiler’s error.

I hope that you will find one of these two solutions acceptable.
7. It has been thought best to publish these extracts from the corres-

pondence in fairness to Professor Bradley, Mr. Hemming and Professor
Grensted.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 1255

DOCUMENT 33/12
Draft “ Régles ”’ : proposals on nine miscellaneous points
(Commission Reference : Z.N.(S.) 1329)

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

ecretary to t. nternational Commission on Zoologica omenclature
(S. he I ional. Commissi Zoological N lature)
(Statement dated 5th June 1958)

The purpose of the present note is to draw attention to nine points arising
in connection with Professor Chester Bradley’s Draft of the English text of
the Revised Régles (1957, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 14) and to suggest the desir-
ability of certain supplementary or other action being taken in regard thereto.

(1) Article 6, Section 1 : proposed correction of wording of centred
cross-heading

Section 1 of Article 6 of the Draft Regles is concerned with those portions
of the existing Article 25 (Law of Priority) which prescribe the conditions
which names require to satisfy in order to acquire the status of availability.
This Section is divided up into a series of centred cross-headings (printed in
capital letters). Each of these refers to names published in some specified
period, e.g., ““ Names published prior to 1931 ”, “‘ Names published subsequently
to 1930”. The first of these cross-headings (1957, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 14 : 48)
reads “ Names of any date ”.

Clearly what is intended is “ Names published on any date subsequent
to 1757 ” and it is suggested that this heading be corrected accordingly.

(2) Article 6, Section 8 : use of the word “ indices ’’ in the title

Section 8 of Article 6 in Professor Bradley’s Draft of the Régles (1957,
Bull. zool. Nomencl. 14 : 60) bears the title “Names published in indices of
works”, The word “ index’ as used in England has a number of different
meanings. Ten of these are listed in the Oxford English Dictionary (5 : 202-203),
and it is there explained that for some of these senses of the word the correct
plural is “ indices ” and for others “ indexes ”. The sense with which we are
here concerned is that which is enumerated in the Oxford English Dictionary

1256 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

and there defined as follows :—‘‘An alphabetical list, placed (usually) at the
end of a book, of the names, subjects, etc. occurring in it, with indication of
the places in which they occur.” The correct form of the plural for this sense
of the word “index ” is there stated to be “ indexes ”.

For the reasons set out above the word “ indices” should be replaced
by the word “ indexes ” in the title of Section 8 of Article 6 and anywhere else
in that Article or elsewhere in the Régles where it is intended to cite in the
plural the word “ index ” in the sense quoted above.

If the present is a case where usage is different in England and America
respectively, it is suggested that the difficulties so involved should be overcome
by the adoption of the procedure recommended in the paper which is being
submitted as Document 78/1.

(3) Article 6 (Availability) and Article 8 (Priority)

In his draft of the Régles Professor Chester Bradley has recognised the
essential difference between the two complementary principles of availability
and priority which have hitherto been confused together, as the result partly
of both having been dealt with in Article 25 of the existing Régles. Professor
Bradley’s decision to recognise the foregoing distinction by dealing with these
matters in separate Articles (Availability in Article 6 and Priority in Article 8)
is thus to be welcomed.

Unfortunately, however, Professor Bradley, in giving effect to the fore-
going decision, has for some inexplicable reason abandoned the long-established
expression ‘‘ Law of Priority” (“ Loi de Priorité ”), substituting for it the
totally unknown expression “ The Principle of Priority” as the title for his
Draft Article 8. In the case of his draft Article 6 Professor Bradley has
introduced the equally unfamiliar expression “ Rules of Availability ”’.

It is recommended that in the case of Article 8 the time-honoured expression
“Law of Priority’”’ be restored and that in the case of the parallel provisions
in Article 6 the comparable expression ‘‘ Law of Availability ’” be adopted.

(4) Article 19 : proposed compliance with Congress Decision as to
the avoidance in relation to the names of nominal genera
of the use of the word “‘ type’? unqualified by the addition
of the word “‘ species ”’

In Paris in 1948 the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, Paris,
1948 (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 300) decided that, ‘‘ where in the Régles
(as in Article 30) or in the Schedules thereto, it was necessary to refer to the
concept of a ‘‘a type species of a genus > the expression “ espéce type” and,

e ee ee ae an nt

eT ee

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 1257

?

in the English translation, the expression “‘ type species ’
be employed ”’.

should invariably

An attempt to comply with the foregoing Congress Directive has been
made in the preparation of the text, for example, of Articles 19 and 21, but
in a very large number of cases, especially in the first of these Articles, the
word ‘‘ type’ appears in the unqualified form banned by the Paris Congress.

It is recommended that a systematic search should be made of the text
of Professor Bradley’s Draft and that the word “species ” should be inserted
after the word “‘ type ”’, wherever it may be found that the Directive of the
Paris Congress on this subject has not been complied with.

(5) Article 19, Section 3: determination of the type species of
nominal genera

In Section 3 of the Draft Article 19 (1957, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 14 : 122)
Professor Chester Bradley has sought to set out the Rules governing the deter-
mination of the type species of nominal genera established before 1931 in those
cases where that determination depends exclusively upon information contained
in the paper in which the generic name in question was published or upon action
taken by the author of the generic name in that paper ; in Section 4 of the same
Draft Article (ibid. 14 : 127) he sets out the Rules governing the determination
of the type species of genera when that determination does not depend solely
upon information given in the original description of the nominal genus con-
cerned. These Sections, which apply only to the names of nominal genera
established prior to 1931, are closely related to one another and this is recognised
by Professor Bradley by the stipulation in Section 3 (: 122, line 25) that the
provisions there set out (which correspond more or less with those in Rules
(a) to (d) in Article 30 of the existing Régles) are to operate “ in joint sequence ”
with those in Section 4 of the Draft (i.e. the provisions which appear in Rules (e)
to (g) in the existing Régles).

One of the commonest mistakes made in the determination of the type
‘species of genera arises from a failure to take account of the instruction
in the opening words of Article 30 which prescribe that the Rules there set out
are to be “ applied in the following order of precedence ”’. It is possible that the
words “‘ in joint sequence ”’ inserted by Professor Bradley in Section 3 in relation
to Section 4 of his Draft Article 19 are intended also to convey the meaning
attaching to the expression used in the existing Article 30 quoted above. Ifso,
I am bound to say that, in my view, the attempt has been unsuccessful. In
view of the great importance of the provision in question and the consequent
need for doing everything possible to avoid unnecessary ambiguities in the text,
I recommend that Section 1 of Article 19 of Professor Bradley’s Draft be
amended to such extent as may be necessary for this purpose. The existing

1258 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Article 30 was drafted by the late Dr. C. W. Stiles of Washington, D.C., and, as it
is plain and straightforward and in addition well known from fifty years of
continuous usage, I suggest that it should be retained in the revised Régles,
subject to such verbal adjustment as is required to link it in its new form with
Professor Bradley’s Section 4. The adoption of this course will have the further
substantial advantage that it will restore into this Article the word “ Rule ” as
applied to the successive provisions there specified. The disappearance of
this word from the present Article would be unfortunate, both because a term
of art is required to designate the particular provisions in question and because
the use of this word in this sense is well established and well understood and its
omission from this Article—for which there is at present no Congress authority—
would be anomalous and possibly confusing. I accordingly recommend that
Section 3 of Professor Bradley’s Draft be recast as follows :—

The determination of the type species of normal genera established
before 1931 shall be governed by the Rules set out in the present Section
(Rules (a) to (d)) as applied in the following order of precedence, and, if
none of those is applicable, by the Rules set out in Section 4 below, those
Rules also being applied in the order in which they are set out in that
Section.

(6) Article 19, Section 3: misplacing of provisions now appearing in
sub-sections (b) and (c) respectively

In the immediately preceding note—Note (5)—attention has been drawn
to the provision in Article 30 of the existing Régles that the Rules there set out
for determining the type species are to be applied successively in the order in
which they appear in that Article. It is necessary here to take note that in that
Article the second Rule (Rule (b)) is concerned with situations arising when a
new genus established before 1931 without a designated type species contained
at the time of its establishment a new species having the specific name typicus
or typus) and the third Rule (Rule (c)) with the determination of type species
by monotypy.

When, however, we turn to Professor Bradley’s draft we find that for no
stated reason—and without any Congress authority—these two Rules have
been transposed, the true Rule (b) becoming Rule (c) in Professor Bradley’s
document and the true Rule (c) becoming Rule (b). In practice it is unlikely
that the transposition of these Rules would often lead to a change in the
accepted type species of a genus, but the change is none the less objectionable,
partly because there is no authority for it and partly because it represents an
unnecessary disturbance of existing practice. There are for example many
hundreds—probably many thousands—of references in the literature of
systematic zoology to “‘ Rule (c) (type by monotypy) ” and it would, in my view,
be quite pointless now to confuse the issue by rechristening that Rule as Rule
(b).

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 1259

I accordingly recommend that in conformity with existing Congress
authority the provisions in Section 3 of the Draft Article 19 corresponding with
Rules (b) and (c) respectively in Article 30 of the existing Régles should be
restored to the order prescribed in Article 30 and therefore that Professor
Bradley’s sub-section (c) be renumbered (b) and moved to a position immediately
following sub-section (a) and that Professor Bradley’s sub-section (b) be
renumbered (c) and placed immediately after the new sub-section (b) recom-
mended above.

(7) Article 19, Section 3(d)(ii) : Linnean tautonymy

In transferring into the Draft of the Régles (1957, Bull. zool. Nomencl.
14 : 126) the decision by the Paris Congress (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 155)
to codify in a clarified form the Ruling given by the Commission in Opinion 16,
Professor Bradley has copied into his text the expression “‘ uninominal specific
name ”’ used in the record of the Paris decision. At that time this expression
was correct, as so used, for the approved name for the second (i.e. specific)
component of the binomen which constitutes the scientific designation of a
species was “trivial name”, the expression “specific name” then having
the meaning “ name for a species ’’, i.e. the binomen consisting of the generic
and trivial names applicable to the species concerned. The position in this
matter was, however, altered by the (as I personally consider, unfortunate)
decision by the Copenhagen Congress to eliminate the expression “ trivial
name ”’ from the Régles, to apply the expression “ specific name ”’ to the con-
cept previously known as a “trivial name” and to apply the colourless expression
““binomen ” to the concept previously known as a “specific name”. Applying
these decisions to the present case we find that the expression “‘ uninominal
specific name ”’ used in this connection by the Paris Congress has ceased to be
correct and has indeed become meaningless ; for the terms here under con-
sideration are not ‘specific names” in the revised sense described above.
If the Copenhagen terminology were to be applied to the names here under
discussion, it would be necessary to employ the ridiculous and meaningless
expression ‘“ uninominal binomen”’.

Before making a suggestion as to how to overcome the foregoing dilemma,
it is necessary to draw attention to another defect in the present draft of
Section 3(d)(ii) of Article 19. In this case the difficulty arises not from some
change in the Régles by a later Congress but by a departure from the terms of
the Paris Congress Decision by Professor Bradley when seeking to embody
that decision in his Draft of the Régles. The resulting expression is unfortunate
not only because of the misuse—as shown above—of the word “ specific ” in
the expression ‘‘ uninominal specific name ” but also because of the use of the
adjective “‘ uninominal”’ as a qualification of the noun name, the resulting
meaning, if any, being presumably a “ one-namish”’ (or “ one-namelike ”’)
name. What is intended, of course, is a name of the particular category
consisting of a single word, i.e. a ‘‘univerbal”’ name. This is in fact the

1260 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

expression deliberately used in this connection by the Paris Congress ten years
ago, and it is the expression—being both the correct and the authorised
expression—which should be used in this provision.

In order to remedy the defects discussed above, it is recommended that in
Section 3(d)(ii) of Article 19 the words “‘ uninominal specific name ”’ be replaced
by the expression ‘‘ univerbal species-name ”’.

(8) Article 19, Section 5(c)(v) : proposed amendment of the expression
“recording publication ’’ to bring the phraseology employed
into line with Congress Decisions

In Paris in 1948 the Commission had under consideration a request for
a Ruling on the question whether a selection of a type species for a genus
made in a serial such as the Zoological Record should be regarded as satisfying
the provisions of the Régles (Hemming, 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 3 : 84) and
decided that this question should be answered in the affirmative (1950, «bid.
4:161). During the consideration of this question in Paris considerable
discussion took place as to the descriptive epithet to be applied to the class of
serial here in question and it was finally agreed that the expression to be used
should be “ literature-recording serial ”’.

Despite the foregoing the carefully devised and officially approved expres-
sion was not carried over into the Régles by Professor Bradley who instead
introduced the much less satisfactory (because ambiguous) expression “‘ record-
ing publication ” (see 1957, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 14 : 132, lines 14 and 16).

It is recommended that the officially approved expression “ literature-
recording serial ’’ be re-instated in the passages in the Régles referred to above
and in any other passages therein where this question may arise.

(9) Article 24 (provisions relating to homonymy)

In Point (3) I have pleaded for the restoration of the time-honoured and
long-established expression Law of Priority (Loi de Priorité) which for some
unexplained reason stands in Professor Chester Bradley’s Draft (Article 8)
under the new title ‘‘ The Principle of Priority ”’.

The provisions in the Régles relating to priority and homonymy respectively
are the twin pillars on which the availability of any given zoological name
depends and it appears to me to be highly desirable that there should be no
interruption of the now long-established use of the expression ‘“‘ Law of
Homonymy”’. This expression is in fact used in the title to Section 1 of
Article 24. All that is required is therefore that this title should be given to
Article 24 as a whole and that the wording of the Article should be examined
for the sake of ensuring uniformity in phraseology.

|

CONTENTS

(continued from front wrapper)

THE LONDON AGENDA PAPER

(a) New Proposals

Case No. 75: Draft ‘* Régles ’’, Article 17: Provisions relating to the
restriction and designation of localities for nominal species

D.75/1 James A. Peters
D.75/2 Kenneth C. Parkes
D.75/4 Francis Hemming

Case No. 76: Draft “‘ Régles’’: Provisions in the existing “‘ Régles ”’
omitted from the draft English text of the revised ‘* Régles ”’

D.76/1 BR. V. Melville

Case No. 77: Draft “‘ Régles ’? : The question of the date from which
certain provisions become effective

D.77/1_ B. V. Melville

Case No. 78: Draft “ Régles’’ : Problems of drafting arising through
differences in usage of the English language in England and America
respectively

D.78/1 Francis Hemming

Case No. 79: Draft “‘ Régles’’, Article 29 : Question of including in the
revised ‘‘ Régles’’ Paris provisions on the Organic Rules of the
Commission not included in the draft “‘ Régles ”’

D.79/1 BR. V. Melville

D.79/2 Francis Hemming

Case No. 80: Draft “ Régles’’: Question of the retention of the
‘* Notification and Challenge ’’ procedure adopted by the Copenhagen
(1953) Congress

D.80/1_ RB. V. Melville

Page

1189
1193
1195

1199

1203

1205

1207
1214

1234

CONTENTS
(continued from inside back wrapper)

Page

Case No. 82: Draft ‘* Régles ’’, Article 1, Section 3: Status of a name

given to a hypothetical form

D.82/1 Francis Hemming ... = — fe “2 - =e

(b) Comments on previously published proposals

Case No. 1 : Proposed recognition of the ‘‘ Parataxa ’’ concept

D.1/69 P. C. Sylvester-Bradley we . aie x -. S248
Case No. 22: Secondary homonyms: proposed repeal of challenge

procedure

D.22/3 Philip Hershkovitz .. =e oe as a .. 1242
Case No. 27: Question of provisions embodying the “ Principle of

Conservation ”’

D.27/8 C. W. Sabrosky Le =A Rs a a .. 1244

D.27/9 RB. V. Melville - Ss sg 3 a wo SAT
Case No. 33: Miscellaneous drafting amendments

D.33/10 L. W. Grensted = ne ext of a ws R258

D.33/11 R. V. Melville Sf ‘ie a Bi: i, ee

D.33/12 Francis Hemming... he ot = mS -. 1255

© 1958. THe INTERNATIONAL TRUST FOR ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE
Printed in England by METCALFE & Cooper LimireD, 10-24 Scrutton St., London E C2

VOLUME 15. Part 42

17th November 1958
pp. 1261-1266, T.P. (Section B)-(XXXIV)

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.

CONTENTS

Title Page and Indexes of Section B of the present volume

PURCHASED

~ % DEC 1963
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, Four Shillings

(AU rights reserved)

1 "
cS >
.
eels : ie
*
<<
m)
«
cu
i
-
id
m "ea.
R ~
‘
. Aaa

BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE
Rr Ce

Volume 15, Part 42 pp. 1261—1266,
T.P. (Section B)—(X XXIV)

17th November 1958

INDEX on

AUTHORS OF COMMUNICATIONS INCLUDED IN THE
SECOND SECTION (SECTION B) OF THE AGENDA PAPER FOR THE
COLLOQUIUM ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE,
LONDON, 1958

(Authors of papers included in the present Section (Section B)
of Volume 15 of the ‘‘ Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature a

(For the list of authors of communications included
in Section A of the Agenda Paper of the Collo-
quium, see page 620a of the present volume.)

Page
Alvarado, R. 938-939
Amaral, Afranio do 999, 1064
Basilewsky, P. 984-989

Blake, Charles H. ai a AOL

Bomboff, Siegfried 809-811
Bonnet, Pierre 645-661
Bradley, J. Chester 637-638, 662—

663, 693-694, 703-704, 731-
735, 931, 956, 958, 959, 960, 961—
963, 1107-1108

Branson, Carl C. 760-761

Chitwood, B. J. 860-895

Cloud, Jr., Preston E... ey

Page
Corliss, John O. 1073-1079
Cox, L. R. 909-910, 966-967, 1068

Crowson, R. A. 940-941, 942-943,

944, 1016
Deflandre, Georges 705-724
Deflandre, Marthe 705-724
Dollfus, R. Ph. 858-859

dos Passos, Cyril F. 681, 695-702,
816-821, 824, 857, 935, 974, 975

1161

Dougherty, Ellsworth C. 681, 896-
906

Downie, Charles 725-726

1262 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Page

Dusenbury, Jr., Arthur N. 954-955,
956

Esaki, Teiso 1006-1009
Fay, Robert O. 968-969
Follett, W. I. 628-629, 672-
673, 677-685

Friedericks, K... 809-811
Geelan, P. J. M. 1049-1050

Grensted, L.W. 753-754, 964-965,
1110-1113, 1251

Hall, E.Raymond .. ye G82

Hemming, Francis 621-629, 643-
644, 669-671, 674-676, 729-730,
751-752, 811, 814-815, 821-823,
825, 826-827, 854-856, 932, 934,
936-937, 945-947, 948-949, 950-
956, 958-959, 997, 998, 1004—
1005, 1012-1013, 1017-1020,
1021-1023, 1040-1045, 1055-
1056, 1057-1058, 1109, 1149-
1155, 1195-1198, 1205-1206,
1214-1233, 1239-1240, 1255-
1260

Henningsmoen, Gunnar .. 1039

Hering, Erich M. 664-666, 667-

668, 1051-1052

Hershkovitz, Philip 630-632, 911-

913, 1242-1243

Hopkins, G. H. E. 755-758,

763, 1069

Page

Hubbs, Carl L. 627-628,
682-683

Jaczewski, Tadeusz 777-783, 831-
833, 1010-1011, 1046-1048,

1091, 1092

Keen, Myra . .684, 749-750
Key, K. H. 1. 1053-1054
Kiriakoff, S. G. 1024-1030, 1031-
1033

Klots, Alexander B. 695-702
Lafioon, Jean L. os oe GZ
Lanza, Benedetto 1089, 1090
Lemche, Henning 639-642,
736-740

Lorkovié, Z. 1024-1030,
1031-1033

McMichael, Donald F. 990-996

Mayr, Ernst 626-627, 628-629
684
Melville, R. V. 628-629, 687-688,

852-853, 1034-1039, 1059-1061,
1062, 1065-1067, 1093-1096,
1100-1103, 1104-1106, 1114—
1145, 1146-1148, 1156-1157,
1158-1162, 1163-1181, 1182-
1184, 1199-1202, 1203-1204,
1207-1213, 1234-1238, 1247-

1250, 1252-1254

Miller, Robert R. 677-678

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 1263

Page
Moore, Raymond C. 800-808
Ohnesorge, Bernhart .. 809-811
Parkes, Kenneth C. 1193-1194

Peters, James A. 678-679, 1189-1190

Piepho, Hans .. 809-811
Reddiah, Kosaraju 970-971
Riley, N.D. .. aA .. 628
Rolfe, W. D. Ian 727-728

Sabrosky, Curtis W. 684-685, 729-
730, 741-748, 764-776, 784-799,
828-830, 1162, 1244-1246

Savage, Jay M. 679-680
Schiitte, Friedrick 809-811
Schultz, Leonard P. 1013-1015
Schwerdfeger, F. 809-811
Simonetta, Alberto M. 689-690,

1089, 1090
Smith, Hobart M. 633-636, 680,

1000-1001, 1097-1099

Société Zoologique de France.. 691

Page
Soule, John D. 1070-1072
Sparck, R. 855-856
Stellwaag, F. 809-811
Stellwaag-Kittler, F. .. 809-811
Sylvester-Bradley, P. C. 812-813,

834-840, 841-850, 907-908, 933,
972-973, 976-983, 1241

Thalenhorst, Walter 809-811
Thomas, Gwyn 687-688
Tottenham, C. E. . 1063, 1080—

1088, 1185-1188

Townes, Henry 914-930
Townsend, Alex Be .. 692
Urquhart, F. A. ig « & S57
Usinger, Robert L. 628-629
Viette, P. 1002-1003
White, Errol [. se Beserte (3!
Whittington, H.B. .. .2 686

1264

page 778.

page 779.

page 780.

page 782.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

CORRIGENDA
Point (10), line 2: substitute ‘‘ anon.” for “ anon,”.

Point (11), third line on page: substitute “ inadmissable ”
for “‘admissable ”’.

Point (19), line 2: after the words “ tianshanicus, -a, -wm” insert
the words “‘ tianschanicus, -a, -um”’.

Point (34), line 3: After the word “constitute” insert the
following words :—‘“alone self-propagating populations.
Names are often given to’’.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

1265

VOLUME 15, SECTION B: PARTICULARS OF DATES OF PUBLICATION
OF THE SEVERAL PARTS IN WHICH THE PRESENT SECTION (SECTION B)
OF VOLUME 15 OF THE “ BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE ”’

Part No.

20/21
22
23/24
25/28
29/30
31/33
34/36
37/38

42

WAS PUBLISHED

Contents of Part
(pages)

Date of Publication

[Paris 1 to 19 form the opening portion of

Section A of the present volume.|

621—692
692—740
741—808
809—932
933—996
997—1092
1093—1188

1189—1260

18th April 1958
25th April 1958
9th May 1958

23rd May 1958
13th June 1958
27th June 1958
2nd July 1958

7th July 1958

| Parts 39 to 41 form the concluding portion of

Section A of the present volume. |

1261—1266
T.P.—(XXXIV)

17th November 1958

1266 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

INSTRUCTIONS TO BINDERS

The present volume (Volume 15, Section B) should be bound up as follows :—
T.P. (Section B)—(XXXIV), 621—1266.

Note: The wrappers (covers) of the nine units in which the twenty Parts
of this volume were published should be bound in at the end of the volume.

IMPORTANT NOTICE TO SUBSCRIBERS

Instructions to Binders

Owing to the fact that the decision to divide this volume into two self-
contained sections (Sections A and B) was not taken until near the completion
of the volume, the arrangements for the provision of the Title-Pages, Tables
of Contents, etc. needed for the two separate portions so brought into existence
presented special bibliographical problems. These problems have been solved
by the introduction of two series of pagination additional to that in Roman
Capital Numerals which it had originally been planned to employ for the
Title-Page and preliminary matter for this volume and which has now been
reserved for the Title-Page and preliminary matter for Section A. The list of
authors of papers included in Section A appears immediately after page 620
(the last page of that Section), the pages containing this matter being numbered
620a, 620b, etc. The Title-Page and preliminary matter for Section B has
been allotted pages numbered in Roman Capital Numerals enclosed in round
brackets (parentheses) to distinguish them from the corresponding pages in
Section A. The list of authors of the papers included in Section B appears at
the close of the volume. The pages so introduced have therefore been given
pages numbers consecutive with those of the last portion of the main text.
The page numbers accordingly run straight on from page 1260.

Detailed instructions for Binding the present Section are given on page 1266
in the present Part, to which particular attention is invited.

© 1958. THE INTERNATIONAL TRUST FOR ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE
Printed in England by METCALFE & Cooper LIMITED, 10-24 Scrutton St., London E.C.2.