Vellea tad Vaal ea Dette Baan be ie Wits tees ii ae ae iia foals t 1s Wee WRENN) vert a) 7) a, aN r i aft MN bet “) bh i. ae ‘ oi ACEH MAT i, BAD ees ye ii tess) a aeaed: cellent faite Tatead Ey TRA te a a Nis be ss A Mn fs on a Si aa ie ow = Sera Ser a cy = — => 7 == ee = Te ee = SS : PS Se ae > Saas ple es Pee etre ae eee Se oe ee z Sint NSPS ee Seieeess x e ee = = = ~ = Se rss ai SS = ae ou ~ Sets Dea aee = ee = a = = ar lie oy = ree ae ai sf a a a He i, i Hy He " “at ath Ys phe}, h ita : tify (hie f atte tae aor ae CREASE ea ie Aeon Cott 1 ae ht ane ith Net it y x Mia) 3 LS SEG Y 4 Nada it ah De Hh ileal ‘ain dly Hartt PA Ae tes ie a ith i ie e Aiissis ihy ait Hs e's) we Pi Mi ; i ae ae SS ee -% 7 av wh] wy was Wey a Aa) + + *) Me KI LENS EEe A hey, i eb e dha sida WHA ia i ete arf uit but} ij ae ee athe A A ata we ee iby Ue tegh rai 4! Veapa det uk ba 14} let da ah ERLE be, ‘s Kat iG $ Paring rt ea i hay q teins eas Tada aie ay Ist) ” a Ses oa i) j BL) ith Bb eae hy tye, ipheast pct ue vista totic} Be i ite sty j tag 4h) ie ce ie ie ino Hey Eo . StS . 5 = ) Hn EEL i ih Ay | i iy A ; ne r 4 jh tt j ; 4) i Wa Ary PSY Ob Wie) ee ae Ht >: sea atannty Mu St Severe ELSSEr S See : = ieereeee = = =. cs ibe yt MH Nie sige Mie Geib que a. ries = a 3 = eS Het i aweel Oly 4 aif si pate “i Ce ae a ta ~~ tS ae = 233s i init vee MIL i iB ait f . ay ey by it ie Pin i } he HL if | DAN LRA Det AA Pen hala TARR GI taeM nia ada ly ‘ i narra teh Hf ih ci aa i 4) ae aia Kw nig Mu nit . \ my i Wied: mu 4 5 TRUE hte ; ae FOR * nal pastecs i ee a 2 a a ne eect Wa PAILS : at quant ae et hen Hh hy fete if mae be yan bi secre A i Ny AtaeOg hs eavig sis lg sora 8 id wt ee ft | Ad eee! tiie ot ‘ Pagle nn CaLeL rot wis dats Haney ‘Ay hy aif OW AE a Loapebsey § 7 5 * i t q D ‘ { > ak ft j PA ii \ Poaray | ray : avec, e\\ ONDE y} Aci \ a) ’ { iF .. dew ‘ p ae OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS: RENDERED BY THE INTER- NATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. VOLUME 106 Edited by FRAN CIS HEMMING, c.M.G., C.B.E. Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature : LONDON : Printed by Order of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature and Sold on behalf of the International Commission on Zoological’ Nomenclature by the International Trust at its Publications Office, . 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7 1955-1956 (All rights reserved) INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE COMPOSITION AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THE OPINIONS, DECLARATIONS AND DIRECTIONS PUBLISHED IN THE PRESENT VOLUME A. The Officers of the Commission Honorary Life President : Dr. Karl Jordan (British Museum (Natural History), Zoological Museum, Tring, Herts, England) President : Professor James Chester Bradley (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) Vice-President : Senhor Dr. Afranio do Amaral (Sao Paulo, Brazil) (12th August 1953) Secretary : Mr. Francis Hemming (London, England) (27th July 1948) B. The Members of the Commission (Arranged in order of precedence by reference to date of election or of most recent re-election as prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology) Professor H. BOSCHMA (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands (Ist January 1947) Senor Dr. Angel CABRERA (Eva Peron, F.C.N.G.R., Argentina) (27th July 1948) Mr. Francis HEMMING (London, England) (27th July 1948) (Secretary) Dr. ae LEMCHE (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark) (27th July 194 Professor Teiso ESAKI (Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan) (17th April 1950) Professor Pierre BONNET (Université de Toulouse, France) (9th June 1950) Mr. Norman Denbigh RILEy (British Museum (Natural History), London) (9th June 1950) Professor Tadeusz JACZEWSKI (Institute of Zoology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland) (15th June 1950) Professor Robert MERTENS (Natur-Museum u. Forschungs-Institut Senckenberg, Frankfurt a.M., Germany) (Sth July 1950) Professor Erich Martin HERING (Zoologisches Museum der Humboldt- Universitat zu Berlin, Germany) (Sth June 1950) Senhor Dr. Afranio do AMARAL (S. Paulo, Brazil) (12th August 1953) (Vice President) Professor J. R. DYMOND (University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada) (12th August 1953) Professor J. Chester BRADLEY (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) (President) Professor Harold E. Vokes (Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) Professor Béla HANKO (Mezdégazdasagi Muzeum, Budapest, Hungary) (12th August 1953) Dr. Norman R. STOLL (Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, New York, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) Mr. P. C. SYLVESTER-BRADLEY (Sheffield University, Sheffield, England) (12th August 1953) Dr. L. B. Hottuuts (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. MILLER (Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, University of California, U.S.A.) (29th October 1954) Doc. Dr. Ferdinand PRANTL (Ndrodni Museum v Praze, Prague, Czechoslovakia) (30th October 1954) a Professor Dr. Wilhelm KUHNELT (Zoologisches Institut der Universitat, Vienna, Austria) (6th November 1954) Professor F. S. BODENHEIMER (The Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Israel) (11th November Professor Ernst MAyR (Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard College, Cambridge, Massachusetts, U.S.A.) (4th December 1954) Professor Enrico TORTONESE (Museo di Storia Naturale “G. Doria,’ Genova, Italy) (16th December 1954) FV INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE (continued) C. The Staff of the Secretariat of the Commission - Honorary Secretary : Mr. Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. Honorary Personal Assistant to the Secretary: Mrs. M. F. W. Hemming Honorary Archivist : Mr. Francis J. Griffin, A.L.A. Consulting Classical Adviser: Professor the Rev. L. W. Prensted, M.A., D.D. * Official Lists”? Section: Miss D. N. Noakes, B.Sc. *“* Régles”’ Section: Mrs. A. F. Wilson (née Kerr), M.A. (from 18th July 1955) Administrative Officer: Mrs. S. C. Watkins, M.A. (to 29th April 1955) Mrs. N. M. A. Guzelian (from 20th June, 1955) Secretariat: { Mrs. J. H. Newman J Mrs. B. M. Weidema, A.L.A. Mrs. I. Saltman Mrs. J. Mantell Indexer : Miss M. Cosh, M.A. Translator : Mrs. R. H. R. Hopkin INTERNATIONAL TRUST FOR ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Chairman : The Right Hon. Walter Elliot, C.H., M.C., F.R.S., M.P. Managing Director and Secretary: Mr. Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. Publications Officer: Mrs. C. Rosner ADDRESSES OF THE COMMISSION AND THE TRUST Secretariat of the Commission: 28 Park Village East, Regent’s Park, London, N.W.1. Offices of the Trust : 41 Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7. FOREWORD The present volume—the tenth in the present series— contains the third instalment of Opinions adopted by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature in the period between the close of the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948, and the opening of the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology, Copenhagen, 1953. The Opinions concerned are Opinions 334—350. In addition, the present volume contains one Declaration (Declaration 20) containing a 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. Finally, this volume contains three Directions (Directions 14, 27 and 28) all of which are concerned with family-group-name problems arising in connection with generic names placed by the Commission on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology or on the corres- ponding Index of rejected and invalid generic names. The first of these Directions deals with this problem in relation to the names of genera of ammonites placed on the Official List on the basis of applications published in volume 2 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. The remaining Directions are both concerned with family-group names arising in connection with generic names dealt with by the Commission in the present volume. 2. The present volume comprises 586 pages (T.P.—XVI, i—vili, 1—562). The volume is thus much larger than its immediate predecessor. 3. Of the seventeen Opinions included in the present volume, two deal with names belonging to two different Classes of the Animal Kingdom, thus bringing the total number of cases up to nineteen. One of the applications was submitted by two joint authors and another was submitted by two separate authors, thus bringing the total number of applicants to nineteen. VI 4. All the applications dealt with in this volume were concerned with individual names and eleven (about 58 per cent.) involved the use of the Plenary Powers. 5. The nineteen applications dealt with in the Opinions published in the present volume, when grouped by reference to the Classes of the Animal Kingdom to which the genera or species belong, are distributed as shown in the following table. In the same table the applications are arranged so as to dis- tinguish those which involved the use of the Commission’s Plenary Powers from those which did not. TABLE 1 Distribution of applications (a) by Classes of the Animal Kingdom and (b) by whether they involved the use by the Commission of its Plenary Powers Number of applications Name of. {|= eee Class Involving the use of the — Others Total Plenary Powers Nematoda 1 l 2 Chaetopoda (Polychaeta) I Trilobita 1 Crustacea 1 Insecta 5) Gastropoda l Pelecypoda l Cephalopoda — Elasmo- branchii — 1 1 Reptilia — 1 l Totals 11 8 19 Vil 6. When the nineteen applicants are arranged by reference to the countries in which they are resident, applications are seen to have been received from the following countries (arranged in alphabetical order) :— TABLE 2 - Distribution of applicants by country of residence Country of Residence | Number of applicants France 1 Netherlands 3 United Kingdom — 7 United States of America 8 Total 19 7. By the Rulings given in the Opinions comprised in the present volume, together with the Rulings given in the three Directions mentioned in paragraph | above, a total of 398 names were added to the Official Lists and corresponding Official Indexes relating to specific names, generic names, family-group names and the titles of zoological works. Although no applica- tion regarding the status of zoological works was contained in the present volume of Opinions, the title of one non-binominal work which was incidentally involved in an application relating to the status of generic names was placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Works in Zoological Nomenclature. “VII TABLE 3 Additions to the ‘* Official Lists ’’ and ‘‘ Official Indexes ”’ respectively Category Official Lists Specific Names 192 Generic Names 65 Family-group Names 35 Titles of works -— Totals 29D Official Indexes 18 36 8. The nineteen cases contained in the present volume of Opinions include 120 comments from interested specialists. These comments were in many cases joint comments from a number of specialists. When account is taken of this fact, a total of 151 specialists contributed comments in the foregoing block of Opinions. 9. If the comments are grouped according to the Class in the -Animal Kingdom to which the genus or species concerned belong, IX the distribution of the comments is found to have been as follows :— TABLE 4 Distribution of comments on applications relating to individual names, by Classes of the Animal Kingdom Name of Class Number of Comments Nematoda 11 Chaetopoda (Polychaeta) 1 Trilobita ] Crustacea 18 Insecta ay Gastropoda 13 Pelecypoda 30 Cephalopoda 2 Elasmobranchii 2 Reptilia 3 Total 120 10. When the authors of the comments dealt with in the Opinions published in the present volume are grouped by 4 reference to their country of residence, the distribution is found to be as follows :— TABLE 5 Distribution of comments on applications by country of residence of the specialists concerned Country of Residence | Number of Comments Australia Belgium Brazil Canada Denmark Eire Finland France Germany Hawaii Jamaica Morocco Netherlands Poland Portugal Spain Switzerland United Kingdom United States of America 67 — MWrere eRe he Ne POR NN HEN Go Total Si 11. As in the case of the preceding volume of this series, the Commission is indebted to Miss Mary Cosh, M.A., for the XI preparation of the indexes of the present volume. In style and scope these indexes follow exactly the models laid down for earlier volumes. FRANCIS HEMMING Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 28 Park Village East, Regent’s Park, LONDON, N.W.1. 12th January 1955. md i * bas oN nly eruley snezeiey silt to gexebel edi to * cies Oey brat Taba Ah ion xo wollal eozabmi § “* mae sea TABLE OF CONTENTS Declarations DECLARATION 20 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 Opinions OPINION 334 Validation under the Plenary Powers of the generic names Crangon Fabricius, 1798, and Alpheus Fabricius, 1798 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda) st ae ae i ai OPINION 335 Addition to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology of the names of thirty-four non- marine genera of the Phylum Mollusca OPINION 336 Addition to the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology of the specific names of one.hundred and twenty-two non-marine species of the Phylum Mollusca .. OPINION 337 Rejection of the generic name Arieticeras Quenstedt, 1883 (Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammo- noidea) and addition of the name Arieticeras Seguenza, 1885, to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology OPINION 338 Acceptance of the Mesozoic Fossil species Gryphaea arcuata Lamarck, 1801, as the type species of the nominal genus Gryphaea Lamarck, 1801, and addition of the generic name Gryphaea Lamarck, 1801 (Class Pelecypoda) to the ih List _ Hes Names in Zoology OPINION 339 Acceptance of the name concolor Wood- bury, 1929, as published in the combination Crotalus concolor, as the name for the Yellow Rattlesnake of the Colorado River Basin XIil Page . 1—Vill 45 TT 109 125 181 XIV OPINION 340 Validation under the Plenary Powers of dentatus Diesing, 1839, as published in the combina- tion Stephanurus dentatus, as the specific name for the Kidney Worm of Swine ane i OPINION 341 Addition to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology of the generic names Anguina Scopoli, 1777, and Tylenchus Bastian, 1865 — supplementary to Opinion 160) 5s OPINION 342 Designation under the Plenary Powers of type species for the nominal genera Lipeurus Nitzsch, 1818, Colpocephalum Nitzsch, 1818, and Gyropus Nitzsch, 1818 (Class Insecta, Order Mallophaga) in harmony with current nomenclatorial practice OPINION 343 Designation of a type species for the nominal genus Eureum Nitzsch, 1818 (Class Insecta, Order Mallophaga) in harmony with accustomed nomenclatorial usage OPINION 344 Validation under the Plenary Powers of the generic name Truncatella Risso, 1826, and addition of that name and the names Acmaea Eschscholtz, 1833, and Acicula Hartmann, 1821 (Class Gastropoda) to the ees List a Generic Names in Zoology a OPINION 345 _ Rejection of a proposal for the use of the Plenary Powers for the benefit of the generic name Rhina Latreille, [1802—1803] (Class Insecta, Order Coleoptera) and addition of the generic name Rhina Schneider, 1801 (Class Elasmobranchil) to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ; designation under the Plenary Powers for the genera Rhinostomus Rafinesque, 1815, and Magdalis Germar, 1817 (Class Insecta, Order Coleoptera) of type species in harmony with accustomed usage : validation under the Plenary Powers of the specific name barbicornis Latreille, [1803—1804], as published in the combination Rhina barbicornis (Class Insecta, Order Coleoptera) Page 201 Ze 271 299 313 35) OPINION 346 Designation under the Plenary Powers for the genus Geotrupes Latreille, 1796 (Class Insecta, Order Coleoptera) of a type species in harmony with current usage 34 OPINION 347 Validation under the Plenary Powers of the generic name Lysippe Malmgren, 1865 (Class - Polychaeta) sic a3 a ao ae OPINION 348 Suppression under the Plenary Powers of the generic name Titania Meigen, 1800, for the purpose of validating the generic name Chlorops Meigen, 1803 (Class Insecta, Order Diptera) ~ OPINION 349 Acceptance of the emendation to Enar- monia of the generic name Ernarmonia Hubner, [1825] (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera) OPINION 350 Validation under the Plenary Powers of the generic name Dionide Barrande, 1847 (Class Trilobita) iv Directions DIRECTION 14 Addition to the Official List of Family- Group Names in Zoology or, as the case may be, to the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology of the family-group names involved in the applications relating to the names of ammonites published in volume 2 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature oe Le Me ap: a DIRECTION 27 Addition to the Official List of Family- Group Names in Zoology of family-group names based upon the names of certain genera of non- marine Mollusca placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology by the Ruling given in Opinion 335 XV Page 389 409 421 437 451 463 481 XVI Page DIRECTION 28 Addition to the Official List of Family- Group Names in Zoology or, as the case may be, to the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family- Group Names in Zoology of the family-group names involved in the cases dealt with in the Opinions included in volume 10 of the Opinions and Declara- tions rendered by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, other than family-group names already dealt with in those Opinions or in Directions included in that volume .. ne was 493 Correction of authorship and date of publication attributed to the family-group name CRANGONIDAE in Opinion 334 a oe. ea ae be o ce IS Corigenda’ on a ae - Be ee) IE Index to Authors of applications dealt with in the present volume and of comments on those applications os, Subject Index .. at. ae a ae 2, 28s 519 Particulars of dates of publication of the several Parts in which the present volume was published x os S61 Instructions to Binders rhe <8 es aa ies 562 RENDERED BY THE INTER- NATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Edited by FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E. Secretary to the Commission VOLUME 10. Part 19. Pp. i—viii DECLARATION 20 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 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS “if \ ‘ VA ‘ aes od 4am a ig \ i AU } C7 & Isa } yi bf oe f IRE n oO f id = AOS 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 1955 Price Three Shillings and Sixpence (All rights reserved) Issued 14th July, 1955 INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE COMPOSITION AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THE RULING GIVEN IN DECLARATION 20 A. The Officers of the Commission Honorary Life President: Dr. Karl Jordan (British Museum (Natural History), Zoological Museum, Tring, Herts., England) President: Professor James Chester Bradley (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) Vice-President : Senhor Dr. Afranio do Amaral (Sao Paulo, Brazil) (12th August 1953) Secretary : Mr. Francis Hemming (London, England) (27th July 1948) B. The Members of the Commission (Arranged in order of precedence by reference to date of election or of most recent re-election, as prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology) Professor H. Boschma (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) (ist January 1947) Senor Dr. Angel Cabrera (Eva Peron, F.C.N.G.R., Argentina) (27th July 1948) Mr. Francis Hemming (London, England) (27th July 1948) (Secretary) Dr. Joseph Pearson (Tasmanian Museum, Hobart Tasmania, Australia) (27th July 1948) Dr. Henning Lemche (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark) (27th July 1948) Professor Teiso Esaki (Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan) (17th April 1950) Professor Pierre Bonnet (Université de Toulouse, France) (9th June 1950) Mr. Norman Denbigh Riley (British Museum (Natural History) London) (9th June 1950) Professor Tadeusz Jaczewski (Institute of Zoology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland) (15th June 1950) Professor Robert Mertens (Natur-Museum u. Forschungs-Institut Senckenberg, Frankfurt a. M., Germany) (Sth July 1950) Professor Erich Martin Hering (Zoologisches Museum der Humboldt-Universitat zu Berlin, Germany) (Sth July 1950) Senhor Dr. Afranio do Amaral (S. Paulo, Brazil) (12th August 1953) (Vice-President) Professor J. R. Dymond (University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada) (12th August 1953) Eos if ro Bradley (Cornell University, Ithaca, N. Y., U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) President Professor Harold E. Vokes (Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) Professor Béla Hank6 (Mezégazdasdgi Muzeum, Budapest, Hungary) (12th August 1953) Dr. Norman R. Stoll (Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, New York, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) Mr. P. C. Sylvester-Bradley (Sheffield University, Sheffield, England) (12th August 1953) Dr. L. B. Holthuis (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. Miller (Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, University of California, Berkeley, California, U.S.A.) (29th October 1954) Doc. Dr. Ferninand Prantl (Ndrodni Museum v Praze, Prague, Czechoslovakia) (30th October 1954) Professor Dr. Wilhelm K_ hnelt (Zoologisches Institut der Universitat, Vienna, Austria) (6th November 1954) aoe F. S. Bodenheimer (The Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Israel) (11th November Professor Ernst Mayr (Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard College, Cambridge, Massachusetts, U.S.A.) (4th December 1954) Professor Enrico Tortonese (Instituto e Museo di Zoologia della Universita di Torino, Torino, Italy) (16th December 1954) DECLARATION 20 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. I.—THE STATEMENT OF THE CASE On 21st March 1955 Mr. Francis Hemming, Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, submitted the following application for a Declaration clarifying the status of a family-group name in cases where the name of the type genus of the family-group taxon concerned is suppressed by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature under its Plenary Powers :— Proposed adoption of a ‘‘ Declaration ”’ clarifying the status of a family- group name based upon a generic name which has been suppressed under the Plenary Powers By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E., Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature The present note has as its object the clarification of the Régles in relation to the status of a family-group name based upon a generic AVES 1955 IV OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS — name when that generic name is suppressed by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature under its Plenary Powers. 2. The foregoing problem has already arisen in one case and it is expected that it will arise in other cases now pending. The case which has already arisen came up on the application for the suppression under the Plenary Powers of the long-disused generic name Ammonites Bruguiére, 1789 (Class Cephalopoda, Class Ammonoidea). In this case the Commission decided to suppress the generic name Ammonites Bruguiére and at the same time to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name Arietites Waagen, 1869. This latter action was taken because the species which was the type species of Ammonites Bruguiére, though unidentifiable at the species-level, was considered by specialists to be possibly referable to Waagen’s Arietites. The foregoing decisions were embodied in Opinion 305 (Ops. Decls. int. Comm. zool. Nomencl. 8 : 297—312), published in 1954. The family-group-name problem involved was not dealt with in the foregoing Opinion but has since been the subject of a separate decision by the Commission. The position here was that there was a well-established family ARIETITIDAE (correction of ARIETIDAE) Hyatt, 1874. There was also, however, a family-group taxon AMMONTIDAE Owen, 1836 (as well as an earlier AMMONITEA De Haan, 1825, also established as the name for a taxon of family-group rank). In this case the Commission has decided by its vote (affirmative votes, 20; negative votes, none)! on Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(55)5 to place the family-group name ARIEFTIDAE Hyatt on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology and the family-group names AMMONITEA De Haan and AMMONITIDAE Owen on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology. This was clearly the right decision because, if the opposite course had been taken, its effect would have been to transfer to the family-name evel the Ammonites versus Arietites controversy which at the generic-name level had been settled by the suppression under the Plenary Powers of the name Ammonites Bruguiére in favour of the name Arieftites Waagen, 1869. 3. The foregoing decision regarding the status of the names AMMONITIDAE Owen and AMMONITEA De Haan were taken as a matter of interpretation and not as an act under the Plenary Powers. This course was adopted because the view was taken that a decision under the Plenary Powers to suppress a given generic name automatically rendered that name ineligible to be the base of a family-group name. Of the five Members of the Commission who had not returned Voting Papers at the time of the close of the Prescribed Voting Period in this case, three (3) later returned affirmative votes, while the remaining two (2) were at that time on Leave of Absence from their duties as Commissioners. The decision here referred to has since been embodied in Direction 14 and has been published in the present volume ( : 463—480). DECLARATION 20 V 4. It appears to me that this procedure was perfectly correct but that it is desirable that it should now be formalised by the adoption by the Commission of a Declaration in the following terms : “‘ 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 ”’. 2. Registration of the present application : Upon the receipt of the foregoing application, the question of the adoption of a Declaration in the sense recommended was allotted the Registered Number Z.N.(S.) 924. Il—THE DECISION TAKEN BY THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 3. Issue of Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(55)13 : On 28th March 1955, a Voting Paper (V.P.(O.M.)(55)13 was issued in which the Members of the Commission were invited to vote either for, or against, “the proposed adoption of a Declaration clarifying the status of a family-group name based upon a generic name which has been suppressed under the Plenary Powers, as recom- mended in paragraph 4 of the paper numbered Z.N.(S.) 924 submitted by the Secretary simultaneously with the present Voting Paper ” [i.e. in paragraph 4 of the application reproduced in the first paragraph of the present Declaration]. 4. The Prescribed Voting Period: As the foregoing Voting Paper was issued under the One-Month Rule, the Prescribed Voting Period closed on 28th April 1955. vi OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 5. Particulars of the Voting on Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(55)13 : At the close of the Prescribed Voting Period, the state of the voting on Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(55)13 was as follows :— (a) Affirmative Votes had been given by the following twenty-one (21) Commissioners (arranged in the order in which Votes were received) : Lemche; Riley; Sylvester-Bradley; Mayr; Stoll; Bonnet ; Bodenheimer; Prantl; Vokes; Mertens ; Hering ; Esaki; do Amaral; Tortonese; Cabrera ; Hemming; Bradley (J.C.); Dymond; Boschma ; Jaczewski ; Hanko ; (b) Negative Votes, one (1): Kuthnelt ; (c) On Leave of Absence, three (3) : Holthuis ; Key ; Miller. 6. Declaration of Result of Vote: On 3rd May, 1955, Mr. Hemming, Secretary to the International Commission, acting as Returning Officer for the Vote taken on Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.) (55)13, signed a Certificate that the Votes cast were as set out in paragraph 5 above and declaring that the proposal submitted in the foregoing Voting Paper had been duly adopted and that the decision so taken was the decision of the International Commission in the matter aforesaid. 7. Preparation of the Ruling given in the present ‘‘ Declaration ”’ : On 20th May 1955 Mr. Hemming prepared the Ruling given in the present Declaration and at the same time signed a Certificate DECLARATION 20 vil that the terms of that Ruling were in complete accord with those of the proposal approved by the International Commission in its Vote on Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(55)13. 8. The prescribed procedures were duly complied with by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature in dealing with the present case, and the present Declaration is accordingly hereby rendered in the name of the said International Com- mission by the under-signed Francis Hemming, Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, in virtue of all and every the powers conferred upon him in that behalf. 9. The present Declaration shall be known as Declaration Twenty (20) of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Done in London, this Twentieth day of May, Nineteen Hundred and Fifty-Five. Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature FRANCIS HEMMING iY iv i " si i ni Wh bY re ¥ Ny if, i * piers eae. Otbepyey LL = a a ty nS St ’ ETCALFE & Coo Edited by FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E. Secretary to the Commission VOLUME 10. Parti. Pp. 1—44 OPINION 334 Validation, under the Plenary Powers, of the generic names Crangon Fabricius, 1798, and Alpheus Fabricius, 1798 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda) / Vis iw atl 25 1255 | ) INN [ f PPR AQ ay 4 Lh 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 1955 Price One Pound, One Shilling and Sixpence (All rights reserved) OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTER- NATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE fo oe eS a ae 23rd February, 1955 INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE COMPOSITION AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THE RULING GIVEN IN OPINION 334 A. The Officers. of the Commission Honorary Life President: Dr. Karl Jordan (British Museum (Natural History), Zoological Museum, Tring, Herts., England). President : (Vacant). Vice-President : Senhor Dr. Afranio do Amaral (Sao Paulo, Brazil). Secretary : Mr. Francis Hemming (London, England). B. The Members of the Commission (arranged in order of precedence by reference to date of election or of most recent re-election, as prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology). Senhor Dr, Afranio do AMARAL (S. Paulo, Brazil) (Vice-President) (Ast January 1944). Professor J. R. DYMOND (University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada) (Ast January 1944). Professor J. Chester BRADLEY (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) (28th : March 1944). Professor Harold E. VOKES (Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, U.S.A.) (23rd April 1944). Professor Béla HANKO (Békéscsaba, Hungary) (1st January 1947). Dr. Norman R. STOLL (Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, New York, N.Y., U.S.A.) (Ast January 1947). Professor H. BoscHMA (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) (Ast January 1947). Senor Dr. Angel CABRERA (Eva Peron, F.C.N.G.R., Argentina) (27th July 1948). Mr. Francis HEMMING (London, England) (Secretary) (27th July 1948). Dr. Joseph PEARSON (Tasmanian Museum, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia) (27th July 1948). Dr. Henning LEMCHE (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, C Openings Denmark) (27th July 1948). Professor Teiso ESAKI (Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan) (17th April 1950). Professor Pierre BONNET (Université de Toulouse, France) (9th June 1950). Mr. Norman Denbigh RILty (British Museum (Natural History), London) (9th June 1950). Professor Tadeusz JACZEWsKi (Department of Systematic Zoology, Warsaw University, Warsaw, Poland) (15th June 1950). Professor Robert MERTENS (Natur-Museum u. Forschungs-Institut Senckenberg, Frankfurt a. M., Germany) (5th July 1950). Professor Erich Martin HERING (Zoologisches Museum der Humboldt- Universitat zu Berlin, Germany) (5th July 1950). ‘OPINION 334 VALIDATION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS OF THE GENERIC NAMES ‘ CRANGON ” FABRICIUS, 1798, AND ‘* ALPHEUS” FABRICIUS, 1798 (CLASS CRUSTACEA, ORDER DECAPODA) RULING :—(1) Under the Plenary Powers, (a) the generic names Alpheus Weber, 1795, and Crangon Weber, 1795, are hereby suppressed for the purposes both of the Law of Priority and of the Law of Homonymy, and (b), consequentially, the names Alpheus Fabricius, 1798, and. Crangon Fabricius, 1798 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda) are hereby validated. (2) The under-mentioned generic names are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology as Name Nos. 806 and 807 respectively :—(a) Alpheus Fabricius, 1798 (gender: masculine) (type species, by selection by Latreille (1810) : Alpheus avarus Fabricius, 1798) ; (b) Crangon Fabricius, 1798 (gender : feminine) (type species, by absolute tautonymy : Cancer crangon Linnaeus, 1758). (3) The under-mentioned generic names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology as Name Nos. 227 to 229 respectively :—(a) Alpheus Weber, 1795, as suppressed under the Plenary Powers under (1) (a) above : ; (b) Crangon Weber, 1795, as suppressed under the Plenary Powers under (1)(a) above) ; (c) Crago Lamarck, 1801 (a junior objective synonym of Crangon Fabricius, 1798, as vali- dated under the Plenary Powers under (1)(b) above). (4) The under-mentioned specific names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology as Name Nos. 287 and 289 respectively :—(a) avarus Fabricius, 1798, as published in the combination Alpheus 4 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS avarus (specific name of type species of Alpheus Fabricius, 1798) ; (b) crangon Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Cancer crangon (specific name of type species of Crangon Fabricius, 1798) ; (c) malabaricus Fabricius, 1775, as published in the combination Cancer malabaricus. (5) The under-mentioned family-group names are hereby placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology with the Name Nos. 4 and 5 respectively ;— (a) ALPHEIDAE (correction by Randall (1839) of ALPHI- DIA) Rafinesque, 1815 (type genus: Alpheus Fabricius, 1798, a genus having a name validated under the Plenary Powers under (1)(b) above); (b) CRANGONIDAE White, 1847 (type genus: Crangon Fabricius, 1798, a genus having a name validated under the Plenary Powers under (1)(b) above). (6) The under-mentioned family-group names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology with the Name Nos. 18 to 24 respectively :— (a) the following family-group names for the taxon having Alpheus Fabricius, 1798, as type genus :— (j) ALPHIDIA Rafinesque, 1815 (an _ Invalid Original Spelling for ALPHEIDAE) ; (ii) ALPHEENS Milne Edwards (H.), 1837 (invalid because a vernacular (French) word and not a Latin or Latinised word) ; (iii) ALPHAEIDAE Balss, 1915 (an Erroneous Subse- quent Spelling for ALPHEIDAE (correction of ALPHIDIA) Rafinesque, 1815) ; (iv) ALPHEUIDAE Yu, 1936 (an Erroneous Subse- quent Spelling for ALPHEIDAE (correction of ALPHIDIA) Rafinesque, 1815) ; (b) CRAGONIDAE Rathbun, 1904 (type genus: Crago Lamarck, 1801) (invalid because the type genus OPINION 334 5 of the family so named has, as its type species, the nominal species Cancer crangon Linnaeus, 1758, which is also the type species of the nominal genus Crangon Fabricius, 1798 (a genus having a name validated under the Plenary Powers under (1)(b) above), which is the type genus of the family-group name CRANGONIDAE White, 1847) ; (c) CRANGONIENS Milne Edwards (H.), 1837 (type genus : Crangon Fabricius, 1798) (invalid because a vernacular (French) word and not a Latin or Latinised word) ; (d) CRANGONIDAE Rathbun, 1904 (type genus : Crangon Weber, 1795) (invalid (1) because the generic name Crangon Weber, 1795, has been suppressed under the Plenary Powers under (1)(a) above, and (ii) because the family-group name CRANGO- NIDAE Rathbun, 1904, is a junior homonym of the name CRANGONIDAE White, 1847 (type genus : Crangon Fabricius, 1798)). I.—THE STATEMENT OF THE CASE The problem presented by the names Alpheus Weber, 1795, and Crangon Weber, 1795, on the one hand and on the other hand by the names Alpheus Fabricius, 1798, and Crangon Fabricius, 1798, was brought to the attention of the International Com- mission by Dr. L. B. Holthuis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) in June 1946 in an application which in addition dealt with a number of other generic names in the Order Decapoda (Class Crustacea). Later, as explained in paragraph 3 below, it was judged more convenient that the proposals relating to the foregoing names should be embodied in a separate application. The application was accordingly 6 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS recast from this point of view and in addition for the purpose of taking note of certain decisions on matters of presentation taken by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948. The revised application, as finally submitted on 2nd September 1950, was as follows :— Proposed use of the Plenary Powers to validate the generic name ‘* Crangon ’’ Fabricius, 1798, for the Common Shrimp and the generic name ‘‘ Alpheus ’’ Fabricius, 1798, for the Snapping Shrimps (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda) By L. B. HOLTHUIS (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) 1. The present application relates to two generic names in the Crustacea Decapoda, each of which is commonly used by the majority of carcinologists, but each of which, under a strict application of the Regles, is inapplicable in the sense in which it is employed. For each of these names (Alpheus Fabricius, 1798, and Crangon Fabricius, 1798) is an invalid junior homonym of an identical generic name published in a different sense by Weber in 1795. The strict application of the Régles to these names would involve the transfer of the generic name Crangon (as of Weber, 1795) from the Common Shrimp to a genus of Snapping Shrimps. The ruthless application of the Rég/es in this way would lead to enormous confusion, not only in systematic literature but also in economic fisheries literature. It would also cause the most serious confusion in the teaching of zoology. 2. The following are the original references to the generic names dealt with in the present application :— Alpheus Weber, 1795, Nomencl. ent. : 91. Alpheus Fabricius, 1798, Suppl. Ent. syst. : 380, 404 (type species, by subsequent selection by Latreille, 1810 (Consid. gén. Anim. Crust. Arach, Ins. :422): Alpheus avarus Fabricius, 1798, Suppl. Ent. syst. : 404). Crangon Weber, 1795, Nomencl. ent. : 94 (type species, by monotypy : Astacus malabaricus Fabricius, 1775, Syst. Ent. : 415). Crangon Fabricius, 1798, Suppl. Ent. syst. : 387, 409 (type species, by absolute tautonymy : Cancer crangon Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. | (ed. 10) 1 : 632). Crago Lamarck, 1801, Syst. Anim. sans Vertébr. : 159 (type species, by monotypy : Cancer crangon, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed 10) 1: 632). a Vd OPINION 334 7 3. Prior to the year 1904, Weber’s generic names had been ignored and the Common Shrimp had been placed in the genus Crangon Fabricius, 1798, while the generic name Alpheus Fabricius, 1798, had been used for Snapping Shrimps. In the year 1904, however, Rathbun revived the names in Weber’s Nomenclator entomologicus of 1795 and accordingly pointed out (Proc. biol. Soc. Wash. 17 : 170) that under the Law of Priority the name Alpheus was not available for the Snapping Shrimps, the name A/pheus Fabricius, 1798, having, as its type species, a species (Alpheus avarus Fabricius, 1798) that was congeneric with the species (Astacus malabaricus Fabricius, 1775) which was the type ‘species of the earlier generic name Crangon Weber, 1795. Under the Régles, Rathbun was entirely correct in the contention which she so advanced. The generic name Crangon Weber, 1795, though published without any description, contained four nominal species of which one (Astacus malabaricus Fabricius) was the name of a previously published nominal species ; the generic name Crangon Weber, 1795, thus satisfies the requirements of Proviso (a) to Article 25, even under the narrow definition laid down in the Commission’s Opinion 1, for, being a mono- typical genus, it had an indicated type species. Rathbun further argued that the name Alpheus Fabricius, 1798, was invalid as a junior homonym of the generic name Alpheus Weber, 1795, a genus established without a description or definition, with no designated or indicated type species and with more than one previously published nominal species referred to it. At that time generic names published in this manner were commonly treated as satisfying the requirements of Proviso (a) to Article 25 (notwithstanding the explicit provisions in Opinion 1). It was not until 1948 that all doubt on this subject was removed by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, when it inserted words in the Régles to secure “‘ that a generic or sub-generic name published before Ist January 1931, shall be available under Article 25 as from the date of its original publication not only when (as at present) it was then accompanied by a definition or description or when the genus was monotypical or when a type species was designated or indicated by the original author when publishing the name but also when the name, on being first published, was accompanied by no verbal definition or description, the only indication given being that provided by the citation under the generic or subgeneric name concerned of the names of one or more previously published nominal species (“‘ Official Record of Proceedings of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature at its Session held in Paris in July, 1948 ’’, in 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 78—80). Thus, under the Paris amendment of — Article 25 Rathbun’s rejection of the name Alpheus Fabricius, 1798, as a junior homonym of the name Alpheus Weber, 1795, is retrospectively rendered quite correct. 4. Rathbun pointed out also that the name Crangon Fabricius, 1798, was a junior homonym of the name Crangon Weber, 1795 (which, as explained above, she applied to the Snapping Shrimps) and therefore that for this reason also the Common Shrimp could no longer be known 8 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS by the name Crangon. She accordingly adopted for the Common Shrimp the name Crago Lamarck, 1801, the oldest published generic name for that species. 5. Rathbun thus used the generic name Crangon Weber, 1795, for the genus of Snapping Shrimps hitherto called by the name Alpheus Fabricius, 1798, and the name Crago Lamarck, 1801, for the Common Shrimp hitherto called by the name Crangon Fabricius, 1798. Prior to the publication of her paper, all authors used the name Crangon Fabricius, 1798, for the Common Shrimp and the name Alpheus Fabricius, 1798, for the genus of Snapping Shrimps ; since the publica- tion of her paper, the majority of workers have continued to use these names in this way, Rathbun being followed almost exclusively by American authors only. Thus, in the literature which I have myself examined, more than 340 authors (of whom 170 published their papers after 1904) have used the name Crangon Fabricius, 1798, for the Common Shrimp, while only about 40 have used the name Crago Lamarck, 1801, for that species. The name Alpheus Fabricius, 1798, has, to my knowledge, been used for the Snapping Shrimp by more than 220 authors (of whom 110 published their papers after 1904), while only about 50 authors have used the name Crangon Weber, 1795, in this sense. 6. The genus Crangon Fabricius (= Crago Lamarck) is the commonest genus of shrimps on the coasts of the northern parts of the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans and is of great economic importance ; the genus A/pheus Fabricius (=Crangon Weber) is the largest genus of Snapping Shrimps, containing over 180 species, and is widely distributed throughout the tropical and sub-tropical regions of the globe. It is therefore of the highest importance to put an end to the present state of confusion and to secure that for the future there shall be uniformity in the names applied to these genera. Further, both Crangon Fabricius and Alpheus Fabricius are the type genera of families ; these families are known by European workers aS CRANGONIDAE and ALPHEIDAE respectively, but by American authors as CRAGONIDAE and CRANGONIDAE ; this difference in the names used for these well-known families is extremely confusing, more especially as it involves the transfer of the name CRANGONIDAE from one family to another and the use for the two families of names CRANGONIDAE and CRAGONIDAE which, being derived from the same word, are undesirably similar to one another. The transfer, as between these two families, of the name CRANGONIDAE would give rise to a further confusion through the fact that the family known by this name by European workers contains a number of genera, the names of which are based upon the word Crangon, e.g., Notocrangon Coutiére, 1900 ; Sclerocrangon Sars, 1882 ; Prionocrangon Wood-Mason, 1891 ; OPINION 334 9 Paracrangon Dana, 1852. The existence of these names would be extremely anomalous if the generic name Crangon were to be removed to a different family and would be a permanent cause of confusion and misunderstanding. Similarly, the family known as ALPHEIDAE by European workers contains genera, the names of which are based on the word Alpheus, e.g., Synalpheus Bate, 1888 ; Alpheopsis Coutiére, 1897 ; Alpheinus Borradaile, 1899. The existence of genera with such names in a family called CRANGONIDAE would be a further source of confusion. 7. Accordingly, I ask the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to use their Plenary Powers to prevent the permanent confusion that is otherwise unavoidable. The concrete proposals eee I therefore submit for consideration are that the Commission should :— (1) use their Plenary Powers :— (a) to suppress the under-mentioned generic names :— (i) Alpheus Weber, 1795 ; (ii) Crangon Weber, 1795 ; (b) to validate the under-mentioned generic names :— (i) Alpheus Fabricius, 1798 ; (ii) Crangon Fabricius, 1798 ; (2) place the under-mentioned generic names on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology, with the type species severally specified below :— (a) Alpheus Fabricius, 1798 (type species, by subsequent selection by Latreille (1810) : Alpheus avarus Fabricius, 1798) ; (b) Crangon Fabricius, 1798 (type species, by absolute tau- tonymy : Cancer crangon Linnaeus, 1758) ; (3) place the under-mentioned generic names on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology :— (a) Alpheus Weber, 1795, as suppressed under (1) (a) (i) above ; (b) Crangon Weber, 1795, as suppressed under (1) (a) (ii) above ; (c) Crago Lamarck, 1801 (an objective synonym of Crangon Fabricius, 1798, as validated under (1) (b) (ii) above) ; 10 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS (4) place the under-mentioned trivial names on the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology :— (a) avarus Fabricius, 1798, as published in the binominal combination A/pheus avarus ; (b) crangon Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binominal combination Cancer crangon. 8. I should add, with reference to the decision by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, that in future the gender of every generic name added to the Official List is to be specified therein (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 341), that the gender of the generic name Alpheus is masculine and that of the generic name Crangon is feminine. I1.—THE SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF THE CASE 2. Registration of the present application : [Immediately upon the receipt of Dr. Holthuis’s preliminary communication in June 1946 the problem presented by the uses of the names Alpheus and — Crangon by Webex in 1795 and by Fabricius in 1798 was allotted the Registered Number Z.N.(S.) 231. When later the family- group-name aspect of the present case came to be examined, the Registered Number Z.N.(S.) 849 was allotted to this part of the subject. 3. Revision of the present application and its re-submission in 1950 : As has already been explained (in paragraph 1 above), the problem presented by the divergent uses of the names Alpheus and Crangon was originally submitted to the Commission in June 1946 in an application in which Dr. Holthuis dealt also with the problems presented by a number of other generic names in the Order Decapoda. It had not been possible to make any progress with the foregoing application by the time of the Session held by the International Commission at Paris in 1948 and the present matter was accordingly not placed before the Commission OPINION 334 11 on that occasion. Shortly after the close of the Paris Session Dr. Holthuis submitted (on 26th October 1948) a revision of the application which he had prepared in 1946. At that time the entire resources of the Secretariat of the Commission were being directed to the preparation and publication of the Official Records of the Paris Session and it was impossible to devote attention to applications relating to individual names. It was not until after the publication in 1950 of the Paris volumes of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature that it was possible to resume the publication of applications on individual cases submitted by specialists for decision. In the summer of that year it was agreed between the Secretary and Dr. Holthuis that the Alpheus/ Crangon case should be submitted to the Commission as a separate application instead of, as previously proposed, as a part of a wider application relating to the names of a number of genera of the Order Decapoda. At the same time it was agreed that the revised application should contain proposals for the placing on the Official Lists and Official Indexes of the names which entered into that case, thereby complying with the General Directive issued to the Commission by the Paris Congress in regard to matters of procedure. The application in this case, revised from the foregoing points view, was resubmitted to the Commission on 2nd September 1950. 4. Consultations undertaken prior to the publication of the present application : On 22nd March 1949, Dr. Henning Lemche (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen) transmitted to the Commission an application prepared by Dr. Poul Heegaard (University of Copenhagen, Denmark) containing proposals for dealing with the piesent case substantially the same as those already submitted by Dr. Holthuis. When in the autumn of 1950 Dr. Holthuis’s paper was being prepared for publication, the Secretary notified Dr. Heegaard of Dr. Holthuis’s earlier application and suggested that it might be found convenient if, instead of submitting a separate application, he were to furnish a statement supporting the action advocated by Dr. Holthuis. Dr. Heegaard intimated that he would gladly adopt this course and accordingly on 24th November 1950 submitted a note re-stating his proposals in the form of support for the same proposals as submitted by Dr. Holthuis. In December 1949 Mr. Hemming invited Dr. Robert Gurney (Oxford), who had 12 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS previously criticised the use of the name Alpheus and Crangon in the sense of Weber (1795), to submit a formal statement of his views for the consideration of the Commission. This Mr. Gurney did under cover of a letter dated 22nd December 1949. Finally, in August 1950, Mr. Hemming wrote to Dr. Fenner A. Chace (United States National Museum, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.), who was known to support the Weberian use of the names Alpheus and Crangon in opposition to the Fabrician use advocated by Dr. Holthuis, and invited him to furnish the Commission with a statement of his views on the problems involved. This Dr. Chace did in two letters of which the first was dated 15th September 1950 and the second 20th October 1950. The second of these letters contained also a review of the literature prepared to show the relative extent to which the Weberian and Fabrician usages of the names Alpheus and Crangon had been followed by carcinologists. On the receipt of the foregoing letter (on 4th December 1950) Mr. Hemming communicated a copy of it to Dr. Holthuis, explaining that in a case such as the present where it was known that there were sharply marked differences of usage among specialists, it was particularly helpful to the Commission if it could be furnished with a statement of the facts agreed upon by both sides, for such a statement relieved the Commission of the necessity of itself investigating the historical background and enabled it to concentrate its attention exclusively upon the action which it was desirable should be taken ; Mr. Hemming accordingly invited Dr. Holthuis to furnish a brief comment upon the summary prepared by Dr. Chace, so that the two documents could be published simultaneously with the application submitted by Dr. Holthuis. On 14th December 1950, Dr. Holthuis complied with the foregoing request, furnish- ing a statement that he was in substantial agreement with the Summary prepared by Dr. Chace. The documents discussed above, that is, the comments obtained from Dr. Poul Heegaard, Dr. Robert Gurney and Dr. Fenner A. Chace, together with Dr. Holthuis’s comment upon the last-named document, are reproduced in the immediately following paragraphs. 5. Support for Dr. Holthuis’s proposals received from Mr. Robert Gurney (Oxford) : On 22nd December 1949, Mr. Robert Gurney OPINION 334 13) (Oxford) furnished the following statement in support of the application submitted by Dr. Holthuis :— I understand that Dr. P. Heegaard had made application to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to restore the names Crangon Fabricius, 1798, and Alpheus Fabricius, 1798, to their original meaning by over-riding the earlier use of the first of these names by Weber in 1795 which were declared to be available under the Commission’s Opinion 17. I should like to support Dr. Heegaard’s application. 2. Weber’s Nomenclator entomologicus is a compilation of nomina nuda which has not, and presumably never had, any scientific value. So far as the Crustacea are concerned, the only claim to validity that any of the specific names have is derived from their reference to Fabricius’ Entomologia systematica. The generic names, on the other hand, are borrowed from Fabricius’ Supplementum, which was not published until 1798, but these names are applied by Weber in a sense entirely different from Fabricius’ intention. Opinion 17 places us in the ridiculous position of accepting specific names when they refer to the Entomologia systematica, but rejecting those taken from the Supplemen- tum because this had not then been published ; while generic names taken from the Supplementum, and misplaced, are accepted as available because they were published before it! The minority view expressed by Hoyle at the time when Opinion 17 was rendered gives the commonsense — view. 3. The consequences of Opinion 17 have been disastrous. The name Crangon, unless accompanied by some explanation, has ceased to be intelligible to anyone not a specialist in Crustacean systematics. Any student of geographical distribution, for instance, might be seriously misled by species of Crangon appearing in faunistic lists. 6. Support for Dr. Holthuis’s proposals received from Dr. Poul Heegaard (University of Copenhagen, Denmark): On 24th November 1950 Dr. Poul Heegaard (University of Copenhagen, Denmark) furnished the following statement which, as he explained, he had prepared in support of the proposals submitted by Dr. Holthuis in place of an application on similar lines which he had himself submitted to the Commission in March 1949 (see para- graph 4 above) :— The urgent need for securing a definite ruling on the manner in which the generic names Crangon and Alpheus should be used and thus 14 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS putting an end to the confusion which has arisen through the use by some authors of these names in the manner adopted by Weber in 1795 instead of in the manner adopted by Fabricius in 1798, which had hitherto been accepted by all authors, led me in March, 1949, to submit an application to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature asking (1) that the Plenary Powers should be used to suppress the above names as published by Weber, and (2) to validate the use of those names in the accustomed Fabrician sense. I am informed, however, by the Secretary to the Commission that an application in a similar sense was submitted to the Commission by Dr. L. B. Holthuis of the Rijksmuseum van Natuurlike Historie, Leiden, in November, 1946. The Secretary to the Commission has communicated to me the text of Dr. Holthuis’ application, with which I find myself in complete agreement. In these circumstances I do not think it necessary to proceed with my application. It will be sufficient if I express my strong hope that the Commission will, as proposed, solve this problem by validating the names Crangon Fabricius and Alpheus Fabricius with the type species severally specified in Dr. Holthuis’ application. 7. Objection to Dr. Holthuis’s proposals received from Dr. Fenner A. Chace, Jr. (United States National Museum, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.) and a survey of the relative frequency in the literature of the employment by carcinologists of the Weberian and Fabrician usages of the names ‘‘Alpheus ”’ and ‘‘ Crangon ”’ respectively : The following are extracts from letters dated 15th September 1950 and 20th October 1950 in which Dr. Fenner A. Chace, Jr. (United States National Museum, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.) — expressed his objections to the proposal submitted by Dr. Holthuis that the Commission should validate the Fabrician usage of the names Alpheus and Crangon under its Plenary Powers, and in the second of which he gave a survey of the literature showing the relative weight of the usage of these names by active carcino- logists in the sense of Weber (1795) and Fabricius (1798) respectively :— A. Extract from a letter dated 15th September, 1950. 1. Thank you very much for your letter of 29th August, 1950, and the enclosed copy of your letter to Dr. Holthuis regarding the Crangon- Alpheus-Crago matter. It is good to know that some action can be expected on this question before long. 2. I do not have time just now to review the literature as carefully as I would like to do before submitting a comprehensive statement of OPINION 334 15 my views. I assume that such a statement is not needed or even wanted until after the publication of Dr. Holthuis’s application. As I have written Dr. Holthuis, however, it is my feeling that suspension of the rules regarding this question at this late date will not entirely clarify the situation. All of the American carcinologists have, tomy knowledge, accepted Crangon for Alpheus and Crago for Crangon and this change has become firmly established in the American literature. I also know of one European—and there may be others—who has also made this change. Had the application been made when Miss Rathbun proposed the adoption of Weber’s name, I would have been inclined to uphold it, inasmuch as the names of two very large genera were involved. I have also written Dr. Holthuis that I personally will be willing to accept any measures recommended by the Commission and I feel fairly certain that most American authors would eventually follow suit. However, this would not remove the confusion from synonymies any more than would the eventual adoption of Miss Rathbun’s changes by workers in other parts of the world. 3. I will try to submit a more detailed analysis at a later date. B. Extract from a letter dated 20th October, 1950. 4. Please excuse the delay in replying to your letter Z.N.(S.) 231 of 30th September, 1950, regarding the application of Dr. L. B. Holthuis, of the Rijks-museum at Leiden, for a decision by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature covering Crangon versus Alpheus and Crago versus Crangon. It has taken some time to compile and analyse a bibliography for these genera for the past 45 years, and there is always too little time to devote to such research. I must confess that I owe a very real debt of gratitude to Dr. Holthuis in this connection ; without a copy of an unpublished synonymy and biblio- graphy of the caridean decapod crustaceans which he prepared a few years ago, this survey would have required a great deal more time and would have been much less complete. 5. As mentioned in my letter of 15th September, 1950, the change from Alpheus Fabricius, 1798, to Crangon Weber, 1795, and from Crangon Fabricius, 1798, to Crago Lamarck, 1801, is now recognised by practically all of the active specialists on decapod Crustacea in this country. It has been accepted by J. C. Armstrong, E. P. Creaser, M. W. Johnson, W. L. Schmitt and myself, and rejected only by L. Boone. The use of Crangon of Weber and Crago of Lamarck by most of the specialists has led to the complete acceptance of the names in all of the ecological and other publications in this country that I have been able to find. Recent biologists, other than taxonomists, who have used the names in this sense include : B. R. Coonfield, H. H. Darby, 16 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS W. M. Hess, W. G. Hewatt, Johnson and Snock, G. E. MacGinitie, and A. S. Pearse. 6. In South America, these generic names apparently have not been used in either sense by any decapod specialists who are still active, but Alpheus has been employed by two Brazilian ecologists, L. H. Matthews and L. P. H. de Oliveira. 7. The only active carcinologist in the Hawaiian Islands who has published extensively on decapods, C. H. Edmondson, has used Crangon for the snapping shrimps since 1923. This name is also being accepted by A. H. Banner in a forthcoming report on the snapping shrimps of the eastern Pacific islands. 8. Alpheus has been retained by E. P. Estampador and H. A. Roxas of the Philippine Islands, but neither of these authors can be considered active crustacean taxonomists. 9. In Japan, D. Miyadi and Y. Yokoya have retained Alpheus, while Maki and Tsuchikya and T. Urita have accepted Crangon for the snapping shrimps. All of these may be considered professional carcinologists. 10. In Australia, both of the specialists on shrimps, H. M. Hale and F. A. McNeill, made the change to Crangon in 1926 and 1927, and two other authors who have published little taxonomically, B. H. Anderson and J. A. Tubb, have followed their example. 11. The only active Chinese worker to publish on the genera, S. C. Yu, accepted Crangon in 1935. 12. One Indo-Chinese student, R. Serene, has retained Alpheus, but there is no indication that he has published more than a preliminary faunal list. 13. A Siamese author, C. Suvatti, has employed Crangon, but he also is not a professional carcinologist. 14. In India, Alpheus has been used by Panikkar and Aiyar, but these authors are evidently not primarily taxonomists. 15. One Soviet publication, by Derjugin and Kobjakova, lists Alpheus, but there is no evidence that these workers are still active. 16. In South Africa, K. H. Barnard continues to accept Alpheus in his extensive monograph on the decapods of South Africa published this year. OPINION 334 17 17. Finally, in Europe, the change from Alpheus to Crangon has been accepted much more slowly than elsewhere. The active carcinologists who continue to employ Alpheus include : H. Blass, I. Gordon, L. B. Holthuis, M. V. Lebour, A. Nobre, O. Pesta, E. Sivertsen, and R. Zariquiey Alvarez. Two active European specialists, J. Hult and T. Monod, have accepted the change to Crangon. Of the European authors who are not primarily specialists in the field at the present time, W. Arndt, P. Audigé, M. Kollmann, T. P. Maccagno, L. Nouvel-Van Rysselberge, F. S. Russell, and P. Volz have used Alpheus and only one, T. A. Stephenson, has accepted Crangon. 18. This survey shows that of the 26 active carcinologists here recognised who have published on this genus of snapping shrimps, exactly half have accepted the change to Crangon and half have retained Alpheus. The shift to Crangon which became significant soon after 1920 and has steadily increased since then, has been retarded primarily by the European workers who have been reticent to change the name of the commercial shrimp of northern Europe from Crangon to Crago and who have also been averse on purely personal grounds from accepting any of Weber’s generic names. 19. As I wrote in my earlier letter, had Dr. Holthuis’s application been made 25 or 30 years ago when Crangon had not become firmly entrenched in much of the carcinological and ecological literature for the genus of snapping shrimps, I believe that I would have supported it because of its bearing on two of the largest families of caridean crustaceans. Now, however, I cannot see that anything is to be gained by exercise of the Plenary Powers of the Commission. If Crangon of Weber is placed on the Official List, the European shrimps assigned to Crangon of Fabricius by most European workers will have to be shifted to Crago of Lamarck. This change is not as radical as it might be because of the fortunate similarity in names. On the other hand, if Weber’s name is rejected, not only will the name of the commercial shrimps of the Pacific coast of North America have to be changed from Crago (which has become firmly established) back to Crangon, but the use of Crangon for the snapping shrimps, which has been invariably the case in the rather extensive American technological literature dealing with underwater sound and sonar devices during and since World War II, will have to be abandoned in favour of Alpheus. This latter is an important factor for consideration. 20. The contention might be made that a favourable action on Dr. Holthuis’s application would be more generally accepted than an unfavourable one, because of the aversion of European workers to the adoption of Weber’s names but I do not think that this factor is of great significance. I feel sure that Dr. Holthuis, like most of the carcinologists in other countries, will follow any recommendation made by the Commission in this case. There is little question that Dr. Holthuis is 18 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS the foremost authority on the Caridea in the world today and, as such, his usage will almost surely be followed by nearly all of the other decapod specialists, especially those of his generation which will soon become the predominant group in Europe and elsewhere. 8. Acceptance by Dr. Holthuis of the analysis by Dr. Fenner A. Chace, Jr., of the relative frequency of the employment in carcinological literature of the Weberian and Fabrician usages of the names ‘‘Alpheus’’ and ‘‘ Crangon ’’ respectively : On 14th December 1950 Dr. Holthuis furnished the following state- ment in which, subject to notes on certain minor points, he accepted the analysis given in Dr. Fenner A. Chace’s letter of 20th October 1950 of the relative frequency of the employment in carcinological literature of the Weberian and Fabrician usages of the names Alpheus and Crangon respectively :— 1. The enumeration of workers in carcinology compiled by Dr. Fenner A. Chace, Jr., gives a clear picture of the present situation. I should like to add only a few remarks, mainly concerning the European authors ; these remarks, however, will not cause many changes to the picture as a whole. 2. Europe. 1 should like to omit from Dr. Chace’s list the names of A. Nobre and W. Arndt, since both these authors died some time ago. The opinion of Nobre, who wrote a handbook on the Decapods of Portugal, will continue to exercise much influence, especially in his country. Furthermore, I should like to include among the active European decapod specialists A. Brian, A. Giordani Soika, H. Nouvel and E. Sollaud, all of whom use the names Alpheus Fabricius and Crangon Fabricius. It, of course, is possible to add a considerable number of names to the second group mentioned by Dr. Chace, namely that containing authors who are not primarily specialists in decapod taxonomy. However, it certainly has not been Dr. Chace’s intention to make this list complete either for the American or the European authors. Furthermore here may be mentioned a group of authors, who are still living, but who have not been active in the field of Decapod Crustacea for a long time: W. T. Calman, one of the greatest authorities on Crustacea, H. Coutiére, once the best specialist of the family ALPHEIDAE, A. Schellenberg, who wrote a monographic treatment of the German Decapods, and B. Parisi, while perhaps O. Pesta also is better placed here. All these authors too use the names Alpheus Fabricius and Crangon Fabricius. Summarising, we may state that when in America the name Crago Lamarck and Crangon Weber are accepted by practically all specialists and non-specialists, in Europe OPINION 334 19 the names Crangon Fabricius and Alpheus Fabricius are equally unanimously accepted. (J. Hult used the name Crangon Weber, when dealing with material from the Galapagos Archipelago ; Th. Monod did so with West African material, and J. A. Stephenson with material from the Great Barrier Reef of Australia.) 3. Soviet Union. J. A. Birstein, one of the foremost Russian authori- ties on Decapod Crustacea at present, uses the name Crangon Fabricius for the common shrimp. 4. China. S. C. Yu died some time ago. His work on Chinese Decapods, however, probably will exercise its influence in China for a long period to come, especially so since he gave a revision of the Chinese species of Alpheus, which genus was named Crangon Weber by him. 5. Japan. One of the foremost Japanese specialists of Decapoda Macrura of the present time, I. Kubo, uses the name ALPHEIDAE for the family of Snapping Shrimps. 6. Summarising, I get the following numbers of active Decapod specialists : those using the names Crangon Weber and Crago Lamarck number 13 (I include A. H. Banner, which Dr. Chace clearly did not), those employing the names Crangon Fabricius and Alpheus Fabricius number 15. These figures thus differ quite insignificantly from those given by Dr. Chace. Since it is very difficult to define an “‘ active carcinologist,’’ the numbers may be changed in either direction with reasonable arguments for so doing. It is next to impossible to give, for active non-specialists working with the two genera in question, figures similar to those given above for active decapod specialists ; for here it is in most cases hardly possible to determine whether a worker is active or not. Still, the opinion of these non-specialists is perhaps more important than that of the specialists, since the former are more numerous and are more in need of a stabilised name than the latter. 9. Publication of the present application : The present application was sent to the printer in December 1950 and, together with the documents reproduced in paragraphs 5 to 8 above, was published on 20th April 1951 in Part 3 of volume 2 of the Bulletin of Zoo- logical Nomenclature (Holthuis, 1951, Bull. zool. Nomencl, 2: 69—72 ; Heegaard, 1951, ibid. 2 : 73 ; Gurney, 1951, ibid. 2 : 74; Chace, 1951, ibid. 2 : 75—78; Holthuis, 1951, ibid. 2 : 79—80 (supplementary note)). 20 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 10. Issue of Public Notices : Under the revised procedure prescribed by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948 (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 51—56), Public Notice of the possible use by the International Commission on Zoo- logical Nomenclature of its Plenary Powers in the present case was given on 20th April 1951, both in Part 3 of volume 2 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, the Part in which Dr. Holthuis’s application was published, and also to the other prescribed serial publications. In addition, Public Notice was given to a number of other zoological serial publications in Europe and America. 11. Comments received in regard to the present application : In all, comments were received from thirteen specialists as the result either of the publication of the prescribed Public Notices or of information furnished to specialists shortly before publica- tion. The specialists from whom these comments were received are listed below. Against the name of each of these specialists is given the number of the paragraph in the present Opinion in which the comment furnished is reproduced. (a) Specialists who favoured the Fabrician usage of the names ‘Alpheus’ and “‘ Crangon”’ and therefore supported Dr. Holthuis’s application H. NouveL, Université de Toulouse, Faculté des Sciences, Toulouse, France (paragraph 12) R. Po. DOLLFUS, Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris (paragraph 13) Marig V. Lesour, The Laboratory, Citadel Hill, Plymouth, England (paragraph 14) A. B. NEEDLER, Fisheries Research Board of Canada, Atlantic Biological Station, St. Andrews, N.B., Canada (paragraph 15) HEINRICH BALSS, Hauptkonservator der Zoologischen Staats- sammlung, Miinchen a. D., Germany (paragraph 16) E. SOLLAUD, Université de Lyon, Faculté des Sciences, Lyon, France (paragraph 17) RICARDO ZARIQUIEY, Enfermedades de la Infancia, Barcelona, Spain (paragraph 18) OPINION 334 21 (b) Specialists who favoured the Weberian usage of the names “Alpheus” and “* Crangon” and therefore opposed Dr. Holthuis’s application ALBERT H. BANNER, University of Hawaii, Honolulu, Territory of Hawaii (paragraph 19) HERBERT M. HALE, The South Australian Museum, Adelaide, South Australia (paragraph 20) WaLpo L. Scumitt, Smithsonian Institution, U.S. National Museum, Washington, D.C., U.S.A. (paragraph 21) FRANK A. MCNEILL, Australian Museum, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia (paragraph 22). CHARLES H. BLAKE, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Department of Biology, Cambridge, Mass., U.S.A. (para- graph 23) BELLE A. STEVENS, Department of Zoology, University of Wash- ington, Seattle, Washington, U.S.A. (paragraph 24) 12. Support received from H. Nouvel (Université de Toulouse, Faculté des Sciences, Toulouse) : Under cover of a letter dated 6th June 1951 Professor Pierre Bonnet, communicated to the Commission the following statement by Professor H. Nouvel (Université de Toulouse, Faculté des Sciences, Toulouse) in support of Dr. Holthuis’s application (Nouvel, 1951, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 2 : 342—343) :— Au cours d’une conversation avec le Dr. L. B. Holthuis et alors que je lui faisais part de ce qu’a mon avis, la stricte application des Régles Internationales de. Nomenclature pouvait avoir @irritant et de néfaste dans certains cas particuliers, a l’appui de mon opinion, je citais le famaux exemple “* Crangon-Crago-Alpheus’”’. J’ajoutais que l’initiative de Rathbun était le plus bel exemple de ce qu’un spécialiste ne devait pas faire. Je lui disais aussi que personnellement, j’avais découvert des cas semblables au cours de mes recherches bibliographiques mais je me faisais un devoir de ne pas les dévoiler. C’est seulement apres cette déclaration que le Dr. Holthuis m’a fait part de sa proposition relativement 4 ce cas précis. I! me parait intutile de reprendre les arguments fort pertinents de MM. Holthuis et Gurney. Je voudrais seulement insister sur l’argu- ment de bon sens. 22 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 13. Support received from Professor R. Ph. Dollfus (Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris) : On 25th June 1951 Professor R. Ph. Dollfus (Muséum National d Histoire Naturelle, Paris) submitted the following note in support of Dr. Holthuis’s applica- tion (Dollfus, 1952, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 6 : 181) :— Je suis pour la validation de Crangon Fabricius, 1798, et d’ Alpheus Fabricius, 1798, d’accord avec L. B. Holthuis. 14. Support received from Dr. Marie V. Lebour (The Laboratory, Citadel Hill, Plymouth, England) : On 4th July 1951 Dr. Marie V. Lebour (Zhe Laboratory, Citadel Hill, Plymouth, England) addressed to the Commission the following letter in support of Dr. Holthuis’s application (Lebour, 1951, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 2 : 340) :— I have just received a paper from Dr. L. B. Holthuis of Leiden (1951, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 2 : 69—72) on the proposed use of the Plenary Powers to validate the generic name Crangon Fabricius, 1798, for the Common Shrimp and the generic name A/pheus Fabricius, 1798, for the Snapping Shrimps (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), and I wish to state that I heartily agree with his views. 15. Support received from Dr. A. B. Needler (Fisheries Research Board of Canada, Atlantic Biological Station, St. Andrews, N.B., Canada) : On 5th July 1951 Dr. A. B. Needler (Fisheries Research Board of Canada, Atlantic Biological Station, St. Andrews, N.B., Canada) addressed the following letter to the Commission in support of Dr. Holthuis’ application (Needler, 1951, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 2. : 342) :— , I have received a copy of Dr. L. B. Holthuis’s application (Z.N.(S.)231) to validate the generic names Alpheus Fabricius, 1798, and Crangon Fabricius, 1798, and I should like to support it. In common with most Americans and Canadians, I have been using Crangon Weber, 1795, and Crago Lamarck, 1801, for these genera, but this practice leads to many muddles and should be abandoned. 16. Support received from Dr. Heinrich Balss (Hauptkonservator der Zoologischen Staatssammlung, Miinchen a. D., Germany) : On 6th July 1951 Dr. Heinrich Balss (Hauptkonservator der OPINION 334 23 Zoologischen Staatssammlung, Miinchen a. D.) addressed the following letter to the Commission in support of the present and certain other applications submitted by Dr. Holthuis (Balss, 1951, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 2 : 344) :— Mr. L. B. Holthuis hat mir eine Reihe von Antragen an die inter- nationale Nomenklaturkommission zugesandt (Commission’s references Z.N.(S.) 231 (Crangon), 209 (Ligia), 473 (Scyllarides), 474 (Lysiosquilla), 475 (Odontodactylus)). Ich erlaube mir, Ihnen mitzuteilen, dass ich mit allen seinen Vorschlagen einverstanden bin. 17. Support received from Professor E. Sollaud (Université de Lyon, Faculté des Sciences, Lyon) : On 11th July 1951 Professor E. Sollaud (Université de Lyon, Faculté des Sciences, Lyon) addressed to the Commission the following letter in support of the present and certain other applications submitted by Dr. Holthuis (Sollaud, 1951, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 2 : 344) :— Je recois de mon collégue et ami Mr. Holthuis, du Muséum de Leide, cinq notes relative 4 des propositions faites a I’International Com- mission on Zoological Nomenclature au sujet d’un certain nombre de noms de genres de Crustacés (Commission’s references Z.N.(S.) 231 — (Crangon), 209 (Ligia), 473 (Scyllarides), 474 (Lysiosquilla), 475 (Odontodactylus)). Je vous informe que, apres avoir lu attentivement ces notes, j’approuve entierement les propositions de Mr. Holthuis. Jestime qu’une application rigoureuse, en toutes circonstances, du loi de priorité conduirait a d’inextricables confusions et, bien loin de servir notre science, lui serait tres préjudiciable. I] est impossible d’abandonner de noms tels que Ligia, Crangon, Alpheus, . . ., qui sont passés dans le langage courant, et votre Commission fera oeuvre bien utile en freinant l’ardeur des “‘ puristes ’’ de la Priorité. 18. Support received from Dr. Ricardo Zariquiey (Enfermedades de la Infancia, Barcelona, Spain) : In a letter dated 25th July 1951 Dr. Ricardo Zariquiey (Enfermedades de la Infancia, Barcelona, Spain) notified as follows his support for the present and certain 24 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS other applications submitted by Dr. Holthuis (Zariquiey, 1951, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 6 : 72) :— Estudiadas detenidamente las propuestas Z.N.(S.) 231 sobre el uso de los nombres genéricos Crangon Fabricius, 1798, y Alpheus Fabricius, 1798, la Z.N.(S.) 209 sobre el uso del nombre genérico Carcinus Leach, 1814, y la Z.N.(S.) 473 sobre el nombre genérico Scyllarides Gill, 1898, debo manifestarle que estoy de acuerdo con las conclusiones de las mismas y que Voto “SI” a lo que propone el Dr. L. B. Holthuis, ponente de las mismas. 19. Objection received from Professor Albert H. Banner (University of Hawaii, Honolulu, Territory of Hawaii) : In a letter dated 24th October 1950 Professor Albert H. Banner (University of Hawaii, Honolulu, Territory of Hawaii) intimated as follows his objection to the proposal submitted by Dr. Holthuis (Banner, 1951, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 2 : 74—75) :— I have been apprised by Dr. Fenner A. Chace, of the U.S. National Museum, of the proposal of Dr. L. B. Holthuis that the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature use its Plenary Powers to suppress the names Crangon Weber and Crago Lamarck for Alpheus and Crangon of Fabricius. As I have devoted some time to the taxo- nomy of the Hawaiian members of the CRANGONIDAE (Or ALPHEIDAE) and as J have reviewed the literature on this change in names, I should like to submit my views. I believe that it was most unfortunate that this most confusing change in names was made. However, on the basis of Opinion 17 of the Commission, any carcinologist abiding by the rules of nomenclature had two alternatives : to accept the ruling or to appeal for a suspension of the rules. In the forty years since the decision there has been no official appeal in proper form until now, and many later taxonomists have used the names of Weber in good faith, abiding by the rules of nomenclature and the rulings of the Commission. I believe that a suspension of the rules at this late date would not only confuse the literature further, but would also in effect penalise those who followed the rulings of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. I suggest, therefore, that the proposal of Dr. Holthuis be rejected. 20. Objection received from Dr. Herbert M. Hale (The South Australian Museum, Adelaide, South Australia) : In a letter dated OPINION 334 25 Ist November 1950 Dr. Herbert M. Hale (The South Australian Museum, Adelaide, South Australia) intimated as follows his objection to the proposal submitted by Dr. Holthuis (Hale, 1952, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 6 : 181) :-— I am interested to learn that Dr. L. B. Holthuis of the Rijksmuseum in Leiden has applied to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature for a suspension of the rules to allow for the reinstate- ment of Alpheus of Fabricius for Crangon of Weber and of Crangon of Fabricius for Crago of Lamarck. Together with a number of other working carcinologists I have accepted, in my taxonomic papers, Weber’s names for the genera concerned. One can understand the desire of some workers, particu- larly those in Europe to retain Alpheus and Crangon of Fabricius particularly as the genera contain well-known forms repeatedly referred to in text books, etc., for many years. However, I do feel that as Crangon of Weber and Crago of Lamarck have been recognised and used for such a long time, particularly by most of the active workers in the United States, the restoring of the old names now is not advisable. 21. Objection received from Dr. Waldo L. Schmitt (Head Curator, Department of Zoology, Smithsonian Institution, U.S. National Museum, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.) : In the following letter dated 30th November 1950 Dr. Waldo L. Schmitt (Head Curator, Department of Zoology, Smithsonian Institution, U.S. National Museum, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.) notified the Commission of his objection to the proposal submitted by Dr. Holthuis (Schmitt, 1951, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 2 : 340) :— I am still hoping that there may be an opportunity for the weight of Opinion to insure the retention of the use of Crangon Weber for Alpheus and Crago Lamarck for the genus formerly known as Crangon. I was much impressed by a survey made by Dr. Chace as long ago as 20th October!. It bears out my opinion of the feelings of the majority of the carcinologists and especially of American workers. Taxonomists have been accused of never being happy unless they could change names, but in this case a majority opinion should have some weight. 22. Objection received from Dr. Frank A. McNeill (Australian Museum, Sydney, New South Wales): On 2nd January 1951 * For Dr. Chace’s survey, see paragraph 7 above. 26 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS Dr. Frank A. McNeill (Australian Museum, Sydney, New South Wales) addressed the following letter to the Commission intimat- ing his objection to the proposal submitted by Dr. Holthuis (McNeill, 1951, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 2 : 341) :— My American colleague, Fenner A. Chace, Jr., has written me and given details of Dr. L. B. Holthuis’s application to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. He also included in his letter a copy of the case he prepared and submitted to you for the consideration of the Commission. Dr. Chace’s case is presented in a fair and logical way. It is in complete agreement with my views on the matter and in accordance with modern accepted usage. There are, however, one or two points that I would like to contribute to the discussion. First, ] have always been an adherent to the golden rule of priority ; this is one of the foundation stones of our taxonomic science today. At times a worker must find it a nuisance, but no amount of argument can get around the right of an earlier accepted author’s claim to recognition. The law of priority has been clearly set out by the Commission and it would surely lose in standing and confidence if it started now to make exceptions. This “* Alpheus—Crangon issue ”’ has a classical parallel in taxonomy. I refer to Alcock’s impassioned appeal for the retention of Gelasimus (Fiddler Crabs) as against the prior name Uca. In any consideration on the question under discussion this appeal of Alcock’s should be carefully considered by the Commission; the reference is: 1900, J. asiat. Soc. Bengal (Pt. 2) 69(3) : 350. Every carcinologist today knows that this was a lost cause, for it is a rarity for the old name Gelasimus to appear in modern literature. 23. Objection received from Professor Charles H. Blake (Massa- chusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Mass., U.S.A.) : On 8th August 1951 Professor Charles H. Blake (Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Mass., U.S.A.) addressed the following letter to the Commission, in which he discussed the present and certain other applications which had then been recently published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature and intimated his objection to the action proposed in the present case by Dr. Holthuis (Blake, 1952, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 6 : 182—183):— | 1. I should like to make comments on three nomenclatorial cases which are pending. They bear the file numbers (Z.N.(S.) 231, 209 and OPINION 334 a7 501). The first two cases bear on the acceptability of the infamous Weber publication. 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 as to 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 into account 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 | 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 ”’. 4. It must be admitted at this point that the maxim may strike continental European jurists with considerably less force than it has for the Anglo-Saxon jurist. This does not make it any less sound. Turning now to File Z.N.(S.)231, I would associate myself with Fenner Chace’s opinion as to the use of the generic names Crago and Crangon. Here I mention a point with regard to the objection raised as to the similarity of family names derived from these two generic names. There is a much worse and unavoidable case which nonetheless has caused no confusion. In the beetles we have an occasionally used family name LARIDAE from the genus Lara. In birds we-have the same family name based on the genus Larus and in wasps the family LARRIDAE based on the generic name Larra. Granted these all occur in different orders rather than within the same order. However nearly identical sub- family names occur in the crustacean family CYTHEREIDAE without 28 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS causing confusion. Therefore, I hold that the similarity of family names is no bar to the employment of Crago and Crangon. 5. With reference to File Z.N.(S.)209, on the basis of usage I think we should certainly accept Ligia of 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 Inter- national Commission, while upholding it in the previous case. If this be done, then we have in 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, as regards these two cases, 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. 6. Turning now to File Z.N.(S.)501, the apparent situation is some- what similar. It would appear that Meigen himself wished to suppress his names of 1800 in favour of those of 1803. And the Commission might, in Opinion 28, have been better advised to follow Meigen rather than the letter of the law. However, the instant case Tylos versus Micropeza is not as simple as some of the other cases may be. There is a genus 7ylos in the Isopod Crustacea proposed by V. Audouin in 1825. This genus, which is the type genus of the family and the sole genus of the family, has enjoyed uninterrupted use since that time. There exists only one possible synonym due to L. Koch in 1856. In spite of the testimony of von Ebner in 1868, the title of Koch’s name to be considered a synonym of Jylos is clouded. It has never been employed as an accepted generic name since 1856. We may set then this uninterrupted use of the generic name 7 y/os against the fact that on Aczél’s own showing the name was used in the Diptera only occasionally so recently as 1932 and certainly Micropeza is fully as well known. Parenthetically, the family name TYLIDAE in the Crustacea dates back at least to 1885 while in the Diptera it dates only from 1931. Therefore, in this case it would seem as though there would be less ultimate confusion if Tylos of Meigen were declared ineligible, not on the basis of a reversal of Opinion 28, but rather on the basis that it comes into conflict with a name in another group which has enjoyed a century and a quarter of uninterrupted use ; use which dates back to the days when Meigen’s own wishes with regard to the names of 1800 were followed. 24. Objection received from Dr. Belle A. Stevens (University of Washington, Department of Zoology, Seattle, Washington, U.S.A.) : On 13th August 1951 Dr. Belle A. Stevens (University of Washing- ton, Department of Zoology, Seattle, Washington, U.S.A.) intimated OPINION 334 29 as follows her objection to the application submitted by Dr. Holthuis (Stevens, 1952, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 6 : 184) :— Having read Dr. L. B. Holthuis’s proposals relating to the generic names Crangon Weber, 1795, and Crangon Fabricius, 1798 (1951, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 2 : 69—72), I wish to present the following : In connection with my work on the Caridea of the coast of Washing- ton, I have had occasion over a period of several years to investigate rather thoroughly the Crangon-Crago matter. I greatly appreciate the clear statement of the case by Dr. Holthuis and deeply regret that something of this sort was not brought forth and an appeal for suspension of the rules presented years ago by someone among the older carcinologists who disregarded Opinion 17 of the Commission. At this point nothing can be done to completely obliterate the existing confusion. I quite agree with Dr. Fenner A. Chace and Dr. Albert H. Banner that the change proposed by Dr. Holthuis is not now desirable. Such a change would needlessly magnify unfortunate systematic procedure of the past and due to the large volume and range of the literature involved, be very cumbersome to put into effect. Experienced workers in systematic zoology are capable of comprehending a brief statement of the facts concerned and other workers readily accept their findings. It seems to me expedient that the proposals of Dr. Holthuis be rejected. 25. Extension of the Period of Public Notice to 20th April 1952 : As the present application was published on 20th April 1951, the Prescribed Period of Public Notice would normally have expired on 20th October, 1951. As will be seen from the preceding para- graphs, the greater part of the comments on Dr. Holthuis’s proposals was received in July 1951, though several were not received until various dates in August 1951. At the end of September 1951, the position in this matter was reviewed by the Secretary who took the view that, having regard to the marked divergence of practice among carcinologists in the present case, it was particularly important that the fullest opportunity should be given to specialists to submit their views to the Commission on Dr. Holthuis’s application. The Secretary took note also that in view of the large number of cases on which Opinions were due to be prepared as the result of the decisions taken by the Commission in Paris in 1948, the grant of an extension of the Period of Notice 30 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS would in practice be unlikely to lead to any actual delay in the preparation of an Opinion in the present case. Accordingly, on 28th September 1951, the Secretary signed a Minute directing the extension for a further six months of the Prescribed Period of Notice in the present case. Under this decision the foregoing Period was extended to 20th April 1952. 26. Response to the decision to extend the Prescribed Period of Public Notice in the present case : During the second period of six months provided under the decision described in paragraph 25 above, only one further comment was received and it became evident therefore that no further statements were likely to be received, all those specialists who wished to comment on this case having already done so. The single comment received during the extension of the Period of Public Notice came from Dr. Isobel Gordon (British Museum (Natural History), London). Dr. Gordon’s communication is reproduced in the immediately following paragraph. 27. Support received from Dr. Isobel Gordon (British Museum (Natural History), London) : On 29th October 1951, Dr. Isobel Gordon (British Museum (Natural History) London) addressed the following letter to the Commission intimating her support for the present and certain other proposals submitted by Dr. Holthuis (Gordon, 1952, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 6 : 183) :— I wish to say that I am willing to add my support to all the proposals submitted to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature by Dr. L. B. Holthuis : Commission’s Reference Z.N.(S.)231 (Crangon) 99 » L.N.(S.)209 (Ligia) 9 » L.N.(S.)473 (Scyllarides) 93 » LZ.N.(S.)474 (Lysiosquilla) 9 » L£.N.(S.)475 (Odontodactylus) 28. Procedure followed in submitting the present case to the Commission for decision : Shortly after the close of the Prescribed OPINION 334 31 Period of Public Notice, as extended by the Minute executed by the Secretary to the Commission on 28th September 1951 (para- graph 25 above), consideration was given to the question of the procedure to be adopted in submitting the present case to the Commission for decision. On this matter, the Secretary took the view that the present was not a case where it would be sufficient to invite the Commission to vote either for, or against, Dr. Holthuis’s application and that the better course would be to lay before the Commission the drafts of two alternative decisions, each of an affirmative character, the one giving effect to the application submitted by Dr. Holthuis, the other setting forth the action which would be required in the event of the Commission deciding to reject that application. The adoption of this course involved certain further investigations in view of the fact that, while in his application Dr. Holthuis had set out in detail the action which would be necessary to give effect to his proposals, he had naturally not examined in equal detail the action which would be needed in the event of the Commission finding itself unable to grant that application. A request for this information was made to Dr. _Holthuis in June 1952 and the whole of it was obtained by September 1952. The Secretary thereupon prepared two docu- ments? for the consideration of the Commission. In the first of these documents (“‘ Sheet No. 1’) Mr. Hemming drew attention to the comments which had been received and gave references to the places in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature where those comments had been published. At the same time Mr. Hemming explained the procedure which he suggested should be adopted by the Commission in coming to a decision on the present case. In the second document (“‘ Sheet No. 2”’) Mr. Hemming submitted the alternative draft decisions which he had prepared for the consideration of the Commission. The first of these drafts (Alternative ‘‘A’’) set out the action which would be required to give effect to the proposals submitted by Dr. Holthuis, the second (Alternative ‘‘ B ’’) the action which would be needed in the event * The two documents prepared by Mr. Hemming here referred to were reproduced in facsimile in Annexe 2 to Document 64/2 submitted to the Colloquium on Zoological Nomenclature at Copenhagen in 1953. This was a paper which was prepared for the purpose of explaining the procedure followed in the submission of cases to the Commission for decision by Postal Vote (Hemming, 1953, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 10 : 487—491). 32 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS of the rejection of Dr. Holthuis’s application. The drafts so prepared were as follows :— ALTERNATIVE “A” (Adoption of Dr. L. B. Holthuis’s proposal) (1) Under the Plenary Powers the generic names Alpheus Weber, 1795, and Crangon Weber, 1795, are hereby suppressed for the purposes both of the Law of Priority and of the Law of Homonymy. (2) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology : (a) Alpheus Fabricius, 1798 (masculine) (type species, by selection by Latreille (1810): Alpheus avarus Fabricius, 1798) ; (b) Crangon Fabricius, 1798 (feminine) (type species, by absolute tautonomy: Cancer crangon Linnaeus, 1758). (3) The following names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology : (a) Alpheus Weber, 1795, and (b) Crangon Weber, 1795 (both as suppressed under (1) above), (c) Crago Lamarck, 1801 (an objective junior synonym of Crangon Fabricius, 1798). (4) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology : (a) avarus Fabricius, 1798, as published in the combination Alpheus avarus (trivial name of type species of Alpheus Fabricius, 1798) ; (b) crangon Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Cancer crangon (trivial name of type species of Crangon Fabricius, 1798). ALTERNATIVE “B” (Rejection of Dr. Holthuis’s proposal) (1) The application for the suppression under the Plenary Powers of Alpheus Weber, 1795, and of Crangon Weber, 1795, is hereby rejected. (2) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology : (a) Crangon Weber, 1795 (feminine) (type species, by monotypy: Astacus malabaricus Fabricius, 1775); (b) Crago Lamarck, 1800 (masculine) (type species, by monotypy : Cancer crangon Linnaeus, 1758). (3) The following names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology : (a) Alpheus Weber 1795 (as objective junior synonym of Cancer Linnaeus, 1758, having the same species, Cancer pagurus Linnaeus, 1758, as its type species, that species having been so selected for Cancer Linnaeus by Latreille (1810) and for Alpheus Weber by Rathbun (1930)) ; (b) Alpheus Fabricius, 1798 (an objective junior homonym of Alpheus Weber, 1795) ; (c) Crangon Fabricius, 1798 (an objective junior homonym of Crangon Weber, 1795). (4) The following names are OPINION 334 33 hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology : (a) crangon Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Cancer crangon (trivial name of type species of Crago Lamarck, 1800) ; (b) malabaricus Fabricius, 1775, as published in the combination Astacus malabaricus (trivial name of type species of Crangon Weber, 1795) ; (c) avarus Fabricius, 1798 (as published in the combination Alpheus avarus). IIJ.—THE DECISION OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 29. Issue of Voting Paper V.P.(53)4 : On 2nd January 1953, a Voting Paper (V.P.(53)4) was issued in which the Members of the Commission were invited to vote “‘ for the proposal set out in the annexed Sheet No. 2 :—ALTERNATIVE “A” (Dr. Holthuis’s proposal) OR for ALTERNATIVE “B” (action required if Dr. Holthuis’s proposal were to be rejected)”. For the texts of the draft Alternatives so submitted see paragraph 28 of the present Opinion. 30. The Prescribed Voting Period for Voting Paper V.P.(53)4 : As the foregoing Voting Paper was issued under the Three- Month Rule, the Prescribed Voting Period closed on 2nd April 1953. On that date there were still three Voting Papers which had not been returned by Commissioners and it appeared therefore to the Secretary to be expedient that the Prescribed Voting Period should be extended for a brief further period. Accordingly, on Ist April 1953, Mr. Hemming, as Secretary, executed a Minute extending the Prescribed Voting Period in this case for a further period of fourteen days. Under the direction so given the Prescribed Voting Period in the present case expired on 16th April 1953. 34 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 31. Particulars of the Voting on Voting Paper V.P.(53)4 : The state of the Voting on Voting Paper V.P.(53)4 at the close of the Prescribed Voting Period, as extended by the Minute executed by the Secretary on Ist April 1953 (paragraph 30 above), was as follows :— (a) Votes had been given in favour of Alternative “A” (Dr. Holthuis’s proposal) by the following twelve (12) Commis- stoners (arranged in the order in which Votes were received) : Lemche ; Hering ; Bradley ; Dymond ; Esaki ; Bonnet ; Jaczewski ; Riley ; do Amaral; Hanko ; Hemming ; Boschma ; (b) Votes had been given in favour of Alternative ““ B” (rejection of Dr. Holthuis’s proposal) by the following three (3) Com- missioners : 3 Vokes ; Stoll ; Cabrera ; (c) On Leave of Absence, one (1) : Mertens ; (d) Voting Papers not returned, one (1): Pearson. 32. Deciaration of Result of Vote on Voting Paper V.P.(53)4 : On 17th April 1953, Mr. Francis Hemming, Secretary to the Inter-_ national Commission, acting as Returning Officer for the Vote taken on Voting Paper V.P.(53)4, signed a Certificate that the Votes cast were as set out in paragraph 31 above and declaring that, as the proposal submitted as Alternative “A” had not only received a majority of the votes cast but had also, as required for the adoption of a proposal involving the use of the Plenary Powers, received not less than two affirmative votes out of every three votes cast, the said proposal had been duly adopted and that the decision so taken was the decision of the International Com- mission in the matter afoiesaid. OPINION 334 | 35 33. The Family-Group-Name aspect of the present case : The greater part of the main text of the present Opinion had been completed by the early summer of 1954. The decision taken by the Commission in the present case in its Vote on Voting Paper V.P.(53)4, though it dealt with all matters which were relevant at the time when it was issued, had however later been rendered incomplete by the decision taken by the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology, Copenhagen, 1953, to establish an Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology and a corresponding Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology and to prescribe for the Official List and Official Index so established Regulations corresponding with those already pre- scribed for the Official Lists and Official Indexes established for names of taxa belonging to other categories. For under these decisions it became the duty of the Commission to examine the family-group-name aspect of each proposal involving the status of generic names submitted to it for decision. Mr. Hemming, as Secretary, took the view that, having regard to the wide general interest of the principal generic name involved in the present case (the name Crangon) it was desirable that the Opinion containing the Commission’s decision on this important case should cover the whole of the ground involved, rather than it should deal only with the genus-name aspect of the problem, that concerned with the family-group-name aspect being deferred for later considera- tion. Mr. Hemming accordingly decided to set aside for the time being the preparation of the Opinion embodying the decision taken on Voting Paper V.P.(53)4, in order thereby to provide an opportu- nity for ascertaining the position as regards the family-group names involved in the present case and for submitting proposals to the Commission in regard thereto. Correspondence with Dr. L. B. Hoithuis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands), the original applicant in the present case, was completed by 16th July 1954 and on 21st July 1954 Mr. Hemming submitted to the Commission a paper bearing the Registered Number Z.N.(S.)849 setting out the information which he had collected in regard to the family-group names involved and submitting recommendations for the consideration of the Com- mission. In the same paper Mr. Hemming submitted a proposal for rectifying a minor omission in the proposals previously voted on for the addition of names to the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. The first two paragraphs of Mr. Hemming’s paper 36 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS contained a recital of the circumstances which had led up to the submission of the proposals then laid before the Commission. The remainder of the paper was as follows :— Proposed addition to the ‘‘ Official List ’’ and ‘‘ Official Index ’’ for Family-Group Names of the names involved in connection with the generic names ‘‘ Crangon ”’ Fabricius, 1798, and ‘°° Alpheus ”’ Fabricius 1798 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda) By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E., Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature Ce 3. It will be recalled that the principal question involved in Dr. Holthuis’s application was whether the generic name Crangon should, as he recommended, be validated as from Fabricius, 1798, for use for the Common European Shrimp or whether that name should be accepted as from Weber, 1795, and applied to the Snapping Shrimps. The former of these courses had been in universal use until the publica- tion in 1904 of the late Miss Mary Rathbun’s paper, drawing attention to Weber’s priority over Fabricius. Since that time the Weber usage had come into wide use in North America, while in Europe and most other parts of the world the admittedly invalid Fabrician usage had held its ground for the Common Shrimp, as had also that of the name Alpheus Fabricius, 1798, for the Snapping Shrimps. As explained in Dr. Holthuis’s application, the lack of uniformity in practice described above extended to the family-name level also, for those specialists who applied the Law of Priority strictly and therfore accepted the Weber names employed the family-name CRAGONIDAE for the Common Shrimp and the name CRANGONIDAE for the Snapping Shrimps, while those specialists who adhered to the pre-Rathbun usage continued to employ the name CRANGONIDAE for the Common Shrimp and the name ALPHEIDAE for the Snapping Shrimps. 4. In its Vote on Voting Paper V.P.(53)4, the Commission used its - Plenary Powers (a) to validate the generic names Crangon Fabricius, 1798, and Alpheus Fabricius, 1798, and (b) to suppress the generic names Crangon Weber, 1795, and Alpheus Weber, 1795. The effect of these decisions at the family-name level was (1) to provide a valid basis - for the family names CRANGONIDAE (type genus : Crangon Fabricius, — 1798) and ALPHEIDAE (type genus : Alpheus Fabricius, 1798) and (2) to invalidate the family names CRAGONIDAE (family-name based on Crago | Lamarck, 1801, a junior objective synonym of Crangon Fabricius, 1798, | OPINION 334 37 a name validated, as above, under the Commission’s Plenary Powers) and CRANGONIDAE (family name based on Crangon Weber, 1795, a name suppressed, as shown above, under the Commission’s Plenary Powers). Under the Regulations governing the Official List and Official Index for Family-Group Names, the names comprised in the first pair of names cited above fall now to be placed on the Official List, while those comprised in the second pair of names, being both objectively invalid, fall to be placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Names. 5. In order to ascertain by whom, when, and where the foregoing family-group names had first been published, I made application to Dr. Holthuis who, as I knew, had made a close study of the literature relating to the Caridean Crustacea. At the same time I asked Dr. Holthuis to furnish particulars of any objectively invalid family-group names based upon the names of the foregoing nominal genera that at any time had been published. An extract from Dr. Holthuis’s reply (dated 9th July 1954) in which he supplied the required information is given in the Annexe to the present paper. 6. I now recommend that, having regard to the decision taken in Voting Paper V.P.(53)4 to validate the generic names Crangon and Alpheus as from Fabricius, 1798, and paying regard also to the direc- tions prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology in the Regulations adopted by it in relation to the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology and the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family- Group Names in Zoology, the Commission should now :— (1) place the under-mentioned names on the Official List of Family- Group Names in Zoology :— (a) ALPHEIDAE (correction by Randall (1839) of ALPHIDIA) Rafinesque, 1815 (type genus : Alpheus Fabricius, 1798, a genus having a name validated under the Plenary Powers by the vote taken on Voting Paper V.P.(53)4) ; (b) CRANGONIDAE White, 1847 (type genus : Crangon Fabricius, 1798, a genus having a name validated under the Plenary Powers by the vote taken on Voting Paper V.P.(53)4) ; (2) place the under-mentioned names on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology :— (a) the following family-group names for the taxon having Alpheus Fabricius, 1798, as type genus :-— (i) ALPHIDIA Rafinesque, 1815 (an Invalid Original Spelling for ALPHEIDAE) ; 38 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS (ii) ALPHEENS Milne Edwards (H.), 1837 (invalid because a vernacular (French) word and not a Latin or Latinised word) ; (iii) ALPHAEIDAE Balss, 1915 (an Erroneous Subsequent Spelling for ALPHEIDAE (correction of ALPHIDIA) Rafinesque, 1815) ; (iv) ALPHEUIDAE Yu, 1936 (an Erroneous Subsequent Spelling for ALPHEIDAE (correction of ALPHIDIA) Rafinesque, 1815) ; (b) CRAGONIDAE, Rathbun, 1904 (type genus : Crago Lamarck, 1801) (invalid because the type genus of the family so named has, as its type species, Cancer crangon Linnaeus, 1758, which is also the type species of Crangon Fabricius, 1798 (a name validated under the Plenary Powers by the vote taken on Voting Paper V.P.(53)4), which is the type genus of the family CRANGONIDAE White, 1847, placed on the Official List under (1) (b) above) (c) CRANGONIENS Milne Edwards (H.), 1837 (type genus: Crangon Fabricius, 1798) (invalid because a vernacular (French) word and not a Latin or Latinised word) (d) CRANGONIDAE Rathbun, 1904 (type genus : Crangon Weber, 1795) (invalid because the generic name Crangon Weber, 1795, has been suppressed under the Plenary Powers under the vote taken on Voting Paper V.P.(53)4 and because the name CRANGONIDAE Rathbun, 1904, is a junior homonym of the name CRANGONIDAE White, 1847 (type genus: Crangon Fabricius, 1798) placed on the Official List under (1) (b) above) 7. The bibliographical references which it is proposed to assign to the foregoing names when they are entered in the Official List and Official Index for family-group names are those supplied in Dr. Holthuis’s letter of 9th July 1954 reproduced in the Annexe to the present paper. 8. I further propose that the present opportunity should be taken to remedy a minor omission in the decision taken on Voting Paper V.P.(53)4. In the second of the alternatives on which the Commission then voted (Alternative “‘ B”’) it was proposed that the specific name malabaricus Fabricius, 1775, as published in the combination Cancer malabaricus, should be placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology, that name being the name of the type species of the genus Crangon Weber, 1795, which under Alternative “‘ B”’ it was proposed to place on the Official List of Generic Names. Alternative ‘“‘ B”’ was rejected by the Commission, which, by accepting Alternative “‘A”’, OPINION 334 39 suppressed Crangon Weber, 1795, and validated Crangon Fabricius, 1798. This decision at the generic-name level does not affect the proposal relating to the specific name ma/abaricus Fabricius, and since that name as published in the combination cited above, is accepted by specialists as the oldest available name for the species concerned, it should, under the Rule that decisions in Opinions should be as complete as possible, be placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. I accordingly recommend that this action should now be taken. ANNEXE Extract from a letter dated 9th July 1954, from Dr. L. B. Holthuis (Leiden) ‘“* Crangon’”’ and “* Alpheus ” Thank you for your letter of 7th July. As regards the information that you have asked for, I can give you the following details :— (1) The oldest available name that I can find for the family Crangonidae (Fabrician conception) is :—Crangonidae White, 1847, mist Crust. Brit. Mus. : 73. The oldest available name for the family Alpheidae is, I believe : Alphidia Rafinesque, 1815, Anal. Nature:98. The first correct spelling for this name was published by Randall, 1839, J. Acad. nat. Sci. Philad. 8 : 140. (2) The oldest available name for the family Cragoidae is : Cragon- idae Rathbun, 1904, Prec. biol. Soc. Wash. 17:172. No other spelling of this name is known to me. The oldest available name for the family Crangonidae (Weberian conception) is : Crangonidae Rathbun, 1904, Proc. biol. Soc. Wash. me; 172. (3) The other objective synonyms of the name Alpheidae (Fabrician sense) that I know of are :— Alphéens Ee Milne Edwards, 1837, Hist. nat. Crust. 2 : 339, 345 (vernacular name) Alphaeidae Balss, 1915, Denkschr. Akad. Wiss. Wien 91 : 20. Alpheuidae Yu, 1936, Chin. J. Zool. 2:91. 40 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS The only other objective synonym of the name Crangonidae (Fabrician sense) as far as is known to me, is : Crangoniens H. Milne Edwards, 1837, Hist. nat. Crust. 2 : 339 (vernacular name). 34. Issue of Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(54)21 (relating to the family-group-name aspect of the ‘‘ Crangon ’’ case) : On 21st July 1954, a Voting Paper (V.P.(O.M.)(54)21) was issued in which the Members of the Commission were invited to vote either for, or against, the proposal “ relating to the placing on the Official List and Official Index of the family-group names based upon the names of the genera Crangon, Crago and Alpheus as set out in paragraph 6 of the paper bearing the Registered Number Z.N.(S.)849 by the Secretary submitted simultaneously with the present Voting Paper and the proposal relating to the name malabaricus Fabricius, 1775, as published in the combination Cancer malabaricus, as set out in paragraph 8 of the same paper ” [i.e. in paragraphs 6 and 8 of the paper reproduced in paragraph 33 of the present Opinion]. 35. The Prescribed Voting Period for Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.) (54)21 : As Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(54)21 was issued under the One-Month Rule, the Prescribed Voting Period would normally have closed on 21st August 1954, but the Secretary decided that, having regard to the fact that this Voting Paper had been issued at a time of year when many zoologists were away from their headquarters either on field work or on holiday, it was desirable - that an extension of the norma] Voting Period should be granted in order to give every member of the Commission a full opportunity of voting on the present case. Mr. Hemming accordingly executed a Minute directing that the Prescribed Voting Period be extended to 12th September 1954 or the date of the return to the Office of the Commission of the last of the Voting Papers issued to Commissioners, whichever was the earlier. The last of the Voting Papers issued was received in the Office of the Commission on 6th September 1954, on which date therefore the Voting Period | was brought to a close. 36. Particulars of the Voting on Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(54) | 21 : At the close of the Prescribed Voting Period, extended in the OPINION 334 4] manner explained in paragraph 35 above, the state of the voting on Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(54)21 was as follows :— (a) Affirmative Votes had been given by the following nineteen (19) Commissioners (arranged in the order in which votes were received)? : Hemming; Holthuis; Mertens; Sylvester-Bradley ; Hering; Boschma; do Amaral; Riley; Vokes ; Bradley (J.C.); Lemche; Esaki; Stoll; Pearson ; Jaczewski ; Bonnet ; Dymond ; Cabrera ; Hanko ; (b) Negative Votes : None ; (c) Voting Papers not returned : None. 37. Declaration of Result of Vote on Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.) (54)21 : On 6th September 1954, Mr. Hemming, Secretary to the International Commission, acting as Returning Officer for the Vote taken on Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(54)21, signed a Certificate that the votes cast were as set out in paragraph 36 above and declaring that the proposal submitted in the foregoing Voting Paper had been duly adopted and that the decision so taken was the decision of the International Commission in the matter aforesaid. * The following zoologists who were Members of the International Commission at the time of the issue of Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(54)21 were not Members of the Commission at the time of the issue of Voting Paper V.P.(53)4 :— Mr. P. C. Sylvester-Bradley (Sheffield University, Sheffield, England) Dr. L. B. Holthuis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) 42 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 38. Preparation of the Ruling given in the present ‘‘ Opinion ”’ : On 8th September 1954 Mr. Hemming prepared the Ruling given in the present Opinion and at the same time signed a Certificate that the terms of that Ruling were in complete accord with those of the proposal approved by the Commission in its Vote on Voting Paper V.P.(53)4, as supplemented by its Vote on Voting Paper V.P. (O.M.)(54)21. : 39. Original References: The following are the original references for the names placed on Official Lists and Official Indexes of generic and specific names by the Ruling given in the present Opinion :— Alpheus Weber, 1795, Nomencl. ent. : 91 Alpheus Fabricius, 1798, Suppl. Ent. syst. : 380, 404 avarus, Alpheus, Fabricius, 1798, Suppl. Ent. syst. : 404 Crago Lamarck, 1801, Syst. Anim. sans Vertébr. : 159 Crangon Weber, 1795, Nomencl. ent. : 94 Crangon Fabricius, 1798, Suppl. Ent. syst. : 387, 409 crangon, Cancer, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 632 40. The following is the reference for the selection of the type species of the genus Alpheus Fabricius, 1798, cited in the Ruling given in the present Opinion :—Latreille, 1810, Consid. gén. Anim. Crust. Arach. Ins. : 422, 101. 41. The original references for the family-group names placed on the Official List and Official Index of names of taxa belonging to the family-group are as set out in the Annexe to the paper by the Secretary reproduced in paragraph 33 of the present Opinion. 42. At the time of the submission of the original application dealt with in the present Opinion, the expression prescribed for the second portion of the binomen which constitutes the scientific name of a species was the expression “ trivial name” and the Official List reserved for recording such names was styled the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology, the word OPINION 334 43 “ trivial > appearing also in the title of the Official Index reserved for recording rejected and invalid names of this category. Under a decision taken by the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology, Copenhagen, 1953, the expression “ specific name ”’ was substituted for the expression “‘ trivial name ” and correspond- ing changes were made in the titles of the Official List and Official Index of such names (1953, Copenhagen Decisions zool. Nomencl. : 21). The changes in terminology so adopted have been incor- porated in the Ruling given in the present Opinion. 43. The prescribed procedures were duly complied with by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature in dealing with the present case, and the present Opinion is accordingly hereby rendered in the name of the said International Commission by the under-signed Francis Hemming, Secretary to the Inter- national Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, in virtue of all and every the powers conferred upon him in that behalf. 44. The present Opinion shall be known as Opinion Three Hundred and Thirty-Four (334) of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Done in London, this Eighth day of September, Nineteen Hundred and Fifty-Four. Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature FRANCIS HEMMING 4 > , ie t 4 j Ly * ® : : ; ‘ " & ‘ 4 t 4 S i ‘ 4 h © + A ‘ ry i 4 ‘ é < } % ‘i ’ , : r q > . 15 r i * 5 4 vu t ; é +4 ' / Si i $4 i : roe FS 4 4 z ‘ w A i an ha 4 ‘ ; om fe {a 4 es e pee j - x ee ‘ shee - ' . i ¢ . | } A c oo ) 2 f : ™ “ : oom . ed rp 23 i 2 - x * a : fe , “ i | | | 7 i i v ; . 2 i \ + 1 ‘ : u % ‘ | A es eat i ifs 4d i ; Ly oe : + e > ‘ 1 \ . 3 \ ’ ‘ fi ; ; 2 L ‘ : 4 . € 5 an = 4 . 1 , . | / a | ( . i . ul i ’ i] Printed in England by Metcatre & Cooper LimIrTE + ini ‘f | ‘7 = ay) El Se IS ay OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTER- NATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Edited by FRANCIS HEMMING, c.M.G., C.B.E. Secretary to the Commission VOLUME 10. Part2. Pp. 45—76 OPINION 335 Addition to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology of the names of thirty-four non-marine genera of the Phylum Mollusca APR 22 1°55 LIBRARY A 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 1955 Price Sixteen Shillings (All rights reserved) INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE COMPOSITION AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THE RULING GIVEN IN OPINION 335 A. The Officers of the Commission Honorary Life President : Dr. Karl Jordan (British Museum (Natural History), Zoological Museum, Tring, Herts., England) President : Professor James Chester Bradley (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) Vice-President : Senhor Dr. Afranio do Amaral (Sao Paulo, Brazil) (12th August 1953) Secretary : Mr. Francis Hemming (London, England) (27th July 1948) B. The Members of the Commissicn (Arranged in order of precedence by reference to date of election or of most recent re-election, as prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology) Professor H. BoscHMA (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) (Ast January 1947) Senor Dr. Angel CABRERA (Eva Peron, F.C.N.G.R., Argentina) (27th July 1948) Mr. Francis HEMMING (London, England) (27th July 1948) (Secretary) Dr. deseey PEARSON (Zasmanian Museum, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia) (27th July 1948) Dr. Henning LEMCHE (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark) (27th July 1948) Professor Teiso Esaki (Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan) (17th April 1950) Professor Pierre BONNET (Université de Toulouse, France) (9th June 1950) Mr. Norman Denbigh RILEY (British Museum (Natural History) London) (9th June 1950) Professor Tadeusz JACZEwsKI (Institute of Zoology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland) (15th June 1950) Professor Robert MERTENS (Natur-Museum u. Forschungs-Institut Senckenberg, Frankfurt a.M., Germany) (Sth July 1950) Professor Erich Martin HERING (Zoologisches Museum der Humboldt-Universitat zu Berlin, Germany) (Sth July 1950) Senhor Dr. Afranio do AMARAL (S. Paulo, Brazil) (12th August 1953) (Vice- President) ErOLessOt J. R. DyMonpD (University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada) (12th August 1953 Professor J. Chester BRADLEY (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) (42th August 1953) (President) Professor Harold E. Voxes (Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) Professor Béla HANKO (Mezogazdasagi Muzeum, Budapest, Hungary) (12th August 1953) Dr. Norman R. SToLw (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. HoxtHuis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) (12th August 1953) OPINION 335 ADDITION TO THE ‘°° OFFICIAL LIST OF GENERIC NAMES IN ZOOLOGY” OF THE NAMES OF THIRTY-FOUR NON-MARINE GENERA OF THE PHYLUM MOLLUSCA RULING :—(1) The under-mentioned names of non- marine genera of the Class Pelecypoda are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Nanes in Zoology with the Name Nos. 808 and 809 respectively :— (1) Corbicula Megerle von Muehlfeld, 1811 (gender of name: feminine) (type species, by mono- typy : Tellina fluminalis Miller (O.F.), 1774). (ii) Pisidium Pfeiffer, 1821 (gender of name: neuter) (type species, by selection by Gray (J.E.) (1847) : Tellina amnica Miiller (O.F.), 1774). (2) The under-mentioned names of non-marine genera of the Class Gastropoda are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Nos. 810 to 841 respectively :— (i) Abida Turton, 1831 (gender of name : feminine) (type species, by monotypy: Pupa_ secale Draparnaud, [1801 ])?. (ii) Acanthinula Beck, 1847 (gender of name: femi- nine) (type species, by selection by Martens (1860) : Helix aculeata Miiller (O.F.), 1774). (iii) Aplexa Fleming, 1820 (gender of name : feminine) (type species, by monotypy: Bulla hypnorum Linnaeus, 1758). (iv) Arianta Turton, 1831 (gender of name : feminine) (type species, by monotypy : Helix arbustorum Linnaeus, 1758). ~~ For the justification for the date here assigned to Draparnaud’s Tableau des Mollusques terrestres et fluviatiles de la France see paragraph 6 of the Minute ay the Secretary to the Commission reproduced in paragraph 12 of the present pinion. 48 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS (v) Arion Férussac, 1819 (gender of name: mascu- line) (type species, by selection by Fleming (1822) : Limax ater Linnaeus, 1758). (vi) Azeca Fleming, 1828 (gender of name : feminine) (type species, by monotypy: Turbo tridens Pulteney, 1799). (vii) Balea Gray (J.E.), 1824 (gender of name: feminine) (type species, by selection by Herr- mannsen (1846): Pupa fragilis Draparnaud, [1801}). (viii) Carychium Miiller (O.F.), 1774 (gender of name: neuter) (type species, by monotypy : Carychium minimum Miller (O.F.), 1774). (ix) Cecilioides Férussac, 1814 (gender of name: feminine) (type species, by monotypy : Bucci- num acicula Miiller (O.F.), 1774). | (x) Cochlicella Férussac, 1821 (gender of name : feminine) (type species, by selection by Gray (J.E.) one : Helix conoidea Draparnaud, [1801}). (xi) Discus Fitzinger, 1833 (gender of name : mascu- line) (type species, by selection by Gray (J.E.) (1847) : Helix ruderata Férussac, 1821). (xu) Euconulus Reinhardt, 1883 (gender of name: masculine) (type species, by selection (under Rule (f) in Article 30) by Gray (J.E.) (1847) for Conulus Fitzinger, 1833, for which Euconulus Reinhardt, 1883, is a substitute genus: Helix — fulva Miller (O.F.), 1774). (xiii) Geomalacus Allman, 1843 (gender of name : masculine) (type species, by monotypy: Geo- malacus Allman, 1843). (xiv) Hygromia Risso, 1826 (gender of name : feminine) (type species, by selection by Herrmannsen (1847) : Helix cinctella Draparnaud, {1801)). OPINION 335 49 (xv) Lauria Gray (J.E.), 1840 (gender of name: feminine) (type species, by selection by Herr- mannsen (1847) : Pupa umbilicata Draparnaud, [1801]). (xvi) Milax Gray (J.E.), 1855 (gender of name: masculine) (type species, by selection by Hesse (1926) (also by Kennard & Woodward, 1926) : Limax gagates Draparnaud, [1801)). (xvii) Otina Gray (J.E.), 1847(gender of name: feminine) (type species, by monotypy : Helix otis Turton, 1819). (xviii) Planorbis Miiller (O.F.), 1774 (gender of name : masculine) (type species, by absolute tautonymy : Helix planorbis Linnaeus, 1758). (xix) Punctum Morse, 1864 (gender of name : neuter) (type species, by monotypy : Helix minutissima Lea, 1841). | | (xx) Pupilla Fleming, 1828 (gender of name : feminine) (type species, by monotypy : Pupa marginata Draparnaud, [1801]). (xxi) Pyramidula Fitzinger, 1833 (gender of name: feminine) (type species, by monotypy : Helix rupestris Draparnaud, [1801]). (xxii) Retinella Fischer, 1877 (gender of name: femi- nine) (type species, by selection by Kobelt (1879) : Helix olivetorum Gmelin, 1791). (xxiii) Rumina Risso, 1826 (gender of name : feminine) (type species, by monotypy: Helix decollata Linnaeus, 1758). (xxiv) Segmentina Fleming, 1818 (gender of name: feminine) (type species, by monotypy : Nautilus lacustris Lightfoot, 1786). (xxv) Subulina Beck, 1837 (gender of name : feminine) (type species, by selection by Gray (J.E.) (1847) : Bulimus octonus Bruguiére, 1789). 50 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS (xxvi) Theodoxus Montfort, 1810 (gender of name: masculine) (type species, by original designa- tion : Theodoxus lutetianus Montfort, 1810). (xxvii) Truncatellina Lowe, 1852 (gender of name: feminine) (type species, by monotypy : Pupa (Truncatellina) linearis Lowe, 1852). (xxviii) Vallonia Risso, 1826 (gender of name : feminine) (type species, by monotypy: Vallonia rosalia Risso, 1826). (xxix) Valvata Miller (O.F.), 1774 (gender of name: feminine) (type species, De monotypy : Valvata cristata Miiller (O.F.), 1774). (xxx) Vertigo Miller (O.F.), 1774 (gender of name: feminine) (type species, aM nono Vertigo pusilla Muller (O.F.), 1774 (xxxi) Vitrea Fitzinger, 1833 (gender of name : feminine) (type species, by monotypy : Helix diaphana Studer, 1820). (xxxul) Zonitoides Lehmann, 1862 (gender of name: masculine) (type species, by monotypy : Helix nitida Miller (O.F.), 1774). | (3) The under-mentioned generic name is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology as Name No. 230: Conulus Fitzinger, 1833 (a junior homonym of Conulus Leske, 1778). (4) The under-mentioned specific names, being the names of type species of genera of the Class Pelecypoda placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology under (1) above, are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Nos. 290 and 291 respectively :— (i) amnica Miller (O.F.), 1774, as published in the combination Tellina amnica (specific name of type species of Pisidium Pfeiffer, 1821). OPINION 335 51 (ii) fluminalis Miiller (O.F.), 1774, as published in the combination Tellina fluminalis (specific name of type species of Corbicula Megerle von Muehifeld, 1811). (5) The under-mentioned specific names, being the names of type species of genera of the Class Gastropoda placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology under (2) above, are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Nos. 292 to 315 respectively :— (i) acicula Miiller (O.F.), 1774, as published in the combination Buccinum acicula (specific name of type species of Cecilioides Férussac, 1814). (11) aculeata Miller (O.F.), 1774, as published in the combination Helix aculeata (specific name of type species of Acanthinula Beck, 1847). (iii) arbustorum Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Helix arbustorum (specific name of type species of Arianta Turton, 1831). (iv) ater Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the com- bination Limax ater (specific name of type species of Arion Férussac, 1819). (v) cinctella Draparnaud, [1801], as published in the combination Helix cinctella (specific name of type species of Hygromia Risso, 1826). (vi) conoidea Draparnaud, [1801], as published in the combination Helix conoidea (specific name of type species of Cochlicella Férussac, 1821). (vii) cristata Miller (O.F.), 1774, as published in the combination Valvata cristata (specific name of type species of Valvata Miiller (O.F.), 1774). 52 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS (viii) decollata Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Helix decollata (specific name of type species of Rumina Risso, 1826). (ix) diaphana Studer, 1820, as published in the com- bination Helix diaphana (specific name of type species of Vitrea Fitzinger, 1833). (x) fulva Miiller (O.F.), 1774, as published in the combination Helix fulva (specific name of type species of Euconulus Reinhardt, 1883). (xi) gagates Draparnaud, [1801], as published in the combination Limax gagates (specific name of type species of Milax Gray (J.E.), 1855). (xi) Aypnorum Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Bulla hypnorum (specific name of type species of Aplexa Fleming, 1820). (xii) linearis Lowe, 1852, as published in the com- bination Pupa (Truncatellina) linearis (specific name of type species of Truncatellina Lowe, 1852). (xiv) maculosus Allman, 1843, as published in the combination Geomalacus maculosus (specific name of type species of Geomalacus Allman, 1843). (xv) minimum Miiller (O.F.), 1774, as published in the combination Carychium minimum (specific name of type species of Carychium Miller (O.F.), 1774). (xvi) minutissima Lea, 1841, as published in the combination Helix minutissima (specific name of type species of Punctum Morse, 1864). (xvii) nitida Miller (O.F.), 1774, as published in the combination Helix nitida (specific name of type species of Zonitoides Lehmann, 1862). (xviii) octonus Bruguiére, 1789, as published in the © combination Bulimus octonus (specific name of © type species of Subulina Beck, 1837). | OPINION 335 53 (xix) olivetorum Gmelin, 1791, as published in the combination Helix olivetorum (specific name of type species of Retinella Fischer, 1877). (xx) planorbis Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Helix planorbis (specific name of type species of Planorbis Miller (O.F.), 1774). (xxi) pusilla Miiller (O.F.), 1774, as published in the combination Vertigo pusilla (specific name of type species of Vertigo Miiller (O.F.), 1774). (xxii) ruderata Férussac, 1821, as published in the combination Helix ruderata (specific name of type species of Discus Fitzinger, 1833). (xxiii) rupestris Draparnaud, [1801], as published in the combination Helix rupestris (specific name of type species of Pyramidula Fitzinger, 1833). (xxiv) secale Draparnaud, [1801], as published in the combination Pupa secale (specific name of type species of Abida Turton, 1831). (6) The under-mentioned specific names in the Class Gastropoda are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Nos. 316 to 323 respectively :— (i) cylindraceus da Costa, 1778, as published in the combination Turbo cylindraceus ; (ii) fluviatilis Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Nerita fluviatilis ; (iti) goodalli Férussac, 1821, as published in the combination Helix (Conchlodonta) goodalli ; (iv) muscorum Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Turbo muscorum ; (v) nitidus Miiller (O.F.), 1774, as published in the combination Planorbis nitidus ; (vi) ovatum Brown, 1844, as published in the com- bination Galericulum ovatum ; 54 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS (vii) perversus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Turbo perversus 5 (viii) pulchella Miiller (O.F.), 1774, as published in the combination Helix pulchella. (7) The under-mentioned specific name is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology as Name No. 110 : otis Turton, 1819, as published in the combination Helix otis (a junior primary homonym of ofis Solander, 1786, as published in the combination Helix otis). L—THE STATEMENT OF THE CASE Following a conference with the Secretary, Mr. A. E. Ellis (Epsom College, Epsom, England) on 20th August 1950 submitted to the Commission an application for the addition to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology of the names of forty-seven genera of non-marine Mollusca (Class Pelecypoda, 3; Class Gastropoda, 44). At the request of the Secretary Mr. Ellis agreed to extend this application, so as to include a request for the addition to the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology of the names of the type species of the genera, the names of which he had asked should be placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. The application so extended was submitted by Mr. Ellis on 18th October 1950. This application was as follows :— Proposed addition to the “‘ Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ”” of the names of certain non-marine genera in the Phylum Mollusca By A. E. ELLIS (Epsom College, Surrey, England) I submit herewith for addition to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the following names of non-marine genera in the Phylum OPINION 335 55 Mollusca. I have satisfied myself that each of these names is an available name in the sense that it is not a homonym of a previously published name. Each of the nominal genera, the names of which are here recommended for admission to the Official List, is currently accepted by specialists as being the oldest available name for the taxonomic genus which it represents. In each case the species proposed to be specified in the Official List as the type species of the genus concerned has been correctly determined as such under the Régles, that species having been so designated or indicated by the original author or, as the case may be, selected by the first subsequent author to select a type species for the genus concerned. The gender of each generic name is indicated in brackets immediately after the name concerned. Class PELECYPODA Corbicula (feminine) Megerle von Muehlfeld, 1811, Mag. Gesell. Naturf. Freunde Berlin 5 : 56 (type species, by monotypy : Tellina fluminalis Miller (O.F.), 1774, Verm. terrestr. fluviat. Hist. 2 : 205). Dreissena (feminine) van Beneden, 1835, Bull. Acad. Belg. Cl. Sci, 2 : 25, as emended by Dumortier, 1835 (ibid. 2 : 44) from Driessena (type species, by monotypy: Mytulus (error for Mytilus) polymorphus Pallas, 1771, Reise Prov. russisch. Reichs 1 : 478). Pisidium (neuter) Pfeiffer, 1821, Naturgesch. deutsch. Land- u. Stisswasser- Mollusken 1 : 17, 123 (type species, selected by Gray, 1847 (Proc. zool. Soc. Lond. 15 : 185) : Tellina amnica Miller (O.F.), 1774, Verm. terrestr. fluviat. Hist. 2 : 205). Class GASTROPODA Abida (feminine) Turton, 1831, Man. Land Freshwater Shells brit. Isl. : 101 (type species, by monotypy : Pupa secale Draparnaud, 1801, Tabl. Moll. terrestr. fluviat. France : 59). Acanthinula (feminine) Beck, 1847, Amtl. Ber. 24 Versamml. deutsch. Naturf. u. Aerzte Kiel : 122 (type species, selected by Martens, 1860 (in Albers, Die Heliceen (ed. 2): xiii, 101): Helix aculeata Miller (O.F.), 1774, Verm. terrestr. fluviat. Hist. 2 : 81. Acroloxus (masculine) Beck, 1837 (index Moll. Mus. Christ. Freder. : 124) (type species, selected by Herrmannsen, 1846 (ndic. Gen. Malacoz. Primordia 1 : 16): Patella lacustris Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 783). Ancylus (masculine) Miller (O.F.), 1774, Verm. terrestr. fluviat. Hist. 2 : 201 (type species, selected by Gray, 1847 (Proc. zool. Soc. Lond. 15 : 181): Ancylus fluviatilis Muller (O.F.), 1774, Verm. terrestr. fluviat. Hist. 2 : 201). 56 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS | Aplexa (feminine) Fleming, 1820, Brewster’s Edinb. Ency. 14 : 617 (type species, by monotypy : Bulla hypnorum Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 727). Arianta (feminine) Turton, 1831, Man. Land Fresh-water Shells brit. Isl. : 35 (type species, by monotypy : Helix arbustorum Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 771). Arion (masculine) Férussac, 1819, Hist. nat. Moll. terrestr. fluviat. 2 : 50, 53 (type species, selected by Fleming, 1822 (Ency. brit. suppl. 4th, Sth and 6th eds. 5 : 572): Limax ater Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 652). Assiminea (feminine) Fleming, 1828, Hist. brit. Anim. : 275 (type species, by monotypy: Assiminea grayana Fleming, 1828, Hist. brit. Anim. : 275). Azeca (feminine) Fleming, 1828, Hist. brit. Anim. : 269 (type species, by monotypy : Turbo tridens Pulteney, 1799, Cat. Birds, Shells, Dorset- shire : 46, nec Miller (O.F.), 1774 (=Helix (Cochlodonta) goodalli Férussac, 1821, Tabl. syst. Anim. Moll. : 75). Balea (feminine) Gray, 1824, Zool. J. 1 : 61 (type species, selected by Herrmannsen, 1846 (Indic. Gen. Malacoz. Primordia 1 : 103) : Pupa fragilis Draparnaud, 1801, Tabl. Moll. terrestr. fluviat. France : 64 (=Turbo perversus Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 767)). Carychium (neuter) Miller (O.F.), 1774, Verm. terrestr. fluviat. Hist. 2: 125 (type species, by monotypy : Carychium minimum Miller (O.F.), 1774, loc. cit. : 125.) Cecilioides (feminine) Férussac, 1814, Mém. géol. : 48 (type species, by monotypy : Buccinum acicula Miller (O.F.), 1774, Verm. terrestr. fluviat. Hist. 2 : 150). Clausilia (feminine) Draparnaud, 1805, Hist. nat. Moll. terrestr. fluviat. France : 68 (type species, selected by Turton, 1831 (Man. Land Freshwater Shells brit. Isl. : 6): Turbo bidens Montagu, 1803, Test. brit. 357 (=Turbo bidentatus Strom, 1765, Trondheim Selskabs Skrifter 3 : 436)). Cochlicella (feminine) Férussac, 1821, Tabi. syst. Anim. Moll. : 56 (type species, selected by Gray, 1847 (Proc. zool. Soc. Lond. 15 : 173): Helix conoidea Draparnaud, 1801, Tabi. Moll. terrestr. fluviat. France : 68 (see J. Conchol. 22 : 62)). Discus (masculine) Fitzinger, 1833, Beitr. Landesk. Oesterr. Enns 3 : 99 (type species, selected by Gray (1847, Proc. zool. Soc. Lond. 15 : 174) : Helix ruderata Férussac, 1821, Tabl. syst. Anim. Moll. : 44). OPINION 335 a) Euconulus (masculine) Reinhardt, 1883, SitzBer. Ges. Naturf. Freunde. Berlin 1883 : 86 (substitute name for Conulus Fitzinger, 1833, Beitr. Landesk. Oesterr. Enns 3:94, an invalid junior homonym of Conulus Leske, 1778) (type species, by selection, for Conulus Fitzinger, 1833, by Gray, 1847 (Proc. zool. Soc. Lond. 15 : 173): Helix fulva Miiller (O.F.), 1774, Verm. terrestr. fluviat. Hist. 2 : 56). Fruticicola (feminine) Held, 1837, Isis (Oken) 30 (12): 914 (type species, selected by Herrmannsen, 1847 (Undic. Gen. Malacoz. Primordia 2 : 450): Helix fruticum Miiller (O.F.), 1774, Verm. terrestr. fluviat. Hist. 2 : 71). Geomalacus (masculine) Allman, 1843, Athenaeum 1843 : 851 (type species, by monotypy: Geomalacus maculosus Allman, 1843, Athenaeum 1843 : 851). Hydrobia (feminine) Hartmann, 1821, Neue Alpina : 258 (type species, by monotypy : Cyclostoma acutum Draparnaud, 1805, Hist. nat. Moll. terrestr. fluviat. France : 40 (=Turbo ventrosus Montagu, 1803, Hess. brit. : 317)). Hygromia (feminine) Risso, 1826, Hist. nat. Eur. mérid. 4 : 66 (type species, selected by Herrmannsen, 1847 (ndic. Gen. Malacoz. Primordia 1 : 547): Helix cinctella Draparnaud, 1801, Tabl. Moll. terrestr. fluviat. France : 87). -Laciniaria (feminine) Hartmann, 1844, Erd- u. Siissw.-Gast.: 216 (type species, by monotypy : Pupa plicata Draparnaud, 1801, Tabl. Moll. terrestr. fluviat. France : 63). Lauria (feminine) Gray, 1840, Turton’s Man. Land and Freshw. Shells brit. Isl. (ed. 2) : 193 (type species, selected by Herrmannsen, 1847 (Indic. Gen. Malacoz. Primordia 1 : 578): Pupa umbilicata Drap- arnaud, 1801, Tabl. Moll. terrestr. fluviat. France: 58 (=Turbo cylindraceus da Costa, 1778, Hist. nat. Testac. Britann. : 89)). Leucophytia (feminine) Winckworth, 1949, J. Conch. 23 : 38 (type Species, by original designation: Voluta bidentata Montagu, 1808, Test. brit., Suppl. : 100). Milax (masculine) Gray, 1855, Cat. Pulmonata brit. Mus. 1 : 174 (type species, selected by Hesse, 1926 (Abh. Archiv. Molluskenk. 2:31) and by Kennard and Woodward, 1926 (Synon. brit. non- marine Moll. : 204) : Limax gagates Draparnaud, 1801, Tabl. Moll. terrestr. fluviat. France : 100). Otina (feminine) Gray, 1847, Proc. zool. Soc. Lond. 15 : 156 (type species, by monotypy : Helix otis Turton, 1819, Conch. Dict. brit. Isl.: 70, nec Solander, 1786 (Cat. Portland Mus. :38) (=Galericulum ovatum Brown, 1844, Illustr. rec. Conch. Gt. Brit. Ireland : 23)). 58 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS Phytia (feminine) Gray, 1821, Lond. med. Rep. 15 : 231 (type species, by monotypy : Voluta denticulata Montagu, 1803, Test. brit. : 234 (regarded by most authors as referable to Auricula myosotis Drap- arnaud, 1801, Tab/. Moll. terrestr. fluviat. France : 53)). Planorbis (masculine) Miiller (O.F.), 1774, Verm. terrestr. fluviat. Hist. 2:152 (type species, by absolute tautonymy: Helix planorbis Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 769). Pomatias (masculine) Studer, 1789, in Coxe’s Travels in Switzerland 3 : 388 (type species, by monotypy : Nerita elegans Muller (O.F.), 1774, Verm. terrestr. fluviat. Hist. 2 : 177). Punctum (neuter) Morse, 1864, J. Portland Soc. 1 : 5, 27 (type species, by monotypy : Helix minutissima Lea, 1841, Trans. amer. phil. Soc. Pupilla (feminine) Fleming, 1828, Hist. brit. Anim. : 268 (type species by monotypy : Pupa marginata Draparnaud, 1801, Tab/. Moll. terrestr. fluviat. France : 58 (=Turbo muscorum Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed 10): 767). Pyramidula (feminine) Fitzinger, 1833, Beitr. Landesk. Oesterr. Enns 3:95 (type species, by monotypy: Helix rupestris Draparnaud, 1801, Tabl. Moll. terrestr. fluviat. France : 71). Retinella (feminine) Fischer, 1877, Shuttleworth’s Notitiae malacol. 2 : 5 (type species, selected by Kobelt, 1879 (/lustr. Conchylienbuch : 223): Helix olivetorum Gmelin, [1791], Syst. Nat. (ed. 13) 1(6) : 3639). Rumina (feminine) Risso, 1826, Hist. nat. Eur. mérid. 4 : 79 (type species, by monotypy : Helix decollata Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 12773). Segmentina (feminine) Fleming, 1818, Ency. brit. Suppl. 4th, 5th and 6th eds. 3 : 309 (type species, by monotypy: Nautilus lacustris Lightfoot, 1786. Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. 76: 163 (=Planorbis nitidus Miiller (O.F.), 1774, Verm. terrestr. fluviat. Hist. 2 : 163)). Subulina (feminine) Beck, 1837, Ind. Moll. : 76 (type species, selected by Gray, 1847 (Proc. zool. Soc. Lond. 15 : 177): Bulimus octonus Bruguiere, 1789, Ency. méth., Vers 1 : 325). Testacella (feminine) Draparnaud, 1801, Tabl. Moll. terrestr. fluviat. France : 33, 99 (type species, by monotypy: Testacella haliotidea Draparnaud, 1801, loc. cit. : 99). OPINION 335 59 Theodoxus (masculine) Montfort, 1810, Conch. syst. 2 : 351 (type species, by original designation : Theodoxus lutetianus Montfort, 1810, loc. cit. 2 : 351 (=Nerita fluviatilis Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. ted) 10) 1°:°777)). Truncatellina (feminine) Lowe, 1852, Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (2) 9 : 275 (type species, by monotypy: Pupa (Truncatellina) linearis Lowe, 2; foc. cit. (2) 9 3.275). Vallonia (feminine) Risso, 1826, Hist. nat. Eur. mérid. 4: 101 (type species, by monotypy : Vallonia rosalia Risso, 1826, loc. cit. : 102 (= Helix pulchella Miller (O.F.), 1774, Verm. terrestr. fluviat. Hist. 2 : 30)). Valvata (feminine) Miiller (O.F.), 1774, Verm. terrestr. fluviat. Hist. 2 : 198 (type species, by monotypy : Valvata cristata Miller (O.F.), 1774, loc. cit.2 : 198) Vertigo (feminine) Miiller (O.F.), 1774, Verm. terrestr. fluviat. Hist. 2 : 124 (type species, by monotypy : Vertigo pusilla Miller (O.F.), 1774, loc. cit: 2+ 124). Vitrea (feminine) Fitzinger, 1833, Beitr. Landesk. Oesterr. Enns 3 : 99 (type species, by monotypy : Helix diaphana Studer, 1820, Meisner’s Naturw. Anz. Allg. Schweiz. Ges. 3 : 86 (issued separately in 1820 as Syst. Verz. Schweiz. Conch. : 13)). Viviparus (masculine) Montfort, 1810, Conch. Syst. 2 : 246 (type species by original designation : Viviparus fluviorum Montfort, 1810, loc. cit. 2 : 246 (=Helix vivipara Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) ie: 772)). Zonitoides (masculine) Lehmann, 1862, Malak. Blatter 9 : 111 (type species, by monotypy: Helix nitida Miiller (O.F.), 1774, Verm. terrestr. fluviat. Hist. 2 : 32). 2. In the case of the generic name Testacella Draparnaud, 1801, proposed above for inclusion in the Official List, there is one earlier identical name that was published as a nomen nudum a year earlier and another that was published in the same year. To prevent confusion, it is desirable that these nomina nuda should now be placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. The names in question are :— Testacella Cuvier, 1800, Legons Anat. comp. 1 : Tabl. 5. Testacella Lamarck, 1801, Syst. Anim. sans Vertébr. : 96. 3. Further, in compliance with the decision taken in this matter by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, I asked the Inter- national Commission to place on the Official List of Specific Trivial 60 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS Names in Zoology the undermentioned trivial names, being the trivial names of nominal species which are the type species of genera included in the list submitted above :— Class PELECYPODA Specific Trivial Name amnica Miller (O.F.), 1774 fluminalis Miiller (O.F.), 1774 polymorphus Pallas, 1771 Original Combination Tellina amnica Tellina f’uminalis Mytulus [ex err. pro Mytilus| polymorphus Class GASTROPODA Specific Trivial Name acicula Miiller (O.F.), 1774 aculeata Miiller (O.F.), 1774 arbustorum Linnaeus, 1758 ater Linnaeus, 1758 bidentata Montagu, 1808 cinctella Draparnaud, 1801 conoidea Draparnaud, 1801 cristata Miller (O.F.), 1774 decollata Linnaeus, 1758 diaphana Studer, 1820 Sy elegans Miller (O.F.), 1774 fluviatilis Miiller (O.F.), 1774 fruticum Miiller (O.F.), 1774 fulva Miller (O.F.), 1774 .. gagates Draparnaud, 1801 grayana Fleming, 1828 haliotidea Draparnaud, 1801 hypnorum Linnaeus, 1758 .. lacustris Linnaeus, 1758 linearis Lowe, 1852 maculosus Allman, 1843... minimum Miller (O.F.), 1774 nitida Miiller (O.F.), 1774 octonus Bruguiére, 1789 olivetorum Gmelin, 1791 planorbis Linnaeus, 1758 plicata Draparnaud, 1801 pusilla Miiller (O.F.), 1774 ruderata Férussac, 1821 rupestris Draparnaud, 1801 secale Draparnaud, 1801 Original Combination Buccinum acicula Helix aculeata Helix arbustorum Limax ater Voluta bidentata Helix cinctella Helix conoidea Valvata cristata Helix decollata Helix diaphana Nerita elegans Ancylus fluviatilis Helix fruticum Helix fulva Limax gagates Assiminea grayana Testacella haliotidea Bulla hypnorum Patella lacustris Pupa (Truncatellina) linearis Geomalacus maculosus Carychium minimum Helix nitida Bulimus octonus Helix olivetorum Helix planorbis Pupa plicata Vertigo pusilla Helix (Helicella) ruderata Helix rupestris Pupa secale Sl LL> EEE yey OPINION 335 61 4. In the case of twelve of the genera, the names of which are here- with proposed for addition to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology, the name of the nominal species which is the type species of the genus concerned is not accepted by specialists as the oldest available name for the taxonomic species represented by the nominal species in question. Name of genus (1) Azeca Fleming, 1828 Balea Gray, 1824 Hydrobia Hartmann, 1821 Lauria Gray, 1840 Otina Gray (J.E.), 1847 Phytia Gray, 1821 Pupilla Fleming, 1828 Segmentina Fleming, 8 Theodoxus Montfort, 1810 Vallonia Risso, 1826 Viviparus Montfort, 1810 These cases are :— Class GASTROPODA Name of nominal species which is the type species of the genus specified in column (1) (2) Turbo tridens Pulteney, 1799 Pupa fragilis Draparnaud, 1801. Cyclostoma acuium Draparnaud, 1805 Pupa umbilicata | Draparnaud, 1801 Helix otis Turton, 1819 Voluta denticulata Montagu, 1803 Pupa marginata Draparnaud, 1801 Nautilus lacustris Lightfoot, 1786 Theodoxus lutetianus Montfort, 1810 Vallonia rosalia Risso, 1826 Viviparus fluviorum Montfort, 1810 Oldest available name for the species specified in column (2) (3) Helix (Cochlodonta) goodalli Férussac, 1821 Turbo perversus Lin- naeus, 1758 Turbo ventrosus Montagu, 1803 Turbo cylindraceus da Costa, 1778 Galericulum ovatum Brown, 1844 Auricula myosotis Draparnaud, 1801 Turbo muscorum Linnaeus, 1758 Planorbis nitidus Miiller (O.F.), 1774 Nerita fluviatilis Linnaeus, 1758 Helix pulchella Miller (O.F.), 1774 Helix vivipara Lin- naeus, 1758 62 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 5. In the twelve cases dealt with above, I recommend that, in accordance with the decision of the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, there should be added to the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology, not the trivial name of the nominal species specified in column (2) of the foregoing table, but the trivial name of the nominal species specified in column (3) of that table. II—THE SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF THE CASE 2. Registration of the present application : On the receipt of Mr. Ellis’s preliminary application of August 1950 the question of making a start with the building-up of the Mollusca Section of the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology by placing on it a substantial instalment of the names of non-marine genera of this Phylum was allotted the Registered Number Z.N.(S.) 470. 3. Publication of the present application : The present application was sent to the printer on Ist January 1951 and on 20th April of that year was published in Part 4 of volume 2 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (Ellis, 1951, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 2 : 119—125). 4. Decision taken in July 1951 to proceed separately with three of the names dealt with in Mr. Ellis’s application : On Ist July 1951 Mr. Hemming, as Secretary, signed a Minute directing that, in view of the fact the under-mentioned names included in Mr. Ellis’s application had already been brought to the attention of the Commission in other connections, those names should be dealt with separately on the Commission Files specified below and should accordingly be treated as having been removed from Mr. Ellis’s application : (a) Ancylus Miller (O.F.), 1774, and Acroloxus Beck, 1837 (File Z.N.(S.) 240) ; (b) Pomatias Studer, 1789 (File Z.N.(S.) 692). 5. Comments received on Mr. Ellis’s application : Following the publication of Mr. Ellis’s application, comments were received OPINION 335 63 from the under-mentioned specialists :—(1) Dr. Joshua L. Baily, Jr. (San Diego, California, U.S.A.) (letter dated 22nd June 1951) ; (2) Dr. C. R. Boettger (Natur-Museum u. Forschungs-Institut Senckenberg, Senckenberg-Anlage, Frankfurt a.M., Germany) (memorandum submitted under cover of a letter dated 27th August 1951 from Professor Dr. R. Mertens of the same Institu- tion ; (3) Mr. Hugh Watson (Cambridge, England) (memorandum furnished under cover of a letter dated 14th May 1952) ; (4) Dr. L. B. Holthuis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) (letter dated 11th December 1952). As is customary in the case of applications relating to the proposed addition of names to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology, the specialists who furnished comments concentrated their atten- tion upon those names included in the application which they either considered should not be stabilised in this way or felt that there were matters of one kind or another which called for further consideration before that course was adopted. The names thus recommended for further study and the names of the specialists by whom recommendations in this sense were submitted were the following :—({a) Assiminea Fleming, 1828 (Baily ; Boettger) ; (b) Fruticicola Held, 1837 (Boettger) ; (c) Hydrobia Hartmann, 1821 (Baily ; Holthuis) ; (d) Laciniaria Hartmann, 1844 (Boettger) ; (e) Leucophytia Winckworth, 1949 (Boettger; Watson); (f) Phytia Gray (J. E.), 1821 (Boettger ; Watson) ; (g) Testacella Draparnaud [1801] (Watson); (h) Viviparus Montfort, 1810 (Baily). 6. Review of the present application in February 1954 : On 15th February 1954 Mr. Hemming, as Secretary, after reviewing the state of the present application, placed the following Minute on the Commission’s File Z.N.(S.) 470 : “It is now nearly two years since Mr. Ellis’s application was published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature and there has therefore been ample time for interested specialists to submit comments on his proposals. Of the forty-four names dealt with in this application, apart from the three names removed therefrom on Ist July 1951 [see para- graph 4 of the present Opinion] no adverse comment of any kind has been received in regard to thirty-six. In these circumstances no advantage would be served by the further postponement of the submission to the Commission of Mr. Ellis’s proposals in regard to these names. Accordingly, as Secretary to the International 64 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS Commission, I hereby direct that the proposals submitted by Mr. Ellis in regard to the under-mentioned eight names on which comments have been received from specialists be dealt with on separate Commission Files during their remaining stages and therefore that these names be treated as having been removed from Mr. Ellis’s application. I further direct that the application in regard to the thirty-six names remaining in the present application be submitted to the Commission for decision as soon as possible ”’. The following are the Registered Numbers allotted to the cases relating to the eight names removed from the present application under the directions given in the Secretary’s Minute of 15th February 1954 quoted above :—(a) Assiminea Fleming, 1828 : File Z.N.(S.) 806 ; (2) Fruticicola Held, 1837; File Z.N.(S.) 808 ; (3) Hydrobia Hartmann, 1821; File Z.N.(S.) 807 ; (4) Laciniaria Hartmann, 1844: File Z.N.(S.) 853 ; (5) Leucophytia Winckworth, 1949: File Z.N.(S.) 854; (6) Phytia Gray (J. E.), 1821: File Z.N.(S.) 855 ; (7) Testacella Draparnaud, [1801]: File Z.N.(S.) 856; (8) Viviparus Montfort, 1810 : File Z.N.(S.) 857. IW.—THE DECISION OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 7. Issue of Voting Paper V.P.(54)8 : On 27th February 1954 a Voting Paper (V.P.(54)8) was issued in which the Members of the Commission were invited to vote either for, or against, “ the proposal relating to the admission to the Official Lists of the names of genera of non-marine Mollusca and of the names of their type species as proposed by Mr. A. E. Ellis in his application published in volume 2 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (pp. 119—125) [i.e. the proposal reproduced in paragraph 1 of the present Opinion], subject to the postponement for further consideration of the eleven generic names and the corresponding names of type species specified in paragraph 3 of the Secretary’s Note overleaf” [i.e. the three names removed from the present application by the Secretary’s Minute dated Ist July 1951 (see paragraph 4 of the present Opinion) and the eight further names OPINION 335 65 similarly removed by the Secretary’s Minute dated 15th February 1954 (see paragraph 6 of the present Opinion)|. 8. The Prescribed Voting Period: As the foregoing Voting Paper was issued under the Three Month Rule, the Prescribed Voting Period closed on 27th May 1954. 9. Removal during the Voting Period from the present application of the proposal relating to the generic name published by van Beneden as ‘‘ Driessena ’’ in 1835 : On 8th May 1954 Professor Jaczewski, when returning his copy of Voting Paper V.P.(54)8, furnished certain additional particulars in regard to the generic name published by van Beneden in 1835 as Driessena, one of the names included in Mr. Ellis’s proposals. In the light of Professor Jaczewski’s letter Mr. Hemming, as Secretary, executed on 11th May 1954 a Minute directing that the proposal relating to the foregoing name should be removed from the list of names under consideration in connection with Voting Paper V.P.(54)8, in order to permit of the study of the considerations advanced by Professor Jaczewski. The problem presented by the foregoing name was thereupon re-registered, being allotted the Registered Number Z.N.(S.) 839).? 10. Particulars of the Voting on Voting Paper V.P.(54)8 : At the close of the Prescribed Voting Period the state of the voting on Voting Paper V.P.(54)8, less the proposal relating to the name Driessena van Beneden, 1835, removed from the purview of that vote by the Direction given in the Secretary’s Minute of 11th May 1954 (see paragraph 9 above), was as follows :— (a) Affirmative Votes had been given by the following nineteen (19) Commissioners (arranged in the order in which Votes were received) : Sylvester-Bradley ; Holthuis ; Hering ; Boschma ; Vokes ; Riley ;do Amaral ; Esaki ; Lemche ; Dymond ; Hemming; Bonnet ; Cabrera ; Mertens ; Hanko ; Pearson ; Bradley (J. C.) ; Jaczewski ; Stoll ; 2 The investigations in regard to this name were completed by 21st July 1954, when revised proposals and Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(54)20 were submitted to the Commission. The decision taken on this Voting Paper has since been embodied in Opinion 353 (in the press). 66 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS (b) Negative Votes : None ; (c) Voting Papers not returned : None. 11. Declaration of Result of Vote: On 28th May 1954, Mr. Hemming, Secretary to the International Commission, acting as Returning Officer for the Vote taken on Voting Paper V.P.(54)8, signed a Certificate that the Votes cast were as set out in paragraph 10 above and declaring that the proposal submitted in the fore- going Voting Paper had been duly adopted and that the decision so taken was the decision of the International Commission in the matter aforesaid. 12. Note on certain supplementary points : On 4th October 1954, Mr. Hemming, as Secretary to the International Commission, placed on the Commission’s File relating to the present case (File Z.N.(S.) 470) the following Minute setting out the results of investigations which, jointly with Mr. A. E. Ellis (the applicant in the present case), he had undertaken for the purpose of resolving certain bibliographical and similar problems which had arisen in the course of preparing the present Opinion, and giving directions as to the action to be taken in connection with three of the problems concerned : Bibliographical and similar points arising in connection with certain names of non-marine Mollusca proposed by Mr. A. E. Ellis for addition to the ‘‘ Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ”’ By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E., Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature In the course of preparing the Opinion needed to give effect to the decision by the International Commission on the application submitted by Mr. A. E. Ellis for the addition to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology of a large number of names of non-marine genera in the OPINION 335 67 Phylum Mollusca, I have encountered various bibliographical and allied questions regarding which I have consulted Mr. Ellis and, in some cases, have, in addition, examined the original papers myself. I am much indebted to Mr. Ellis for the assistance which he has been kind enough to render in this matter. In the following cases it is, in my Opinion, necessary to place on record a short note of the results of these investigations, in order to obviate the risk that at some later date misunderstandings might arise in regard to the reasons which have prompted the decisions reached in these cases. (a) ‘‘ Punctum ’’ Morse, 1864 : 2. The type species of this genus is Helix minutissima Lea, 1841, by monotypy. In this application Mr. Ellis did not ask that the name minutissima Lea should be placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology, and, in view of the General Directive issued to the Com- mission to place on that List the name of the type species of every genus, the name of which was placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology, | asked Mr. Ellis for the reason for this omission. Mr. Ellis has explained (1) that this is an available name and the oldest such name for the taxon so named, but (2) that there is not agreement among specialists as to whether on taxonomic grounds the taxon so named should be accorded full specific status or should be regarded as a subspecies of another species, Helix pygmaea Draparnaud, [1801] (the name of which has been proposed by Mr. Ellis for addition to the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology in his Application Z.N.(S.) 497)?. On my explaining that in the Regulations relating to the fore- going Official List the International Congress of Zoology had expressly provided (1), that the placing of a given name on that List is not to be taken as implying a judgment on the question whether the taxon so named should be regarded as being of full specific rank or as being only a subspecies of some other species (1950, Bull zool. Nomencl. 4 : 271, Point (d)) and (2) that names which it is generally agreed are subspecific names are eligible, equally with specific names, for admission to this Official List (1950, ibid. 4 : 627, Point (1)), Mr. Ellis agreed that it was now necessary that the name minutissina Lea should be placed on the above List. On the status of the taxon so named, Mr. Ellis added: ‘‘ The fact that so eminent an authority as H. A. Pilsbry, in his Land Mollusca of North America, gives Punctum minutissimum (Lea) full specific rank, may be regarded, I think, as settling its status.” (b) ‘‘ Clausilia ’’ Draparnaud ; [1805] 3. I find that, when I originally received Mr. Ellis’s application, I unfortunately failed to note that the name C/ausilia Draparnaud 3 This name has since been placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology by the Ruling given by the Commission on Application Z.N.(S.) 497 in its Opinion 336 (see pp. 77—108 of the present volume). 68 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS had already been placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology (as Name No. 548) by the Ruling given in the Commission’s Opinion 119 published in 1931 (Smithson. misc. Coll. 73 (No. 7) : 23). It will accordingly be necessary to delete this generic name from the Ruling to be given in the forthcoming Opinion on Mr. Ellis’s application. For the same reason it will be necessary to omit from that Ruling the following entries which would otherwise have occurred in it, namely (1) the entry on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology of the name bidentatus Strom, 1765, as published in the combination Turbo bidentatus ; (2) the entry on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology of the name bidens Montagu, 1803, as published in the combination Turbo bidens. The second of these names is the name of the type species of the genus Clausilia Draparnaud (as stated in Mr. Ellis’s application). This name is however invalid as being a junior primary homonym of Turbo bidens Linnaeus, 1758. The first of the two specific names cited above is reported by Mr. Ellis as being the oldest available name for the taxonomic species repre- sented by the nominal! species Turbo bidens Montagu, 1803. 4. I observe also that in Opinion 119 the type species given for the genus Clausilia Draparnaud is not the same species as that given for this genus in Mr. Ellis’s application. It will be necessary for this discrepancy to be reconciled, and I have given directions that a separate file bearing the Registered Number N.Z.(S.) 872 be opened for this purpose. (c) ‘‘ Otina ? Gray (J.E.), 1847: 5. The type species of this genus is Helix otis Turton, 1819, by monotypy. In his application to the Commission, Mr. Ellis added in respect of the above specific name the words “ nec Solander, 1786’. Mr. Ellis has since informed me that the name Helix otis was published deliberately by Turton as the name for a new speies and that it is not —as I had thought might be possible—a misidentification by Turton of the older nominal species, Helix otis Solander, 1786. In these circum- stances all that is necessary, in order to complete the action required in this case, is that the objectively invalid name otis Turton, 1819, as published in the combination Helix otis, should be placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology. (d) Date attributable to Draparnaud’s ‘‘ Tableau’’, a work commonly cited as bearing the date ‘‘ 1801 ”’ 6. Mr. Ellis’s application contains references to several names first published in Draparnaud’s Tableau des Mollusques terrestres et fluviatiles de la France ; that work was there cited as having been OPINION 335 69 published in 1801, i.e. as having been inscribed with that date. The British Museum Library Catalogue shows, however, that this work was inscribed as having been published in ““ An IX.” of the French Revolu- tionary Calendar, which ran from September 1800 to September 1801. Accordingly, unless precise information could be obtained as to when in ““An IX” Draparnaud’s Tableau was published, it would be necessary to treat all names in that work as having been published in the period “* 1800—1801 ”’, that date being cited in square brackets (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 225—226). Fortunately, Mr. Ellis has been able to establish the exact date of publication of the Tableau, for he has reported that that work bears the date “25 Messidor, An IX”’, ie. 14th July 1801. Accordingly, names published in the Tableau are correctly attributable to the year 1801, but under the decision referred to above, it will be necessary, when citing names published in that work, to place square brackets round the date cited. (ec) Date attributable to Draparnaud’s ‘‘ Hist. nat. Moll. France ”’, a work commonly cited as bearing the date ‘‘ 1805 ”’ 7. Like Draparnaud’s Tableau, discussed in Note (d) above, that author’s Histoire naturelle des Mollusques terrestres et fluviatiles de la France, is commonly (but incorrectly) cited as bearing a date calculated by reference to the Christian Era, whereas in fact the date which it bears was calculated in accordance with the French Revolutionary Calendar. The date commonly attributed to this work is ‘“* 1805’, but the date which it actually bears is ““An XIII ”’, a period which ran from September 1804 to September i805. Accordingly, if no further evidence were available, it would be necessary, when citing names published in this work to attribute to them the date 1804—1805 and (for the reason explained in Note (d) above) to place the date so cited in square brackets. On ascertaining that the normal method of dating this work was incorrect, I applied to Mr. Ellis for assistance in clearing up this matter. Fortunately, he has been able to do this in a most satisfactory manner, for he reports that the question of the date to be attributed to this work was investigated in 1897 by Locard (Ann. Soc. Agric. Lyon (7) 4 : 9), who showed that this work of Draparnaud’s was published some time in the year 1805. It is possible, therefore, to retain the conventionally accepted date for the Hist. nat. Moll. France, but, as in the case of the Tableau, it will be necessary, when citing names published in it, to place square brackets round the date cited. (f) The generic name ‘‘ Conulus ’’ Fitzinger, 1833 8. In addition to the points regarding which I have had corre- spondence with Mr. Ellis, there is one other that requires to be noted. This arises in connection with Mr. Ellis’s proposal that the name Euconulus Reinhardt, 1883, should be placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. This generic name was brought forward by Reinhardt as a substitute for the name Conulus Fitzinger, 1833 70 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS (Beitr. Landesk. Oesterr. Enns 3 : 94), which is invalid by reason of being a junior homonym of Conulus Leske, 1778 (Addit. J. T. Klein. nat. Dispositio Echinodermat.: xviii & 161). Under the General Directive issued to the Commission by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948, that it is to place on the appropriate Official Lists and Official Indexes every name which in any Opinion it declares to be an available name, or, as the case may be, which it rejects as an invalid name, it is necessary now that the name Conulus Fitzinger, 1833, should be placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. (g) Issue of Directions 9. For the reasons set out in the preceding paragraphs, I now, as Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature, hereby direct that, in compliance with the General Directive issued to the Commission by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948, the following additions be made to the under- mentioned Official Lists and Official Indexes and that the entries so made be included in the Ruling to be given in the Opinion embodying the decision taken by the Commission in regard to Mr. Ellis’s applica- tion when it voted on Voting Paper V.P.(54)8 :— (a) To be placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology :— Conulus Fitzinger, 1833 (a junior homonym of Conulus Leske, WTS (b) To be placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology :— minutissima Lea, 1841, as published in the combination Helix minutissima (specific name of type species of Punctum Morse, 1864) ; (c) To be placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology :— otis Turton, 1819, as published in the combination Helix otis (a junior primary homonym of otis Solander, 1786, as published in the combination Helix otis). 10. Having regard to the fact that, as shown in paragraph 3 of the present Minute, the name Clausilia Draparnaud, [1805], has already been placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology by the Ruling given in Opinion 119, I hereby direct :— (1) that the proposal relating to the generic name Clausilia Drap- arnaud [1805], be treated as having been withdrawn from the application submitted by Mr. A. E. Ellis ; OPINION 335 71 (2) that the discrepancy between the species cited as the type species of the foregoing genus in Opinion 119 and that similarly cited in Mr. Ellis’s application be investigated on Commission File Z.N.(S.) 872 and a report thereon be submitted to the Commission as soon as possible ; (3) that, pending the outcome of the investigation referred to in (2) (above, (a) the specific name bidentatus Strdm, 1765, as published in the combination Turbo bidentatus, be not placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology and (b) the name bidens Montagu, 1803, as published in the combination Turbo bidens, be not placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology. 13. Preparation of the Ruling given in the present ‘‘ Opinion ”’ : On 4th October 1954 Mr. Hemming prepared the Ruling given in the present Opinion and at the same time signed a Certificate that the terms of that Ruling were in complete accord with those of the proposal approved by the International Commission in its Vote on Voting Paper V.P.(54)8, subject to the modifications specified in paragraphs 9 and 10 of the Minute by the Secretary reproduced in paragraph 12 of the present Opinion. 14. The following are the original references for the names placed on Official Lists and Official Indexes by the Ruling given in the present Opinion :— Abida Turton, 1831, Manual land & fresh-water Shells brit. Islands : 101 Acanthinula Beck, 1847, Amtl. Ber. 24 Versamml. deutsch. Naturf. u. Aertze Kiel : 122 acicula, Buccinum, Muller (O.F.), 1774, Verm. terrestr. fluviat. Hist. 2 : 150 aculeata, Helix, Muller (O.F.), 1774, Verm. terrestr. fluviat. Hist. 2281 amnica, Tellina, Muller (O.F.), 1774, Verm. terrestr. fluviat. Hist. D205 | Aplexa Fleming, 1820, in Brewster’s Edinburgh Ency. 14 : 617 arbustorum, Helix, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 771 Arianta Turton, 1831, Manual land & fresh-water Shells brit. Islands : 35 Ve OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS Arion Férussac (A.E.J.P.J.F. @A. de) 1819, Hist. nat. gén. partic. Moll. terrestr. fluviat. France 2 : 50, 53 ater, Limax, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 652 Azeca Fleming, 1828, Hist. brit. Anim. : 269 Balea Gray (J. E.), 1824, Zool. J. 1 : 61 Carychium Miller (O.F.), 1774, Verm. terrestr. fluviat. Hist.2 : 125 Cecilioides Férussac (A.E.J.P.J.F. d’A. de), 1814, Mém. geol. Terr. formés Debris foss. Moll. : 48 cinctella, Helix, Draparnaud, [1801], Tab/. Moll. terrestr. fluviat. France : 81 Cochlicella Férussac (A.E.J.P.J.F. d’A. de), 1821, Tabl. syst. Anim. moll. terrestr. fluviat. : 56 3 conoidea, Helix, Draparnaud, [1801], Tabl. Moll. terrestr. fluviat. France : 68 Conulus Fitzinger, 1833, Beitr. Landesk. Oesterreich Enns 3 : 94 Corbicula Megerle von Muehlfeld, 1811, Mag. Ges. Naturf. Freunde Berlin 5 : 56 cristata, Valvata, Muller (O.F.), 1774, Verm. terrestr. fluviat. Hist. 2 2198 cylindraceus, Turbo, da Costa, 1778, Hist. nat. Testac. Brit. : 89 decollata, Helix, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 773 diaphana, Helix, Studer, 1820, Meisner’s Naturw. Anz. Allg. Schweiz. Ges. 3 : 86 (also as separate with title: Syst. Verz. schweiz. Conch. : 13) Discus Fitzinger, 1833, Beitr. Landesk. Oesterreich. Enns 3 : 99 Euconulus Reinhardt, 1883, SitzBer. Ges. Naturf. Freunde Berlin 1883 : 86 fluminalis, Tellina, Muller (O.F.), 1774, Verm. terrestr. fluviat. ist: 2 = 205 fluviatilis, Nerita, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1: 777 fulva, Helix, Muller (O.F.), 1774, Verm. terrestr. fluviat. Hist. 2 : 56 gagates, Limax, Draparnaud, [1801], Tabl. Moll. terrestr. fluviat. France : 100 Geomalacus Allman, 1843, Athenaeum 1843 : 851 goodalli, Helix (Cochlodonta), Férussac (A.E.J.P.J.F. d’A. de), 1821, Zabl. syst. Anim. moll. terrestr. fluviat. : 75 Hygromia Risso, 1826, Hist. nat. princip. Product. Europ. mérid. 4:66 hypnorum, Bulla, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 727 Lauria Gray (J. E.), 1840, in Turton, Manual land & fresh-water _ Shells brit. Islands (ed. 2) : 193 OPINION 335 73 linearis, Pupa (Truncatellina), Lowe, 1852, Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. Oy) 9 +275 maculosus, Geomalacus, Allman, 1843, Athenaeum 1843 : 851 Milax Gray (J. E.), 1855, Cat. Pulmonata brit. Mus. 1 : 174 minimum, Carychium, Miller (O. F.), 1774, Verm. terrestr. fluviat. Hist. 2°: 125 minutissima, Helix, Lea, 1841, Trans. amer. aa, Soc O17 muscorum, Turbo, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 767 nitida, Helix, Miiller (O. F.), 1774, Verm. terrestr. fluviat. Hist. Zee 32 nitidus, Planorbis, Miller (O. F.), 1774, Verm. terrestr. fluviat. idist. 2 + 163 octonus, Bulimus, Bruguiére, 1789, Ency. méth., Vers 1(1) : 325 olivetorum, Helix, Gmelin, [1791], in Linnaeus, Syst. Nat. (ed. 13) 1(6) : 3639 Otina Gray (J. E.), 1847, Proc. zool. Soc. Lond. 15 : 156 otis, Helix, Turton, 1819, Conch. Dict. brit. Islands : 70 ovatum, Galericulum, Brown, 1827, III. Conch. Gt. Brit. : pl. 38; figs. 27, 28 (pl. re-issued in 1844 in 2nd Ed. as pl. 19 with descr. on p. 23) perversus, Turbo, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 767 Pisidium Pfeiffer, 1821, Naturgesch. deutsch. Land- u. Siisswasser- Mollusken 1 : 17, 123 Planorbis Miller (O. F.), 1774, Verm. terrestr. fluviat. Hist. 2 : 152 planorbis, Helix, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 769 pulchella, Helix, Miller (O. F.), 1774, Verm. terrestr. fluviat. Hist. 22 30 Punctum Morse, 1864, /. Portland Soc. 1 : 5, 27 Pupilla Fleming, 1828, Hist. brit. Anim. : 268 pusilla, Vertigo, Miller (O. F.), 1774, Verm. terrestr. fluviat. Hist. Pie 124 Pyramidula ree 1833, Beitr. Landesk. Oesterreich. Enns $295 Retinella Fischer, 1877, Shuttleworth’s Notitiae malac. 2 : 5 ruderata, Helix, Férussac (A.E.J.P.J.F. d’A. de), 1821, Tabl. syst. Anim. moll. terrestr. fluviat. : 44 Rumina Risso, 1826, Hist. nat. princip. Product. Europ. mérid. 4:79 rupestris, Helix, Draparnaud, [1801], Tab/. Moll. terrestr. fluviat. France : 7\ 74 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS secale, Pupa, Draparnaud, [1801], Tabl. Moll. terrestr. fluviat. France : 59 Segmentina Fleming, 1818, Ency. brit. Suppl. 4th, 5th & 6th Eds. 3 : 309 Subulina Beck, 1837, Index Moll. Mus. Princip. Christ. Fred. : 76 Theodoxus Montfort, 1810, Conchyl. syst. 2 : 351 Truncatellina Lowe, 1852, Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (2) 9 : 275 Vallonia Risso, 1826, Hist. nat. princip. Product. Europ. meérid. 4:101 Valvata Miller (O. F.), 1774, Verm. terrestr. fluviat. Hist. 2 : 198 Vertigo Muller (O. F.), 1774, Verm. terrestr. fluviat. Hist. 2 : 124 Vitrea Fitzinger, 1833, Beitr. Landesk. Oesterrich. Enns 3 : 99 Zonitoides Lehmann, 1862, Malak. Blatter 9 : 111 15. The following are the references to the places where type species were selected, Rule (g) in Article 30, for the under- mentioned nominal genera, the names of which have been placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology by the Ruling given in the present Opinion :— Pisidium Pfeiffer, 1821 : Gray (J.E.), 1847, Proc. zool. Soc. Lond. 15 2.185 Acanthinula Beck, 1847 : Martens, 1860, in Albers, Die Heliceen (edie2) = xan 10s Arion Férussac (A.E.J.P.J.F. dA. de), 1819: Fleming, 1822, Ency. brit. Suppl. 4th, 5th & 6th Eds. 5 : 572 : Balea Gray (J.E.), 1824 : Herrmannsen, 1846, Indic. Gen. Malacoz. Primordia 1 : 103 Cochlicella Férussac (A.E.J.P.J.F. dA. de), 1821: Gray (J.E.), 1847, Proc. zool. Soc. Lond. 15 : 173 Discus Fitzinger, 1833 : Gray (J.E.), 1847, Proc. zool. Soc. Lond. 15 : 174 Euconulus Reinhardt, 1883: Gray (J.E.), 1847, Proc. zool. Soc. Lond. 15 : 173 (selection made for Conulus Fitzinger, 1833, and applicable, under Ruie (f) of Article 30, to Euconulus Reinhardt, 1883, through that name being a nom. noy. for Conulus Fitzinger) Hygromia Risso, 1826 : Herrmannsen, 1847, Indic. Gen. Malacoz. Primordia 1 : 547 OPINION 335 AS Lauria Gray (J.E.), 1840 : Herrmannsen, 1847, Indic. Gen.Malacoz. Primordia 1 : 578 Milax Gray (J.E.), 1855 : Hesse, 1926, Abh. Archiv. Molluskenk. Bi 3)\ Retinella Fischer, 1877 : Kobelt, 1879, Mustr. Conchylienbuch : 223 Subulina Beck, 1837: Gray (J.E.), 1847, Proc. zool. Soc. Lond. 153177. 16. The application dealt with in the present Opinion was published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature prior to the establishment of the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology by the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology, Copenhagen, 1953. It has not been possible since then to deal with this aspect of the present case. This question is however now being examined on a separate File to which the Registered Number Z.N.(G)78 has been allotted. 17. At the time of the submission of the original application dealt with in the present Opinion, the expression prescribed for the second portion of the binomen which constitutes the scientific name of a species was the expression “ trivial name” and the Official List reserved for recording such names was styled the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology, the word “ trivial ”’ appearing also in the title of the Official Index reserved for recording rejected and invalid names of this category. Under a decision taken by the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology, Copenhagen, 1953, the expression “specific name ”’ was submitted for the expression “ trivial name ” and correspond- ing changes were made in the titles of the Official List and Official Index of such names (1953, Copenhagen Decisions zool. Nomencl. : 21). The changes in terminology so adopted have been incor- porated in the Ruling given in the present Opinion. 18. The prescribed procedures were duly complied with by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature in dealing with the present case, and the present Opinion is accordingly hereby rendered in the name of the said International Commission 76 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS by the under-signed Francis Hemming, Secretary to the Inter- national Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, in virtue of all and every the powers conferred upon him in that behalf. 19. The present Opinion shall be known as Opinion Three Hundred and Thirty-Five (335) of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Done in London, this Fourth day of October, Nineteen Hundred and Fifty-Four. Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature FRANCIS HEMMING Printed in England by MetrcaLFe & Cooper LimiTep, 10-24 Scrutton St., London E C 2 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTER- NATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Edited by FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E. Secretary to the Commission VOLUME 10. Part 3. Pp. 77—108 OPINION 336 Addition to the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology of the specific names of one hundred and twenty-two non-marine species of the Phylum Mollusca “HSON aS (x VlayN : APR 22 1955.) hd LIBRARY 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 1955 Price Sixteen shillings (All rights reserved) Issued 17th March, 1955 INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE COMPOSITION AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THE RULING GIVEN IN OPINION 336 A. The Officers of the Commission Honorary Life President : Dr. Karl Jordan (British Museum (Natural History), Zoological Museum, Tring, Herts., England) President : Professor James Chester Bradley (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) Vice-President : Senhor Dr. Afranio do Amaral (Sao Paulo, Brazil) (12th August 1953) Secretary : Mr. Francis Hemming (London, England) (27th July 1948) B. The Members of the Commission (arranged in order of precedence by reference to date of election or of most recent re-election, as prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology) Professor H. BOscHMA (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) (Ast January 1947) Senor Dr. Angel CABRERA (Eva Peron, F.C.N.G.R., Argentina) (27th July 1948) Mr. Francis HEMMING (London, England) (27th July 1948) (Secretary) Dr. Joseph PEARSON (Tasmania Museum, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia) (27th July 1948) Dr. Henning LEMCHE (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark) (27th July 1948) Professor Teiso Esaki (Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan) (17th April 1950) Professor Pierre BONNET (Université de Toulouse, France) (9th June 1950) Mr. Norman Denbigh RILeEy (British Museum (Natural History) London) (9th June 1950) Professor Tadeusz JACZEWSKI (Unstitute of Zoology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland) (A5th June 1950) Professor Robert MERTENS (Natur-Museum u. Forschungs-Institut Senckenberg, Frankfurt a. M., Germany) (5th July 1950) Professor Erich Martin HERING (Zoologisches Museum der Humboldt-Universitat zu Berlin, Germany) (5th July 1950) Senhor Dr. Afranio do AMARAL (S. Paulo, Brazil) (12th August 1953) (Hex President) ee J. R. DyMOND (University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada) (12th August 1953 Professor J. Chester BRADLEY (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) (President) Professor Harold E. Vokes (Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) Professor Béla HANKO (Mezdgazdasdgi Muzeum Budapest, Hungary) (\12th August 1953) Dr. Norman R. STOLL (Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, New York, N.Y., U.S.A. (12th August 1953) Mr. P. C. SYLVESTER-BRADLEY (Sheffield University, Sheffield, England) (12th August 1953) Dr. L. B. HoLtuHuts (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Nether- lands (12th August 1953) OPINION 336 ADDITION TO THE ‘OFFICIAL LIST OF SPECIFIC NAMES IN ZOOLOGY ” OF THE SPECIFIC NAMES OF ONE HUNDRED AND TWENTY-TWO NON-MARINE SPECIES OF THE PHYLUM MOLLUSCA RULING :—(1) The under-mentioned specific names of non-marine species of the Class Gastropoda are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Nos. 324 to 425 respectively :— 1 LX) (i) acuta Draparnaud, [1805], as published in the combination Physa acuta ; (11) albus Miller (O.F.), 1774, as published in the combination Planorbis albus ; (iii) alfiaria Miller, 1822, as published in the com- bination Helix alliaria ; (iv) alpestris Alder, 1838, as published in the com- bination Vertigo alpestris ; (v) anglicus Wood, 1828, as published in the com- bination Turbo anglicus ; (vi) angustior Jeffreys, 1830, as published in the combination Vertigo angustior ; (vil) antivertigo Draparnaud, [1801]?, as published in the combination Pupa antivertigo ; Draparnaud’s Histoire naturelle des Mollusques terrestres et fluviatiles de la France was published in the French Revolutionary Year known as “‘An XIII ”’, i.e. in the period September 1804 to September 1805. It has been established by Locard (1897, Ann. Soc. Agric. Lyon (7) 4 : 9) that this work was published in the year 1805. See also paragraph 7 of a Minute by Mr. Hemming, dated 4th October 1954, reproduced in paragraph 12 of Opinion 335 (page 69 of the present volume). Draparnaud’s Tableau des Mollusques terrestres et fluviatiles de la France was published on “* 25 Messidor An IX ”’ in the French Revolutionary Calendar, i.e. on 14th July 1801. See also paragraph 6 of the Secretary’s Minute of an 1954 referred to in Footnote 1 above (page 68 of the present volume). 80 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS (viii) arenaria Bouchard-Chantereaux, 1837, as pub- lished in the combination Succinea arenaria ; (ix) aspersa Miller (O. F.), 1774, as published in the combination Helix aspersa ; (x) auricularia Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Helix auricularia ; (xi) biplicatus Montagu, 1803, as published in the combination Turbo biplicatus ; (xii) cantiana Montagu, 1803, as published in the combination Helix cantiana ; (xiii) carinatus Miller (O.F.), 1774, as published in the combination Planorbis carinatus ; (xiv) cinereoniger Wolf, 1803, as published in the combination Limax cinereo-niger ; (xv) circumscriptus Johnston, 1828, as published in the combination Arion circumscriptus ; (xvi) complanata Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Helix complanata ; (xvil) contorta Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Helix contorta ; (xvili) cornea Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Helix cornea ; (xix) costata Miiller (O.F.), 1774, as published in the combination Helix costata ; (xx) crista Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the com- bination Nautilus crista ; (xxi) crystallina Miller (O.F.), 1774, as published in the combination Helix crystallina ; (xxii) cylindrica Férussac, 1807, as published in the combination Vertigo cylindrica ; (xxiii) detrita Miiller (O.F.), 1774, as published in the combination Helix detrita ; (xxiv) dilatatus Gould, 1841, as published in the combination Planorbis dilatatus ; OPINION 336 81 (xxv) draparnaudi (correction of draparnaldi) Beck, 1837, as published in the combination Heli- cella draparnaldi ; (xxvi) dubia Draparnaud, [1805], as published in the combination Clausilia dubia ; (xxvil) edentula Draparnaud, [1805], as published in the combination Pupa edentula ; (xxviii) e/egans Gmelin, [1791], as published in the com- bination Helix elegans ; (xxix) elegans Risso, 1826, as published in the com- bination Succinea elegans ; (xxx) excavata Alder, 1830, as published in the combination Helix excavata ; (xxxi) flavus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Limax flavus ; (xxx) fontinalis Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Bulla fontinalis ; (xxxill) fuscus Montagu, 1803, as published in the combination Turbo fuscus ; (xxxiv) gigaxii Pfeiffer (L.), 1850, as published in the combination Helix gigaxii ; (xxxv) glabrum Miiller (O.F.), 1774, as published in the combination Buccinum glabrum ; (xxxvi) granulata Alder, 1830, as published in the com- bination Helix granulata ; (xxxvil) hispida Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the com- bination Helix hispida ; (xxxvili) hortensis Férussac, 1819, as published in the combination Arion hortensis ; (xxx1x) fortensis Miiller (O.F.), 1774, as published in the combination Helix hortensis ; OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS (xl) incarnata Miiller (O.F.), 1774, as published in the combination Helix incarnata ; (xli) intermedius Normand, 1852, as published in the combination Arion intermedius ; (xlii) Jactea Miiller (O.F.), 1774, as published in the combination Helix lactea ; (xliil) /aevis Alder, 1838, as published in the com- bination Planorbis laevis ; (xliv) lamellata Jeffreys, 1830, as published in the combination Helix lamellata ; (xlv) laminatus Montagu, 1803, as published in the combination Turbo laminatus ; (xlvi) lapicida Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Helix lapicida ; (xlvii) Jens Férussac, [1832], as published in the com- bination Helix lens ; (xlviii) Jilljeborgi Westerlund, 1871, as published in the combination Pupa (Vertigo) lilljeborgi ; (xlix) Jubrica Miller (O.F.), 1774, as published in the combination Helix lubrica ; (1) major Férussac, 1807, as published in the com- bination Helicolimax major ; (li) marginata Michaud, 1831, as published in the combination Paludina marginata ; (ii) maximus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Limax maximus ; (litt) minuscula Binney, 1840, as published in the combination Helix minuscula ; (liv) moulinsiana Dupuy, 1849, as published in the combination Pupa moulinsiana ; (lv) naticina Menke, 1845, as published in the combination Valvata naticina ; (lvi) neglecta Draparnaud, [1805], as published in the combination Helix neglecta ; OPINION 336 83 (vit) nemoralis Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Helix nemoralis ; (lviit) nitidula Draparnaud, [1805], as published in the combination Helix nitidula ; (lix) oblonga Draparnaud, [1801], as published in the combination Succinea oblonga ; (Ix) obvoluta Miller (O.F.), 1774, as published in the combination Helix obvoluta ; (1x1) palustre Miiller (O.F.), 1774, as published in the combination Buccinum palustre ; (Ixii) parallelus Say, 1821, as published in the com- bination Planorbis parallelus ; (Ixii) parvula Férussac, 1807, as published in the com- bination Clausilia parvula ; (xiv) patulum Draparnaud, [1801], as published in the combination Cyclostoma patulum ; (Ixv) pellucida Miiller (O.F.), 1774, as published in the combination Helix pellucida ; (xvi) peregrum Miller (O.F.), 1774, as published in the combination Buccinum peregrum ; (Ixvii) petronella Pfeiffer (L.), 1853, as published in the combination Helix petronella ; (xviii) piscinalis Miller (O.F.), 1774, as published in the combination Nerita piscinalis ; (xix) pomatia Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Helix pomatia ; (Ixx) pumila Pfeiffer (C.), 1828, as published in the combination Clausilia pumila ; (xxi) pura Alder, 1830, as published in the combina- tion Helix pura ; (Ixxii) putris Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the com- bination Helix putris ; (xxi) pygmaea Draparnaud, [1801], as published in the combination Helix pygmaea ; 84 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS (Ixxiv) pygmaea Draparnaud, [1801], as published in the combination Pupa pygmaea ; (Ixxv) pyramidata Draparnaud, [1805], as published in the combination Helix pyramidata ; (Ixxvi) pyrenaica Férussac, 1821, as published in the combination Helicolimax pyrenaica ; (Ixxvii) guadridens Miller (O.F.), 1774, as published in the combination Helix quadridens ; (xxviii) radigueli Bourguignat, 1869, as published in the combination Lartetia radigueli ; (Ixxix) reticulatus Miler (O.F.), 1774, as published in the combination Limax reticulatus ; (Ixxx) rolphii Turton, 1831, as published in the com- bination Clausilia rolphii ; (Ixxxi) rotundata Miller (O.F.), 1774, as published in the combination Helix rotundata ; (Ixxxul) runtoniana Sandberger, 1880, as published in the combination Nematurella runtoniana ; (Ixxxiit) scutulum Sowerby (G.B.), 1821, as published in — the combination Testacellus scutulum ; (Ixxxiv) septemspiralis Razoumowsky, 1789, as published in the combination Helix septemspiralis ; (Ixxxv) similis Bruguiére, [1792], as published in the combination Bulimus similis ; (Ixxxvi) sowerbyi (correction of sowerbii) Férussac, 1823, as published in the combination Limax sowerbii ; (Ixxxvil) stagnalis Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Helix stagnalis ; (Ixxxviil) striata Miller (O.F.), 1774, as published in the combination Helix striata ; (Ixxxxix) striolata Pfeiffer (C.), 1828, as published in the combination Helix striolata ; OPINION 336 85 (xc) subfuscus Draparnaud, [1805], as published in the combination Limax subfuscus ; (xci) subrufescens Miller, 1822, as published in the combination Helix subrufescens ; (xcii) substriata Jeffreys, 1833, as published in the combination Alaea substriata ; (xcii) subvirescens Bellamy, 1839, as published in the combination Helix subvirescens ; (xciv) tenellus Miiller (O.F.), 1774, as published in the combination Limax tenellus ; (xcv) truncatulum Miiller (O.F.), 1774, as published in the combination Buccinum truncatulum ; (xcvi) u/yae Pennant, 1777, as published in the com- bination Turbo ulvae ; | (xcvil) umbrosa Pfeiffer (C.), 1828, as published in the combination Helix umbrosa ; (xcvill) ventricosa Draparnaud, [1801], as published in the combination Pupa ventricosa ; (xcix) vermiculata Miiller (O.F.), 1774, as published in the combination Helix vermiculata ; (c) virgata da Costa, 1778, as published in the combination Cochlea virgata ; (ci) vortex Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Helix vortex ; (cii) vorticulus Troschel, 1834, as published in the combination Planorbis vorticulus. (2) The under-mentioned specific names of non-marine species of the Class Pelecypoda are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Nos. 426 to 445 respectively :— (i) anatinus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Mytilus anatinus ; (ii) cornea Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the com- bination Tellina cornea ; 86 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS (iii) crassus Philipsson, 1788, as published in the combination Unio crassus ; (iv) cygneus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Mytilus cygneus ; (v) henslowana Sheppard, [1823], as published in the combination Tellina henslowana ; (v1) lacustris Miller (O.F.), 1774, as published in the combination Tellina lacustris : (vii) /ittoralis Cuvier, 1797, as published in the com- bination Unio littoralis ; (vill) milium Held, 1836, as published in the com- bination Pisidium ‘milium : (ix) moitessierianum Paladilhe, 1866, as cubliche’ 4 in the combination Pisidium moitessierianum ; (x) nitidum Jenyns, 1832, as. published in the com- bination Pisidium nitidum ; (x1) obtusalis Lamarck, 1818, as published in the combination Cyclas obtusalis ; (xu) pulchellum Jenyns, 1832, as published in the combination Pisidium pulchellum ; (xiii) rivicola Lamarck, 1818, as published in the combination Cyclas rivicola ; (xiv) solida Normand, 1844, as published in the com- bination Cyclas solida ; (xv) subtruncatum Malm, 1855, as published in the combination Pisidium subtruncatum ; (xvi) supinum Schmidt, [Feb. 1851], as published in the combination Pisidium supinum ; (xvi) tenuilineatum Stelfox, 1918, as published in the combination Pisidium tenuilineatum ; (xvill) transversa Say, 1829, as published in the com- bination Cyclas transversa ; (xix) tumidus Philipsson, 1788, as published in the combination Unio tumidus ; OPINION 336 87 (xx) vincentianum Woodward, 1913, as published in the combination Pisidium vincentianum. (3) The under-mentioned specific names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Nos. I11 to 114 respectively :— (i) draparnaldi Beck, 1837, as published in the com- bination Helicella draparnaldi (an Invalid Ori- ginal Spelling for draparnaudi) ; (ii) Henslowensis Turton, 1831, as published in the combination Tellina henslowensis (an Invalid Emendation of henslowana Sheppard, 1825, as published in the combination Tellina henslowana) ; (ii) Henslowianum Jenyns, 1832, as published in the combination Pisidium henslowianum (an. Invalid Emendation of henslowana Sheppard, 1825, as published in the combination Tel/lina henslow- ana) ; (iv) sowerbii Férussac, 1823, as published in the com- bination Limax sowerbii (an Invalid Original Spelling for sowerbyi). I—THE STATEMENT OF THE CASE The present is the second of two applications aiming at the stabilisation of the names of non-marine species of the Classes Gastropoda and Pelecypoda submitted to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature by Mr. A. E. Ellis (Epsom College, Epsom, Surrey, England). The first of these applications was concerned with the stabilisation of the names of a large number of genera belonging to the foregoing groups by the addition of those names to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. Subject to the postponement of certain of the names 88 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS concerned for further examination, the foregoing application has been approved by the Commission, whose decision in that case has been embodied in Opinion 335. The present application, which was submitted by Mr. Ellis on 9th April 1950, is concerned with the stabilisation of the names of a large number of species belonging to the same group as that covered by Mr. Ellis’s other application. After the receipt of the present application, consulta- tions ensued between the Secretary to the Commission and Mr. Ellis as regards certain of the names concerned. These consultations were completed by the autumn of 1950, and on 19th October of that year, the text of Mr. Ellis’s application was finally settled. The application so revised was as follows :— Proposed addition to the ‘* Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology ’’ of the names of certain non-marine species in the Phylum Mollusca By A. E. ELLIS (Epsom College, Surrey, England) I submit herewith, for addition to the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology, the following trivial names of non-marine species in the Phylum Mollusca. I have satisfied myself that each of these names is an available name and is currently accepted by specialists as the oldest available name, and therefore the valid name, for the taxonomic species that it represents. 2. Where in the following list there are several trivial names originally published in the same work, I have thought it convenient to cite the title of the work once only, in a list appended at the end of the applica- tion. In each such case I have confined the reference given in the actual list to the name of the author, the date of publication and the page on which the specific trivial name in question appeared in the work in question, the page number being here cited in round brackets (parentheses). CLAss GASTROPODA Specific Trivial Name Original Combination acuta Draparnaud, 1805 (55) .. bad .. | Physa acuta albus Miller (O.F.), 1774 (164) ie Planorbis albus alliaria Miller, 1822 ae Phil. oe series) 33.379) et, Helix alliaria OPINION 336 89 CLass GASTROPODA continued Specific Trivial Name alpestris Alder, 1838 (Trans. nat. Hist. Soc. Northumb. 2 : 340) anglicus Wood, 1828 (Index T estaceologicus, seppi.. :- 19)... angustior Jeffreys, 1830 (T rans. linn. Soc. Lond. f62 361)... as ae antivertigo Draparnaud, 1801 (57) arenaria Bouchard-Chantereaux, 1837 (Mem. Soc. Agric. Boulogne, (2) 1 : 190).. aspersa Miiller (O.F.), 1774 (59) auricularia Linnaeus, 1758 (774) biplicatus Montagu, 1803 (361) cantiana Montagu, 1803 (422) . carinatus Miiller (O.F.), 1774 (157) cinereoniger Wolf, 1803 (Sturm’s Deutschlands Fauna 6 (Hft. 1) : 7. circumscriptus Johnston, 1828 (Edin. New. Phil. Ws 16) complanata Linnaeus, 1758 (769) contorta Linnaeus, 1758 (770) . cornea Linnaeus, 1758 CFIO). 2": costata Miiller (O.F.), 1774 (31) crista Linnaeus, 1758 (709) ve crystallina Miiller (O.F.), 1774 (23) cylindrica Férussac, 1807 (52) .. detrita Miiller (O. eh), 1774 (101) : dilatatus Gould, 1841 Unvertebrata of Massa- chusetts : 210) draparnaldi Beck, 1837 (Index Molluscorum, Spec. Nov. : 7) $3 dubia Draparnaud, 1805 (70) edentula Draparnaud, 1805 (59) elegans Gmelin, [1791] (Syst. Nat. (ed. 13) 1 : 3642 elegans Risso, 4; 59) excavatus Alder, 1830 (Trans. ‘nat. Hist. Soc. Northumb. 1:38) .. oe fasciata Miiller (O.F.), 1774 (182) flavus Linnaeus, 1758 (652) oy fontinalis Linnaeus, 1758 (727) fuscus Montagu, 1803 (330) gigaxi Pfeiffer, 1850 (Zeitschr. f. Malakozool. fu2 85) glabrum Miiller (O. F. ), 1774 (129) 1826 (Hist. nat. Eur. mérid. Original Combination Vertigo alpestris Turbo anglicus Vertigo angustior Pupa antivertigo Succinea arenaria Helix aspersa Helix auricularia Turbo biplicatus Helix cantiana Planorbis carinatus Limax cinereoniger Arion circumscriptus Helix complanata Helix contorta Helix cornea Helix costata Nautilus crista Helix crystallina Vertigo cylindrica Helix detrita Planorbis dilatatus Helicella draparnaldi Clausilia dubia Pupa edentula Helix elegans Succinea elegans Helix excavata Nerita fasciata Limax flavus Bulla fontinalis Turbo fuscus Helix gigaxi Buccinum glabrum 90 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS CLass GASTROPODA continued Specific Trivial Name granulata Alder, 1830 (Trans. nat. Hist. Soc. Northumb. 1: 39) hispida Linnaeus, 1758 (771) hortensis Férussac, LS TON 22705) hortensis Miiller (O.F.), 1774 (52) incarnata Miiller (O.F.), 1774 (63) intermedius Normand, 1852 ee iption de six Limaces nouvelles : 6) lactea Miller (O.F.), 1774 (19) laevis Alder, 1838 (Trans. nat. Hist. Soc. North- umb. 2 : 337) lamellata Jeffreys, 1830 (T. rans. linn. Soc. Lond. LGN SBS) ie aS laminatus Montagu, 1803 1359)” lapicida Linnaeus, 1758 (768) .. Cae aes 1823 ne rans. linn. Soc. Lond. Poll sy) uae lens Pee 1821 (41) lilljeborgi Westerlund, 1871 (Nova Acta Soc. Sci. Upsala, (3) 8 (No. 1) : 90) lubrica Miller (O.F.), 1774 (104) major Férussac, 1807 (43) marginata Michaud, 1831] (Complément de I’ Histoire naturelle des Mollusques : 98) maximus Linnaeus, 1758 (652) . minuscula Binney, 1840 (Boston J. nat. Hist. : 435) moulinsiana Dupuy, 1849 (Catalogue extramari- norum Galliae Testaceorum :4) . naticina Menke, 1845 (Z. f. Malakozool. 2: neglecta Draparnaud, 1805 (108) nemoralis Linnaeus, 1758 (773) nitidula Draparnaud, 1805 (117) oblonga Draparnaud, 1801 (56) obvoluta Miller (O.F.), 1774 (27) palustre Miller (O.F.), 1774 (131) be dak Say, 1821 (J. Acad. nat. Sci. Philad. : 164) oe ae Férussac, 1807 (111) patulum Draparnaud, 1801 (39) pellucida Miller (O.F.), 1774 (15) peregrum Miller (O.F.), 1774 (130) petronella Pfeiffer, 1853 es Heliceo- rum yiventium 3 : 95) 129) Original Combination Helix granulata Helix hispida Arion hortensis Helix hortensis Helix incarnata Arion intermedius Helix lactea Planorbis laevis Helix lamellata Turbo laminatus Helix lapicida Turbo leachi Helix lens Pupa (Vertigo) lillje- borgi Helix lubrica Helicolimax major Paludina marginata Limax maximus Helix minuscula Pupa moulinsiana Valvata naticina Helix neglecta Helix nemoralis Helix nitidula Succinea oblonga Helix obvoluta Buccinum palustre Planorbis parallelus Clausilia parvula Cyclostoma patulum Helix pellucida Buccinum peregrum Helix petronella OPINION 336 MM CLAass GASTROPODA continued Specific Trivial Name piscinalis Miller (O.F.), 1774 (172) pomatia Linnaeus, 1758 (771) . pumila Pfeiffer, 1828 (Naturgeschichte deutsch. Land- und Siisswasser-Mollusken 3 : 41) . pura Alder, 1830 (Trans. nat. Hist. Soc. North- umb. 1: 36) putris Linnaeus, 1758 (774) pygmaea Draparnaud, 1801 (57) pygmaea Draparnaud, 1801 (93) pyramidata Draparnaud, 1805 (80) pyrenaica Férussac, 1821 (25) quadridens Miiller (O.F.), 1774 (107) radigueli Bourguignat, 1869 (Catal. Moll. Paris 16 Sy, reticulatus Miiller (O. F), 1774 (10) ey rolphi Turton, 1831 (Manual of the Land and Fresh-water Shells of the British Islands : 71) _ rotundata Miller (O.F.), 1774 (29) runtoniana Sandberger, 1880 (Palaeontog eraphica 27 : 98) es ae af, scutulum Sowerby, 1821 (Genera of Recent and Fossil Shells, pt. 1, Testacellus, Figs. 3—6) septemspiralis Razoumowsky, 1789 ae naturelle du Jorat 1 : 278) Ay similis Bruguiere, 1792 (Ency. méth., "(Vers.) fee 355) sowerbyi Férussac, 1823 (Hist. nat. Moll. 2 : 96) stagnalis Linnaeus, 1758 (774) i striata Miller (O.F.), 1774 (38) Striolata Pfeiffer, 1828 (Naturg. deutsch. Land- and Siissw.-Mollusk. 3 : 28) 4 subfuscus Draparnaud, 1805 (125) subrufescens Miller, 1822 (Ann. Phil. (new ser.) 3 : 43) substriata Jeffreys, 1833 (T. vans. linn. Soc. Lond. HG 515). subvirescens Bellamy, 1839 (Nat. Hist. South Devon. : 420) tenellus Miiller (O.F.), 1774 d 1) truncatulum Miller (O.F.), 1774 (130) ulvae Pennant, 1777 (Brit. Zool. 4 : 132) Original Combination . | Nerita piscinalis Helix pomatia Clausilia pumila Helix pura Helix putris Pupa pygmaea Helix pygmaea Helix pyramidata Helicolimax pyre- naica Helix quadridens Lartetia radigueli Limax reticulatus Clausilia rolphi Helix rotundata Nematurella runtoniana Testacellus scutulum Helix septemspiralis Bulimus similis Limax sowerbyi Helix stagnalis Helix striata Helix striolata Limax subfuscus Helix subrufescens Alaea substriata Helix subvirescens Limax tenellus Buccinum truncatu- lum Turbo ulvae 92 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS CLAss GASTROPODA continued Specific Trivial Name umbrosa Pfeiffer, 1828 (Naturg. deutsch. Moll. Sata) ventricosa Draparnaud, 1801 (62) vermiculata Miiller (O.F.), 1774 (20) .. virgata da Costa. 1778 (Hist. nat. Testaceorum Britanniae : 79) es ba vortex Linnaeus, 1758 (770) vorticulus Troschel, 1834 (De Limnaeaceis : 51) CLASS PELECYPODA Specific Trivial Name anatinus Linnaeus, 1758 (706) .. cornea Linnaeus, 1758 (678) crassus Philipsson, 1788 (Dissertatio . . Testaceorum Genera : 17) cygneus Linnaeus, 1758 (706) henslowana Sheppard, 1825 (Trans. linn. Soc. Lond. 14 : 150) a lacustris Miller, (O.F.), 1774 (204) : littoralis Cuvier, 1797 (Tableau élémentaire de [ Histoire naturelle des Animaux : 425) milium Held, 1836 (Isis (Oken) 29 : 281) moitessierianum Paladilhe, 1866 (Rey. Zool, (2) 18 : 172) ee . HOVA Mag. nitidumn Jenyns, 1832 (Trans. Camb. phil. Soc. 4 ; 304) oy obtusalis Lamarck, VertebreS: 2559) a ee ae pulchellum Jenyns, 1832 (Trans. Camb. phil. 1818 (Hist. Anim. sans Soc. 4 : 306) rivicola Lamarck, 1818 (Hist. Anim. sans Vertéebr. Di 58) solida Normand, 1844 (Cyclades . _ de Valen- ciennes: 6) . subtruncatum Malm. 1855 (Géthebor gs K. Vet. Vitt. Samh. Handl. 3 : 92) supinum Schmidt, 1850 (Z. f. Malakozool. 72119) tenuilineatum Stelfox, 1918 (J. Conch. 15 : 296) Original Combination Helix umbrosa Pupa ventricosa Helix vermiculata Cochlea virgata Helix vortex Planorbis vorticulus Original Combination Mytilus anatinus Tellina cornea Unio crassus Mytilus cygneus Tellina henslowana Tellina lacustris Unio littoralis Pisidium milium Pisidium moitessieri- anum Pisidium nitidum Cyclas obtusalis Pisidium pulchellum Cyclas rivicola Cyclas solida Pisidium subtrunca- tum Pisidium supinum Pisidium tenut- lineatum OPINION 336 93 CLASS PELECYPODA continued Specific Trivial Name Original Combination transversa Say, 1829 (Disseminator of Useful Knowledge, New Harmony, 2 : 356) .. | Cyclas transversa tumidus Philipsson, 1788 (Nova Test. Genera Peli) Unio tumidus vincentianum Woodward, 1913 (Catalogue Brit. Spec. Pisidium : 127) “eh ae .. | Pisidium vincenti- anum References Draparnaud, J. P. R., 1801—Tableau des Mollusques terrestres et fluviatiles de la France ibid., 1805—Histoire naturelle des Mollusques terrestres et fluviatiles de la France Férussac, Baron d’Audebard de, 1807—Essai d’une Méthode Conchylio- logique ibid., 1819—RHistoire naturelle .. . des Mollusques terrestres et fluviatiles ibid., 1821—Tableaux systématiques des Animaux Mollusques Linnaeus, C., 1758— Systema Naturae, 10th edition. Volume 1 Montagu, G., 1803—Testacea Britannica, Suppl., 1808 Miller, O. F., 1774—Vermium terrestrium et fluviatilium Historia 2 _I.—THE SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF THE CASE 2. Registration of the present application : On the receipt of Mr. Ellis’s application, the question of placing on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology a large instalment of specific names of non-marine species of the Classes Gastropoda and Pelecypoda was allotted the Registered Number Z.N.(S.)497. 3. Publication of the present application : The present applica- tion was sent to the printer on 4th December 1950 and was published on 20th April 1951 in Part 4 of volume 2 of the Bulletin 94 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS of Zoological Nomenclature (Ellis, 1951, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 2 : 125—128). 4. Comment received from Dr. C. R. Boettger (Natur-Museum u. Forschungs-Institut Senckenberg, Senckenberg-Anlage, Frank- furt a. Main, Germany) : The publication of Mr. Ellis’s applica- tion in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature elicited a note from Dr. C. R. Boettger (Watur-Museum u. Forschungs-Institut Sencken- berg, Frankfurt a. Main) (submitted under cover of a letter, dated 27th August 1951, from Professor Dr. R. Mertens of the same Institution), in which he indicated his support for the proposals submitted by Mr. Ellis for the stabilisation of both the names of genera (Opinion 335) and of species in the Classes Gastropoda and Pelecypoda, subject to qualifications as regards certain of the names concerned. The only name dealt with in the present application as to which Dr. Boettger raised a question was the name /eachii Sheppard, 1823, as published in the combination Turbo leachii 5. Review of the present application in February 1954: On 15th February 1954 Mr. Hemming, as Secretary, after reviewing the state of the present application, placed the following Minute on the Commission’s File Z.N.(S.)497 : “ It is now nearly two years since Mr. Ellis’s application was published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature and there has therefore been ample time for interested specialists to submit comments on his proposals. Of the large number of names included in Mr. Ellis’s application one only has elicited a comment of a kind which calls for a review of the proposal submitted. In these circumstances no advantage would be served by the further postponement of the submission to the Commission of Mr. Ellis’s proposals in regard to the names referred to above. Accordingly, as Secretary to the International Commission, I hereby direct that the proposal submitted by Mr. Ellis in regard to the specific name /eachii Sheppard, 1823, as published in the combination Turbo leachii, on which a question has been raised by Dr. C. R. Boettger, be dealt with on a separate Commission File during the remaining stages of its consideration and therefore that this name be treated as having been removed from Mr. Ellis’s application. I further direct that the application in regard to the names remaining in the present application be submitted to the Commission for decision as soon as possible ”’. OPINION 336 95 Following upon the foregoing Minute by the Secretary, the case of the name J/eachii Sheppard, 1823, as published in the combination Turbo leachii, was registered on a separate Commission File, to which the Number Z.N.(S.)809 was allotted. II]—THE DECISION OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 6. Issue of Voting Paper V.P.(54)9 : On 27th February 1954 a Voting Paper (V.P.(54)9) was issued in which the Members of the Commission were invited to vote either for, or against “* the propo- sal relating to the addition to the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology of the names of non-marine Mollusca recommended for addition thereto by Mr. A. E. Ellis in volume 2 (pp. 125—128) of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature |i.e. the names specified in the application reproduced in the first paragraph of the present Opinion], less the name leachii Sheppard, 1823 (Turbo), which it is proposed should be reserved for further examination [as provided for in the Secretary’s Minute of 15th February 1954 (reproduced in paragraph 5 of the present Opinion)|. 7. The Prescribed Voting Period: As the foregoing Voting ‘Paper was issued under the Three-Month Rule, the Prescribed Voting Period closed on 27th May 1954. 8. Particulars of the Voting on Voting Paper V.P.(54)9 : The state of the voting on Voting Paper V.P.(54)9 at the close of the Prescribed Voting Period was as follows :— (a) Affirmative Votes had been given by the following nineteen (19) Commissioners (arranged in the order in which Votes were received) : Sylvester-Bradley ; Holthuis ; Hering ; Boschma ; Vokes ; Riley ;do Amaral ; Esaki ; Lemche ; Dymond ; Hemming; Bonnet ; Cabrera ; Mertens ; Hanko ; Pearson ; Bradley (J.C.) ; Jaczewski ; Stoll ; 06 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS (b) Negative Votes : None ; (c) Voting Papers not returned : None. 9. Declaration of Result of Vote: On 28th May 1954, Mr. Hemming, Secretary to the International Commission, acting as Returning Officer for the Vote taken on Voting Paper V.P.(54)9, signed a Certificate that the Votes cast were as set out in para- graph 8 above and declaring that the proposal submitted in the foregoing Voting Paper had been duly adopted and that the decision so taken was the decision of the International Commission in the matter aforesaid. 10. Minute by the Secretary to the Commission on bibliographical and other matters arising in connection with certain of the names included in the present application : On Sth October 1954, Mr. Hemming, as Secretary to the Commission, placed on the Com- mission’s File Z.N.(S.)497 the following Minute recording the results of investigations which he had carried out jointly with Mr. Ellis in regard to bibliographical and other matters arising in connection with certain names dealt with in the present application :— | Bibliographical and similar points arising in connection with certain names proposed by Mr. A. E. Ellis for addition to the ‘‘ Official List of Specific Names in Zoology ”’ By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E., Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature In the course of preparing the Opinion needed to give effect to the decision by the International Commission on the application by Mr. A. E. Ellis for the addition to the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology of a long list of names of non-marine species of the Phylum Mollusca, 1 have encountered various bibliographical and allied questions regarding which I have consulted Mr. Ellis and, in some cases, have, in addition, consulted the original papers myself. I am much indebted to Mr Ellis for the assistance which he has been kind enough to render in this matter. In the following cases it is, in my opinion, necessary to place on record a short note of the results of OPINION 336 97 these investigations, in order to obviate the risk that at some later date misunderstandings might arise in regard to the reasons which have prompted the decisions reached in these cases. (a) ‘* Helix alliaria ’’ Miller, 1822 : 2. In this case Mr. Ellis gave a reference to volume 3 of the New Series of the Ann. Phil., whereas Sherborn gave what was evidently the same reference, without citing the series but with the volume number 19. Mr. Ellis has kindly investigated this matter and finds that volume 3 of the “‘ new series ’’ is also volume 19 of the complete series. In these circumstances I consider that the correct method of citation is that adopted by Sherborn. (b) ‘‘ Helix gigaxii ’’ (question of authorship) : 3. This name was attributed to Pfeiffer in Mr. Ellis’s application but to Charpentier by Sherborn in the Index Animalium. The explana- tion of this discrepancy is that this name was first proposed in manu- script by Charpentier but was first actually published by Pfeiffer. Under the Régles, a name so published is correctly attributable to the author by whom it was first published, in this case, to Pfeiffer. (c) *‘ Tellina henslowana ’’ Sheppard, 1825 : 4. In the application submitted by Mr. Ellis this specific name was spelled “‘ henslowana ’’ but in the Index Animalium Sherborn used the spelling “‘henslowiana’’. Mr. Ellis has reported to me that the original (and, therefore, the correct) spelling was henslowana, and that the first use of the spelling henslowiana was by Jenyns in 1832 (Trans. Cambr. phil. Soc. 4 : 308) in the combination Pisidium henslow- ianum. Mr. Ellis has drawn attention also to an earlier variant spelling of this specific name, namely Tellina henslowensis Turton, 1831 (Manual land & fresh-water Shells brit. Islands : 15). Both these names will need now to be placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology in compliance with the Regulations governing the placing on that Index of objectively invalid names rejected by the Commission in Opinions rendered on individual applications submitted to it for decision. 5. In the application submitted to the Commission the date * 1825 ”’ was attributed to the name Tellina henslowana, but by Sherborn (in the Index Animalium) this name was treated as having been published in 1823. This name was published in vol. 14 of the Transactions of the Linnean Society of London, and the discrepancy in the dates cited for the above name is due to the fact that those who have adopted the date “1825” have followed the date given on the title page, while those who, like Sherborn, have treated this name as having been published in 1823, have done so because they noted that this volume of the Transactions was published in Parts and that Part 1, which contains Sheppard’s paper, was published in 1823, to which year therefore the name Tellina henslowana must be attributed. As this date is not ascertainable by inspection of the volume itself, it must, 98 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS under a decision taken by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948 (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 225—226), be cited in square brackets. (d) ‘* Helix lens ’’ Férussac, 1821: 6. The reference given for this name in Sherborn’s Index Animalium was: “ Férussac, H. N. g. et p. Moll., Tabl. Limacons, 1821, 41 ”’. What is evidently the same reference was given by Mr. Ellis in his application to the Commission, for he also cited page 41. In going over the bibliographical references for the names dealt with in the present application, I noted during the preparation of the present Opinion something which IJ had previously not noticed, namely that, in giving the foregoing reference, Sherborn had added in square brackets the notation “‘n.n.”, thereby signifying that this name, as published by Férussac in the Hist. nat. Moll., was a nomen nudum. If this notation was in accord with the current official definition of a nomen nudum, it would clearly not be possible to accept the name Helix lens as having been validly published in the work cited above, and it would be necessary to search the later literature for the purpose of ascertaining by whom, when and where this name was first validly published with an “‘ indication ”’ as required by Proviso (a) to Article 25 of the Régles. I knew however that Sherborn had been in the habit of treating as nomina nuda specific names which had appeared on the legends to plates or in the explanations to plates without any descrip- tive words. At the time when he prepared his Index Animalium there was nothing in the Régles to show whether this attitude was correct, and it was accordingly a matter for the personal judgment of specialists whether specific names published in the foregoing manner should be accepted or not. Some years after the completion of Sher- born’s monumental work the foregoing question of principle was submitted to the Commission for decision by Dr. Harald A. Rehder (Washington, D.C.), and in 1948, on the recommendation of the Commission, the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology at Paris incorporated in the Rég/es a provision that, in the case of a name published prior to Ist January 1931, a name published on the legend of a plate but without explanatory matter is to be treated as having been published with an indication for the purposes of Article 25 (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 :255). Thus, not all the names rejected by Sherborn as nomina nuda, in fact, fall into this category as defined by the Paris Congress. I decided therefore in the present case, first, to examine Férussac’s work, in order to determine whether or not the name Helix lens as published by that author in 1821 was, in fact, a nomen nudum as currently defined. The result of this examination is set out below. 7. The Histoire naturelle générale et particuliére des Mollusques terrestres et fluyiatiles de la France of Férussac is a work in folio issued in twenty-eight Livraisons. It consists of two sections, one, containing the text, the other, the plates (“‘ Texte ’’ and “ Planches ’’). In the * Texte ’’ volume, there is (as stated by Sherborn) a mention OPINION 336 99 of the name Helix lens on page 41, where this name, numbered 153, occurs in a bare list of names. There is no reference in this list to the plates of this volume, and Sherborn was therefore quite correct in stating that, as at that page, the name Helix lens was a nomen nudum. Turning to the ‘“ Planches’’ volume, we find (1) that each plate is numbered and that each figure on each plate is also numbered but that the plates bear no legends or other indications as to the names attributed to the species so figured ; (2) that at the beginning of the volume there is a series of sheets giving the names of each species figured on the various plates and indicating also the Livraison in which each plate was published. In this list the name Helix lens appears as the explanation of figure 2 on plate 66, which is there stated to have been published in Livraison XXIII. I am indebted to the Zoological Society of London for the opportunity of studying its fine copy of Férussac’s work. 8. It will be seen from the particulars given above that the name Helix lens was duly provided by Férussac for the purposes of Article 25 in the “‘ Planches ”’ section of the Histoire naturelle, where he attached this name to a figure on one of his plates. The name Helix lens Férussac thus ranks for priority from that section of the foregoing work. The dates of publication of the various parts of this work have been critically examined by Kennard (1942, Proc. malac. Soc. Lond. 25 : 110), who has shown that the plate concerned (pl. 66) should be treated as having been published in 1832. The reference commonly cited for this name is, however, incorrect, and it would be well to cite this name as follows :—Helix lens Férussac, [1832], Hist. nat. gén. partic. Moll. terrestr. fluviat. France (Livr. 23) (Planches) : Explic. pl. 66, fig. 2 ; 1821, ibid. (Texte) : 41 (nom. nud.). (e) ** Helix draparnaldi ’’ Beck, 1837 : 9. Mr. Ellis confirms that the neo-Latin patronymic “‘ Draparn- aldus ”’ used by Beck in the genitive singular as draparnaldi was intended to represent the name of the French naturalist Jacques Philippe Ray- mond Draparnaud. In these circumstances the spelling “‘ draparnaldi”’ contravenes the provisions of Article 14 in relation to the formation of specific names based upon modern patronymics and, under a decision by the Copenhagen Congress (1953, Copenhagen Decisions zool. Nomencl. : 52, Decision 86(1)(b)(ii)), is subject to automatic correction by later authors. Accordingly, the correct form of this specific name is draparnaudi and the spelling draparnaldi Beck is an Invalid Original Spelling. Mr. Ellis informs me that the first author to use the corrected spelling draparnaudi was Westerlund who in 1888 (Fauna der in der Paldarctischen . . . lebenden Binnenconchylien 1 : 59) used this spelling in the combination Hyalina (Polita) draparnaudi. (f) ‘* Clausilia rolphii ’’ Turton, 1831 : ‘10. This name was attributed by Mr. Ellis in his application to the First Edition of Turton’s Manual published in 1831 but by Sherborn was treated as having been first published in 1840 in the Second Edition. 100 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS This discrepancy has been investigated by Mr. Ellis who informs me ne he has confirmed that this name was first published in the 1831 edition. (g) ‘* Bulimus similis ’’ Bruguiére, [1792] : 11. This name was treated by Mr. Ellis in his application as having been first published in 1792 in volume 1 of the “‘ Vers ”’ Section of the Ency. méth. but by Sherborn the ‘“‘ Vers ” Section was treated as having been published in a single volume and therefore without a volume number. Sherborn cited the present name as having been published in the second continuously paged portion of the ‘ Vers” volume. Actually, the volume written by Bruguiére was published as Tome 1 of the ‘“‘Vers”’ section; it was issued in two sections of which the first appeared in 1789, the second, in 1792. The name here under discussion was published in Section 2 of the volume (Tome 1) written by Bruguiére. The date “ 1792’’ for this name should be cited in square brackets. See paragraph 5 above. (h) ‘* Limax sowerbii ’’ Férussac, 1823 : 12. This case, being that of a specific name consisting of a noun in the genitive singular based upon a modern patronymic (Sowerby) but incorrectly formed as sowerbii, instead of as sowerbyi, as required by the Régles, resembles the case of Helix draparnaldi Beck discussed in paragraph 9 above, and, like the incorrectly formed name draparnaldi is, under the Copenhagen decision cited in paragraph 9 above, subject to automatic correction. Mr. Ellis informs me that the corrected spelling sowerbyi was first used by Reeve in 1863 (Land and freshwater Mollusks indigenous to, or naturalised in, the British Isles : 17). (i) ‘* Helix subrufescens ’’ Miller, 1822: 13. The comment made in paragraph 2 above in relation to the name Helix alliaria Miller applies also to this case. (In the original application the page number cited for this name was “43’’, but this _ has since been corrected by Mr. Ellis to “ 379 ”’.) : (j) ‘* Turbo ulvae ’’ Pennant, 1777 14. Mr. Ellis in his application gave for this name the reference ** Brit. Zool. 4 : 132’, while in the Index Animalium Sherborn gave ‘“ Brit. Zool. (ed. 4)4 : 114”. Mr. Ellis has since confirmed that Sherborn was correct in citing this name as from the Fourth Edition of the British Zoology. 15. The discrepancies in the page references cited for this name have also been cleared up by Mr. Ellis who has pointed out that, as noted in the Catalogue of the Books, Manuscripts, Maps and Drawings in the British Museum (Natural History) ((4) : 1543), the 4th edition of OPINION 336 101 Pennant’s British Zoology was published in two versions, one in quarto, the other in octavo. The name Turbo ulvae appears in volume 4 of the quarto edition on page 114 (pl. 80, fig. 107) and in the corres- ponding volume of the octavo edition on page 132 (pl. 86, fig. 120). (k) ** Pisidium supinum ”’ Schmidt (date) : 16. This name was published in the August number of the volume (vol. 7) of the Z.f- Malakozool. for the year 1850. Sherborn has shown, however (1931, Index Anim., Pars secund. (25) : 6327), that this number was not published until February 1851. ()) “ Nerita fasciata ’’ Miiller (O. F.), 1774 17. Mr. Ellis has just reported that he understands (1) that Dr. C. R. Boettger (Natur-Museum u. Forschungs-Institut Senckenberg, Frankfurt a. M.) and Dr. Lothar Forcart (Naturhistorisches Museum, Basel) are contemplating the submission to the Commission of an application relating to the specific name of the type species of the genus Viviparus Montfort, 1810, (2) that Nerita fasciata Miiller is currently placed in the genus Viviparus and (3) that the correct interpretation of Miiller’s species, which had previously been thought to be well- established, is now being questioned. Mr. Ellis accordingly considers that the name fasciata Muller should be excluded from the Opinion now to be adopted on his Application Z.N.(S.) 497. The generic name Viviparus Montfort is already under preliminary consideration (on File Z.N.(S.) 857), having been excepted from the decision taken on Mr. Ellis’s Application Z.N.(S.) 470, owing to a question requiring further examination having been raised in regard to it by Dr. Joshua L. Baily, Jr. (San Diego, California)?. In the light of the information now received from Mr. Ellis a decision on the name fasciata Muller must certainly be postponed until the Commission has received and had an opportunity of considering the projected application referred to above. (m) Issue of Directions 18. For the reasons set out in the preceding paragraphs, I now, as Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature, hereby direct that, in compliance with the General Directive issued to the Commission by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948, the following additions be made to the under- mentioned Official Lists and Official Indexes and that the entries so made be included in the Ruling to be given in the Opinion embodying the decision taken by the Commission in regard to Mr. Ellis’s applica- tion when it voted on Voting Paper V.P.(54)9 :— (a) The under-mentioned names to be entered on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology in the corrected form, as pre- scribed by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948, as confirmed by the Fourteenth International 3 See Opinion 335 ( : 64) 102 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS Congress, Copenhagen, 1953 (1953, Copenhagen Decisions zool. Nomencl. : 52, Decision 86(1)(b)), and not in the invalid form in which the names concerned were originally published :— (i) draparnaldi Beck, 1838, published in the combination Helicella draparnaldi, to be entered in the corrected form draparnaudi ; (ii) sowerbii Férussac, 1823, published in the combination Limax sowerbii, to be entered in the corrected form sowerbyi ; (b) The under-mentioned specific names to be entered on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology :— (i) draparnaldi Beck, 1838, as published in the combination Helicella draparnaldi (an Invalid Original Spelling for the name draparnaudi) ; (ii) henslowensis Turton, 1831, as published in the com- bination Tellina henslowensis (an Invalid Emendation of henslowana Sheppard, 1825, as published in the combination Tellina henslowana) ; (ii) henslowianum Jenyns, 1832, as published in the com- bination Pisidium henslowianum (an Invalid Emendation of henslowana Sheppard, 1825, as published in the combination Tellina henslowana) ; (iv) sowerbii Férussac, 1823, as published in the combination Limax sowerbii (an Invalid Original Spelling for the name sowerbyi). 19. Further, as Secretary to the International Commission, I hereby direct that for the reasons explained in paragraph 17 of the present Minute the specific name fasciata Muller (O.F.), 1774, as published in the combination Nerita fasciata, be excluded from the Opinion to be rendered for the purpose of giving effect to the vote taken by the Commission on Voting Paper V.P.(54)9 and that the problems associated with the foregoing name be conducted on Commission File Z.N.(S.) 857. 11. Preparation of the Ruling given in the present ‘‘ Opinion ”’ : On 5th October 1954 Mr. Hemming prepared the Ruling given in the present Opinion and at the same time signed a Certificate that the terms of that Ruling were in complete accord with those of the proposal approved by the International Commission in its Vote on Voting Paper V.P.(54)9, subject to the adjustments specified in paragraphs 16 and 17 of the Minute executed by the Secretary on Sth October, 1954 (reproduced in paragraph 10 of the present Opinion). OPINION 336 103 12. Original references: The following are the original references for the names placed on Official Lists and Official Indexes by the Ruling given in the present Opinion :— acuta, Physa, Draparnaud, [1805], Hist. nat. Moll. terrestr. fiuviat. France : 55 albus, Planorbis, Miiller (O.F.), 1774, Verm. terrestr. fluviat. Hist. 2: 164 alliaria, Helix, Miller, 1822, Ann. Phil. 19 : 379 alpestris, Vertigo, Alder, 1838, Trans. nat. hist. Soc. Northumb. 2 : 340 : anatinus, Mytilus, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 706 anglicus, Turbo, Wood, 1828, Index testaceologic., Suppl. : 19 angustior, Vertigo, Jeffreys, 1830, Trans. linn. Soc. Lond. 16 (2) : 361 antivertigo, Pupa, Draparnaud, [1801], Tab/. Moll. terrestr. fluviat. France : 57 arenaria, Succinea, Bouchard-Chantereaux, 1837, Mém. Soc. Agric. Boulogne-sur-Mer (2) 1 : 190 aspersa, Helix, Muller (O.F.), 1774, Verm. terrestr. fluviat. Hist. 12, SiS) auricularia, Helix, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 774 biplicatus, Turbo, Montagu, 1803, Test brit .2 : 361 cantiana, Helix, Montagu, 1803, Test. brit. 2 : 422 carinatus, Planorbis, Muller (O.F.), 1774, Verm. terrestr. fluviat. ist. 2 3 57 cinereo-niger, Limax, Wolf, 1803, in Sturm’s Deutschlands Fauna ® (Ait. 1) : 7 circumscriptus, Arion, Johnston, 1828, Edinburgh new phil. J.5 : 76 complanata, Helix, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 769 contorta, Helix, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 770 cornea, Helix, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 770 cornea, Tellina, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 678 costata, Helix, Muller (O.F.), 1774, Verm. terrestr. fluviat. Hist. B31 crassus, Unio, Philipsson, 1788, Dissertatio Hist. nat. sist. nova Test. Gen. : 17 crista, Nautilus, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 709 crystallina, Helix, Miller (O.F.), 1774, Verm. terrestr. fluviat. migst. 2 223 cygneus, Mytilus, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 706 cylindrica, Vertigo, Férussac, 1807, Essai Méth. conchyl. : 52 104 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS detrita, Helix, Miller (O.F.), 1774, Verm. terrestr. fluviat. Hist. - 2a tO dilatatus, Planorbis, Gould, 1841, Rep. Invertebr. Massachusetts “210 draparnaudi (correction of draparnaldi), Helicella, Beck, 1837, Index Moll. Mus. Ch. Fred. (1) : 6, Spec. nov. 7 dubia, Clausilia, Draparnaud, [1805], Hist. nat. Moll. terrestr. fluviat. France : 70 edentula, Pupa, Draparnaud, [1805], Hist. nat. Moll. terrestr. fluviat. France : 59 elegans, Helix, Gmelin, [1791], in Linnaeus, Syst. Nat. (ed. 13) 1 (6) : 3642 elegans, Succinea, Risso, 1826, Hist. nat. Eur. mérid. 4 : 59 excavata, Helix, Alder, 1830, Trans. nat. Hist. Soc. Northumb. 15), 338 flavus, Limax, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10)1 : 652 fontinalis, Bulla, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 727 fuscus, Turbo, Montagu, 1803, Test. brit. 2 : 330 gigaxii, Helix, Pfeiffer (L.), 1850, Z. f. Malakozool. 7 : 85 glabrum, Buccinum, Miller (O.F.), 1774, Verm. terrestr. fluviat. Hist22 2135 granulata, Helix, Alder, 1830, Trans. nat. Hist. Soc. Northumb. 1): 39 henslowana, Tellina, Sheppard, [1823], Trans. linn. Soc. Lond. 14 (1) : 150 henslowensis, Tellina, Yurton, 1831, Manual land & fresh-water Shells brit. Islands : 15 henslowianum, Pisidium, Jenyns, 1832, Trans. Cambr. phil. Soc. 4 : 308 hispida, Helix, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 771 hortensis, Arion, Férussac, 1819, Hist. nat. Moll. terrestr. fluviat. D(D)ieG> hortensis, Helix, Muller (O.F.), 1774, Verm. terrestr. fluviat. Hist. Pape Sy incarnata, Helix, Muller (O.F.), 1774, Verm. terrestr. fluviat. Hist. Pages Cs) intermedius, Arion, Normand, 1852, Descr. six Limaces nouv. : 6 lactea, Helix, Muller (O.F.), 1774, Verm. terrestr. fluviat. Hist. 25519 lacustris, Tellina, Miller, (O.F.), 1774, Verm. terrestr. fluviat. Hist. 2 : 204 OPINION 336 105 laevis, Planorbis, Alder, 1838, Trans. nat. Hist. Soc. Northumb. ee OS]. lamellata, Helix, Jeffreys, 1830, Trans. linn. Soc. Lond. 16 : 333 laminatus, Turbo, Montagu, 1803, Test. brit. 2 : 359 lapicida, Helix, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 768 lens, Helix, Férussac, [1832], Hist. nat. gén. partic. Moll. France (Livr. 23) (Planches) : Explic. pl. 66, fig. 2 (for date adopted see Kennard, 1942, Proc. malac. Soc. Lond. 25 : 110); 1821, ibid. (Texte) : 41 (nom. nud.) lilljeborgi, Pupa (Vertigo), Westerlund, 1871, Noy. Act. Soc. Sci. Upsala (3) 8 (No.1) : 90 littoralis, Unio; Cuvier, [1797—1798], Tabl. élém. Hist. nat. Anim. 425 7 lubrica, Helix, Miller (O.F.), 1774, Verm. terrestr. fluviat. Hist. 2: 104 major, Helicolimax, Férussac, 1807, Essai Méth. conchyl. : 43 marginata, Paludina, Michaud, 1831, Complément Hist. nat. Moll. terrestr. fluviat. France Draparnaud : 98 maximus, Limax, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 652 milium, Pisidium, Held, 1836, Isis (Oken) 29 : 281 minuscula, Helix, Binney, 1840, Boston J. nat. Hist. 3 (4) : 435 moitessierianum, Pisidium, Paladilhe, 1866, Rev. Mag. Zool. (2) 18 : 172 : moulinsiana, Pupa, Dupuy, 1849, Cat. extra-marin. Galliae Test. : 4 naticina, Valvata, Menke, 1845, Z. f. Malakozool. 2 : 129 neglecta, Helix, Draparnaud, [1805], Hist. nat. Moll. terrestr. fluviat. France : 108 nemoralis, Helix, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 773 nitidula, Helix, Draparnaud, oder Hist. nat. Moll. terrestr. fluviat. France : 117 nitidum, Pisidium, Jenyns, 1832, Trans. Cambr. phil. Soc. 4 (2) : 304 oblonga, Succinea, Draparnaud, [1801], Tab/. Moll. terrestr. fluviat. France : 56 obtusalis, Cyclas, Lamarck, 1818, Hist. nat. Anim. sans Vertébr. 5) ies) obvoluta, Helix, Miller (O.F.), 1774, Verm. terrestr. fluviat. Hist. 2 SRO palustre, Buccinum, Miller (O.F.), 1774, Verm. terrestr. fluviat. ist. 2 2 131 parallelus, Planorbis, Say, 1821, J. Acad. nat. Sci. Philad. 2 : 164 106 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS parvula, Clausilia, Férussac, 1807, Essai Méth. conchyl. : 111 patulum, Cyclostoma, Draparnaud, [1801], Tab/. Moll. terrestr. fluviat. France : 39 pellucida, Helix, Miller (O.F.), 1774, Verm. terrestr. fluviat. Hist. PLS) peregrum, Buccinum, Miller (O.F.), 1774, Verm. terrestr. fluviat. Hist. 2 : 130 petronella, Helix, Pfeiffer (L.), 1853, Monogr. Helic. viv. 3 : 95 piscinalis, Nerita, Muller (O.F.), 1774, Verm. terrestr. fluviat. Hist. PNT: pomatia, Helix, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 771 pulchellum, Pisidium, Jenyns, 1832, Trans. Cambr. phil. Soc. 4 (2) : 306 pumila, Clausilia, Pfeiffer (C.), 1828, Naturgesch. deuts. Land- u. Siisswasser- Mollusken 3 : 41 pura, Helix, Alder, 1830, Trans. nat. Hist. Soc. Northumb. 1 (1) : 36 putris, Helix, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 774 pygmaea, Helix, Draparnaud, [1801], Tab/. Moll. terrestr. fluviat. France : 93 pygmaea, Pupa, Draparnaud, [1801], Tab/. Moll. terrestr. fluviat. France : 57 pyramidata, Helix, Draparnaud, [1805], Hist. nat. Moll. terrestr. fluviat. France : 80 pyrenaica, Helicolimax, Férussac, 1821, Tabl. syst. Anim. Moll. terrestr. fluviat. : 25 quadridens, Helix, Miller (O.F.), 1774, Verm. terrestr. fluviat. Hist. 2 : 107 radigueli, Lartetia, Bourguignat, 1869, Cat. Moll. Paris : 16 reticulatus, Limax, Miller (O.F.), 1774, Verm. terrestr. fluviat. Hist. 2 : 10 rivicola, Cyclas, Lamarck, 1818, Hist. nat. Anim. sans Vertébr. 5) 2 Soe rolphii, Clausilia, Turton, 1831, Manual land & fresh-water Shells brit. Islands : 71 rotundata, Helix, Muller (O.F.), 1774, Verm. terrestr. fluviat. Hist. Jap IY, runtoniana, Nematurella, Sandberger, 1880, Palaeontographica DI 98 scutulum, Testacellus, Sowerby (G.B.) (1st of the name), 1821, in Sowerby (J.), Gen. rec. foss. Shells (Part 1 : Testacellus) : figs. 3—6 OPINION 336 107 septemspiralis, Helix, Razoumowsky, 1789, Hist. nat. Jorat 1 : 278 similis, Bulimus, Bruguiére, [1792], Ency. meth., Vers 1 (2) : 355 - solida, Cyclas, Normand, 1844, Notice Cyclades Valenciennes : 6 sowerbyi (correction of sowerbii), Limax, Férussac, 1823, Hist. nat. gen. partic. Moll. terrestr. fluviat. 2(1) Supp. Limaces : 96 stagnalis, Helix, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 774 striata, Helix, Miller (O.F.), 1774, Verm. terrestr. fluviat. Hist. Ze 38 j striolata, Helix, Pfeiffer (C.), 1828, Naturgesch, deuts. Land- u. Stisswasser-Mollusken 3 : 28 subfuscus, Limax, Diaparnaud, [1805], Hist. nat. Moll. terrestr. fluviat. France : 125 subrufescens, Helix, Miller, 1822, Ann. Phil. 19 : 379 substriata, Alaea, Jeffreys, 1833, Trans. linn. Soc. Lond. 16(3) : 515 subtruncatum, Pisidium, Malm, 1855, Gétheborgs K. Vet. & Vitt. Samh. Handl. 3 : 92 subvirescens, Helix, Bellamy, 1839, Nat. Hist. South Devon : 420 supinum, Pisidium, Schmidt, [Feb. 1851], Z. f Malakozool. 7 : 119 tenellus, Limax, Miller (O.F.), 1774, Verm. terrestr. fluviat. Hist. jae (a tenuilineatum, Pisidium, Stelfox, 1918, J. Conch. 15 : 296 transversa, Cyclas, Say, 1829, Disseminator useful Knowledge, New Harmony 2 : 356 truncatulum, Buccinum, Miller (O.F.), 1774, Verm. terrestr. fluviat. S§a 20130 tumidus, Unio, Philipsson, 1788, Dissertatio Hist. nat. sist. nova Test. Gen. : 17 ulvae, Turbo, Pennant, 1777, Brit. Zool. (ed. 4) (quarto version) 4: 114, pl. 80, fig. 107 ; id., 1777, ibid. (ed. 4) (octavo version) 42132) pl. 86, fis. 120 umbrosa, Helix, Pfeiffer (C.), 1828, Naturgesch, deuts. Land- u. Siisswasser-Mollusken 3 : 27 ventricosa, Pupa, Draparnaud, [1801], Tab/. Moll. terrestr. fluviat. France : 62 vermiculata, Helix, Miller (O.F.), 1774, Verm. terrestr. fluviat. ust: 2-2 20 vincentianum, Pisidium, Woodward, 1913, Cat. brit. Spec. Pisi- dium : 127 virgata, Cochlea, da Costa, 1778, Hist. nat. Test. Brit. : 79 vortex, Helix, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 770 vorticulus, Planorbis, Troschel, 1834, De Limnaeaceis : 51 108 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 13. As the present case is concerned only with certain specific names, no question of placing names on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology arises in the present instance. 14. At the time of the submission of the original application dealt with in the present Opinion, the expression prescribed for the second portion of the binomen which constitutes the scientific name of a species was the expression “trivial name” and the Official List reserved for recording such names was styled the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology, the word * trivial’ appearing also in the title of the Official Index reserved for recording rejected and invalid names of this category. Under a decision taken by the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology, Copenhagen, 1953, the expression “ specific name ”’ was substituted for the expression “ trivial name ’”’ and corresponding changes were made in the titles of the Official List and Official Index of such names (1953, Copenhagen Decisions Zool. Nomencl. : 21). The changes in terminology so adopted have been incor- porated in the Ruling given in the present Opinion. 15. The prescribed procedures were duly complied with by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature in dealing with the present case, and the present Opinion is accordingly hereby rendered in the name of the said International Commission by the under-signed Francis Hemming, Secretary to the Inter- national Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, in virtue of all and every the powers conferred upon him in that behalf. 16. The present Opinion shall be known as Opinion Three Hundred and Thirty-Six (336) of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Done in London, this Fifth day of October, Nineteen Hundred and Fifty-Four. Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature FRANCIS HEMMING Printed in England by Mretcatre & Cooper LIMITED, 10-24 Scrutton St., London E C2 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTER- NATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Edited by FRANCIS HEMMING, c.M.G., C.B.E. Secretary to the Commission VOLUME 16. Part 4. Pp. 109—124 OPINION 337 Rejection of the generic name Arieticeras Quenstedt, 1883 (Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea) and addition of the name Arieticeras Seguenza, 1885 to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology on rr Cy, - pas 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 1955 Price Eight shillings (All rights reserved) issued 17th March, 1955 INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE COMPOSITION AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THE RULING GIVEN IN OPINION 337 A. The Officers of the Commission Honorary Life President : Dr. Karl Jordan (British Museum (Natural History), Zoological Museum, Tring, Herts., England) President : Professor James Chester Bradley (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) Vice-President: Senhor Dr. Afranio do Amaral (Sao Paulo, Brazil) (12th August 1953) Secretary : Mr. Francis Hemming (London, England) (27th July 1948) B. The Members of the Commission (Arranged in order of precedence by reference to date of election or of most recent re-election, as prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology) Professor H. BoscHMA (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) (Ast January 1947). Senor Dr. Angel CABRERA (Eva Peron, F.C.N.G.R., Argentina) (27th July 1948). Mr. Francis HEMMING (London, England) (27th July 1948) (Secretary). Dr. Joseph PEARSON (Tasmanian Museum, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia) (27th July 1948). Dr. Henning LEMCHE (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark) (27th July 1948). Professor Teiso Esaki (Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan) (17th April 1950). Professor Pierre BONNET (Université de Toulouse, France) (9th June 1950). Mr. Norman Denbigh RILey (British Museum (Natural History) London) (9th June 1950). Professor Tadeusz JACZEWSKI (institute of Zoology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland) (15th June 1950). Professor Robert MERTENS (Natur-Museum u. Forschungs-Institut Senckenberg, Frankfurt a. M., Germany) (5th July 1950). Professor Erich Martin HERING (Zoologisches Museum der Humboldt- Universitat zu Berlin, Germany) (Sth July 1950). Senhor Dr. Afranio do AMARAL (S. Paulo, Brazil) (12th August 1953) (Vice- President). Tee ak J. R. DYMOND (University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada) (12th August Professor J. Chester BRADLEY (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) (President). Professor Harold E. Voxes (Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, U.S.A.) (12th August 1953). Professor Béla HANKO (Mezdgazdasdgi Muzeum Budapest, Hungary) (12th August 1953). Dr. Norman R. STOLL (Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, New York, N.Y., U.S.A. (12th August 1953). Mr. P. C. SYLVESTER-BRADLEY (Sheffield University, Sheffield, England) (12th August 1953). Dr. L. B. Hottuuis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Nether- lands) (12th August 1953). OPINION 337 REJECTION OF THE GENERIC NAME ‘“ ARTETICERAS ” QUENSTEDT, 1883 (CLASS CEPHALOPODA, ORDER AMMONOIDEA) AND ADDITION OF THE NAME —“ ARTETICERAS ”’ SEGUENZA, 1885, TO THE ‘* OFFICIAL LIST OF GENERIC NAMES IN ZOOLOGY ”’ RULING :—(1) It is hereby ruled (a) that, when in 1883 Quenstedt published the name Arieticeras, he made it clear that that name was not intended for use in zoo- logical nomenclature, and accordingly (b) that that name possesses no status under either the Law of Priority or the Law of Homonymy. (2) The under-mentioned name is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology as Name No. 842 :—Arieticeras Seguenza, 1885 (gender : neuter) (type species, by selection by Levi (1896) : Ammonites algovianus Oppel, 1862). (3) The under-mentioned generic names or reputed generic names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology as Name Nos. 231 and 232 respectively :—(a) Arieticeras Quen- stedt, 1883 (rejected as a cheironym under (1) above) ; (b) Seguenziceras Levi, 1896 (a junior objective synonym of Arieticeras Seguenza, 1885). (4) The under-mentioned specific name is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology as Name No. 446 :—algovianus Oppel, 1862, as published in the combination Ammonites algovianus (specific name of type species of Arieticeras Seguenza, 1885). iz OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS I—THE STATEMENT OF THE CASE On 6th October 1950 Dr. W. J. Arkell (Cambridge University, Sedgwick Museum, Cambridge) submitted an application in which he asked for a Ruling on the question whether the term Arieticeras, as published by Quenstedt in 1883, was to be treated as constituting a generic name satisfying the requirements of Article 25 of the Régles. This application was as follows :— On the relative status of the names ‘‘ Arieticeras ’’ Seguenza, 1885, and ‘‘Seguenziceras’’ Levi, 1896 (Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea) (Jurassic) By W. J. ARKELL, M.A., D.Sc., F.R.S. (Sedgwick Museum, Cambridge University, Cambridge) 1. The name Arieticeras was published by Quenstedt (1883 : 44) as follows : *““ Typus dieser merkwiirdigen Gruppe ist ein so bestimmter, dass man ihn nur durch einen besonderen Namen Arvietes abgrenzen kann .. . [describes the ‘ Family ’] . . . Waagen erhob sie zu einem Unter- geschlecht Arietites. Wenn man jedoch ausser dem Wort Arieten noch das Bediirfniss einer besondern Benennung fiihlt, so sollte man sie einfach Arieticeras nennen, dann wiisste jeder Kenner von vorn- herein, was man meint.”’ Hence, if Arieticeras is a valid generic name, it is a substitute name for, and therefore objective synonym of, Arietites Waagen, 1869. Quenstedt himself otherwise than in the foregoing passage used the name Arieticeras only once (1883:113). When describing his Ammonites nudaries he remarked : ‘‘ Trotz dieser Unvollkommenheit scheint es doch eine gute Spezies zu sein, deren Name Arieticeras nudus sich wegen der so augenfalligen Nacktheit gleichsam von selbst ergabe. Nach alter Angewohnheit setze ich jedoch denselben lieber in Ammonites nudaries um, worin kurtz die wesentlichsten Kenn- zeichen angedeutet sind.” 2. In 1885, Seguenza (: 255) published a genus Arieticeras with four genosyntypes, of which Ammonites algovianus Oppel (1862 : 137) was placed first. 4. algovianus Oppel was selected as the type species by Levi (1896 : 272). 3. In 1896, Levi (: 272) published the generic name Seguenziceras, with type species by original designation Ammonites algovianus Oppel OPINION 337 113 (1862 : 137), as substitute for Arieticeras Seguenza, on the grounds that the latter was preoccupied by Arieticeras Quenstedt, 1883. | 4. Seguenziceras Levi has been accepted by Buckman (1913 : 74 b and pl. Ixxiv) and Spath (1924 : 192), who founded on it the family SEGUENZICERATIDAE. : 5. Arieticeras Seguenza, on the other hand, has continued to find acceptance by, for instance, Hyatt (1900 : 576), Haas (1913, 1947), Pia (1913: 488 ; 1918: 319), and Roman (1938: 112). Dr. Haas (1947 : 79) considers that he had “ proved Levi’s argument, that Arieticeras was preoccupied as a generic name by Quenstedt, to be entirely unfounded.” 6. Various obviously invalid arguments have been advanced against the acceptance of Arieticeras Quenstedt, 1883, as a validly published name, such as (1) that it has fallen into desuetude which, even if true— in fact the name has never been used since it was first published— would be irrelevant ; (2) that it was published in the same year (1885) as Arieticeras Seguenza, which is incorrect, as the relevant Heft of Quenstedt’s book was published in 1883 ; (3) that it is a synonym of Arietites Waagen, 1869, which is irrelevant. There is, however, one argument that has been advanced against the acceptance of Arieticeras. Quenstedt, the validity of which under the Régles is arguable and on which a ruling from the International Commission is now sought. Under this argument Quenstedt ought not to be treated as having validly published the generic name Arieticeras, for he clearly had no intention of doing so. All his life Quenstedt stood out against the splitting up of the old comprehensive genus Ammonites ; all that he did on this occasion was to make a casual and carping remark that “‘ if, however, one felt the need for a special name” for the Arietids, it would be better to call them Arieticeras rather than Arietites (as Waagen had done). Further it was only casually that on a later page he wrote that the species which he was there discussing could be called “ Arieticeras nudus’”’ instead of ‘““Ammonites nudaries ”’, the latter being the name which he preferred. 7. It is of no consequence whether Arieticeras Seguenza, 1885, is retained for the genus concerned or whether the name Seguenziceras Levi, 1896, is used in its place. It is of importance, however, that workers should know which is the correct name and this cannot be finally determined until an authoritative ruling is given by the International Commission on the question whether the name Arvieticeras Quenstedt, 1883, was duly published in accordance with the provisions of Article 25 and therefore whether it renders the later name Arieticeras Seguenza, 1885, an invalid junior homonym. 8. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked :— 114 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS (1) to give a ruling on the question whether the term Arieticeras, published by Quenstedt in 1883, is to be treated as constituting a generic name satisfying the requirements of Article 25 ; (2) depending on the ruling given under (1) above, to take the following action :— (a) if Arieticeras is ruled to have been published by Quenstedt in 1883 as a generic name satisfying the requirements of Article 25, to place : (i) Seguenziceras Levi, 1896 (type species, by original designation : Ammonites algovianus Oppel, 1862) (gender of generic name : neuter), on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ; (ii) Arieticeras Seguenza, 1885 (type species, by selection by Levi, 1896: Ammonites algovianus Oppel, 1862) (an invalid junior homonym of Arieficeras Quenstedt, 1883) on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology ; (b) if it is ruled that the term Arieticeras, as published by Quenstedt in 1883, is not to be treated as a generic name possessing priority as from that date, to place :— (i) Arieticeras Seguenza, 1885 (type species, as specified in (a) (ii) above) (gender of generic name : neuter) on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ; (ii) the cheironym Arieticeras Quenstedt, 1883, on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology ; (iii) Seguenziceras Levi, 1896 (an objective synonym of Arieticeras Seguenza, 1885, of which the same species is the type species) on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology ; (3) irrespective of the ruling to be given under (1) above, to place the trivial name algovianus Oppel, 1862, as published in the binominal combination Ammonites algovianus, on the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology. References Buckman, S. S., 1913. Type Ammonites 2 : pl. 74. Haas, O., 1913. Die Fauna des mittleren Lias von Ballino in Siidtirol, Beitr. Pal. Geol. Osterreich-Ungarns 26 : 58. OPINION 337 115 Haas, O., 1947. Three nomenclatural problems in Liassic Ammono- idea, Journ. Paleontology 21 : 79. Hyatt, A., 1900. Cephalopoda, in Eastman’s Zittel, Ist ed. Levi, Gr., 1896. Sui Fossili degli strati a Terebratula aspasia di Monte Calvi presso Campiglia, Boll. Soc. geol. Ital. 15 : 272. Oppel, A., 1862. ‘Ueber Jurassische Cephalopoden, Pal. Mittheilungen Sp fot 37. Pia, J. von., 1913. Review of Haas, 1913 : Neues Jahrb., 1913, 2 : 485. Pia, J. von., 1918. Review of Saxl : ibid., 1918 : 318. Roman, F., 1938. Les ammonites jurassiques et crétacées. Seguenza, G., 1885. Intorno al sistema giurassico nel territorio di Taormina, // Naturalista Siciliano 4 : 255. Spath, L. F., 1924. The ammonites of the Blue Lias, Proc. Geol. Assoc., 35 : 192. Quenstedt, F. A., 1883. Die Ammoniten des schwdabischen Jura 1 : 44 and 113. Il—THE SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF THE CASE 2. Registration of the present application : On the receipt of Dr. Arkell’s application, the question whether the method adopted by Quenstedt in publishing the term Arieticeras was such as to confer rights under the Law of Priority upon that term as a generic name was allotted the Registered Number Z.N.(S.) 486. 3. Publication of the present application : The present applica- tion was sent to the printer on 15th October 1950, and on 4th May 1951 was published in Triple-Part 6/8 of volume 2 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (Arkell, 1951, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 2 : 208—210). 116 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 4. Concentration in the first instance on the question of principle involved : In the discussion which followed the publication of Dr. Arkell’s application attention was concentrated mainly upon the general issue of principle involved rather than upon the individual case of the name Arieticeras Quenstedt, 1883, it being felt that, once the main issue was settled, the individual case raised by Dr. Arkell would present but little difficulty. The communications so received were published in volumes 2 and 6 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature on various dates in 1951 and 1952. At the close of 1952, when beginning to prepare the Agenda for the CojJloquium on Zoological Nomenclature which it had been arranged should be held at Copenhagen in July of the following year, the Secretary decided that the best course would. be to allot a special item on the Colloquium Agenda to the question of principle involved in Dr. Arkell’s application. Mr. Hemming accordingly prepared a paper in which, after setting out the issue involved and after giving particulars of the comments received in regard to Dr. Arkell’s application which (as explained above) had already been published in the Bulletin, he submitted a proposal for the settlement of the issue of principle by the incorporation in the Rég/es of an express provision in regard to it. This problem was entered as Case No. 32 on the Copen- hagen Agenda, Mr. Hemming’s paper becoming Document 32/1. The paper referred to above was published on 23rd July 1953 (Hemming, 1953, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 10 : 297—298) and was as follows :— Article 25 : proposed insertion of a provision that a name published by an author who made it clear that his object in so doing was some purpose other than that of providing a name for use in zoo- logical nomenclature possesses no status of availability (Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.) 668) DOCUMENT No. 32/1 By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E. (Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) In a paper published in May, 1951 (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 2 : 208—210), Dr. W. J. Arkell asked for a ruling on the question whether the generic name Arieticeras as published by Quenstedt in 1883 possessed avail- ability under Article 25, having regard to the fact that Quenstedt, who OPINION 337 117 was opposed to the multiplication of ammonite genera, made it clear that he was doing no more than illustrate the sort of genus-splitting that some authors favoured and that it was not his intention to bring forward the name Arieticeras for use in zoological nomenclature. 2. When I first considered this matter, I inclined to the view that it would introduce an undesirable element of subjective judgment into the Reégles if a provision were to be inserted requiring that, in order to secure the status of availability, a name not only must have been duly published (a) with at least an “ indication’ and (b) by a binominal author, but must also in addition have been published in such a way as to make it clear that the name in question was intended for use in zoological nomenclature (1951, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 2.: 211—213). 3. From the comments subsequently received it became clear that the general feeling of workers was in favour of rejecting any name published by an author in circumstances which made it clear that his object in publishing the name was some purpose other than the provision of a name for use in zoological nomenclature. The comments received _ were the following: (1) Engel (1951, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 2 : 337) ; (2) Oldroyd (1952, ibid. 6 : 245) ; (3) Holder (ibid. 6 : 245) ; (4) Baily (ibid. 6 : 246) ; (5) Haas (ibid. 6 : 246); (6) Joint Committee on Zoological Nomenclature for Palaeontology in America (not yet published). Of the foregoing, (a) Engel, A. Myra Keen and Siemon Muller (the two latter as members of the Joint Committee) agreed with Arkell that the name Arieticeras should be accepted as from Quenstedt, notwithstanding his remarks at the time when he published this name. (b) Oldroyd, Hélder, Baily, Haas, and Reeside (through the Joint Committee) considered that in the circumstances in which this name was published it should be rejected as having no status of availability. 4. In the light of the opinions so expressed I altered my view on this subject and suggested that the problem raised by a name such as Arieticeras Quenstedt should be dealt with on lines similar to those already adopted in the somewhat parallel case where, in the opinion of taxonomists, a genus is based upon a misidentified type species. I accordingly suggested that the problem might be dealt with by the insertion in Article 25 of a provision prescribing that it is to be assumed than an author who published a new name does so for use in zoological nomenclature, save that, where any specialist is of the opinion that a given name was not published with the foregoing intention, he should refer the case to the Commission, which, if satisfied that the objection to the name is well founded, may direct that the name in question is to be treated as having no availability in zoological nomen- clature (1952, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 6 : 247—249). 118 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 5. It may be felt that in some of the probably small number of cases of the kind here under discussion the author concerned made it so clear that he did not intend the name which he was publishing to be used in zoological nomenclature that it would be preferable to place the onus of proof not upon those zoologists who consider that the name should be rejected but upon those who consider that it should be accepted. In case this view finds favour, the following solution is suggested as an alternative to that suggested in paragraph 4 above, namely that there should be inserted in Article 25 a provision prescribing (a) that an author who published a name js to be assumed to have done so for use in zoological nomenclature, except where that author, when publishing the name in question, makes it clear that the foregoing was not his object, (b) that, where it is clear that a given name was not intended for use in zoological nomenclature, that name shall possess no status under either the Law of Priority or the Law of Homonymy, and (c) that any case where it is not clear whether the name in question was intended for use in zoological nomenclature should be referred to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature for decision. 5. Decision by the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology, Copenhagen, 1953, on the question of principle raised in the present application : The Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology, Copenhagen, 1953, on the recommendation of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, supported by the Colloquium on Zoological Nomenclature, decided to insert in the Régles the provision recommended in Document 32/1 on the Copenhagen Agenda (paragraph 4 above). Under this decision (1953, Copenhagen Decisions zool. Nomencl. : 63, Decision 114) there was inserted in Article 25 of the Rég/es a provision, as follows, prescribing :— 114. Status of a name published for some purpose other than for use in zoological nomenclature : The Colloquium recommends the insertion in Article 25 of a provision prescribing :— (1) that an author who published a name is to be assumed to have done so for use in zoological nomenclature, except where that author, when publishing the name in question, makes it clear that the foregoing was not his object ; (2) that, where it is clear that a given name was not intended for use in zoological nomenclature, that name possesses no status under either the Law of Priority or the Law of Homonymy ; (3) that any case where it is not clear whether the name in question was intended for use in zoological nomenclature should be referred to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature for decision. | OPINION 337 119 6. Examination of the individual case submitted by Dr. Arkell in the light of the decision on the issue of principle taken by the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology, Copenhagen, 1953 : The publication on 31st December 1953 of the volume containing the Official Record of the decisions on zoological nomenclature taken by the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology, Copenhagen, 1953, from which the provision quoted in the preceding paragraph is an extract, made it possible to revert to the consideration of the individual case of the name Arieticeras Quenstedt, 1883, which had been the occasion of Dr. Arkell’s application. Accordingly, on 27th February 1954 the Secretary prepared for submission to the Commission the following brief summary explaining the stage reached in this case :— Problem involved: The problem raised in this case was whether the name Arieticeras Seguenza, 1885, ought to be rejected as a junior homonym of the name Arieticeras Quenstedt, 1883, or whether, in view of the fact that Quenstedt clearly did not publish the name Arieticeras for use in zoological nomenclature, that name ought itself to be rejected, in which case the later name Arieticeras Seguenza, 1885, would be an available name. The publication of this application elicited strong opposition to the acceptance of names published for purposes other than for use in zoological nomenclature. The Secretary then proposed (Bull, 6 : 247—249) that it should be made a condition of the grant of availability for a name that it should have been published with the intention that it should be used in zoological nomenclature, and this was approved by the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology, Copenhagen, 1953 (Copenh. Dec. zool. Nomencl. : 63). Thus, the central issue originally submitted has been disposed of by the Copen- hagen Congress. All that remains is the proposal that in the present case the name (Arieticeras Seguenza) found to be available in view of the decision by the Copenhagen Congress on the question of principle involved should now be placed on the Official List. Iii—THE DECISION OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 7. Issue of Voting Paper V.P.(54)10 : On 27th February 1954, a Voting Paper (V.P.(54)10) was issued in which the Members 120 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS of the Commission were invited to vote either for, or against, the proposal “ relating to the names Arieticeras Seguenza, 1885, and Seguenziceras Levi, 1896, as proposed by Arkell in Points (2)(b) and (3) on page 210 of volume 2 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature” [i.e. in the Points numbered as above in para- graph 8 of the application reproduced in the first paragraph of the present Opinion]. 8. The Prescribed Voting Period. As the foiegoing Voting Paper was issued under the Three-Month Rule the Prescribed Voting Period closed on 27th May 1954. 9. Particulars of the Voting on Voting Paper V.P.(54)10 : The state of the voting on Voting Paper V.P.(54)10 at the close of the Prescribed Voting Period was as follows :— (a) Affirmative Votes had been given by the following seventeen (17) Commissioners (arranged in the order in which Votes were received) : Sylvester-Bradley ; Hering ; Vokes ; Riley ; do Amaral ; Esaki; Lemche; Dymond; Hemming; Bonnet ; Cabrera; Mertens; Hanko; Pearson; Jaczewski ; Bradley (J.C.) ; Stoll ; (b) Negative Votes received, two (2) : Holthuis! ; Boschma? ; (c) Voting Papers not returned : None. 10. Declaration of Result of Vote: On 28th May 1954, Mr. Hemming, Secretary to the International Commission, acting as Returning Officer for the Vote taken on Voting Paper V.P.(54)10, 1 See paragraph 10 of the present Opinion. * Professor Boschma associated himself with the view on this case expressed by Dr. Holthuis. OPINION 337 121 signed a Certificate that the Votes cast were as set out in para- graph 9 above and declaring that the proposal submitted in the foregoing Voting Paper had been duly adopted and that the decision so taken was the decision of the International Com- mission in the matter aforesaid. At the same time Mr. Hemming executed a Minute directing that the letter in which Dr. Holthuis had explained the grounds on which he had voted against the proposal submitted in this case be attached to the present Opinion as an Annexe. 11. Preparation of the Ruling given in the present ‘* Opinion ”’ : On 11th October 1954 Mr. Hemming prepared the Ruling given in the present Opinion and at the same time signed a Certificate that the terms of that Ruling were in complete accord with those of the proposal approved by the International Commission in its Vote on Voting Paper V.P.(54)10. | 12. The following are the original references for the names placed on Official Lists and na Indexes by the Ruling given in the present Opinion :— algovianus, Ammonites, Oppel, 1862, Pal. Mitt. 3 : 137 Arieticeras Quenstedt, 1883, Ammoniten schwabisch. Jura 1 : 44, 113 Arieticeras Seguenza, 1885, Nat. sicil. 4 : 255 Seguenziceras Levi, 1896, Boll. Soc. geol. ital. 15 : 272 13. The following is the reference for the type selection for Arieticeras Seguenza, 1885, referred to in the Ruling given in the present Opinion :—Levi, 1896, Boll. Soc. geol. ital. 15 : 272. 14. The application dealt with in the present Opinion was published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature prior to the establishment of the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology by the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology, Copenhagen, 1953. It has not been possible since then to deal with this aspect of the present case. This question is however now being examined on a separate File to which the Registered Number Z.N.(S) 864 has been allotted. 122 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 15. At the time of the submission of the original application dealt with in the present Opinion, the expression prescribed for the second portion of the binomen which constitutes the scientific name of a species was the expression “trivial name” and the Official List reserved for recording such names was styled the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology, the word ** trivial’? appearing also in the title of the Official Index reserved for recording rejected and invalid names of this category. Under a decision taken by the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology, Copenhagen, 1953, the expression “specific name ”’ was substituted for the expression “trivial name” and corre- sponding changes were made in the titles of the Official List and Official Index of such names (1953, Copenhagen Decisions zool. Nomencl. : 21). The changes in terminology so adopted have been incorporated in the Ruling given in the present Opinion. 16. The prescribed procedures were duly complied with by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature in dealing with the present case, and the present Opinion is accord- ingly hereby rendered in the name of the said International Commission by the under-signed Francis Hemming, Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, in virtue of all and every the powers conferred upon him in that behalf. 17. The present Opinion shall be known as Opinion Three Hundred and Thirty-Seven (337) of the International Com- mission on Zoological Nomenclature. Done in London, this Eleventh day of October, Nineteen Hundred and Fifty-Four. Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature FRANCIS HEMMING GEINION 337 123 ANNEXE Correspondence between Mr. Francis Hemming, Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, and Dr. L. B. Holthuis, Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands (a) Letter dated 2nd March 1954 from Dr. L. B. Holthuis to Mr. Francis Hemming My reason for voting against the Arieticeras proposal as put forward in the Voting Paper V.P.(54)10 lies in the fact that I do not agree at all with a statement made in the “‘ Notes relating to the present case ”’ given on the reverse of the Voting Paper®. According to this state- ment “‘ Quenstedt clearly did not publish the name Arieticeras for use in zoological nomenclature ”’. But Quenstedt (1883) in the original publication says that those specialists, who think it necessary to have a special name for the subgenus that Waagen names Arietites, should use the name Arieticeras for it. In my opinion this latter name is clearly intended for use in zoological nomenclature, even if the author proposing it does not adopt it himself. If the Copenhagen resolution (1953, Copenh. zool. Nomencl. : 63, par. 114(1)) is explained so as to make nomenclatorially unavailable all names published by authors who themselves do not adopt these names, then this decision would be in contradiction to the decision taken at the Paris Congress in 1948 (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 144—145) where such conditionally _ published names are stated to be nomenclatorially available and are to be assigned to the author who published them conditionally. I cannot see that Quenstedt published the name Arieticeras for any other than nomenclatorial purposes. In my opinion the provision prescribed during the Copenhagen Congress is only intended for those cases where the author of a name expressly states that this name is not given for use in zoological nomen- clature, and in this sense I saw this provision when I voted in favour of it when I attended the Copenhagen Colloquium. A case to which the Copenhagen decision applies is, e.g., that of the name Cryptoleander published by Gurney in 1938 (Sci. Rep. Great Barrier Reef Exped. 6(1) : 35). When introducing the name Cryptoleander this author States, namely: ‘“‘ For the three forms now to be described I have coined the name [Crypoloeander] which is not intended as a generic designation but simply as a convenient term for reference.” This name Cryptoleander in my opinion falls under the Copenhagen decision, but not the name Arvieticeras Quenstedt, which was proposed by its * The note here referred to has been reproduced in paragraph 6 of the present Opinion. 124 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS author to be used in zoological nomenclature by those zoologists who thought the group of species concerned to be of sufficient import- ance to figure asa subgenus. I feel that if we reject names as Arieticeras Quenstedt as being unavailable nomenclatorially, we establish a very dangerous precedent. I agree for the larger part with the standpoint of Engel (1951, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 2 : 337). I feel it my duty to vote emphatically against the proposal put forward in Arkell’s applica- tion under paragraph 2b, and to state that I am in favour of the proposal published as paragraph 2a in Arkell’s paper. (b) Letter dated 14th March 1954 from Mr. Francis Hemming to Dr. L. B. Holthuis ““Arieticeras’’: Voting Paper V.P.(54)10 Thank you for your letter of 2nd March in which you very kindly explained the considerations which prompted your vote in this case. I recognise that in a case of this kind it must be a matter for individual judgment whether or not a particular author, when publishing a given name, intended that name to be used in zoological nomenclature and published it for that reason. Speaking for myself, I thought that the particulars given by Dr. Arkell showed clearly that Quenstedt published the name in question without any intention that it should really be used and indeed did so more by way of poking fun at, or ridiculing, those of his colleagues who had started to split up the old omnibus genus Ammonites Bruguiére than anything else. Printed in England by MetcatFe & Cooper LimiTED, 10-24 Scrutton St., London EC 2 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTER- NATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Edited by FRANCIS HEMMING, c.M.c., C.B.F. Secretary to the Commission VOLUME 10. Part 5. Pp. 125—180, 1 pl. OPINION 338 Acceptance of the Mesozoic Fossil species Gryphaea _ arcuata Lamarck, 1801, as the type species of the nominal genus Gryphaea Lamarck, 1801, and addition of the generic name Gryphaea Lamarck, 1801 (Class Pelecypoda) to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. AN HSON/4,) . APR 22 1¢59 LONDON : Nc igen vd 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 1955 4. Price One pound, nine shillings and sixpence (All rights reserved) Issued 17th March, 1955 INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE COMPOSITION AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THE RULING GIVEN IN OPINION 338 A. The Officers of the Commission Honorary Life President : Dr. Karl Jordan (British Museum (Natural History), Zoological Museum, Tring, Herts., England) President : Professor James Chester Bradley (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) Vice-President: Senhor Dr. Afranio do Amaral (Sao Paulo, Brazil) (12th August 1953) Secretary : Mr. Francis Hemming (London, England) (27th July 1948) B. The Members of the Commission (Arranged in order of precedence by reference to date of election or of most recent re-election, as prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology) Professor H. BoscHMA (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) (Ast January 1947) Senor Dr. Angel CABRERA (Eva Peron, F.C.N.G.R., Argentina) (27th July 1948) Mr. Francis HEMMING (London, England) (27th July 1948) (Secretary) Dr. Joseph PEARSON (Tasmania Museum, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia) (27th July 1948) Dr. Henning LEMCHE (Universitetets Zeologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark) (27th July 1948) Professor Teiso Esaki (Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan) (17th April 1950) Professor Pierre BONNET (Université de Toulouse, France) (9th June 1950) Mr. Norman Denbigh Ritey (British Museum (Natural History) London) (9th June 1950) Professor Tadeusz JACZEWSKI (Institute of Zoology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland) (15th June 1950) Professor Robert MERTENS (Natur-Museum u. Forschungs-Institut Senckenberg, Frankfurt a. M., Germany) (5th July 1950) Professor Erich Martin HERING (Zoologisches Museum der Humboldt-Universitat zu Berlin, Germany) (5th July 1950) Senhor Dr. Afranio do AMARAL (S. Paulo, Brazil) (12th August 1953) (Vice- President) ce J. R. DymMonpb (University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada) (12th August Professor J. Chester BRADLEY (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) (President) Professor Harold E. Voxes (Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) Professor Béla HANKO (Mezdgazdasdgi Muzeum, Budapest, Hungary) (12th August 1953) Dr. Norman R. STOLL (Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, New York, N.Y., U.S.A. (12th August 1953) . Mr. P. C. SyLVEsTER-BRADLEY (Sheffield University, Sheffield, England) (12th August 1953) Dr. L. B. Hortuuts (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Nether- lands) (12th August 1953) OPINION 338 ACCEPTANCE OF THE MESOZOIC FOSSIL SPECIES ‘*GRYPHAEA ARCUATA ” LAMARCK, 1801, AS THE TYPE SPECIES OF THE NOMINAL GENUS **GRYPHAEA ” LAMARCK, 1801, AND ADDITION OF THE GENERIC NAME *““GRYPHAEA” LAMARCK, 1801 (CLASS PELECYPODA), TO THE ** OFFICIAL LIST OF GENERIC NAMES IN ZOOLOGY ”’ RULING :—(1)(a) Under Article 25 of the Reégles, the generic name Gryphaea Lamarck possesses avail- ability for the purposes of the Law of Priority as from the date of its publication in 1801 in the Systéme des Animaux sans Vertébres. (b) The selection by Children (1823) of Gryphaea angulata Lamarck as the type species of the foregoing nominal genus is invalid, since at the time of the publication of the name Gryphaea Lamarck, 1801, the name Gryphaea angulata Lamarck was a nomen nudum and was not published, with an indication, for the Recent Species to which it is applicable until 1819. (c) The type species of Gryphaea Lamarck, 1801, is the Mesozoic Fossil species Gryphaea arcuata Lamarck, 1801, by selection by Anton (1839). (2) The nominal species Gryphaea angulata Lamarck, 1819, is not the type species of any nominal genus, but the generic name Crassostrea Sacco, 1897, is available for use for that species by those specialists who regard it as congeneric with Ostrea virginica Gmelin, [1790] (the type species of Crassostrea Sacco) and who do not refer both Species to the genus Ostrea Linnaeus, 1758. 128 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS (3) Under the Plenary Powers, the specific name egryphus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Anomia gryphus, is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy. (4) The under-mentioned generic names are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Nos. 843 and 844 respectively :— (a) Gryphaea Lamarck, 1801 (gender : feminine) (type species, by selection by Anton (1839) : Gryphaea arcuata Lamarck, 1801) ; (b) Crassostrea Sacco, 1897 (gender: feminine) (type species, by original designation : Ostrea virginica Gmelin, [1790] (a name incorrectly cited by Sacco as virginiana) for use by those specialists who consider Ostrea virginica Gmelin, [1790], generi- cally distinct from Ostrea edulis Linnaeus, 1758, the type species of Ostrea Linnaeus, 1758) ; (5) The under-mentioned specific names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Nos. 447 to 450 respectively :— (a) arcuata Lamarck, 1801, as published in the com- bination Gryphaea arcuata, the species so named to be interpreted by the lectotype selection made by Cox (1951 : 326) (specific name of type species of Gryphaea Lamarck, 1801) ; (b) obliquata Sowerby (J.), 1815, as published in the combination Gryphaea obliquata ; (c) angulata Lamarck, 1819, as published in the com- bination Gryphaea angulata ; (d) virginica Gmelin, [1790], as published in the com- bination Ostrea virginica (specific name of type species of Crassostrea Sacco, 1897) ; OPINION 338 129 (6) The under-mentioned generic names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Nos. 233 and 234 respectively :— (a) Liogryphaea Fischer (P.H.), 1885 (a junior objective synonym of Gryphaea Lamarck, 1801, the two nominal genera having the same species as type Species) : (b) Liogryphea Douvillé, 1904 (an Erroneous Subse- quent Spelling of Liogryphaea Fischer (P.H.), 1885) ; (7) The under-mentioned specific names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Nos. 115 to 117. respectively :— (a) angulata Lamarck, 1801, as published in the com- bination Gryphaea angulata (a nomen nudum) ; (b) gryphus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the com- bination Anomia gryphus, as suppressed under the Plenary Powers under (3) above ; (c) virginiana Roding, 1798, as -published in the com- bination Ostrea virginiana (an Erroneous Subse- quent Spelling of virginica Gmelin, [1790], as published in the combination Ostrea virginica). I—THE STATEMENT OF THE CASE The problem associated with the name Gryphaea Lamarck was placed before the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature by M. Gilbert Ranson (Sous-Directeur du Labora- toire de Malacologie, Muséum National d’ Histoire Naturelle, Paris) 130 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS at a Public Meeting of the International Commission held, jointly with the Section on Nomenclature of the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948, at the Sorbonne in the Amphithéatre Louis-Liard on Monday, 26th July 1948. This application was as follows :— Quelle est V’espéce type du genre ‘‘ Gryphaea ’’ Lamarck ? Par GILBERT RANSON (France) 1. Ce sujet a fait objet de maintes discussions. [1 est néanmoins nécessaire d’y revenir parce qu’un accord n’a pu encore se faire entre les auteurs. 2. En 1801, dans “ ?Addition”’ a son Systéme des Animaux Sans Vertébres, Lamarck créa le Genre Gryphaea. Dans lV Avertissement a ce Systéme, Vauteur dit: “ Pour faire connaitre d’une maniere certaine les genres dont je donne ici les caracteéres, j’ai cité sous chacun d’eux une espéce connue, ou tres rarement plusieurs, et j’y ai joint quelques synonymes que je puis certifier ; cela suffit pour me faire comprendre.”’ 3. Pour le genre Gryphaea, Lamarck cite les espéces suivantes :— Gryphaea angulata Lmk. Gryphaea suborbiculata Lmk. Gryphaea cymbula Lmk. Gryphaea arcuata Lmk. Gryphaea africana Lmk. Gryphaea carinata Lmk. Gryphaea latissima Lmk. Gryphaea depressa Lmk. Gryphaea angusta Lmk. 4. Il ajoute en Nota: “‘. . . Dans mon tableau général des espéces, je caracteriserai toutes celles dont je donne ici simplement le nom.” Lamarck considérait donc cette liste comme provisoire et il semble bien, d’aprés les citations qui viennent d’étre faites, qu’il n’accordait qu'une valeur “ d’exemples ’’ aux espéces citées. 5. La notion de “type” n’était pas encore congue a cette Epoque. Mais dés 1823, nous voyons Children sélectionner les “types” de |’ Histoire Naturelle des Animaux Sans Verteébres. OPINION 338 131 6. Malgré tout, Lamarck donne comme premier exemple de son genre, l’espéce Gryphaea angulata. Il ne fait pas de doute que Lamarck le créa aprés l’examen de l’unique exemplaire de cette espéce qu'il venait de recevoir. Cet échantillon se trouve actuellement dans les collections du Muséum du Paris et a été figuré par Delessert en 1841. 7. En effet, en 1819, dans son Histoire Naturelle des Animaux Sans Vertebres, Lamarck décrit comme premiére espece du genre, Gryphaea angulata Lmk. Mais en ce qui concerne les autres espéces, la plupart des noms originaux sont modifiés et trois autres espéces introduites. Voici les noms correspondant aux espéces citées en 1801 :— Gryphaea angulata Lmk. Gryphaea columba Lmk. Gryphaea cymbium Lmk. Gryphaea arcuata Lmk. Gryphaea secunda Lmk. Gryphaea plicata Lmk. Gryphaea latissima Lmk. Gryphaea silicea Lmk. Gryphaea angusta Lmk. 8. Entre 1801 et 1819 plusieurs auteurs ont publié des travaux sur les Mollusques, se référant aux Huitres: Bosc en 1802, Roissy en 1805 et Cuvier en 1817. Mais ces auteurs ne selectionnent pas de “ types ”’ et citent seulement des examples. II ne peut étre tenu compte de ces travaux pour fixer le “type ’’ du genre Gryphaea. Finlay, en 1928, remarque judicieusement que le fait de citer ou méme de figurer un échantillon d’un genre n’est pas retenu par les régles pour étre la sélection définie d’un “ type ”’. 9. Ainsi nous sommes amenés au travail de Children (1823) ou, pour la premiere fois, Gryphaea angulata est désigné comme “‘ type ”’ du genre. 10. Cependant M. Winckworth, de Londres, me fait remarquer dans une lettre que Children se référe a |’ Histoire Naturelle de 1819 et non au Systéme de 1801 ; cette sélection du “type” ne serait donc pas valable. Il ajoute “the next selection of type is by Anton (1839), where G. arcuata is given as type (compare page VI, where he says that he prints the type species of each genus in small capital print) ”’. 11. La question se pose donc maintenant de savoir si le “ type” du genre Gryphaea doit étre pris dans le Systéme des Animaux Sans Vertébres (1801) ou dans I’Histoire Naturelle des Animaux Sans Vertébres (1819). S’il doit étre sélectionné dans le Systéme nous nous 132 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS trouvons en présence du fait suivant : d’aprés nos conceptions modernes de la nomenclature, Gryphaea angulata, premiere espéce citée par Lamarck, n’y étant ni décrite ni figurée, est un nomen nudum. II importe donc de prendre comme “ type’ la premiere espece suivante bien décrite ou bien figurée dans les références données par Lamarck. C’est pourquoi les auteurs ont choisi G. arcuata Lmk. 12. Mais peut-on prendre en considération le Systéme pour sélec- tionner des “‘ types’ ? Cette question a été soulevée a diverses reprises et posée a la Commission Internationale de Nomenclature Zoologique. Dans deux de ses Opinions (79 et 81) cette Commission répond négative- ment et se résume ainsi: ‘‘ Rigidly construed, Lamarck’s (1801 A) Systéme des Animaux sans Vertébres is not accepted as designation of type species.” s’expliquant de la maniére suivante dans |’ Opinion 79 : ‘““In the view of the Commission, Lamarck cites a ‘ known species or very rarely several ’ as examples, in order to illustrate the genera, but rigidly construed, he does not fix the types. This interpretation is supported by an examination of Lamarck’s (1816 b) Histoire Naturelle des Animaux Sans Vertébres, in which he does not even cite certain species mentioned in 1801. For instance, in 1801, p. 293, he cites only P. rufipes under Pentatoma ; if he had intended this as a type designation he would, presumably, have cited this species under Pentatoma in 1816 b, 492—494, but he does not do so; he stated that Pentatoma contains a large number of species, of which he cites : acuminata, baccarum and prasina’’. 13. En ce qui concerne le genre Gryphaea, si Lamarck a cité chaque fois en premiére ligne lespéce Gryphaea angulata, il a modifié les noms de la plupart des espéces suivantes de la liste de 1801. Il est donc bien osé de choisir parmi les autres espéces celle devant étre prise comme 66 type ar 14. D’autre part Lamarck a. non seulement changé les noms de certaines espéces mais il a modifié les références pour deux d’entre elles. C’est ainsi qu’en 1801 on trouve :— Gryphaea cymbulan. Knorr. Peétrif. Vol. 2¢€, part 1, pl. 20, fig. 7, Esp. fossile. Gryphaea arcuata n. Encyclop. pl. 189, fig. 1, 2. Knorr, Pétrif. Vol. 2é, p. 1, pl. 60, fig. 1, 2. Bourg. Pétrif. No. 92, Esp. fossile. Et en 1819 :— Gryphaea cymbium. Knorr, Pétrif. part 2, B.I., d., pl. 20, fig. 7. Encyclop. pl. 189, fig. 1, 2. Gryphaea arcuata. Bourguet, Pétrif. pl. 15, No. 92. Knorr, Pétrif. part 2, D ITI, pl. 60, fig. 1, 2. Gryphaea incurva. Sowerby, Conch. Min. No. 20, t.112, f.1. OPINION 338 133 La référence, en 1801, de G. arcuata a I’Encyclopédie est passée, en 1819, a G. cymbium. On ne peut donc pas dire qu’en 1801 le G. arcuata de Lamarck soit bien défini. 15. Pour toutes ces raisons nous ne devons donc pas choisir le type de Gryphaea dans le Systéme de Lamarck, mais dans son Histoire Naturelle comme I|’a fait Children en 1823. Cet auteur est le premier a avoir désigné Gryphaea angulata Lmk. comme type du genre. 16. Nous ne pouvons pas suivre Dall qui, en 1898, ne semblant pas connaitre le travail d’Anton, sélectionne de nouveau G. arcuata comme type. Gryphaea arcuata Lmk. est le type du genre Liogryphaea P. Fischer, 1886. Bibliographie 1801—Lamarck. Systéme des Animaux sans Vertébres. 1802—Bosc, L. A. G. Histoire Naturelle des Coquilles, T.1I. 1805—Roissy. Histoire Naturelle des Mollusques, T.V1. 1817—Cuvier. Régne Animal. aoe Histoire Naturelle des Animaux sans Vertébres, 1823—Children. Lamarck’s Genera of shells. Art. V. Quart. J. Sc. Lit. and Arts, Vol. 15. 1839—Anton. Verzeichniss der Conchylien. 1886—Fischer, P. Manuel de Conchyliologie. 1898—Dall, W. H. Contributions to the tertiary Fauna of Florida. Part IV. Trans. Wagner Free Institute of Sc. of Philadelphia, Vol. 3, Part IV. 1924—Opinions rendered by the International Commission on Zoo- logical Nomenclature. Opinions 78 to 81 (publication 2747). Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections, Vol. 73, No. 2. 1929—Finlay, H. J. The recent Mollusca of the Chatham Islands. Trans. and Proceed. New Zealand Institute, Vol. 59. 2. Registration of the present application: Upon the receipt shortly before the Paris (1948) Congress of notice of M. Ranson’s intention to raise at the Congress the question of the generic name Gryphaea Lamarck, this problem was allotted the Registered Number Z.N.(S.) 365. 134 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS II—THE SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF THE CASE 3. Adjournment of the present application at Paris in 1948 for further investigation : At the joint meeting of the International Commission and the Section of Nomenclature of the Paris (1948) Congress at which the present application was presented by M. Ranson, a brief discussion took place at which, as recorded in the Official Record of the Proceedings of the Section on Nomenclature (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 5 : 96—98), Mr. R. Winckworth took exception to the proposal on the ground that at the date (1801) when the name Gryphaea was first published by Lamarck, the nominal species Gryphaea angulata Lamarck which M. Ranson asked should be accepted as the type species of this genus was still undescribed, the name Gryphaea angulata Lamarck being at that time a nomen nudum. At the conclusion of this discussion, the President of the Section on Nomenclature (Mr. Francis Hemming), when thanking M. Ranson for bringing forward this case, expressed the view that this was not a matter on which the Section could itself pronounce an opinion and that it would be necessaiy that the problem involved should be referred to the International Commission for consideration and decision (1950, ibid. 5 : 97-98). The Commission thereupon agreed to defer the further consideration of this case until after the close of the Paris Congress (1950, ibid. 4 : 306—307). 4. Publication of the present application : At the last Meeting of the Section on Nomenclature of the Paris (1948) Congress, it was decided to invite the International Trust for Zoological Nomen- clature to undertake financial and other responsibility for the publication in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature of the Official Records of the discussions on zoological nomenclature held during the Paris Congress (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 642—644). This invitation was accepted by the Trust. When later the Trust considered how best to give effect to the under- taking which it had given in this matter, it decided to allot for this purpose three volumes of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, the first (vol. 3) to be devoted to the documents on nomenclature submitted to the Commission and the Congress, the second and third (volumes 4 and 5) being devoted to the Official Record of the Proceedings of the Commission during its Paris Session and OPINION 338 135 of those of the Section on Nomenclature respectively. All three of these volumes were published by the Trust in 1950, the paper submitted by M. Ranson in regard to the name Gryphaea appear- ing in the first of these volumes (Ranson, 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 3 : 168—170). 5. Issue of Public Notices in 1951 : On the completion in 1950 of the publication of the Official Records of the discussions on nomenclature at the Paris Congress, the International Trust was able to resume the publication in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature of applications submitted to the International Com- mission for decision. The first instalment of these applications was published in the course of the years 1950 and 1951 in volume 2 of the Bulletin (a volume which had been reserved for this purpose at the time when it was decided to allot volumes 3, 4 and 5 to the Paris records). In view of the fact that (as has already been explained) the present application had been published in 1950 in volume 3 of the Bulletin, 1t was not considered necessary to republish it in a volume specially reserved for new applications. On the other hand, it was felt that the publication of this applica- tion in volume 3 of the Bulletin, together with the other documents received by the Commission when sitting in Paris in 1948, might not secure for it the desired degree of publicity unless some appropriate supplementary action were taken. It was accordingly decided to include in volume 2 of the Bulletin a special note drawing attention to this application and pointing out the nature of the action which it would be necessary for the Commission to take if it were to approve the solution sought by M. Ranson, namely, that it would be necessary for the Commission to use its Plenary Powers to suppress the name Gryphaea Lamarck, 1801, and all later uses of this name prior to Lamarck, 1819, this being the only way by which it would be possible to secure that, as desired by M. Ranson, the genus so named should have the Recent species Gryphaea angulata Lamarck, 1819, as its type species. It was decided also that at the same time Public Notice of the possible use by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature of its Plenary Powers in this case (thereby placing the Commission in a position to grant M. Ranson’s application, if it were to decide that it was desirable so to do) should be given to the serial publications prescribed by the Thirteenth Inter- national Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948 (1950, Bull. zool. 136 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS Nomencl. 4 : 51—56). In compliance with the foregoing decision Mr. Francis Hemming, as Secretary to the Commission, prepared the following paper, which was published on 4th May 1951 in. Triple-Part 6/8 of volume 2 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (Hemming, 1951, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 2 : 239— 240), in which Part also Public Notice of the possible use of the Plenary Powers in this case was given in the prescribed manner, similar Notice being given at the same time to the other prescribed serial publications and, in addition, to certain other zoological and palaeontological serial publications in Europe and America :— On an application, the grant of which would require that the name ‘* Gryphaea ”’ Lamarck, 1801, should be suppressed, under the Plenary Powers, thus validating the mame ‘‘ Gryphaea’’ Lamarck, 1819 (Class Pelecypoda) By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E. (Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) 1. Attention is drawn to a request submitted by M. Gilbert Ranson ' to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature at its Session held in Paris in 1948, in which he asked the Commission to give a ruling (1) that the generic name Gryphaea Lamarck ranks for purposes of zoological nomenclature from 1819 not from 1801 (the year in which it was first published) and (2) that the type species of this genus is Gryphaea angulata Lamarck, 1819 (Hist. nat. Anim. sans Verteébr. 6(1) : 198). The text of M. Ranson’s application has been published by the Commission (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 3 : 168—170), as also has been the Official Record of Proceedings at the Meeting of the Inter- national Commission at which M. Ranson’s application was presented (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 306) and that of the Meeting of the Section on Nomenclature of the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology held concurrently with the meeting of the Commission (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 5 : 96—98). 2. Mr. R. Winckworth pointed out at that meeting that the generic name Gryphaea Lamarck, 1801 (Syst. Anim. sans Vertébr. : 398) was published with a diagnosis and therefore that this name, so published, satisfies the requirements of Article 25 of the Régles. On the above occasion Lamarck cited, under this generic name, the names of nine nominal species ; several of those names were at that time nomina nuda, but others were validated by the citation of bibliographical references. Under the Régles, therefore, these latter species alone are eligible for A OPINION 338 137 selection as the type species of this genus. One of these nominal species, Gryphaea arcuata Lamarck, 1801 (Joc. cit. : 398), was selected as the type species of this genus by Anton in 1839 (Verz. Conchyl. : 21). This being the first occasion on which any of originally included species was so selected, the Fossil species Gryphaea arcuata Lamarck, 1801, is under the Régles the type species of the genus Gryphaea Lamarck, 1801. 3. M. Ranson has made it clear in his application that he considers it important that the name Gryphaea Lamarck should be accepted as the generic name for the Recent species Gryphaea angulata Lamarck, 1819 ; this species was so selected by Children (1823). This type selection, though prior to that by Anton, is invalid, since at the time when in 1801 the generic name Gryphaea was first validly published by Lamarck, the name Gryphaea angulata, then cited by Lamarck, was a mere nomen nudum and accordingly does not rank as an originally included species and is ineligible for selection by a later author to be the type species of the genus in question. In presenting this problem to the International Commission, M. Ranson argued in favour of the accept- ance of the Histoire Naturelle of 1819 in place of the Systéme of 1801 as the work as from which the type species of the genus Gryphaea Lamarck should be chosen. In advancing this view, M. Ranson did not ask that the International Commission should use its Plenary Powers to secure the end that he had in view but sought to show that it would be permissible, under the normal operation of the Régles, to disregard the Systéme of 1801. As Mr. Winckworth has shown, this would, however, not be possible. Nevertheless, if the majority of interested specialists were to favour the end sought by M. Ranson, namely the acceptance of Gryphaea angulata Lamarck, 1819, as the type species of the nominal genus Gryphaea Lamarck, a solution in that sense could readily be provided by the International Commission by the use of its Plenary Powers. 4. The issue which, in effect, the International Commission is asked to decide is :— (1) whether the normal provisions of the Rég/es are to be allowed to operate in the present case, with the result that the generic name Gryphaea would rank from Lamarck, 1801, and would have, as its type species, the Fossil species, Gryphaea arcuata Lamarck, 1801 (by selection by Anton, 1839) ; or (2) whether the Plenary Powers should be used to suppress the name | Gryphaea Lamarck, 1801, and all uses of that generic name from 1801 to the date in 1819, when it was republished by Lamarck in the Hist. nat. Anim. sans Vertébr, the name Gryphaea Lamarck, 1819 (so validated) having, as its type species, the Recent species Gryphaea angulata Lamarck, 1819 (by selection by Children, 1823). 138 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 5. As the application submitted in this matter by M. Ranson is of direct concern to palaeontologists as well as to zoologists, the Jnter- national Commission, before reaching a decision, will be anxious to be fully informed of the wishes of interested specialists in both Fossil and Recent species of the group concerned. 6. The object of the present note is to draw attention to the problem which has been submitted to the International Commission and to invite interested specialists to be good enough to furnish the Commis- sion as soon as possible with their views on that problem and on the best means of solving it. Communications on this subject should be addressed to the Secretary to the International Commission on Zoo- logical Nomenclature, Secretariat of the Commission, 28 Park Village East, Regent’s Park, London, N.W.1, England. 6. Comments received in regard to the present case: The publication in May 1951 of Mr. Hemming’s note (paragraph 5 above) drawing attention to M. Ranson’s application and inviting interested specialists to furnish the Commission with statements of their views as to the action which it was desirable should be taken in this case attracted a great amount of attention, no less than thirty-three specialists taking part. At an early stage one of these specialists, Dr. L. R. Cox (British Museum (Natural History), London) submitted a counter-proposal, namely that the Régles should be applied, without intervention of the Plenary Powers, in the matter of the species to be accepted as the type species of the genus Gryphaea Lamarck, and therefore that this generic name should rank from Lamarck’s Syst. Anim. sans Vertébr. of 1801, and that the Mesozoic Fossil species Gryphaea arcuata Lamarck, 1801, should be accepted as the type species of this genus (Cox, Sept. 1951, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 2 : 324). It was then arranged between the Secretary and M. Ranson that facilities should be given for the publication in the Bulletin of a note by M. Ranson setting out the grounds which prompted him to dissent from the view expressed by Dr. Cox. M. Ranson’s rejoinder was submitted on 28th January 1952 and was published on 22nd May 1952 (Ranson, 1952, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 6 : 205—206, 1 pl.). Of the remaining thirty-one specialists, all either (1) supported the adoption of the Recent species Gryphaea angulata Lamarck, 1819, as the type species of the genus Gryphaea (the Ranson proposal) or (2) supported the adoption of the Mesozoic Fossil species Gryphaea arcuata Lamarck, 1801, as the OPINION 338 139 type species of that genus (the Cox counter-proposal). The names of the specialists who furnished these comments are set out in the annexe to the paper reproduced in paragraph 8 below, which the Secretary to the Commission submitted to the Com- mission at the time of the commencement of the vote on the present case. The list so furnished by the Secretary gives the volume and page references to the places where these comments were published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature on various dates in 1951 and 1952. The comments received are reproduced in full in the Appendix to the present Opinion. 7. Completion in 1952 of the material needed to enable the Commission to give a Ruling in favour either of the Ranson proposal or of the Cox counter-proposal : In the summer of 1952 considera- tion was given by the Secretary to the form of the Ruling which the Commission would need to give if it were to decide in favour of the Ranson proposal or, alternatively, if it were to decide in favour of the Cox counter-proposal. It was then found that, although both M. Ranson and Dr. Cox had indicated clearly the action which they respectively advocated, neither had supplied all the information which would be needed by the Commission in the event of the rejection of the proposals they had respectively submitted. Correspondence accordingly ensued between the Secietary to the Commission and M. Ranson and Dr. Cox, as the result of which the necessary information was obtained and agreement secured as to the action which would be needed in the event of the rejection by the Commission of the proposals sub- mitted by those specialists. By the time that this correspondence was completed, the near approach of the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology, Copenhagen, 1953, and of the Colloquium on Zoological Nomenclature to be held concurrently with the Congress then being organised by the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature made it essential for the time being to postpone further action on individual cases, in order that the entire resources of the Secretariat of the Commission might be concentrated upon the preparations for the Copenhagen Meetings. 8. Submission to the Commission in February 1954 of alter- native proposals for the adoption either of the Ranson proposal 140 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS or of the Cox counter-proposal : On 27th February 1954 the Secretary to the Commission submitted to the Commission the following paper in which he gave a brief summary of the issues involved in the present case and of the arrangements which he had concerted with M. Ranson and Dr. Cox in regard to the form in which their respective proposals should be placed before the Commission. As will be seen, Mr. Hemming added also (in an annexe to his note) a complete list of the specialists who had furnished comments on this case, giving at the same time biblio- graphical references to the places where those comments had been published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. The ‘** Gryphaea ”’ case : an Explanatory Note By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E. (Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) The central issue in the present case is extremely simple ; it is: (1) Shall the generic name Gryphaea Lamarck be used for the Mesozoic Fossil Species Gryphaea arcuata Lamarck, 1801, in accordance with the practice of palaeontologists? OR (2) Shall the name Gryphaea Lamarck be used for the Recent Species Gryphaea angulata Lamarck, 1819 (the Portuguese Oyster), in accordance with a usage which is current among those neontologists who consider that species generically separable from Ostrea Linnaeus, 1758 ? 2. Under the Regles (a) the generic name Gryphaea dates from Lamarck, 1801, and its type species is the Mesozoic Fossil Species Gryphaea arcuata Lamarck, 1801, by selection by Anton (1839). 3. There are two applications in this case, namely (1) an application by M. Gilbert Ranson that under the Plenary Powers Gryphaea should rank from Lamarck, 1819, in which case its type species would be the Recent Species Gryphaea angulata Lamarck, 1819, by selection by Children (1823) ; (2) a counter-application by Dr. L. R. Cox that the Régles should be strictly applied in this case and therefore that Gryphaea should rank from Lamarck, 1801 (the year in which it was first validly published) and that Gryphaea arcuata Lamarck, 1801, the Mesozoic Fossil Species which is the type species under the Régles, should be accepted as such. The papers concerned are: (1) Ranson (1950 Bull. zool. Nomencl. 3 : 168—170) (a paper in which M. Ranson argued that the first valid publication of the name Gryphaea was by OPINION 338 14] Lamarck, 1819, not 1801) ; (2) Hemming (1951, ibid. 2 : 239—240) (a paper in which I pointed out that under the Régles the name Gryphaea dates from Lamarck, 1801, and that its type species is Gryphaea arcuata Lamarck, 1801, and that, if M. Ranson’s object was to be achieved, the Plenary Powers would need to be used); (3) Cox (1951, ibid. 2 : 324— 331) (in which exception was taken to M. Ranson’s proposal, and the Commission was asked to refuse to use its Plenary Powers in the manner needed to give effect to M. Ranson’s proposal) ; (4) Ranson (1952, ibid. 6 : 205—206) (a paper in which, in answer to Dr. Cox, M. Ranson re-stated his former view as to the non-acceptability of Lamarck, 1801, but added that, if this argument was not accepted, he desired that the Commission should use its Plenary Powers to rule that the name Gryphaea should rank from Lamarck, 1819, instead of 1801, and that Gryphaea angulata Lamarck, 1819, should be accepted as its type species). 4. The publication of the foregoing papers elicited a large number of comments on one side or the other. A list of these comments, all of which, except two, have been published in the Bulletin, is given in an Appendix attached to the present note. 5. Under a General Directive issued by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948, the Commission is under instructions to secure that Rulings given by it in Opinions cover the whole of the problem submitted. From this point of view, both M. Ranson’s application and Dr. Cox’s counter-application are incomplete, for (1) M. Ranson submitted no proposals as to the action required for stabilising the generic name for the Recent Species Gryphaea angulata Lamarck, 1801, in the event of the Commission rejecting his proposal that the Commission should accept that species as the type species of the genus Gryphaea Lamarck, while (2) Dr. Cox’s application contained no proposal for stabilising the generic name for the Mesozoic Fossil Species Gryphaea arcuata Lamarck, 1801, in the event of the Commis- sion rejecting his proposal that this species should be retained as the type species of the genus Gryphaea Lamarck, 1801. Accordingly, in preparation for the submission of the present case to the Commission, I entered into correspondence with M. Ranson and Dr. Cox for the purpose of agreeing with each of them the action which would be necessary in the event of the rejection by the Commission of the application submitted. I am most grateful to these specialists for the assistance which they have been good enough to give in this matter, assistance which has made it possible for me now to submit alternative solutions for the present problem, each of which has been agreed both with M. Ranson and with Dr. Cox from their respective points of view. 6. In the light of the advice so received, it is clear :— (a) that, if M. Ranson’s proposal were to be rejected, there is no genus to which the Recent Species Gryphaea angulata Lamarck, 142 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 1819, is objectively referable (i.e. there is no genus to which it is the type species) and that for those specialists who do not refer this species to the genus Ostrea Linnaeus, 1758, the oldest available nominal genus subjectively available for this species is Crassostrea Sacco, 1897 ; (b) that, if Dr. Cox’s counter-proposal were to be rejected, the only generic name (apart from Gryphaea Lamarck, 1801) which has been applied to the Mesozoic Fossil Species Gryphaea arcuata Lamarck, 1801, is Liogryphaea Fischer, 1885, of which it is the type species, but that this generic name could not validly be used for this species without the intervention of the Inter- national Commission, for it is a junior subjective synonym of the two long-neglected names :—Gryphaeigenus Renier, 1807 ; Gryphites Schlotheim, 1813. 7. In order to comply with the General Directive referred to in paragraph 5 above and in accordance with the advice agreed upon with M. Ranson and Dr. Cox, I have included in the Alternative Rulings now submitted (1) a proposal that, in the event of the Commission rejecting M. Ranson’s proposal, (and accepting Dr. Cox’s counter- proposal) it should place the name Crassostrea Sacco, 1897, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with a note (as prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology) that this name is placed on the Official List for use by those specialists who consider its type species generically separable from the type species of the genus Ostrea Linnaeus, 1758 ; (2) a proposal that in the event of the Commission rejecting Dr. Cox’s proposal (and accepting M. Ranson’s proposal) the names Gryphaeigenus Renier, 1807, and Gryphites Schlotheim, 1813, should be suppressed under the Plenary Powers for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy. 8. Owing to the complexity of the detailed action required and to the fact that there are two opposing applications to be considered, it has been considered that in the present case (as in similar cases in the past) the most convenient course from the point of view of the Members of the Commission will be to place before them drafts of Alternative Rulings rather than that they should be asked to vote for or against one only of the two applications submitted. Of the two alternative Rulings now submitted for consideration, ALTERNATIVE “A” is a Ruling that the Régles should be strictly applied in the present case (i.e. a Ruling against M. Ranson’s proposal and in favour of that submitted by Dr. Cox), while ALTERNATIVE “ B”’ is a Ruling that the Plenary Powers should be used to grant M. Ranson’s proposal (and to reject that submitted by Dr. Cox). OPINION 338 ANNEXE TO NOTE BY THE SECRETARY Particulars ef comments received in the ‘* Gryphaea ”’ case (a) Authors supporting the use of the Plenary Powers to secure the valid use of the name “* Gryphaea”’ for the Recent Species “ Lamarck, 1819 Author Bulletin Ref. G. Ranson (Paris) 3: 168; 6: 205 Jean Roger (Paris) 6 : 188 G. Lecointre (Rabat) 6 : 187 P. Korringa (Bergen op Zoom) 6 : 189 A. Chavan (Thoiry) 6: 191 S. Jaeckel (Berlin) 6 : 188 G. Mermod (Geneva) 6: 191 (b) Authors supporting the strict application of the “ Régles”’ for the purpose of maintaining the use of the name ‘‘ Gryphaea”’ Lamarck, 1801, for the Mesozoic Fossil species ‘‘ Gryphaea arcuata’’ Lamarck, 1801 Author Bulletin Ref. L. R. Cox (London) 2 : 324 D. T. Donovan (Bristol) 2 : 333 W. J. Arkell (Cambridge) 2: 331 Myra Keen (Stanford) 2s 3352 Siemon W. Muller (Stanford) 2 : 332 C. R. Boettger (Frankfurt a.M.) ...... P. C. Sylvester-Bradley (Sheffield) 6 : 185 H. B. Stenzel (Austin, Texas) 6: 186 G. Gunter (Port Aransas, Texas) 6 : 186 H. A. Rehder (Washington) 6 : 188 lil—THE DECISION OF THE INTERNATIONAL 143 Gryphaea angulata”’ Author Bulletin Ref. B. Havinga (Amsterdam) 9 : 146 Sven Segerstrale (Helsinki) 9 : 146 H. A. Cole (Conway) 6:192; 9: 146 M. Desbrosses (Paris) 9 : 146 E. Leloup (Bruxelles) 9; 146 A. M. Ramalho (Lisbon) 9 ; 146 C. E. Lucas (Aberdeen) 9 : 146 Author Bulletin Ref. J. P. S. Morrison (Washington) 6 : 188 R. T. Abbott (Washington) 6: 188 D. Nicol (Washington) 6 : 188 Julia Gardner (Washington) 6 : 188 W. P. Woodring (Washington) 6 : 188 J. B. Reeside, Jr. (Washington) 6 : 188 R. W. Imlay (Washington) 6 : 188 L. W. Stephenson (Washington) 6 : 188 W. A. Cobban (Washington) 6: 188 H. E. Vokes (Washington) zt COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 9. Issue of Voting Paper V.P.(54)11 : On 27th February 1954, a Voting Paper V.P.(54)11 was issued in which the Members of the Commission were invited to vote ‘‘ either for Alternative 144 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS ‘A’ (Fossil species as type species for Gryphaea) or for Alterna- tive ‘B’ (use of the Plenary Powers to secure the Recent species (G. angulata) as the type species of Gryphaea) as set out in the drafts annexed hereto’. The following are the drafts sub- mitted with the foregoing Voting Paper as “Alternative ‘A’ ” and “Alternative ‘B’” respectively :— ALTERNATIVE ‘‘A”’ Draft Ruling on the basis that the ‘* Régles ’’ are to be strictly applied and that the name ‘‘ Gryphaea ”’ Lamarck, 1801, is therefore to have as its type species the Mesozoic Fossil species ‘*‘ Gryphaea arcuata ”’ Lamarck, 1801 (1) (a) Under Article 25 of the Régles, the generic name Gryphaea Lamarck possesses availability for the purposes of the Law of Priority as from the date of its publication in 1801 in the Systéme des Animaux sans Vertébres. (b) The selection by Children (1823) of Gryphaea angulata Lamarck as the type species of the foregoing nominal genus is invalid, since at the time of the publication of the name Gryphaea Lamarck, 1801, the name Gryphaea angulata Lamarck was a nomen nudum and was not published, with an indication, for the Recent species to which it is now applied until 1819. (c) The type species of Gryphaea Lamarck, 1801, is the Mesozoic Fossil species Gryphaea — arcuata Lamarck, 1801, by selection by Anton (1839). (2) The nominal species Gryphaea angulata Lamarck, 1819, is not the type species of any nominal genus, but the generic name Crassostrea Sacco, 1897, is available for use for that species by those specialists who regard it as congeneric with Ostrea virginica Gmelin, [1790] (the type species of Crassostrea Sacco) and who do not refer both species to the genus Ostrea Linnaeus, 1758. (3) Under the Plenary Powers, the specific name gryphus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Anomia gryphus, is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy. (4) The under-mentioned generic names are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology :— (a) Gryphaea Lamarck, 1801 (gender : feminine) (type species, by selection by Anton (1839) : Gryphaea arcuata Lamarck, 1801) ; OPINION 338 145 (b) Crassostrea Sacco, 1897 (gender: feminine) (type species, by original designation : Ostrea virginica Gmelin, [1790] (a name incorrectly cited by Sacco as virginiana)) (for use by those specialists who consider Ostrea virginica Gmelin, [1790], generically distinct from Ostrea edulis Linnaeus, 1758) ; (5) The under-mentioned specific names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology :— (a) arcuata Lamarck, 1801, as published in the combination Gryphaea arcuata, the species so named to be interpreted by the lectotype selection made by Cox (1951 : 326) (specific name of type species of Gryphaea Lamarck, 1801) ; (b) obliquata Sowerby (J.), 1815, as published in the combination Gryphaea obliquata ; (c) angulata Lamarck, 1819, as published in the combination Gryphaea angulata ; (d) virginica Gmelin, [1790], as published in the combination Ostrea virginica (specific name of type species of Crassostrea Sacco, 1897) ; (6) The under-mentioned generic names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology :— (a) Liogryphaea Fischer, 1885 (a junior objective synonym of Gryphaea Lamarck, 1801, the two nominal genera having the Same species as type species) ; (b) Liogryphea Douvillé, 1904 (an Erroneous Subsequent Spelling of Liogryphaea Fischer, 1885) ; (7) The under-mentioned specific names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology :— (a) gryphus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Anomia gryphus, as suppressed under the Plenary Powers under (3) above ; (b) virginiana Sacco,! 1897, as published in the combination Crassos- trea virginiana (an Erroneous Subsequent Spelling of virginica Gmelin, [1790], as published in the combination Ostrea virginica). 1 Roding, 1798, was the first author to publish this misspelling. See paragraph 14 of the present Opinion. 146 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS | ALTERNATIVE ‘B” Draft Ruling on the basis that the Plenary Powers are to be used to designate, as the type species of the genus ‘‘ Gryphaea ’’ Lamarck, 1819, the Recent species ‘“ Gryphaea angulata’’ Lamarck, 1819, in place of the Mesozoic Fossil species ‘‘ Gryphaea arcuata ’’ Lamarck, 1801, being accepted as the type species of ‘*‘ Gryphaea ’’ Lamarck, 1801 (1) Under the Plenary Powers the under-mentioned names are hereby suppressed for the purposes both of the Law of Priority and of the Law of Homonymy :—(a) Gryphaea Lamarck, 1801 ; (b) Gryphaea, all uses of, subsequent to Lamarck, 1801, and prior to Lamarck, 1819. (2) Under the Plenary Powers the under-mentioned names are hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy : (a) the generic name Gryphaeigenus Renier, 1807 ; (b) the generic name Gryphites Schlotheim, 1813 ; (c) the specific name gryphus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Anomia gryphus. (3) The under-mentioned names are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology :— (a) Gryphaea Lamarck, 1819, as validated under the Plenary Powers under (1) above (gender : feminine) (type species, by selection by Children (1823) : Gryphaea angulata Lamarck, 1819); (b) Liogryphaea Fischer (P. H.), 1885, as validated under the Plenary Powers under (2) (a) and (b) above (gender : feminine) (type species, by monotypy : Gryphaea arcuata Lamarck, 1801) ; (4) The under-mentioned specific names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology :— (a) angulata Lamarck, 1819, as published in the combination Gryphaea angulata (specific name of type species of Gryphaea Lamarck, 1819, as validated under the Plenary Powers under (1) above) ; (b) arcuata Lamarck, 1801, as published in the combination Gryphaea arcuata (specific name of type species of Liogryphaea Fischer, 1885, as validated under the Plenary Powers under (2) (a) and (b) above) ; OPINION 338 | 147 (c) obliquata Sowerby (J.), 1815, as published in the combination Gryphaea obliquata ; (5) The under-mentioned generic names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology :— (a) the names suppressed under the Plenary Powers for the purposes of both the Law of Priority and the Law of Homonymy in (1) above ; (b) the names suppressed under (2) (a) and (b) above for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy ; (c) Liogryphea Douvillé, 1904 (an Erroneous Subsequent Spelling of Liogryphaea Fischer, 1885) ; (6) The under-mentioned specific name is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology :— the specific name gryphus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combina- tion Anomia gryphus, as suppressed under the Plenary Powers under (2) (c) above. 10. The Prescribed Voting Period : As the foregoing Voting Paper was issued under the Three-Month Rule, the Prescribed Voting Period closed on 27th May 1954. 11. Particulars of the Voting on Voting Paper V.P.(54)11 : At the close of the Prescribed Voting Period the state of the voting on Voting Paper V.P.(54)11 was as follows :— (a) Votes in favour of “Alternative ‘A’”’ had been given by the following eighteen (18) Commissioners (arranged in the order in which Votes were received) : Sylvester-Bradley ; Holthuis ; Hering ; Vokes ; Boschma ; Riley; do Amaral; Esaki; Lemche; Dymond ; Hemming; Cabrera; Mertens; Jaczewski; Hank6 ; Pearson ; Bradley (J.C.) ; Stoll ; 148 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS (b) ‘Alternative ‘ B’”’ one (1): Bonnet ; (c) Voting Papers not returned : None. 12. Declaration of Result of Vote: On 28th May 1954, Mr. Hemming, Secretary to the International Commission, acting as Returning Officer for the Vote taken on Voting Paper V.P.(54)11, signed a Certificate that the Votes cast were as set out in para- graph 11 above and declaring that the proposal submitted in the foregoing Voting Paper as Alternative ““A”’ had been duly adopted and that the decision so taken was the decision of the International Commission in the matter aforesaid. 13. Addition of a ‘‘ nomen nudum ”’ to the ‘‘ Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology ’’ : When pre- paring the Ruling for inclusion in the present Opinion, Mr. Hemming, Secretary to the Commission, noted that, although both the alternative proposals which had been submitted to the Commission in the present case provided for the addition of the name angulata Lamarck, 1819, as published in the combination Gryphaea angulata to the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology neither of those proposals provided, as required by the General Directive issued to the Commission by the International Congress of Zoology in relation to the placing of names on the Official Indexes, for the addition of the name angulata Lamarck, 1801, as published in the combination Gryphaea angulata, to the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology as an invalid nomen nudum. On detecting this inadvertent omission, Mr. Hemming, on 12th October 1954, executed a Minute directing that the foregoing nomen nudum be inserted in the foregoing Official Index. 14. Correction of the authorship attributed to the name ‘“ vir- giniana ’’, a misspelling for °‘ virginica ’’ Gmelin, [1790], ‘* Ostrea ”’ : in the course of the preparation of the Ruling to be given in the OPINION 338 149 present Opinion, further consultations took place between Mr. Hemming, as Secretary to the Commission, and Dr. L. R. Cox (British Museum (Natural History), London) on various bibliographical and similar questions, and from these it emerged that, contrary to the belief held when the present case was sub- mitted to the Commission, Sacco in 1897 was not the first author to use the misspelling virginiana for the name virginica published by Gmelin in 1790 in the combination Ostrea virginica. Actually, this misspelling appeared in the literature as early as 1798 in the Museum boltenianum (Part 2, page 169). In the light of this information, the Secretary on 18th October 1954 issued a direction that both in the Ruling to be given in the present Opinion and in the list of bibliographical references to be given at the con- clusion of this Opinion the misspelling virginiana be attributed to Réding and not to Sacco. 15. Preparation of the Ruling given in the present ‘‘ Opinion ”’ : On 18th October 1954, Mr. Hemming prepared the Ruling given in the present Opinion and at the same time signed a Certificate that the terms of that Ruling were in complete accord with those of the proposal approved by the International Com- mission in its Vote on Voting Paper V.P.(54)11, subject (i) to the minor adjustment specified in the Minute executed by the Secretary on 12th October 1954 (paragraph 13 above) and (ii) to the correc- tion of the authorship attributed to one of the names concerned specified in the Secretary’s Minute of 18th October 1954 (para- graph 14 above). 16. Original references: The following are the original references for the names placed on Official Lists and Official Indexes by the Ruling given in the present Opinion :— angulata, Gryphaea, Lamarck, 1801, Syst. Anim. sans Vertébr. : 398 angulata, Gryphaea, Lamarck, 1819, Hist. nat. Anim. sans Verteébr. 6(1) : 198 arcuata, Gryphaea, Lamarck, 1801, Syst. Anim. sans Vertébr. : 398 Crassostrea Sacco, 1897, in Bellardi & Sacco, Moll. Terr. terz. Piemonte e Liguria 23 : 15 Gryphaea Lamarck, 1801, Syst. Anim. sans Vertébr. : 398 150 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS gryphus, Anomia, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 701 Liogryphaea Fischer (P.H.), 1886, Manuel Conchyl. : 927 Liogryphea Douvillé, 1904, Miss. Sci. Perse Morgan 3 (Etudes géol.) (4) (Pal.) : 273 obliquata, Gryphaea, Sowerby (J.), 1815, Min. Conch. 2. : 24 virginiana, Ostrea, R6ding, 1798, Mus. bolten. (2) : 169 virginica, Ostrea, Gmelin, [1790], in Linnaeus, Syst. Nat. (ed. 13) 1(6) : 3336 17. The following is the reference for the type selection for the nominal genus Gryphaea Lamarck, 1801, specified in the Ruling given in the present Opinion :—Anton, 1839, Verz. Conchyl. Samml. Anton : 21. 18. The application dealt with in the present Opinion was published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature prior to the establishment of the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology by the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology, Copenhagen, 1953. It has not been possible since then to deal with this aspect of the present case. This question is however now being examined on a separate File to which the Registered Number Z.N.(S.) 865 has been allotted. 19. At the time of the submission of the original application dealt with in the present Opinion, the expression prescribed for the second portion of the binomen which constitutes the scientific name of a species was the expression “ trivial name ”’ and the Official List reserved for recording such names was styled the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology, the word “ trivial’ appearing also in the title of the Official Index reserved for recording rejected and invalid names of this category. Under a decision taken by the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology, Copenhagen, 1953, the expression “ specific name ”’ was substituted for the expression “trivial name” and corre- sponding changes were made in the titles of the Official List and Official Index of such names (1953, Copenhagen Decisions zool. Nomencl. : 21). The changes in terminology so adopted have been incorporated in the Ruling given in the present Opinion. 2 A decision on this subject has now been taken by the International Commission and has been embodied in Opinion 358 (now in the press). OPINION 338 151 20. The prescribed procedures were duly complied with by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature in dealing with the present case, and the present Opinion is accordingly hereby rendered in the name of the said International Com- mission by the under-signed Francis Hemming, Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, in virtue of all and every the powers conferred upon him in that behalf. 21. The present Opinion shall be known as Opinion Three Hundred and Thirty-Eight (338) of the International Com- mission on Zoological Nomenclature. Done in London, this Fourteenth day of October, Nineteen Hundred and Fifty-Four. Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature FRANCIS HEMMING 152 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS APPENDIX TO “OPINION” 338 COMMENTS RECEIVED FROM SPECIALISTS ON THE QUESTION OF THE ACTION WHICH IT IS DESIRABLE SHOULD BE TAKEN IN THE MATTER OF THE GENERIC NAME ‘°‘ GRYPHAEA ” LAMARCK PART 1. STATEMENTS RECEIVED FROM SPECIALISTS WHO FAVOURED THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE RECENT SPECIES “ GRYPHAEA ANGULATA ” LAMARCK, 1819, AS THE TYPE SPECIES OF THE GENUS “ GRYPHAEA ” LAMARCK DOCUMENT 1/1 Observations sur la question de l’espéce type du genre ‘** Gryphaea ’’ Lamarck, 1801 Par GILBERT RANSON (Sous-Directeur du Laboratoire de Malacologie, Muséum National d’ Histoire Naturelle, Paris) Plate 1 (published, 22nd May 1953, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 6 : 205—206, | pl. 2) Dans une Note récente®, parue dans ce Bulletin (Sept. 1951, Vol. 2 (Pt. 11) 324), notre Collégue et Ami L. R. Cox a enseveli dans un tres long exposé, les faits essentiels qui font que logiquement et raisonnable- ment Gryphaea angulata Lamarck est l’espéce type du genre Gryphaea Lamarck. 3 For the paper by Dr. Cox here referred to see Document 1 in Part 2 of the present Appendix. OPINION 338 153 En réponse a cet article, je soumets les faits suivants a la Commission internationale de Nomenclature zoologique. 1°—Pour la premiére fois, en 1823, Children (“ Lamarck’s Genera of Shells”, Art. V, Quart. J. Sci. Lit. and Arts., 15) a désigné nommée- ment le type du genre Gryphaea Lamarck, 1801. C’est Gryphaea angulata Lamarck, 1819. Certes, cet auteur a choisi les types de Lamarck dans I Histoire Naturelle de 1819 et non dans le Systéme de 1801. Cependant Children connaissait bien le Systéme de 1801. Cela prouve que des cette époque, on avait bien la notion de « type », mais on ne con¢gevait pas comme possible de choisir les types dans le Systéme de 1801, parce que ce dernier ne donne que des exemples, sans aucun élément sérieux de définition. 2°—Supposons les Zoologistes et Paléontologistes du Monde réunis devant les faits suivants : (a) Systéme de 1801: Gryphaea angulata donné comme premier exemple, (b) Histoire Naturelle de 1819: Gryphaea angulata donné comme premier example, (c) L’échantillon type qui est au Muséum de Paris, ayant servi a Lamarck pour définir son genre et son espéce (échantillon figuré ici, pl. 2, fig. 1). Je suis persuadé qu’il n’y a pas un Collégue, qui honnétement, pour- rait nier que la definition de Lamarck, du genre et de l’espéce, ne se rapporte pas a cet échantillon “ actuel ”’. Personne ne pourrait nier que Lamarck, citant chaque fois cette espéce la premiére, n’a pas créé son genre pour celle-ci dont il venait de voir ’échantillon que nous possédons a Paris. (L’échantillon de la Collection Lamarck de Genéve, figuré par Delessert en 1841 ne semble pas €tre un syntype d’aprés M. Mermod qui reconnait que l’exemplaire de Paris est Vholotype. Je figure néanmoins cet exemplaire de Genéve, pl. 2, fig. 2). Monsieur Cox est le premier 4 avoir essayé de nier ce fait, contre toute évidence. Ce n’est pas bien. Si Monsieur Cox s’était donné la peine de voir le «type», il n’aurait pas essayé de montrer que la description de Lamarck ne correspond pas 4 l’espéce actuelle. 154 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS Monsieur Cox dit que l’expression de Lamarck « animal inconnu » laisse A penser qu’il n’y avait pas d’espéce européenne vivante. Tout au contraire, si Lamarck avait eu en vue un fossile, il n’avait pas a préciser qu’on ne connaissait pas l’animal, ce qui est évident. Cette expression montre bien qu'il s’agit d’un animal actuel dont on n’a que la coquille. | 3°—Il est plus loyal de dire qu’on ne doit pas retenir argument d’ «intention de l’auteur » parce que celle-ci n’est pas toujours facile A établir et que c’est l’argument « formel », uniquement, qui doit fixer la solution a adopter. En effet le seul argument apparemment valable pour dire que G. angulata n’est pas le type du genre Gryphaea, est que cette espéce, dans le Systéme de 1801, est un nomen nudum et que, par suite, il faut choisir une espéce citée apres celle-ci. Si Lamarck l’avait accompagnée de deux lignes seulement de descrip- tion il n’y aurait pas de discussion et tout le monde serait d’accord pour dire que G. angulata est le type du genre Gryphaea. Mais il est bien évident que dans le Systéme de 1801, qui n’est qu’un Genera, ou Lamarck ne donne que des exemples, z/ ne pouvait donner pour G. angulata (nouvelle espéce basée sur un nouveau et récent matériel), ni références a des documents inexistants, ni figures, ni description puisque ce n était pas le lieu d’en donner. Il n’y a pas de doute possible que dans le Systéme de 1801, toutes les espéces nouvelles, basées sur du matériel nouveau, recent, seraient sans références ni descriptions, donc chacune serait un nomen nudum. C’est 14 un argument fondamental pour démontrer que le Systéme de 1801 n’a pas les qualités requises pour y sélectionner les types. Des esprits subtils prétendent que Lamarck n’y indique pas les types pour les genres anciens (créés avant lui) mais que qour les genres nouveaux (créés par lui) les exemples qu’il donne ont les qualités requises pour y choisir les types. Un esprit clair et logique ne peut admettre que ce qui est vrai pour une partie du Systéme de 1801, soit faux pour l’autre partie ! 4°Anton, en 1839, a choisi G. arcuata comme espéce-type. Or M. Cox lui-méme 1’a bien montré, on ne sait absolument pas ce que Lamarck, en 1801, a voulu désigner sous ce vocable. En effet une référence a été changée par la suite et les deux autres ne sont pas trés nettes. On ne connait pas d’échantillon-type. Pourquoi persister dans cette erreur flagrante. Opinions and Declarations. Volume 10. PLATE 1 Figure 1. Figure 2. Explication : Figure 1. Gryphaea angulata Lamarck, 1819. Holotype (Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris). Figure 2. Gryphaea angulata Lamarck, 1819. Exemplaire dans la collection de Lamarck a Genéve (Muséum d’Histoire Naturelle). Exemplaire figuré par Delessert, 1841. OPINION 338 155 5°—Je voudrais montrer maintenant qu’a chaque instant on se heurte a des difficultés du méme ordre lorsqu’on veut choisir les types dans le Systéme de 1801, alors que tout est clair et simple avec /’ Histoire naturelle de 1819. Il y a peu de temps, en discutant avec un Collégue du genre Fissurella, notre attention s’est portée, par hasard, sur le genre Emarginula. Dans le Systéme de 1801 nous voyons comme premier exemple, Emarginula conica, n. Patella fissura L. Tout de suite il vient a l’esprit que Lamarck a eu tort de ne pas nommer cette espéce, Emarginula fissura puisqu’il fondait son genre sur l’espéce linnéenne Patella fissura L. Jl a bien compris son erreur par la suite puisque dans son Histoire naturelle de 1819 nous ne trouvons plus le nom de « conica » ; nous notons comme premiere espéce du genre Emarginula (t. VI, 2 «me part. p. 7) = Emarginula fissura. Malgré cela, M. Winckworth (1935, J. Conch. 19 : 219) cite E. conica Lamarck, comme l’espéce-type. Ph. Dautzenberg et Ph. Fischer ont, au contraire, raison en choissisant (« Les Moll. marins du Finistére . . . », Tray. stat. biol. Roscoff, 1925 (3) : 95) comme type : Emarginula fissura (Linné). A chaque pas on se heurte a des contradictions de cet ordre. II faut vraiment pousser le formalisme jusqu’a ses limites déraisonnables et illogiques pour déclarer qu’on peut sélectionner des types dans le Systéme de 1801. 6°—Le groupe des Gryphées actuelles est extrémement important, bien défini par sa prodissoconque ou coquille larvaire. I] est certaine- ment aussi important que celui des Liogryphées du Jurassique. II est regrettable que des auteurs le connaissent si mal. Le terme de Gryphaea a été employé comme sous-genre d’Ostrea depuis Lamarck pour désigner un groupe d’Huitres actuelles. Dés 1823 Children avait désigné G. angulata comme type lamarckien. La seule conclusion logique et raisonnable de cette discussion c’est que Gryphaea angulata Lamarck, 1819, est bien l’espéce type du genre Gryphaea Lamarck, 1801, et je sollicite de la Commission qu’elle veuille bien s’y rallier. A défaut d’une décision d’ordre général sur le Systéme de 1801, en ce qui concerne la sélection des types, je demande a la Commission de bien vouloir accepter le second point de vue du para- graphe 4 du récent exposé de la question par Mr. Hemming (1951, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 2 : 240).4 4 For the paper by Mr. Hemming here referred to see paragraph 5 of the present Opinion. 156 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS DOCUMENT 1/2 Note received on 3lst July 1951 from JEAN ROGER (Muséum National d’ Histoire Naturelle, Paris) (published, 22nd May 1952, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 6 : 188) Au sujet du genre Gryphaea Lamarck, 1819, je suis entiérement d’accord avec l’interpretation proposé par M. Ranson dans sa note au Bull. Mus. nat. Hist. nat. (1948), (2), 20, no. 6, p. 514—516. DOCUMENT 1/3 Letter, dated 17th October 1951, from G. LECOINTRE (Rabat, Maroc) (published, 22nd May 1952, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 6 : 187) Je tiens 4 vous dire que je suis entiérement d’accord avec M. Gilbert Ranson du Muséum de Paris sur le point suivant : Le genre Gryphaea Lamarck, 1819, a comme génotype: Ostrea angulata. Je suis tout a fait d’accord également pour le Systéme de Lamarck de 1801 ne soit plus utilisé pour la sélection du genre. DOCUMENT 1/4 Enclosure to a letter, dated 27th October 1951, from P. KORRINGA (Rijksinstituut voor Visscheruonderzoek, Bergen op Zoom, The Netherlands) (published, 22nd May 1952, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 6 : 189—190) In his 1948 note Ranson discusses the problem whether or not Gryphaea angulata Lamarck may be considered as the type species of OPINION 338 ) 157 the genus Gryphaea. He points out that Lamarck’s first description of the genus Gryphaea, dating from 1801, is but a preliminary one, and that therefore the genus Gryphaea should be considered to date from 1819, when Lamarck redescribed it in his Histoire Naturelle des Animaux sans Vertébres. This view accepted, Gryphaea angulata Lamarck would be the type species of the genus, selected by Children in 1823. Therefore Ranson presented to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature at its session held in Paris in 1948 a communication in which he sought to prove that the type species of the genus Gryphaea Lamarck is Gryphaea angulata Lamarck. As can be deduced from Hemming’s report (1951) in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, a strict application of the international rules of zoological nomenclature leads, however, to the conclusion that the fossil species Gryphaea arcuata Lamarck is the type species of the genus Gryphaea. Moreover, Children’s selection of Gryphaea angulata as type species is invalid since at the time when in 1801 the generic name Gryphaea was first validly published by Lamarck, the name Gryphaea angulata, then cited by Lamarck, was a mere nomen nudum and accord- ingly does not rank as an originally included species, and is ineligible for selection by a later author to be the type species of the genus in question. Therefore Gunter (1950) is certainly right in stating that a strict application of the international rules of nomenclature leads to using the generic name Gryphaea for some Fossil species only (type species G. arcuata), and to the conclusion that the generic name Crassostrea (Sacco, 1897) is the first valid name for oysters of the type angulata, virginica, gigas, etc. Gunter rightly states that these oysters differ in too many respects from the flat oysters to lump them with the latter under the generic name Ostrea. However right Gunter may be, I feel very reluctant to use the generic name Crassostrea and to suppress the genus Gryphaea for the Recent - species. This certainly would enhance the confusion. For, up till now, very few have ever used the name Crassostrea for the Portuguese oyster and its nearest allies, while the term Gryphaea has been used very widely in this sense, even among practical oystermen. It is the feeling of others also that a too strict application of the “‘ rules ”’ often leads to absurdities. Fortunately there is a way to get around such difficulties : the Plenary Powers of the International Commission on Nomenclature could be used to suppress the name Gryphaea Lamarck, 1801, and all uses of that generic name from 1801 to the date of 1819, when it was republished by Lamarck in the Histoire Naturelle des Animaux sans Vertébres. Then the name Gryphaea Lamarck 1819, thus validated, has as its type species the Recent species Gryphaea angulata Lamarck, 1819 (by selection by Children, 1823). This is stated in the note by Hemming of which the object was to attract the attention of interested specialists to the problem. 158 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS Awaiting the final decision of the International Commission on Nomenclature, I have to make a preliminary choice in writing a review. To minimise confusion I prefer to follow Ranson, and therefore use in that paper the very familiar name Gryphaea for all oysters of the type angulata, virginica, gigas, etc. In any case I agree completely with both Ranson and Gunter that these oysters should be placed in a separate genus. In this difficult nomenclatural matter I have been kindly advised by Dr. C. O. van Regteren Altena of the Leyden Museum of Natural History. Maybe a greater number of interested specialists, until now not familiar with Hemming’s report, will furnish the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature upon its request with their view on this important and intricate problem, so that the final conclusion may eventually clear up the confusion. References : Gunter (1950)—American Midland Naturalist 43 (2) : 438—449 Hemming (1951)—Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 2 (6/8) : 239— 240 Ranson (1948)—Bulletin du’ Muséum National d’ Histoire Naturelle, Paris (2) 20 : 514516 DOCUMENT 1/5 Extract from a letter, dated 31st October 1951, from A. CHAVAN (Thoiry, Ain, France) (published, 22nd May 1952, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 6 : 191) Referring, now, to your notice in the “‘ Journal of Paleontology ” (25 (4), July 1951, p. 537) on Gryphaea Lamarck, 1801, I should willingly agree with its proposed suppression, validating Gryphaea of Lamarck, 1819. As pointed out by Dr. Ranson (1948, Bull. Mus. Hist. nat. Paris (2éme sér.) 20 (6) : 514516), the list of species given by Lamarck in 1801 is evidently a provisional one, Lamarck himself indicating this in his book. As expressed by Opinion 79, Lamarck’s Systéme of 1801 is not acceptable as designation of type species. I should accept Children’s designation (1823) of G. angulata and I wish to point out that, if such OPINION 338 159 a suggestion is followed by the International Commission, Gryphaea will then become a much more useful name than if G. arcuata is selected, such a selection bringing drastic and perhaps useless changes in the generic allocation of a number of well-known species. DOCUMENT 1/6 Letter, dated 29th October 1951, from S. JAECKEL (Zoologisches Museum der Humboldt-Universitét, Berlin, Germany) (published, 22nd May 1952, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 6 : 188) In Uebereinstimmung mit Herr. G. Ranson und auf Grund seiner Arbeit “‘ Gryphaea”’ angulata Lmk. est lespéce “‘ Type’? du Genre Gryphaea Lmk. (Bulletin du Museum Paris 2. ser. t. XX 1948) halte ich Gryphaea angulata Lamarck fiir den Typus der Gattung Gryphaea. DOCUMENT 1/7 Letter, dated 17th January 1952, from G. MERMOD (Bureau de Malacologie, Muséum d Histoire Naturelle, Genéve) (published, 22nd May 1952, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 6 : 191) Au sujet du nom a adopter pour ce que Lamarck a appelé Gryphaea angulata, il me semble absolument certain que Lamarck en 1801 (Systéme des Animaux sans Vertébres, page 398) a eu l’intention de créer le genre Gryphaea avec lespéce Gryphaea angulata Lamarck comme l’espéce type. Si, en 1801, P’espece n’a pas été définie dans ses caractéres spécifiques, c’est que le plan de l’ouvrage était de publier un Genera ou il ne pouvait pas y avoir de place pour des diagnoses spécifiques. Lamarck signale son intention de publier un tableau général avec les diagnoses de toutes les espéces a lui connues (p. 399 Nota, loc. cit., 1801). En tout cas, en 1819 (Histoire naturelle des Animaux sans Vertébres, vol. 6, p. 197) on remarque que la caractéristique du genre Gryphaea est 160 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS presque mot pour mot la méme que celle de 1801 et c’est de nouveau la seule espéce vivante, Gryphaea angulata, qui est citée et caractérisée spécifiquement la premiere en liste. Il me semble quwil n’y a aucun avantage a remplacer Gryphaea, nom valable, utilisé depuis 1801 ou en tout cas.1819 par le nom Crassostrea Sacco, 1897. Le Musée de Geneve posséde un exemplaire de Gryphaea angulata. Il n’est pas certain quwil ait été en mains de Lamarck, car celui-ci cite un exemplaire de 100 mm. de long alors que le nétre n’en mesure que 90. Mais en tout cas notre coquille est celle qui fat figurée par Delessert (1841, Recueil de Coquilles de Lamarck, pl. 20, fig. 3). DOCUMENT 1/8 Letter, dated 2nd April 1952, addressed by B. HAVINGA (Chairman of the Shellfish Sub-Committee of the Inter- national Council for the Exploration of the Sea) and com- municated by Dr. P. Korringa under cover of a letter dated 3rd April, 1952 (published, 30th December 1952, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 9 : 146) I wish to support strongly Dr. Korringa in his request for the retention of the generic name Gryphaea. This name is generally known and used, and the suppression of this name in favour of Crassostrea would lead to confusion and great difficulties. DOCUMENT 1/9 Letter, dated 16th January 1952, from SVEN SEGERSTRALE (Museum Zoologicum Universitatis, Helsinki, Finland) and communicated by Dr. P. Korringa under cover of a letter dated 3rd April 1952 (published, 30th December 1952, Bull. zool. Nomencl.9 : 146) Thank you very much for your letter of 11th January about the nomenclature problem concerning the generic name of Gryphaea. OPINION 338 161 Like you I agree with Dr. Korringa’s view that we should try to conserve the name Gryphaea for the Portuguese oyster and its closest allies. I have only too often regretted the perpetual changes in zoological nomenclature and am glad to contribute to conserving the status quo in this case. DOCUMENT 1/10 Letter, dated 6th February 1952, from H. A. COLE (Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, Fisheries Experiment Station, Conway, Wales) (published, 22nd May 1952, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 6 : 192) I understand that the question of the retention of the generic name Gryphaea for the Portuguese oyster and its nearest relatives is now under consideration. I should like to add my name to those asking for its retention. I am not concerned with the systematic arguments, which no doubt will be presented in full by Dr. Gilbert Ranson and others, but with practical considerations. As you know, it is only comparatively recently that the propriety of dividing the oviparous oysters from the larviparous oysters has been generally accepted, following the work of T. C. Nelson and others. To the well-marked differences in anatomy and mode of reproduction, we (Cole and Knight-Jones, 1949, Fish. Invest. (2) 17 (No. 3) have added differences in the behaviour of the larvae at setting. Throughout the period when oysters were, for the most part, grouped loosely together in the genus Ostrea, the identity of the Portuguese oyster was maintained by Continental workers under the name Gryphaea angulata. To adopt Crassostrea now would be to create fresh confusion. Already we have Australian and New Zealand workers referring their common commercial species to the genus Saxostrea, although they are clearly very closely related indeed to the Portuguese species. This confusion is, I believe, typical of what would follow if the name Crassostrea was adopted. The division of oviparous from larviparous oysters has assisted materially in dispersing the confusion reigning regarding their physio- logical and environmental requirements. In consequence it has been appreciated that cultivation methods applicable to oysters of the genus Gryphaea may not be equally applicable to larviparous species. As a 162 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS result many ill-designed attempts to apply American methods to the cultivation of flat oysters (genus Ostrea) in Europe, Japan, Australia and New Zealand, or North European methods to the cultivation of tropical oysters (genus Gryphaea) have been reconsidered. In contrast, the methods developed by the French for the cultivation of Gryphaea angulata are being applied with very striking results in West and East Africa and in the Indian Ocean. To maintain the identity of the Portuguese oyster, and to establish the close relationship of the tropical oviparous oysters to it by grouping them under the same genus, cannot but assist in the development of oyster culture in these areas. As I mentioned earlier, I am concerned with practical considerations as I feel that systematics should be the servant of applied biology. To conserve the name Gryphaea would undoubtedly be of great value to oyster biologists. I write as a worker for twenty years in this field. DOCUMENT 1/11 Letter, dated 16th January 1952, from H. A. COLE (Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, Fisheries Experiment Station, Con- way, Wales) and communicated by Dr. P. Korringa under cover of a letter dated 3rd April 1952 (published, 30th December 1952, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 9 : 146) Thank you for your letter of 11th January regarding the retention of the generic name Gryphaea for the Portuguese oyster and its nearest allies. I am, of course, aware of the controversy over its name and I have had some correspondence on the subject with American workers. I am pleased to support Dr. Korringa in his request for the retention of this well-established name. I believe that to suppress it in favour of Crassostrea would lead to additional confusion. OPINION 338 163 DOCUMENT 1/12 Letter, dated 17th January 1952, from M. DESBROSSES (Office Scientifique et Technique des Péches Maritimes, 59 Avenue Raymond Poincaré, Paris) and communicated by Dr. P. Korringa under cover of a letter dated 3rd April 1952 (published, 30th December 1952, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 9 : 146) Je suis d’accord pour que le Sous-Comité du “ Shellfish’? recom- mande de conserver le nom de Gryphaea pour l’Huitre Portugaise et les especes voisines, a la Commission Internationale de Nomenclature Zoologique. DOCUMENT 1/13 Letter, dated 18th January 1952, from E. LELOUP (nstitut Royal des Sciences Naturelles de Belgique, Bruxelles, 4 le Rue Vautier, 31) and communicated by Dr. P. Korringa under cover of a letter dated 3rd April 1952 (published, 30th December 1952, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 9 : 146) J’ai Phonneur de vous accuser réception de votre lettre du 11 janvier 1952 et de ses annexes. Comme je l’ai dit a la séance du Shellfish Subcommittee 4 Amsterdam, je ne suis pas partisan d’appliquer a la lettre les regles de nomenclature zoologique pour le cas Gryphaea. Je propose de maintenir le nom Gryphaea, consacré par l’usage. A ce propos, j’ai consulté mes collégues malacologistes de 1’Institut Royal des Sciences naturelles, MM. M. Glibert, Conservateur et W. Adam, conservateur adjoint. Ils sont du méme avis. 164 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS DOCUMENT 1/14 Letter, dated 22nd January 1952, from A. M. RAMALHO Unstituto de Biologia Maritima, Caise do Sodré, Lisboa) and communicated by Dr. P. Korringa under cover of a letter dated 3rd April 1952 (published, 30th December 1952, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 9 : 146) In reply to your letter of the 11th January, I beg to inform you that I quite agree that the Shellfish Sub-committee should recommend the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to conserve the name Gryphaea for the Portuguese Oyster and its allied species. This means, if I understand correctly, that the Sub-committee will be in favour of the issue described as under (2) of S4 of the note by M. F. Hemming you so kindly sent with your letter. DOCUMENT 1/15 Letter, dated 4th February 1952, from C. E. LUCAS (Scottish Home Department, Marine Laboratory, Wood Street, Torry, Aberdeen) and communicated by Dr. P. Korringa under cover of a letter dated 3rd April 1952 (published, 30th December 1952, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 9 : 146) Turning now to the problem about the naming of the Portuguese oyster, in principle it seems that the name ought to be Crassostrea, but in practice there seems to be no doubt that we should favour the retention of the name Gryphaea. I hope, therefore, that the Inter- national Commission on Zoological Nomenclature will be able to conserve the name Gryphaea. OPINION 338 165 PART 2. STATEMENTS RECEIVED FROM SPECIALISTS WHO FAVOURED THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE MESOZOIC FOSSIL SPECIES “ GRYPHAEA ARCUATA ” LAMARCK, 1801, AS THE TYPE SPECIES OF THE GENUS “GRYPHAEA ” LAMARCK, 1801 DOCUMENT 2/1 On the question of the type species of ‘‘ Gryphaea ’’ Lamarck, 1801 (Class Pelecypoda) : Comment on proposal submitted by M. Gilbert Ranson, together with a supplementary reguest for the use of the Plenary Powers to suppress the trivial name ‘°° gryphus ’’ Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binominal combination **Anomia gryphus ”’ By L. R. COX, Sc.D., F.R:S., British Museum (Natural History), London (published, 28th September 1951, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 2 : 324—331) 1. The present paper is submitted to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature in response to the recently published request by the Secretary to the Commission (Hemming, 1951, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 2 : 239—240) for the views of interested specialists on the proposal relating to the determination of the type species of the genus Gryphaea Lamarck submitted to the Commission by M. Gilbert Ranson (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 3 : 168—170). 2. In that application (as in other previously published papers) M. Ranson concluded that the type species of the genus Gryphaea Lamarck is the living Portuguese Oyster, Gryphaea angulata Lamarck, 1819 (Hist. nat. Anim. sans Vertébr. 6 (1) : 198). Arguments leading to a different conclusion, namely that the type species of this genus is Gryphaea arcuata Lamarck, 1801 (Syst. Anim. sans Vertébr : 398), have, however, been advanced by various workers. These arguments are examined in the following paragraphs. 166 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 3. In 1898 (Tertiary Fauna Florida : 672) Dall (W. H.) showed : (a) that the name Gryphaea was first published by Lamarck in his Systéme des Animaux sans Vertébres ; (6) that, although the name Gryphaea angulata was the first name there listed under Gryphaea, it was a nomen nudum and therefore that the species in question was not available for selection as type species ; (c) that several of the names there cited under Gryphaea were founded with indications adequate to establish the identity of the species concerned, which therefore were available for subsequent selection as type species. The most important of those species is Gryphaea arcuata. Dall’s opinion that it was virtually selected as type species by Bosc in 1802 cannot, however, be accepted. Hertlein (1933, Trans. San Diego Soc. nat. Hist.’7 : 278) referred to an alleged type selection of G. arcuata by Chenu in 1858. The earliest valid selection now known is however by Anton in 1839, who also selected G. arcuata. This fact seems first to have been recorded in print by H. B. Stenzel (1947, J. Paleont. 21 : 174). It is most improbable that an earlier selection of one of the species available from the Systéme will now be found. 4. Monsieur Ranson attempts to counter these arguments by maintaining that the Systéme is a work which should be disregarded in discussions on nomenclature. His reasons (if I understand him correctly) are: (a) that the International Commission rendered an Opinion (Opinion 78) the meaning of which was that citations of single species in this work under previously established genera cannot be accepted as type selections ; (b) that it was a provisional and premature work, as shown by the fact that Lamarck many years later (1819, Hist. nat. Anim. sans Vertébr. 6(1) : 198—200) changed the names of some species included in it and certain references given under other species. He therefore considers that the first publication of Gryphaea which can be accepted was by Lamarck (1819, op. cit.) and that a selection of G. angulata was validly established as from that work as the type species by Children (1823). 5. Even though it means repeating much that has been said by previous writers, I will deal in turn with these and other points made by Monsieur Ranson. (a) Status of Lamarck’s ‘‘ Systéme ”’ 6. This work unquestionably fulfils the necessary conditions to constitute a valid publication under the International Rules. The fact that it does not contain type selections is quite irrelevant to this question. Equally fallacious is the argument that the Systéme should be rejected because it was a premature work. Most systematists change their minds on some questions of synonymy and classification during the course of eighteen years, but their earlier works do not thereby lose OPINION 338 167 their status as publications. If, nevertheless, it were to be held that the Systéme should be suppressed by the International Commission in order that G. angulata should become available for selection as type species of Gryphaea, it must be remembered that lengthy researches would have to be made on possible repercussions on the nomenclature of other genera included in that work. Nor should it be forgotten that between 1801 and 1819 the generic name Gryphaea was published by at least four other workers (Bosc, 1802 ; Roissy, 1805 ; J. Sowerby, 1815 ; Cuvier, 1817), from any of whose works G. arcuata (or its synonym G. incurva J. Sowerby) would be available for selection as type species of the genus to the exclusion of the then still undescribed G. angulata. (b) Is the generic name ‘‘ Gryphaea’’ validly established in the ** Systéme ”’ ? 7. The answer to this question is that the name Gryphaea unques- tionably was so established. A generic diagnosis was given and certain clearly recognizable nominal species were included in the genus. (c) Which of the species included under ‘‘ Gryphaea ’’ by Lamarck in the ** Systéme ’’ are clearly recognizable and hence available for subsequent selection as type species ? 8. The specific names included under Gryphaea in this work are listed below. Three are nomina nuda ; the identity of the remainder rests on figures in older works. Since no diagnoses are given, no specimens preserved in the Lamarckian Collection or in any collections known to have been studied by Lamarck can be accepted as the type specimens of these species. (i) | Gryphaea angulata. No references to figures are given. The name is a nomen nudum. (ii) Gryphaea suborbiculata. The references are to “ Knorr. Petnf. vol. 2¢, part. 1, pl. 62. Encyclop. pl. 189, f. 3, 4”. Lamarck’s references to Knorr are not bibliographically correct, as he renumbered Knorr’s plates owing to the peculiarity of Knorr’s original system of numbering. The plate referred to is that numbered “ DIIIc’’, and can be identified by counting the plates from the beginning. G. suborbiculata, identified both by the figure in this plate and those of the Encyclopédie méthodique cited by Lamarck, is a well-known Upper Cretaceous species. Lamarck later re-named it Gryphaea columba and it is now referred to the genus Exogyra Say, 1820. 168 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS (iii) Gryphaea cymbula. The reference given is ““ Knorr. Petrif. vol. 2°, part. 1, pl. 20, f. 7.”>. The plate number should read ** B. I. d’’, in which fig. 7 shows the profile view of a large Jurassic Gryphaea. This appears to be a well-known Middle Liassic species, although Rollier (1915, Fossiles nouveaux ou peu connus : 571) considers that it cannot be identified with certainty. (iv) Gryphaea arcuata. The references are “ Encyclop. pl. 189, f. 1, 2. Knorr. Petrif. vol. 2°, p. 1, pl. 60, f. 1, 2. Bourg. Petrif. no. 92.”’ This species needs careful consideration, and it seems desirable to fix its identity by selecting as lectotype the original of the most appropriate of the figures cited. The Encyclopédie méthodique figures were later omitted by Lamarck (1819, Hist. nat. Anim. sans Vertébr. 6 (1) : 198) from those cited under G. arcuata and included under G. cymbium. The reference to Knorr has the objection that the plate cited should read “ D. III a” (not 60). Knorr gave no localities for the specimens represented in figs. 1, 2 of this plate, but there is little doubt that fig. 1, at least, is of a specimen from the Lower Lias closely resembling that described by J. Sowerby in 1815 as Gryphaea incurva. Fig. 92 (on pl. xv) of Bourguet’s Traité de Pétrifications (the third work cited by Lamarck) is of a very similar shell which undoubtedly came from the Lower Lias, although again no locality is given. Bourguet’s figured specimen is hereby selected as the lectotype of G. arcuata. So great, however, are the difficulties of specific identifica- tion in Liassic Gryphaeas, that it might be contended that a single figure, however good, of a specimen of unknown provenance is insufficient for subsequent recognition of a species. Some workers would, in fact, maintain that a species of this group could be identified only if its precise locality and geological horizon were known, or, alternatively, a large series of specimens from the same bed available for Statistical examination. Schafle (1929, Geol. paldont. Abh. (n.s.) 17(2) ; 26. pl. 2 figs. 7—17 ; pl. 3, figs. 1-——4, 9), the latest reviser of Liassic oysters as a whole, however, regards G. arcuata as a species of moderately long geological range and broad synonymy, and Bourguet’s figured specimen was undoubtedly a fully representative specimen of the species as conceived of by this author. Schafle’s pl. 2, fig. 7, compares closely with Bourguet’s figure, as does his pl. 2, fig. 16 with Knorr’s pl. D.III a, fig. 1. Bouguet’s figure of the specimen which is now selected as lectotype, together with Knorr’s fig. 1, are, therefore, sufficient to establish the identity of G. arcuata as interpreted by Schafle, whose work, although not statistical, is as thorough as that of any other modern author. OPINION 338 169 (v) Gryphaea africana. WLamarck’s reference is “ Encyclop. pl. 189, f. 5, 6’’. These figures represent a well-characterized species which is abundant in the Cenomanian of Northern Africa and the Middle East and is now referred to Exogyra Say. (vi) Gryphaeacarinata. The reference given by Lamarck is ** Bourg. Petrif. pl. 15, f. 89, 90." There is some doubt as to which of several Cretaceous species of Exogyra is represented by these figures. The name G. carinata has not been generally adopted. (vii) Gryphaea latissima. \Wamarck’s reference is ‘‘ Bourg. Petrif. pl. 14, no. 84, 85.” This is the well-known Lower Cretaceous Exogyra to which the later names couloni (Defrance) and sinuata (J. Sowerby) have more frequently been applied. (viii) Gryphaea depressa. A nomen nudum. (ix) Gryphaea angustata. A nomen nudum. 9. From the above, it may be seen that, besides G. arcuata, three species of unquestionable identity (G. suborbiculata, G. africana, G. latissima), all now included in Exogyra, were available for selection as the type species of Gryphaea Lamarck, 1801, together with two of doubtful identity (G. cymbula, G. carinata). (d) Is Anton’s selection of ‘‘ G. arcuata ”’ as type species of ‘‘ Gryphaea ”’ Lamarck without technical objections ? 10. On. pl. vi. of the preface to his Verzeichniss (1839) Anton refers to “ Gattungen (deren Typusart mit Versalbuchstaben gedruckt ist) ” and on p. 21 arcuata is the only species printed in small capitals under “ Untergattung Gryphaea Lam.” Throughout the work the type species of genera and subgenera are consistently indicated in this manner, and there seems to be no technical objection to this method of type selection. It is reasonable to maintain that a type selection for Gryphaea Lamarck without mention of the date of publication of the genus must be accepted as referring to its earliest place of publication. 11. So far as I know, none of the other species available from the Systéme has ever been cited as the type species of Gryphaea. 170 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS (e) Is there evidence that it was Lamarck’s intention to found the genus ‘* Gryphaea ”’ primarily upon the living species ‘*‘ G. angulata *’ ? 12. Monsieur Ranson argues that such was Lamarck’s intention, as G. angulata was the first species listed by him under Gryphaea both in 1801 and in 1819. The generic diagnosis, however, states ** crochet... courbé en spirale involute ’’, whereas the umbonal region in G. angulata is not involute, but coiled in a posterior direction, as in Exogyra. It further states “‘ animal inconnu ”’, again suggesting that 1t was not the living European species that Lamarck had primarily in mind when writing the diagnosis. The actual generic name, moreover, was derived from the word “ gryphites ’’, which had long been applied to the fossil forms in non-binominal literature. (f) Does it seem desirable, to preserve current usage, for the International Commission to designate ‘‘ G. angulata ’’ Lamarck, 1819 as type species of ‘‘ Gryphaea ”’ under its Plenary Powers ? 13. The generic name Gryphaea has been employed for the group of incoiled fossil oysters from Jurassic deposits in countless text-books and general works for the past 125 years. Since 1885, when P. Fischer (Manuel de Conchyliologie : 927) cited G. angulata as an example of Gryphaea and proposed the new name Liogryphaea for G. arcuata (although he referred this species to Gryphaea in the explanation of his text-figure), the name Liogryphaea has become fairly current in French palaeontological literature, although it has gained little ground in other countries. In my card index of Jurassic lamellibranchia extracted from the palaeontological literature of the whole world I have 1002 refences under Gryphaea and 51 under Liogryphaea, whether as distinct genera or as subgenera of Ostrea. This shows that the name Gryphaea is about 20 times more familiar to palaeontologists as a whole than Liogryphaea. n fact, if G. angulata were the valid type species of Gryphaea, there would be a strong case for the use of the Plenary Powers with a view to legalizing the use of this generic name for the fossil forms. Similar figures for the name of the Portuguese Oyster are not available. Except in France, however, this is usually known as Ostrea angulata Lamarck, the necessity for its generic separation from Ostrea not being generally admitted. It was catalogued as Ostrea (Crassostrea) angulata by Mr. R. Winckworth in his “ List of the Marine Mollusca of the British Isles ’? (1932, J. Conchol. 19 : 240). Conclusions 14. In the light of the foregoing considerations, it is evident (1) that, under the Régles, Lamarck’s Systéme is an available work for the OPINION 338 171 purposes of Article 25 (the Law of Priority) (the observations in regard to that work contained in the Commission’s Opinion 78 relating to an entirely different question, namely whether the method of citing specific names there adopted constitutes the selection, under Article 30, of the species so cited as the type species of the genera in which those species are severally placed), (2) that the specific name Gryphaea angulata, as cited in the Systéme, is a nomen nudum and in consequence that the species validly so named by Lamarck eighteen years later (in 1819) is ineligible for selection as the type species of Gryphaea Lamarck, 1801, (3) that of the described species included in Gryphaea in 1801 the first to be selected by any worker (Anton, 1839) as the type species of that genus was the fossil species Gryphaea arcuata Lamarck, 1801, (4) that in palaeontological literature the name Gryphaea is firmly established as the name of the genus containing the Liassic species Gryphaea arcuata, that genus having been called by that name about twenty times as often as by the name Liogryphaea Fischer, 1885, (Man. Conch. : 927), the name which that genus would bear, if G. angulata Lamarck, 1819, and not G. arcuata Lamarck, 1801, were the type species of Gryphaea, while it is only by French workers that the name Gryphaea has been habitually used for G. angulata, workers in other countries generally retaining that species in the genus Ostrea Linnaeus, 1758. 15. While I differ from Monsieur Ranson on the question of the species which, under the Rég/es, is the type species of the genus Gryphaea I welcome his action in bringing this matter before the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, for it is clearly desirable that a final decision on this matter should be obtained as soon as possible and an end thus put to the fruitless discussions which have been in progress for over sixty years. Before I formulate the action which I recommend that the International Commission should now take, in order finally to determine the type species of the genus Gryphaea, I must refer briefly to another question, which, though entirely uncon- nected with the question of the type species of this genus, has neverthe- less a bearing on the action which it is desirable that the Commission should now take. I refer to the question whether the trivial name arcuata Lamarck, 1801, as published in the binominal combination Gryphaea arcuata, is the oldest available name for the species which is the type species of the genus Gryphaea. The name Gryphaea arcuata Lamarck, 1801, is an available name both in the sense that it is not a junior homonym of any previously published specific name and in the sense that it is not a junior objective synonym of an earlier name applied to the same species. There is, however, an earlier name, which has hitherto been treated by almost all authors as a nomen dubium, which may have been based upon specimens of the same species as that upon which the nominal species Gryphaea arcuata Lamarck, 1801 (as defined by the lectotype selection made in paragraph 8(iv) above) was based. This nominal species is Anomia gryphus Linnaeus, 1758 (Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 701), which was based upon a short diagnosis (which cannot be interpreted with certainty) and upon references to five older 172 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS works, none of which, it may be noted, was among those similarly cited by Lamarck when publishing the name Gryphaea arcuata, though some illustrate that species, as here interpreted. Hanley (1855, Ipsa Linn. Conch. : 124), it is true, recorded that the Linnean Collection includes a worn Gryphaea bearing the number 192 (under which Linnaeus listed Anomia gryphus in 1758) and that this appears to belong, not to G. arcuata, but to the related species G. obliquata Sowerby (J.), 1815 (Min. Conch. 2:24). Nevertheless, this specimen could not be accepted as more than a syntype of the Linnean species. Thus, the trivial name gryphus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binominal combination Anomia gryphus, constitutes a potential threat to the stability of the name of one or other of the two species now known as Gryphaea arcuata Lamarck and Gryphaea obliquata Sowerby (J.). The possibility that a well-established name (such as the trivial name arcuata Lamarck, 1801, or the trivial name obliquata Sowerby (J.), 1815) might be threatened by some older nomen dubium (such as the trivial name gryphus Linnaeus, 1758) has been anticipated by the International Commission and by the International Congress of Zoology, and the latter body, on the recommendation of the Commission, has inserted in Article 31 a provision that in such a case the question at issue is to be referred to the Commission for decision (see 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4:76). It is in pursuance of that provision that this case is now reported to the International Commission. It cannot possibly be established that the trivial name gryphus Linnaeus, 1758, certainly applies to the same species as the name arcuata Lamarck, 1801, and the continued existence of this name as an available name serves no useful purpose whatever, constituting only a threat to the stability of the names arcuata Lamarck and obliquata Sowerby (J.). The Inter- national Commission is accordingly asked to remove that threat by using its Plenary Powers to suppress the trivial name gryphus Linnaeus. Recommendations 16. I accordingly ask the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to reject the arguments regarding the type species of the genus Gryphaea advanced by Monsieur Ranson, and :— (1) to rule that, under Article 25 of the Régles, the generic name Gryphaea possesses availability for the purposes of the Law of Priority as from the date of its publication in 1801 in the Systéme of Lamarck and that the type species of that genus is Gryphaea arcuata Lamarck, 1801, that species having been so selected by Anton (1839) and having been the first of the originally included species to have been so selected by any author ; (2) to use its Plenary Powers to suppress the trivial name gryphus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binominal combination Anomia gryphus, for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy ; OPINION 338 173 (3) to place the generic name Gryphaea Lamarck, 1801 (gender of generic name : feminine) (type species, by selection by Anton (1839) : Gryphaea arcuata Lamarck, 1801) on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ; (4) to place the under-mentioned trivial names on the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology :— (a) arcuata Lamarck, 1801, as published in the binominal com- bination Gryphaea arcuata, the species so named to be defined by the lectotype selection made in the present application (trivial name of type species of Gryphaea Lamarck, 1801) ; (b) obliquata Sowerby (J.), 1815, as published in the binominal combination Gryphaea obliquata ; (c) angulata Lamarck, 1819, as published in the binominal com- bination Gryphaea angulata ; (5) to place the under-mentioned generic names on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology :— (a) Liogryphaea Fischer, 1885 (a junior objective synonym of Gryphaea Lamarck, 1801, the two nominal genera having the same species as type species) ; (b) Liogryphea Douvillé, 1904 (Miss. sci. Pers. 3 (Etudes géol.) (4) (Pal.) : 273) (an invalid variation of Liogryphaea Fischer, 1885) ; (6) to place the trivial name gryphus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binominal combination Anomia gryphus, as proposed, under (2) above, to be suppressed under the Plenary Powers, on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Trivial Names in Zoology. DOCUMENT 2/2 Extract from a letter dated 8th June, 1951, from D.~ T. DONOVAN, B.Sc., PH.D. (University of Bristol, Department ot Geology, Bristol) (published, 28th September 1951, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 2 : 333) Gryphaea arcuata Lamarck, 1801, the type species of Gryphaea Lamarck, 1801, and other species of the same genus, are common and 174 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS familiar fossils in rocks of Lower Lias age, and have been known almost exclusively by this generic name since the time of Lamarck’s work. I realise that the living species, Gryphaea angulata Lamarck, 1819, the Portuguese Oyster, is very well known to students of recent molluscs, but, even if it is as familiar to them as the fossil species Gryphaea arcuata Lamarck is to palaeontologists, the use of the Plenary Powers to suspend the Régles where they operate to give a perfectly unambiguous result would seem highly undesirable, and only to be recommended if the combination Gryphaea arcuata had for long fallen out of use, which is most emphatically not the case. DOCUMENT 2/3 Extract from a letter dated 3rd June 1951, from W. J. ARKELL, M.A., D.Sc., F.R.S. (Cambridge University, Sedgwick Museum, Cambridge) (published, 28th September 1951, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 2 : 331) I disapprove of this application and consider that the Rules should take their course. By so doing, they legalise the current and past practice in what I believe to be the overwhelming majority of literature in which the name Gryphaea has been mentioned. I can recall no exception in the whole of palaeontological literature to the assumption that the type species of Gryphaea is a Liassic species. Moreover, the work on programme evolution that has made Gryphaea a household word has so widely disseminated the name in biological literature generally that I cannot understand even a neontologist wanting to change the type species. DOCUMENT 2/4 Letter, dated 29th May 1951, from MYRA KEEN (Curator of Paleontology) and SIEMON W. MULLER (Professor of Geology, Stanford University, Stanford, California, U.S.A.) (published, 28th September 1951, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 2 : 332) We strongly disapprove the proposal that Gryphaea Lamarck, 1801, should be suppressed under the Plenary Powers of the International OPINION 338 175 Commission. We see no compelling reason why this should be done, and, in our opinion, such action would result in much confusion. Surveying the literature, we observe that even those authors of the past who have accepted Gryphaea angulata Lamarck, 1819, as the type species of the genus Gryphaea have included G. arcuata Lamarck, 1801, in their concept of the genus ; and hence, the name is much more widely established in paleontological literature than it is in the literature on Recent forms. The term Crassostrea Sacco, 1898 (in Bellardi & Sacco, Moll. Terr. terz. Piemonte e Liguria 23 : 15) is available for use in the Recent group—in fact is used by many modern authors. There- fore, we feel that nothing is to be gained and much is to be lost in adopting the proposal, for it means shifting the concept of the genus. If by the proposed ruling, a name were to be protected, the case would be different. This change would merely render obsolete a large body of literature in order to provide a given name for a given type species. Much simpler would be the erection of a new generic group if Monsieur Ranson feels that Crassostrea is inappropriate for the restricted group represented by Gryphaea angulata. The problem has been discussed by the paleontologists Dall (1898, Trans. Wagner Free Inst. Sci. Philad. 3 (4) : 672—675), Hertlein (1933, Trans. San Diego Soc. nat. Hist. 7 (22) : 277—278) and Stenzel (1947, ‘** Nomenclatural Synopsis of supraspecific groups of the family Ostreidae ’’, J. Paleont. 21 (2) : 165—185, especially page 175), all of whom have come to the conclusion that the type species of Gryphaea should be G. arcuata Lamarck, 1801. The reasons which they and also Mr. R. Winckworth have advanced seem to us cogent. DOCUMENT 2/5 Comment by C. R. BOETTGER (Natur-Museum und Forschungs- Institut Senckenberg, Frankfurt a. Main, Germany) and communicated by Robert Mertens, of the same institution, in a letter dated 27th August 1951 Ich bin dafiir, dass Gryphaea Lamarck, 1801, ihre nomenklatorische Gultigkeit behalt, und dass Gryphaea arcuata Lamarck, 1801, nach der Festsetzung durch Anton vom Jahre 1839 als ihr Typus anzusehen ist. Das entspricht wohl auch dem Ublichen Gebrauch. Fur die Art angulata Lamarck, 1819, ist allgemein der Gattungsname Crassostrea Sacco, 1897, in Gebrauch. Ich halte in diesem Fall sogar eine Abweichung von den Nomenklaturregeln fiir ausserordentlich verwirrend. 176 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS DOCUMENT 2/6 Extract from a letter, dated 2nd October’ 1951, trom Re: SYLVESTER-BRADLEY, B.Sc. (University of Sheffield, Department of Geology, Sheffield, England) (published, 22nd May 1952, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 6 : 185) May I respond to the invitation set out in your note Z.N.(S.) 365 concerning Gryphaea (1951, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 2 : 239—240). The name Gryphaea Lamarck, 1801, is widely used, not only by specialists, but by general geologists. It includes species which are amongst the most common and best preserved fossils in existence. It has been the subject of well-known evolutionary studies. There are few names in palaeontology which stand in more need of protection than Gryphaea Lamarck, 1801, and I will strongly oppose any sugges- tion to suppress it under the Plenary Powers. DOCUMENT 2/7 (a) Enclosure to a letter, dated 9th October 1951, from H. B. STENZEL (University of Texas, Department of Geology, Austin, Texas, U.S.A.) and GORDON GUNTER U(nstitute of Marine Science, Port Aransas, Texas, U.S.A.) (published, 22nd May 1952, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 6 : 186) The proposed suppression of Gryphaea Lamarck, 1801 (Class Pelecypoda) and the proposed validation of Gryphaea Lamarck, 1819, would have the effect of removing the Gryphaea arcuata Lamarck from the genus Gryphaea and of fixing the generic name Gryphaea on to “ Gryphaea’”’ angulata Lamarck. The following arguments are presented in opposition to this shift :— (1) The words griffin and Gryphaea are derived from the classical Greek ypvzés (hooked) and are designed to denote a hooked, beaklike shape. Such a shape is characteristic of Gryphaea arcuata Lamarck and its congeners but is not characteristic of “‘ Gryphaea’”’ angulata Lamarck or its congeners. Gryphaea is a well-coined and well-chosen descriptive word for the former but not for the latter. OPINION 338 177 (2) An examination of older and newer zoological literature, including paleontological and neontological literature, shows that Gryphaea has been used more often for G. arcuata Lamarck and its congeners than for G. angulata Lamarck and its congeners. Past and current usage, whether one would estimate it by number of pages or articles or authors, in paleontology and in neontology is in favour of retaining Gryphaea in combination with arcuata Lamarck. (3) Both words, Gryphaea and arcuata, have the same meaning (hooked), the one as a word derived from the Greek, the other as a Latin word. The Rules recommend selection of the type species of a genus by virtual tautonymy. (4) Gryphaea Lamarck, 1801, was validly proposed through definition and original list of species. The original list contains nine items, of which six, among them G. arcuata Lamarck, are defined by references to figures in previously published works and are regarded by us as validly proposed specific names. The remaining three items, among them Gryphaea angulata Lamarck, are neither described nor figured nor validated by references ; hence they are regarded by us as nomina nuda. Gryphaea arcuata Lamarck, 1801, was validly selected as the type species of the genus by Anton, 1839. Gryphaea angulata Lamarck, 1801, being a nomen nudum as of that date, cannot be considered as a possible candidate for selection as type species of Gryphaea Lamarck, 1801, and such subsequent designations to that effect as may have been made cannot be regarded as valid. In summary, the genus Gryphaea Lamarck, 1801, and its type species Gryphaea arcuata Lamarck, 1801, are valid and stand on firm legal grounds (compare Dall, 1898 ; Hertlein, 1933 ; and Stenzel, 1947). Therefore we recommend that Gryphaea Lamarck, 1801, and G. arcuata Lamarck, 1801, as the type species be placed on the Official Lists. References Dall, W. H. (1898), Contributions to the Tertiary fauna of Florida, ete. : Trans. Wagner Free Inst. Sci. Philad. 3 (4) : 672—675. Hertlein, L. G. (1933). A new gryphaeoid oyster from the Eocene of California : Trans. San Diego Soc. nat. Hist. '7 (no. 22) : 277—278. Stenzel, H. B. (1947). Nomenclatural synopsis of supraspecific groups of the family Ostreidae (Pelecypoda, Mollusca): J. Paleont. 21 (ae 42 175. Gunter, G. (1950). The generic status of living oysters and the scientific name of the common American species: Amer. Mid. Nat. 43 (no. 2) : 438—449. 178 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS (b) Supplementary Note by G. GUNTER (University of Texas, Institute of Marine Science, Port Aransas, Texas, U.S.A.) in a letter dated 11th October 1951 (published, 22nd May 1952, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 6 : 187) As an addendum to the enclosed statement which I have signed I should like to point out that Gryphaea has long been used by practically all paleontologists for a fossil genus of oyster which became extinct several million years ago. Gryphaea arcuata was the type species of the genus as set up by Anton (1839). The supposed validation of Gryphaea angulata as the type species of the living genus by Children cannot be valid because it was a nomen nudum of Lamarck, 1801. If Doctor Ranson’s argument is that G. arcuata was confused and could not have been properly designated by Anton, it does nothing to validate angulata, an indubitable nomen nudum, and if arcuata is thrown out as the type species, it leaves the whole situation in utter and complete confusion. Concerning the matter of usage, it is only in recent years that ostreologists have come to separate the two common living genera of oysters. Taxonomists in this country and Japan who have been concerned with the question have all recognised that Gryphaea is not the proper name and have all stated that Crassostrea is the proper generic or subgeneric designation. DOCUMENT 2/8 Communication signed by four members of the staff of the United States National Museum and by six members of the staff of the United States Geological Survey, transmitted by HARALD A. REHDER (Curator, Division of Mollusks, United States National Museum, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.) under cover of a letter dated 30th October, 1951 (published, 22nd May 1952, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 6 : 188—189) It is the viewpoint of the undersigned that Gryphaea Lamarck, 1801, having been validly proposed, should stand, and that the type species is Gryphaea arcuata Lamarck, 1801, validly selected by Anton in 1839, OPINION 338 179 The facts in the case are simple and quite clear under the rules. Gryphaea angulata Lamarck was a nomen nudum in 1801, and is there- fore unavailable as the type species. This renders invalid Children’s selection in 1823 of this species as type species, This leaves as the only point to be debated the question whether strict adherence to the rules will cause confusion and inconvenience. Here we, the under-signed, are all agreed that the rules should be followed. Any other course would, in our estimation, lead to con- fusion. All workers on this side of the Atlantic have used Gryphaea for the Mesozoic oysters since Dall’s treatment of the subject in 1898. Even before that Meek, in 1876, used the name in this sense. As a matter of fact, most of the European workers have used the name Gryphaea for the Mesozoic forms, albeit extending its geological range into the recent by using angu/ata Lamarck as the type or example and only living species, and placing Liogryphaea Fischer, 1885 (= Gryphaea Lamarck, 1801, not 1819) as a subgenus or section under Gryphaea. Stoliczka, 1871, Fischer, 1885, and Zittel, 1895, used the names in this way. To set aside the rules and follow M. Ranson’s suggestion would mean that the common Western Atlantic oyster would be known as Gryphaea virginica (Gmelin), a combination that no one has used except Ranson, and the Mesozoic-Tertiary oysters, that have always, both in this country and abroad, been called Gryphaea, would go under the generic name Liogryphaea. We are fully in agreement with Dr. L. R. Cox’s presentation of the case against this application, and his recommendations (1951, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 2 (II) : 324—331). Harald A. Rehder, R. Tucker Abbott, Curator, Division of Mollusks Assoc. Curator—Smithsonian Joseph P. S. Morrison, David Nicol, Assoc. Curator, Assoc. Curator, J.P. & P., Division of Mollusks U.S.N.M. Julia Gardner W. P. Woodring John B. Reeside, Jr. Paleontologists of the Ralph W. Imlay ' U.S. Geological Survey L. W. Stephenson | W. A. Cobban J 180 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS DOCUMENT 2/9 Extract from a letter, dated Ist August 1952, from H. E. VOKES (The Johns Hopkins University, Department of Geology, Baltimore, Maryland, U.S.A.) I am utterly opposed to suspending the Rules in favour of Gryphaea angulata Lamarck, 1818, as type species of Gryphaea. There is hardly any action that would be apt to cause more confusion with respect to stratigraphic and paleontologic literature. I made a brief check of the textbooks in our University library here, and every textbook in paleontology, historical geology, and anyone that dealt with Mesozoic stratigraphy mentioned, and in many cases discussed, the generic name Gryphaea. Only two of the 25 or 30 volumes that I examined did not include also a figure representative of the genus. The name is deeply ingrained in geologic terminology from the beginning courses on. [| am most anxious to see the request for a suspension of the Rules defeated in this case. Actually I would have submitted a statement survey concerning it but felt that it would not be politic for a Commissioner to prejudice his position before the public in this matter. Be eee eee eee ee ee eee eee ee Printed in England by Metcatre & Cooper LimiTeD, 10-24 Scrutton St., London EC2 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTER- NATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Edited by FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E., Secretary to the Commission VOLUME 10. Part 6. Pp. 181—200 OPINION 339 Acceptance of the name concolor Woodbury, 1929, as published in the combination Crotalus concolor, as the name for the Yellow Rattlesnake of the Colorado River Basin 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 | 1955 Price Ten shillings (All rights reserved) ee Issued 17th March, 1955 INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE COMPOSITION AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THE RULING GIVEN IN OPINION 339 A. The Officers of the Commission Honorary Life President : Dr. Karl Jordan (British Museum (Natural History), Zoological Museum, Tring, Herts., England) President : Professor James Chester Bradley (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) (A2th August 1953) Vice-President: Senhor Dr. Afranio do Amaral (Sao Paulo, Brazil) (12th August 1953) Secretary : Mr. Francis Hemming (London, England) (27th July 1948) B. The Members of the Commission (Arranged in order of precedence by reference to date of election or of most recent re-election, as prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology) Professor H. BoscHMA (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) (Ast January 1947) Senor Dr. Angel CABRERA (Eva Peron, F.C.N.G.R., Argentina) (27th July 1948) Mr. Francis HEMMING (London, England) (27th July 1948) (Secretary) a desepn PEARSON (Tasmania Museum, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia) (27th uly 1948) Dr. Henning LEMCHE (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark) (27th July 1948) Professor Teiso EsAKt (Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan) (17th April 1950) Professor Pierre BONNET (Université de Toulouse, France) (9th June 1950) Mr. Norman Denbigh RILeEy (British Museum (Natural History) London) (9th June 1950) Professor Tadeusz JACZEWSKI Unstitute of Zoology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland) (15th June 1950) Professor Robert MERTENS (Natur-Museum u. Forschungs-Institut Senckenberg, Frankfurt a. M., Germany) (5th July 1950) Professor Erich Martin HERING (Zoologisches Museum der Humboldt-Universitat zu Berlin, Germany) (Sth July 1950) Senhor Dr. Afranio do AMARAL (S. Paulo, Brazil) (12th August 1953) (Vice- President) Professor J. R. DyMOND (University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada) (12th August 1953) Professor J. Chester BRADLEY (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) (President) Professor Harold E. VoKes (Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) Professor Béla HANKO (Mezogazdasdgi Muzeum Budapest, Hungary) (12th August 1953) Dr. Norman R. STOLL (Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, New York, N.Y., U.S.A. (12th August 1953) Mr. P. C. SyLVveESTER-BRADLEY (Sheffield University, Sheffield, England) (12th August 1953) Dr. L. B. Hoituuts (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Nether- lands) (12th August 1953) OPINION 339 ACCEPTANCE OF THE NAME ‘** CONCOLOR ”’ WOODBURY, 1929, AS PUBLISHED IN THE COM- BINATION ‘* CROTALUS CONCOLOR ”’, AS THE NAME FOR THE YELLOW RATTLESNAKE OF THE COLORADO RIVER BASIN RULING :—(1) The name concolor Jan, 1859, as published as a nomen nudum in the combination Crotalus durissus var. concolor, did not acquire the status of availability (a) by being published in the combination Crotalus durissus var. concolor by Garman in 1883 as a doubtful synonym of Crotalus horridus Lin- naeus, 1758, without an independent indication, definition or description, or (b) by being so published in the syno- nymy of the foregoing species (i) in the combination Crotalus durissus cincolor [sic] by Notestein in 1905, or (ii) in the combination Crotalus durissus var. concolor by Gloyd in 1940. (2) In view of (1) above, the specific name concolor Woodbury, 1929, as published in the combination Crotalus concolor, is not an invalid junior homonym in the genus Crotalus Linnaeus, 1758. (3) The under-mentioned specific name is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology as Name 451: concolor Woodbury, 1929, as published in the combination Crotalus concolor (Class Reptilia, Order Squamata). (4) The under-mentioned specific names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology as Name Nos. 118 to 121 respectively :—(a) concolor Jan, 1859, as _ published in the combination Crotalus durissus var. concolor (a nomen nudum); (b) concolor Garman (by whom attributed to Jan), 1883, as published in the combination Crotalus durissus var. concolor, as rejected under (1)(a) above ; (c) cincolor [sic] (an Invalid Original Spelling 184 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS for concolor) Notestein (by whom attributed to “J.”), 1905, as published in the combination Crotalus durissus cincolor, as rejected under (1)(b)(i) above ; (d) concolor Gloyd (by whom attributed to Jan), 1940, as published in the combination Crotalus durissus var. concolor, as rejected under (1)(b)(ii) above. I.—THE STATEMENT OF THE CASE On 25th September 1944 Dr. Hobart M. Smith (then of the University of Rochester, College of Arts and Science, Rochester, N.Y., U.S.A. and now of the University of Illinois, Department of Zoology, Urbana, Illinois, U.S.A.) addressed a letter to the International Commission covering a statement prepared jointly with Dr. Angus M. Woodbury (University of Utah, Division of Biology, Salt Lake City, Utah, U.S.A.) and himself entitled “The case of Crotalus concolor’. For the reasons explained in paragraph 4 below, extensive correspondence on this question ensued between the Secretary to the Commission and Dr. Hobart M. Smith and Dr. Angus Woodbury and it was not until January 1951 that in a revised form it was formally submitted to the Commission. The application so revised was as follows :— On the correct name for the yellow rattlesnake from the Colorado River Basin By ANGUS M. WOODBURY (University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, U.S.A.) and HOBART M. SMITH (University of Illinois, Urbana, IIl., U.S.A.) 1. In 1929 (Bull. Univ. Utah, 20 (6) : 3) Woodbury published the name Crotalus concolor and applied it to a race of rattlesnakes of the Colorado River Basin (type locality at the base of the Henry Mountains, Garfield County, Utah) now assigned to the species Crotalus viridis. OPINION 339 185 2. In 1930 (Trans. San. Diego Soc. nat. Hist. 6: 111) Klauber published the name Crotalus confluentus decolor and applied it to a race of rattlesnakes of the Colorado River Basin (type locality at Grand Junction in western Colorado) now also assigned to the species Crotalus viridis. 3. In the present state of knowledge Crotalus viridis concolor Woodbury, 1929, and Crotalus viridis decolor Klauber, 1930, are regarded as applying to the same race, and C. viridis concolor Woodbury, by virtue of its priority, was universally regarded as the valid name for the race concerned until 1940. 4. In 1940 (“ Genera Sistruras and Crotalus.” Spec. Publ. Chicago Acad. Sci. 4 : 216—217) Gloyd applied the name Crotalus viridis decolor Klauber to the sub-species in question on the grounds that he regarded concolor Woodbury as “preoccupied by concolor Jan (1859 : 153), a nomen nudum which originally appeared as a variety of C. durissus (horridus), and was later placed in the synonymy of C. horridus by Garman (1883 : 175) and Stejneger (1895 : 427)... the association of Jan’s name with C. horridus by subsequent reviewers of the genus gives it a status as a synonym of that species, and concolor Woodbury (1929) is therefore a homonym.”’ 5. The facts about the alleged name concolor Jan are as follows : (1) As stated by Gloyd in the passage quoted above, the name Crotalus durissus var. concolor Jan was published in 1859 (Prodrome d’une iconographie descriptive des ophidiens et description sommarie de nouvelles espéces de serpents venimeux, Paris : 153) as a nomen nudum. (2) In 1883 Garman (Mem. Mus. comp. Zool. 8 : 175) cited Crotalus durissus var. concolor Jan as a questionable or possible synonym of Crotalus horridus Linnaeus, 1758. (3) In 1895 Stejneger (Ann. Rept. U.S. Nat. Mus. 1895 : 427) also cited Crotalus durissus var. concolor Jan as a questionable or possible synonym of Crotalus horridus Linnaeus, 1758. (4) Finally, Gloyd (1940 : 171) cited the name Crotalus durissus var. concolor Jan as a synonym of Crotalus horridus horridus Linnaeus without a question. 6. The question now arises as to which, if any, of the above actions conferred availability on the trivial name concolor Jan. 7. There can be no doubt that Gloyd conferred availability on the name concolor when he definitely synonymised it with the previously published name Crotalus horridus horridus Linnaeus, assuming it had not already acquired availability by any earlier action ; but it is clear from the decisions taken by the International Congress of Zoology in 186 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS Paris in 1948, on the advice of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, that Gloyd’s action in itself conferred avail- ability on the name concolor only as from 1940, and that the name should be attributed not to Jan but to Gloyd himself. (cf. Bull. Zool. Nomencl. 4 : 145—146, 563). Thus, Gloyd’s action in establishing the name C. horridus concolor Gloyd, 1940, could in no circumstances have had the effect of invalidating concolor Woodbury, 1929, since concolor Gloyd, 1940, is itself an invalid junior homonym of concolor Woodbury, 1929. 8. The only relevant issue, therefore, and the one which has been the subject of disagreement among specialists, is whether availability was conferred upon the trivial name concolor by Garman (1883) when he published that name (which had previously existed only as a nomen nudum) as a questionable synonym of Crotalus horridus Linnaeus, 1758. Gloyd (loc. cit.) and Smith (Copeia, 1943 : 251) have argued that Garman’s action in 1883 did confer availability on the trivial name concolor, while the Stejneger and Barbour checklist (Bull. M.C.Z., Harvard, Mass., 1943), Woodbury (Copeia, 1942 : 258) and Klauber (Trans. San. Diego Soc. nat. Hist. 6 : 242) have taken the opposite view. 9. The object of the present paper is a twofold one : (1) to secure an authoritative ruling from the International Com- mission on the question whether the citation of a nomen nudum as a questionable or possible synonym of an available name confers availability upon the name so cited ; and (2) to settle definitely the question of the correct name of the race of yellow rattlesnake from the Colorado River Basin. 10. On the second of these questions, in view of the difference of opinion which has arisen during the last ten years on this matter, the acceptance of either of the two alternative solutions would cause a certain amount of short-term disturbance and confusion. We should like to propose, therefore, that the matter be settled once and for all by the Commission placing on the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology whichever of the two names concolor Woodbury, 1929, or decolor Klauber, 1930 turns out, in the light of the decision on the matter of principle raised in point (1) of the previous paragraph, to be the correct name under the Rég/es for the subspecies concerned. Il—THE SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF THE CASE 2. Registration of the present application: On receipt of Dr. Hobart M. Smith’s letter of 25th September 1944, the OPINION 339 187 questions raised by the specific name concolor as published by Jan in 1859 as a nomen nudum in the genus Crotalus Linnaeus, 1758, and as subsequently published by various authors in com- bination with the same generic name was allotted the Registered Number Z.N.(S.) 176. 3. Postponement of the present application at Paris in 1948 : At the time when the Agenda was being prepared for the Session of the International Commission to be held in Paris in 1948 it was evident that the greater part of the time at that Session would be required for the consideration of the proposals which had been submitted for the clarification, amendment and expansion of the Reégles and that the time remaining for the consideration of applications relating to individual names would not be sufficient to permit of decisions being taken on all the applications then awaiting attention. It was inevitable therefore that some of those applications would need to be postponed. The present was one of the applications which for the foregoing reason was not brought before the Commission at its Paris Session. 4. Revision of the present application in 1950/1951: In the period immediately following the close of the Paris Session of the Commission the entire resources of its Office were devoted to the preparation of the Official Record of the Proceedings of the Commission at that Session and it was not until 1950 that it was possible to resume work on the present application. Like all other applications then outstanding, the present application required certain minor revisions in order to bring it into line with the procedure prescribed by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948, under which in future it became the duty of the Commission to place on the Official List and the Official Index of specific names any such names which in its Opinions it might accept as available names or, as the case might be, it might reject under its Plenary Powers or might declare to be invalid under the Régles. Apart however from the formal changes so required, the present application raised two questions of principle, namely :—(1) whether a specific name which acquired currency through having been published as a nomen nudum or through having been made known to workers as a manuscript name obtained for itself the status of availability if subsequently published in the synonymy of some previously established nominal species ; (2) whether a specific name acquired 188 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS the status of availability if the only “‘ indication ’’ published for it was a qualified (i.e. conditional) synonymic reference to some previously published description or figure. As regards the first of these questions, the decision taken by the Paris Congress, when incorporating Opinion 4 into the Régles, clearly laid it down that a specific name acquired availability if published in a specific synonymy (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4:145). The portion of the present application affected by this decision was redrafted accordingly. As regards the second of the foregoing questions it appeared both to the Secretary to the Commission and to the applicants that a specific name published with a qualified synonymic reference as its sole indication could not reasonably be regarded as having acquired the status of availability by reason of having been so published. It was felt, however, that, as this was a matter on which the Rég/es contained no express provision and on which no Ruling had ever been given by the Commission, it was desirable that the opportunity presented by the present application should be taken to seek such a Ruling. It was accordingly agreed between the Secretary and the applicants that the former should prepare a short note asking the Com- mission to render a Declaration! that a name so published does not thereby acquire the status of availability. The necessary revisions of the application relating to the name to be used for the Yellow Rattlesnake of the Colorado River Basin was completed by January 1951, by which date also Mr. Hemming’s application for the adoption of a Declaration on the lines indicated above had also been completed. 5. Publication of the present application : The application sub- mitted by Dr. Angus M. Woodbury and Professor Hobart M. Smith was sent to the printer in January 1951, together with Mr. Hemming’s application for a Ruling declaring against the availability of names possessing, as an “indication”, only a qualified synonymic reference. These papers weie published on 28th September 1951 in Part 4 of volume 6 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (Woodbury & Smith, 1951, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 6 : 99—100 ; Hemming, 1951, ibid. 6 : 103—105). * This proposal was subsequently approved by the Commission. Its decision on this matter has since been embodied in Declaration 16 (1954, Ops. Decls. int, Comm. zool, Nomencl. 9 : xxxvii—xlyiii). OPINION 339 189 6. Supply of additional information by Dr. Laurence M. Klauber (San Diego, California, U.S.A.) : In 1950 Dr. Lawrence M. Klauber (San Diego, California, U.S.A.) addressed a letter to the Secretary to the Commission in which he posed a theoretical case in which the issues involved—the status of specific names published in synonymies—resembled those raised in the present case. In replying to this letter on 3rd January 1951, Mr. Hemming cited the case of the name concolor, as published by Jan and subsequent authors, as an illustration of the points involved in an instance in which Dr. Klauber was personally concerned, having regard to the fact that, if it were to be found that the name concolor Woodbury, 1929, for the Yellow or Midget Rattlesnake of the Colorado River Basin was invalid in the genus Crotalus as being a junior homonym, the oldest available name for the snake concerned would be decolor Klauber, 1930. In replying on 9th January 1951, Dr. Klauber drew attention to the fact that there existed in the literature a case in which the nomen nudum concolor Jan, 1859, had been definitely published as a junior synonym of the name of a previously established nominal Species, prior to that name having been so published by Gloyd in 1940. It was by Notestein in 1905 that the name concolor (misspelled cincolor) had been so published. On the general question of the relative merits of the names concolor Woodbury, 1929, and decolor Kiauber, 1930, Dr. Klauber stated that these two names had, he believed, been used with approximately equal frequency. Dr. Klauber added that, if the Commission were to decide in favour of conserving the name concolor Woodbuty, he, as the author of the name decolor Klauber, would not have the slightest objection. On receiving Dr. Klauber’s letter, which was as follows, Mr. Hemming decided that it should be published at the same time as the application submitted by Dr. Angus M. Woodbury and Professor Hobart M. Smith, and arrangements were made to this end (Klauber, 1951, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 6 : 101) :— On the question of the correct trivial name for the Yellow or Midget Rattlesnake of the Colorado River Basin By LAURENCE M. KLAUBER (San Diego, California, U.S.A.) I greatly appreciate the complete discussion contained in your letter of January 3rd (Z.N.(S.)176) ... Thad not known that a ruling had been 190 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS sought in the particular case of the yellow rattlesnake of the Colorado River Basin. The following has a bearing, for the name “ Crotalus durissus cincolor [sic] J.’ was placed in the synonymy of Crotalus horridus Linnaeus in a paper entitled “ The Ophidia of Michigan with an Analytical Key’? by F. N. Notestein, Seventh Report, Michigan Academy of Science, pp. 111—125, at page 123 (1905). Undoubtedly cincolor was a misprint for concolor: the paper is full of an almost unbelievable number of typographical errors, as witness Candisona for Caudisona, articandatus for atricaudatus, and dorissus for durissus among the rattlers alone. Among the many misspelled names of authorities cited in the abbreviation list beginning at the bottom of page 122, is that of the author himself. This possibly explains why J.” is stated to stand for “‘ Jordan ’’, whereas “‘ Jan ’’ is intended. May I say that, should the Commission, now having authority to conserve trivial names, desire to establish C. v. concolor Woodbury, 1929, as the proper name for the yellow or midget rattlesnake over C. v. decolor Klauber, 1930, I should not have the slightest objection. I believe the two names have been used with approximately equal frequency since their original publication. Gloyd mentions the problem in a footnote (Chicago Academy of Sciences, Special Publica- tion No. 4, p. 216, 1940). Ishall be pleased to see the question resolved, as I expect to publish a check list of the rattlers in a book now in course of preparation. 7. Supplementary note by Dr. Angus M. Woodbury and Professor Hobart M. Smith : On receiving Dr. Klauber’s letter of 9th January 1951, Mr. Hemming communicated copies of it to Dr. Angus M. Woodbury and Professor Hobart M. Smith (the original applicants in this case) and suggested that, in the light of the additional information brought forward by Dr. Klauber, those specialists might care themselves to furnish a supplementary statement, which he added, he would arrange to be published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature at the same time as their original application and Dr. Klauber’s letter. Dr. Woodbury and Professor Smith accepted this suggestion and on 10th April 1951 furnished a note in which they agreed that in the circumstances disclosed by Dr. Klauber’s letter there could be no doubt that, having regard to the decision taken by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948, when embodying in the Régles the Ruling given in Opinion 4 (relating to the availability of names first published in the synonymy of other names), the name concolor Woodbury, 1929, was an invalid junior homonym in the genus Crotalus and that the oldest available name for the Yellow Rattlesnake of the Colorado River Basin was decolor OPINION 339 191 Klauber, 1930. They added that, like Dr. Klauber, they had no special preference for either of the names involved in this case and that their sole object in submitting their original applica- tion had been to obtain an authoritative Ruling from the Com- mission on the question as to what was the correct name for the species concerned. The Supplementary Note so received, which was as follows, was at once sent to the printer and was published concurrently with the original application in this case (Woodbury & Smith, 1951, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 6 : 101—102) :— On the correct trivial name of the yellow rattlesnake of the Colorado River Basin : supplementary note By ANGUS M. WOODBURY (University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, U.S.A.), and HOBART M. SMITH (University of Illinois, Urbana, Ill., U.S.A.) 1. When we submitted to the International Commission on Zoologi- cal Nomenclature our application for a ruling regarding the trivial name properly applicable to the Yellow Rattlesnake of the Colorado River Basin, our sole object was to obtain an authoritative pronounce- ment which ‘would secure that for the future the same name was always applied to this snake. We ourselves had no special preference for either of the two possible names, viz., (1) concolor Woodbury, 1929, as published as a subspecific trivial name in the combination Crotalus viridis concolor, (2) decolor Klauber, 1930, as published as a subspecific trivial name in the combination Crotalus confluentus decolor. 2. The Secretary to the International Commission has informed us that, since our application was sent to the press, he has received a letter from Mr. Laurence M. Klauber (San Diego, California) drawing attention to the use of the trivial name concolor in the genus Crotalus prior to its use by Woodbury in 1929, namely by Notestein (F.N.) who in 1905 definitely synonymised what he called “* Crotalus durissus cincolor [sic] J.” with Crotalus horridus Linnaeus. Mr. Hemming has furnished us with a copy of Mr. Klauber’s letter and we agree that the information so brought forward introduces a radical change into the situation. It is true that in Notestein’s paper Jan’s manu- script name concolor was misspelt “ cincolor ’’, but, in view (especially) of the large number of other misprints in Notestein’s paper (of which Mr. Klauber gives a number of examples in his letter), this variant must certainly be regarded as falling within the scope of Article 19 192 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS and therefore as being the equivalent of concolor. In these circum- stances, the subspecific trivial name concolor Woodbury, 1929, not only is possibly a junior homonym of concolor Garman, 1883 (the question on which we asked for a ruling from the International Commission), but is also an undoubted junior homonym of concolor (emend. of cincolor) Notestein, 1905 (a fact of which we were previously unaware). 3. In the light of the developments described above, there is no longer any doubt as to the correct name of the yellow rattlesnake of the Colorado River Basin, for the final elimination, as a homonym, of the name concolor Woodbury, 1929, leaves decolor Klauber, 1930, as indisputably the oldest available name for that snake. Accordingly, while we still ask the International Commission to give a ruling on the general question whether the qualified citation of a trivial name in a synonymy confers any availability upon that trivial name, we desire to substitute for the second of the proposals which we submitted (namely that set out in paragraph 10 of our application) a proposal that the trivial name decolor Klauber, 1930, as published in the com- bination Crotalus confluentus decolor, be placed upon the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology. 8. Comment received from Professor Dr. Robert Mertens (Natur-Museum und Forschungs-Institut Senckenberg, Senckenberg- Anlage, Frankfurt a. Main, Germany) : On 24th October 1951, Professor Dr. Robert Mertens (Natur-Museum und Forschungs- Institut Senckenberg, Senckenberg-Anlage, Frankfurt a. Main) addressed a letter to the Commission in which he associated himself with the view expressed in a recently published paper by Stresemann and Mayr that the decision taken by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948, when embodying in the Rég/es the decision given in Opinion 4 that a name published In a synonymy acquires availability thereby, was misconceived and should be reversed by the next International Congress of Zoology. Professor Mertens accordingly took the view that the name concolor Woodbury, 1929, ought not to be rejected as a junior homonym in the genus Crotalus by reason of the name concolor having been previously published as a rejected synonym in the synonymy of species of that genus. Professor Mertens’s letter was as follows (Mertens, 1952, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 6: 171) :— Im Gegensatz zu der von Woodbury & Smith (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 6, Part 4, pag. 102, 1951) gedéusserten Ansicht, dass decolor Klauber, 1930, der korrekte Name fiir die im Titel bezeichnete Klapperschlange ist, stehe ich auf dem Standpunkte, dass dieses Tier als concolor Wood- bury, 1929, su bezeichnen ist. Ich vertrete die Ansicht, dass concolor OPINION 339 | 193 Jan, 1859, als nomen nudum keine Rechtskraft dadurch erlangt hat, dass es von einem spateren Autor (Notestein 1905) zu einem Synonym von Crotalus horridus L. erklart worden ist ; concolor Woodbury, 1929, wird mich durch eine eindeutige Synonymisierung des nomen nudum concolor Jan nicht praokkupiert. Eine nahere Begriindung dieser Ansicht findet man bei Stresemann & Mayr, Senckenbergiana 32, Nr. 1/4, pag. 211—218, 1951. 9. Review in March 1952 of the stage reached in the present case : On 28th March 1952 the prescribed waiting period of six months following the publication in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature of the application submitted by Dr. Woodbury and Professor Smith came to a close, and the stage reached in this case was thereupon reviewed by Mr. Hemming as Secretary to the Commission, who then placed the following Minute on the Commission’s File Z.N.(S.) 176 :— The Woodbury/Smith application regarding the trivial name to be accepted for the Yellow (or Midget) Rattlesnake of the Colorado River Basin MINUTE, dated 28th March 1952, by FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E. Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature The application in regard to the trivial name to be accepted for the Yellow (or Midget) Rattlesnake of the Colorado River Basin submitted by Dr. Angus M. Woodbury and Professor Hobart M. Smith was published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature on 28th September 1951, and accordingly the Prescribed Six-Month Waiting Period expires today. 2. Other things being equal, this case has therefore now reached the stage at which a Voting Paper could be prepared for the purpose of obtaining a decision from the Commission, for, although a question of principle—the question whether the citation of a qualified synonymic reference constitutes an indication for the purposes of Proviso (a) to Article 25—arose in the course of the preparation of this application, it is not necessary to await the decision of the Commission on the foregoing question, since, whatever the answer that may be given by the Commission in the Declaration asked for, the name concolor has, as is now clear, been published without qualification of any kind by two authors since Garman (1883) (i.e. by Notestein, 1905 ; Gloyd, 1940) in the synonymies of species assigned by them to the genus Crotalus Linnaeus, 1758. Accordingly under the decision taken by the Paris (1948) Congress when embodying in the Régles the Ruling given in Opinion 4, the name concolor Woodbury, 1929, is undoubtedly an invalid junior homonym in the genus Crotalus. 194 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 3. Since the submission of the Woodbury/Smith application in the present case, the situation has been complicated by the submission to the Commission by Dr. Ernst Mayr (The American Museum of Natural History, New York) of an application asking that the Paris (1948) decision in relation to the status of names published in synonymies be re-examined with a view to its reversal by the next (Copenhagen, 1953) Congress of Zoology. If the foregoing proposal were to be adopted by the Copenhagen Congress, the situation in the present case would be radically altered, for in that event the name concolor Woodbury, 1929, as published in the combination Crotalus concolor, would unquestionably become not only an available name but also the oldest such name for the Rattlesnake in question. 4. As Secretary to the International Commission, I hold the view that it is the duty of the Commission to adjudicate on questions submitted to it in the light of the Rég/es as they exist at that time, and that it would normally be quite incorrect for the Commission to be deflected from that course in any given case by reason of the fact that notice had been received of a proposal for the amendment of some provision in the Régles relevant to the consideration of the case in question. In the present instance, however, it is necessary to take note of the fact that owing to the financial and administrative diffi- culties confronting the Commission, there are over one hundred cases in which decisions have been taken but as regards which Opinions have not yet been rendered?. Thus, even if the Commission were now to take a decision on the present case in the light of the existing provisions in the Régles, it would be impossible to render an Opinion embodying that decision before the meeting of the International Con- gress of Zoology at Copenhagen next year. Moreover, the time required for preparing Opinions on cases which have already been settled will inevitably be so considerable that if a decision on the present case were to be postponed until after the Copenhagen Congress —by which time the Congress will have taken a decision on Dr. Mayr’s proposal for the amendment of the provision in the Régles embodying the Ruling given in Opinion 4—it should be possible for the Com- mission, if it acts promptly, to take a decision on the present case and to render and publish an Opinion in regard to it only a few months? later than the date on which an Opinion could be published if the Commission were now to proceed at once to take a decision on this case. 2 Opinions have now been prepared and published in respect of all the cases here referred to. 3 If it had not been for the Directions given in the Secretary’s Minute of 28th March 1952, a Voting Paper on the present case would have been issued to the Commission on 22nd May 1952, on which date Voting Papers were so issued in respect of the applications published in the same Part of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. The Opinions embodying the decisions taken on those Voting Papers were rendered on various dates in May 1954. ‘The actual delay involved by the postponement of action on this case in 1952 amounted therefore only to about five months. OPINION 339 195 5. Accordingly, as Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, I hereby direct (1) that the further consider- ation of the application relating to the name to be used for the Yellow (or Midget) Rattlesnake of the Colorado River Basin submitted jointly by Dr. Angus M. Woodbury and Professor Hobart M. Smith and published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature on 28th September 1951 be postponed until after the close of the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology, Copenhagen, 1953, and (2) that the foregoing application be submitted to the Commission for vote as soon as may be practicable after the close of that Congress. 10. Decision by the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology, Copenhagen, 1953, amending the provisions in the ** Regles ’’ relating to the status of names published in synonymies : The question of the possible amendment of the provisions in the Régles relating to the status to be accorded to names published in synonymies was entered as Case No. 33 on the Agenda prepared for the Copenhagen Colloquium. In all, thirty-three documents were submitted in respect of this Item, of which the first (Docu- ment 33/1) was an historical survey by Mr. Hemming of the issues involved in this case, and the eighth (Document 33/8) the application received from Dr. Ernst Mayr referred to in para- graph 3 of the Secretary’s Minute of 28th March 1952 reproduced in paragraph 9 above. Acting on the advice of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, supported by the Colloquium on Zoological Nomenclature, the Fourteenth Inter- national Congress of Zoology, Copenhagen, 1953, decided to amend the Régles, as from some date to be specified, in such a way as to provide that “no name shall acquire availability by virtue of being published in a synonymy without an independent indication, definition or description or, in the case of a generic name, without the names of any included species being expressly cited in connection therewith’? (1953, Copenhagen Decisions zool. Nomencl. : 63, Decision 115 (a)). 11. Action taken by the Secretary in February 1954 : In February 1954 this case was reviewed by the Secretary in the light of the decision taken by the Copenhagen (1953) Congress, the Official Record of which had been published a few weeks earlier, and on 12th February 1954 he addressed letters to Dr. Angus M. Woodbury and Professor Hobart M. Smith (the applicants in the present case) and to Dr. Lawrence M. Klauber, in which after referring to the decision taken in 1952 temporarily to postpone 196 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS the further consideration of the present case* and after sum- marising the subsequent amendment of the Rég/es in relation to the status of names published in synonymies®, Mr. Hemming proceeded as follows :— It is necessary now to consider the application of the foregoing decision to the name of the Colorado River Basin Yellow Rattlesnake. Here, the relevant points seem to be :—(a) that all those who have submitted views to the Commission (Woodbury ; Smith ; Klauber) have said that their sole objective was to secure an authoritative ruling as to the name which under the Régles is applicable to this snake, (b) that Klauber has explained that the name concolor Woodbury, 1929, and decolor Klauber, 1930, have been used “* with approximately equal frequency ’’. In these circumstances (1) concolor Woodbury is undoubtedly the oldest available name for this snake under the Copenhagen decision described above, and (2) it cannot be said that there has been such a preponderant usage of the name decolor Klauber (which depends for its availability on the acceptance as available of concolor Notestein, 1905, and/or concolor Gloyd, 1940, thus invalidating concolor Woodbury 1929) as would justify the adoption of that name in preference to the valid name concolor Woodbury. I am accordingly suggesting to the Commission that, in view of the Copenhagen Congress’s decision, it should give a ruling in favour of the name concolor Woodbury. I assume from our previous correspondence that this course will meet with your approval. Ill.—THE DECISION OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 12. Issue of Voting Paper V.P.(54)14 : On 27th February 1954 a Voting Paper (V.P.(54)14) was issued in which the Members of the Commission were invited to vote either for, or against, the proposal “ relating to the specific name to be used for the Yellow Rattlesnake of the Colorado River Basin [published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature as shown in Note 1 * For the Minute by the Secretary, dated 28th March 1952, by which further consideration of this case was postponed until after the Copenhagen (1953) Congress, see paragraph 9 of the present Opinion. For the decision in this matter taken by the Copenhagen (1953) Congress, see paragraph 10 of the present Opinion. Aa) OPINION 339 197 overleaf] set out at the foot of the present Voting Paper”’. The proposal so submitted was as follows :— Revised Proposal submitted with Voting Paper V.P.(54)14 (1) The manuscript name concolor Jan did not acquire the status of availability either (a) through being published by Notestein (1905) in the combination Crotalus durissus cincolor [sic] J[an] in the synonymy of Crotalus horridus Linnaeus, 1758, or (b) through being published by Gloyd (1940) in the combination Crotalus durissus var. concolor Jan, similarly synonymised. (2) The specific name concolor Woodbury, 1929, as published in the combination Crotalus concolor, is therefore not an invalid junior secondary homonym, and it is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. (3) The under-mentioned specific names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology :—(a) concolor [emend. of cincolor] (J[an]MS) Notestein, 1905, as published in the combination Crotalus durissus cincolor ; - (b) concolor (Jan MS) Gloyd, 1940, as published 1 in the combination Crotalus durissus vat concolor. 13. The Prescribed Voting Period : As the foregoing Voting Paper was issued under the Three-Month Rule, the Prescribed Voting Period closed on 27th May 1954. 14. Particulars of the Voting on Voting Paper V.P.(54)14 : At the close of the Prescribed Voting Period the state of the voting on Voting Paper V.P.(54)14 was as follows :— (a) Affirmative Votes had been given by the following eighteen (18) Commissioners (arranged in the order in which votes were received) : Sylvester-Bradley ; Holthuis ; Hering ; Vokes ; Boschma ; Riley ; do Amaral ; Esaki - Lemche ; Dymond ; Hemming; Bonnet; Cabrera ; Meceu ; Pearson ; Bradley (J. C.) ; Hank6 ; Stoll ; (b) Negative Votes : None ; (c) Voting Paper not returned, one (1) : Jaczewski®. 6 An affirmative Vote was received on 3rd June 1954 from Commissioner Jac- zewski after the close of the Prescribed Voting Period. 198 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 15. Declaration of Result of Vote: On 28th May 1954, Mr. Hemming, Secretary to the International Commission, acting as Returning Officer for the Vote taken on Voting Paper V.P.(54)14, signed a Certificate that the Votes cast were as set out in paragraph 14 above and declaring that the proposal sub- mitted in the foregoing Voting Paper had been duly adopted and that the decision so taken was the decision of the International Commission in the matter aforesaid. 16. Addition of two further names to the ‘* Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology’: On 14th October 1954, when re-examining the papers relating to the present case preparatory to the preparation of the Ruling to be given in the present Opinion, Mr. Hemming, as Secretary to the Commission, placed the following Direction on the Commission’s File Z.N.(S.) 176 :— Addition of two objectively invalid names to the ‘‘ Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology ”’ DIRECTION, dated 14th October, 1954, given by FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E., Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature On re-examining the papers relating to the name to be accorded to the Yellow Rattlesnake of the Colorado River Basin, I find to my regret that through inadvertence the list of names recommended for addition to the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology in the proposal submitted with Voting Paper V.P.(54)14 was incomplete. Having regard to the General Directive issued to the International Commission by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948, relating to the placing of names on the Official Indexes, I now, as Secretary to the International Commission, hereby direct that, in addition to the names specified in the proposal referred to above, the under-mentioned objectively invalid names be placed on the foregoing Official Index, namely :—(1) concolor Jan, 1859, as published in the combination Crotalus durissus var. concolor (a nomen nudum) ; (2) concolor Garman (by whom the name was attributed to Jan), 1883, as published in the combination Crotalus durissus vat. concolor in the synonymy of Crotalus horridus Linnaeus, 1758 Gnvalid, because published in a synonymy without an independent indication, definition or description). 2. I further direct that, as the name cincolor [sic] (an Invalid Original Spelling for concolor) Notestein, 1905, as published in the combination OPINION 339 199 Crotalus durissus cincolor, which it has been decided on Voting Paper V.P.(54)14, shall be placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology, be entered thereon in the incorrect form cincolor in which it was originally published, having regard to the fact that, as this name was published in a synonymy without an independent indication, definition or description, it would have been invalid, even if it had been published with the correct spelling concolor. 17. Preparation of the Ruling given in the present ‘* Opinion ”’ : On 18th October 1954, Mr. Hemming prepared the Ruling given in the present Opinion and at the same time signed a Certificate that the terms of that Ruling were in complete accord wiih those of the proposal approved by International Commission in its Vote on Voting Paper V.P.(54)14, subject to the adjustments specified in the Direction dated 14th October 1954, reproduced in paragraph 16 of the present Opinion. 18. Original references: The following are the original references for the names placed on Official Lists and Official Indexes by the Ruling given in the present Opinion :— concolor, Crotalus durissus var., Jan, 1859, Rev. Mag. Zool. (2) 10 : 153 (often cited as follows by the title of the paper : Prodrome Iconograph. descr. Ophid. : 153) concolor, Crotalus durissus var., Garman (by whom this name was attributed to Jan), 1883, Mem. Mus. comp. Zool. 8 : 175 cincolor |sic\, Crotalus durissus, Notestein (by whom this name was attributed to “ J.”), 1905, Seventh Rep. Michigan Acad. Sci. : 123 concolor, Crotalus durissus var., Gloyd (by whom this name was attributed to Jan), 1940, Spec. Publ. Chicago Acad. Sci. 4 +171 concolor, Crotalus, Woodbury, 1929, Bull. Univ. Utah 20 (No. 6) : 3. (also published with sub-title “ Biol. Ser.” 1 (No. 2)) 19. As the present case is concerned only with certain specific names and no question of placing names on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology arises in the present instance. 20. At the time of the submission of the application dealt with in the present Opinion, the expression prescribed for the second portion of the binomen which constitutes the scientific name of a species was the expression “trivial name’ and the Official List reserved for recording such names was styled the Official 200 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology, the word “ trivial ”” appearing also in the title of the Official Index reserved for recording rejected and invalid names of this category. Under a decision taken by the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology, Copenhagen, 1953, the expression “ specific name” was substituted for the expression “trivial name” and corre- sponding changes were made in the titles of the Official List and Official Index of such names (1953, Copenhagen Decisions zool. Nomencl. : 21). The changes in terminology so adopted have . been incorporated in the Ruling given in the present Opinion. 21. The prescribed procedures were duly complied with by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature in dealing with the present case, and the present Opinion is accordingly hereby rendered in the name of the said International Com- mission by the under-signed Francis Hemming, Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, in virtue of all and every the powers conferred upon him in that behalf. 22. The present Opinion shall be known as Opinion Three Hundred and Thirty-Nine (339) of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Done in London, this Eighteenth day of October, Nineteen Hundred and Fifty-Four. Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature FRANCIS HEMMING Printed in England by Mretcarre & Cooper LimiTEeD, 10-24 Scrutton St., London EC 2 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTER- NATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Edited by FRANCIS HEMMING, C.™.G., C.B.E. Secretary to the Commission VOLUME 10. Part 7. Pp. 201—250 OPINION 340 Validation, under the Plenary Powers, of dentatus Diesing, 1839, as published in the combination Stephan- urus dentatus, as the specific name for the Kidney Worm of Swine eT pp Tah ZOAMtTHSOAS SS / oN kad AY a) \ aay 9 ance \\ VA, SAIBRARY A 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 1955 Price One Pound, Five Shillings (All rights reserved) Issued 19th May, 1955 INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE COMPOSITION AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THE RULING GIVEN IN OPINION 340 A. The Officers of the Commission Honorary Life President : Dr. Karl Jordan (British Museum (Natural History), Zoological Museum, Tring, Herts., England) President : Professor James Chester Bradley (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) Vice-President: Senhor Dr. Afranio do Amaral (Sao Paulo, Brazil) (12th August 1953) Secretary : Mr. Francis Hemming (London, England) (27th July 1948) B. The Members of the Commission (Arranged in order of precedence by reference to date of election or of most recent re-election, as prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology) Professor H. BoscHMA (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) (Ast January 1947) Senor Dr. Angel CABRERA (Eva Peron, F.C.N.G.R., Argentina) (27th July 1948) Mr. Francis HEMMING (London, England) (27th July 1948) (Secretary) Dr. Joseph PEARSON (Tasmanian Museum, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia) (27th July 1948) Dr. Henning LEMCHE (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark) (27th July 1948) Professor Teiso ESAKI (Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan) (17th April 1950) Professor Pierre BONNET (Université de Toulouse, France) (9th June 1950) Mr. Neues Denbigh RiLey (British Museum (Natural History) London) (9th June 1950) Professor Tadeusz JACZEWSKI Unstitute of Zoology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland) (15th June 1950) Professor Robert MERTENS (Natur-Museum u. Forschungs-Institut Senckenberg, Frankfurt a. M., Germany) (Sth July 1950) Professor Erich Martin HERING (Zoologisches Museum der Humboldt-Universitat zu Berlin, Germany) (Sth July 1950) Senhor Dr. Afranio do AMARAL (S. Paulo, Brazil) (12th August 1953) (Vice- President) Professor J. R. DYMOND (University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada) (12th August 1953) Professor J. Chester BRADLEY (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) (President) Professor Harold E. Vokes (Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) Professor Béla HANKO (Mezégazdasagi Muzeum, Budapest, Hungary) (12th August 1953) Dr. Norman R. STOLL (Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, New York, N.Y., U.S.A.) (A2th August 1953) Mr. P. C. SYLVESTER-BRADLEY (Sheffield University, Sheffield, England) (12th August 1953) Dr. L. B. HoLtTuuts (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Nether- lands) (12th August 1953) OPINION 340 VALIDATION, UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS, OF ** DENTATUS ” DIESING, 1839, AS PUBLISHED IN THE COMBINATION ** STEPHANURUS DENTATUS ”, AS THE SPECIFIC NAME FOR THE KIDNEY WORM OF SWINE RULING :—(1) Under the Plenary Powers the specific name dentatus Diesing, 1839, as published in the combina- tion Stephanurus dentatus, is hereby validated. (2) The under-mentioned generic names are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Nos. 845 and 846 respectively :—(a) Stephanurus Diesing, 1839 (gender: masculine) (type species, by monotypy: Stephanurus dentatus Diesing, 1839) ; (b) Oesophagostomum Molin, 1861 (gender : neuter) (type species, by selection by Stiles & Hassall (1905) : Strongylus dentatus Rudolphi, 1803, as defined by the descriptions and figures published by Goodey (T.) (1924, J. Helminth. 2(1) : 1—14, figs. 1—15)). (3) The under-mentioned specific names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Nos. 452 and 453 respectively :—(a) dentatus Diesing, 1839, as published in the combination _ Stephanurus dentatus (specific name of type species of Stephanurus Diesing, 1839) ; (b) dentatus Rudolphi, 1803, as published in the combination Strongylus dentatus and as interpreted in (2)(b) above (specific name of type species of Oesophagostomum Molin, 1861). I.—THE STATEMENT OF THE CASE The question of the availability of the specific name dentatus Diesing, 1839, as published in the combination Stephanurus dentatus, was first brought to notice in a communication addressed JUN 10 1955 204 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS to the Commission on 27th January 1945 by Dr. Ellsworth C. Dougherty (at that time of the Department of Zoology and now of the Department of Physiology, University of California, Berkeley, California, U.S.A.). This communication led ultimately, as explained in paragraph 5 below, to the submission to the Commission of the following application :— On the question of the correct name for the type species of the genus ‘* Stephanurus ’’ Diesing, 1839 (Class Nematoda*, Order Rhab- ditida), with recommendations for the placing of certain names on the ‘* Official Lists ’’ By ELLSWORTH C. DOUGHERTY, Ph.D., M.D. (Department of Zoology, University of California, Berkeley, California) Introduction 1. The type species, which is also the only generally recognized species, of Stephanurus Diesing, 1839—a strongyline genus placed by Chitwood and Chitwood (1937) in a subfamily STEPHANURINAE Railliet, Henry, and Bauche, 1919, of the family SYNGAMIDAE Leiper, 1912— is generally known as Stephanurus dentatus Diesing, 1839. It is the kidney worm of swine (Sus scrofa) and an organism of cosmopolitan distribution and considerable economic importance. Because of its prominence as a parasite of a domestic animal and the resulting close scrutiny it must suffer, it is rather surprising that in recent years the question of its specific name has not received more attention. It is now possible to say that certain facts in its history make apparent that the specific trivial name of Diesing (1839) can be used only if the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature invokes its Plenary Powers. A detailed history of earlier papers was given by Tayler (1900) ; and the essential points in the nomenclatorial history have been more recently reviewed in a paper originating from the Imperial Bureau of Agricultural Parasitology, England, and apparently written by B. G. Peters (1.e., B.G.P., 1931), but therein the nomen- clatorial issues were not directly faced. 2. An earlier draft of the present paper was first submitted to the International Commission in 1945. In its original form it dealt with problems, certain of which have subsequently been clarified by action of the International Commission and of the International Congress of Zoology at the historic Paris meetings in July, 1948. The following month (in August, 1948) the author visited Mr. Francis Hemming, * The classification preferred by the author is to consider Nematoda a Phylum peice into Classes Phasmidea (including the Order Rhabditida) and Aphas- midea. OPINION 340 205 Secretary to the International Commission ; and it was at that time agreed between them that, if pertinent matters were still to be raised, the paper should be rewritten in light of decisions taken at the Paris Meetings and resubmitted. I have delayed doing this until the ** Official Record of Proceedings of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature at their Session held in Paris in July, 1948 ”’ could be published. Now that such has been done in Volume 4 of The Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, I have reviewed the earlier draft and rewritten it. It is hereby resubmitted. 3. In the original draft a major problem, now essentially solved, dealt with questions of secondary homonymy (see 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 118—125, for conclusions of the International Com- mission, as approved by the Congress, on the subject of homonyms in zoological nomenclature). It is my feeling, however, that despite this considerable clarification it is desirable that the Commission consider a case of secondary homonymy and render an Opinion applying the new regulations ; in this way, as is pointed out later herein, one minor problem may be definitely solved. To ensure this end, I am reviewing in section II the main historical points and presenting in section III an analysis of the nomenclatorial problem. 4. A major consideration in regard to the name to be used for the kidney worm of swine still remains—namely, the question of a decision on the part of the Commission as to whether it might be better in the interests of stability to secure the use of the trivial name dentatus of Diesing, 1839, by exercise of Plenary Powers. Suggestions on this point are put forth in section IV. 5. Finally, it is recommended in section V that certain generic names considered herein (particularly Stephanurus Diesing, 1839) be placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology and certain trivial names on the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology. II. Review of the Nomenclatorial History 6. The kidney worm of swine was first described by Diesing (1839) as Stephanurus dentatus, only species of a new genus Stephanurus. The modernness of Diesing’s conception is apparent from the fact that today it is still generally known by that name. Indeed, if Diesing’s nomenclatorial treatment had been uniformly observed, there would be no basis for questioning the specific trivial name dentatus. Con- fusion arises, however, because there exists from the same host another strongyline species (Order Rhabditida) with the same trivial name, namely, one of the nodular worms of swine, now known as Oesophago- stomum dentatum (Rudolphi, 1803) Molin, 1861 (originally Strongylus dentatus Rudolphi, 1803). Because of the fact that all strongylines with relatively well-developed bursae in the male were grouped by many 206 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS nineteenth century helminthologists into one or two genera, i.e., Strongylus Miiller, 1780, and Sclerostoma Rudolphi, 1809, it would not be surprising if at one time or another both Stephanurus dentatus and Oesophagostomum dentatum were to be included under a single genus. This has actually occurred as is shown in the following historical summary. 7. The important facts in the nomenclatorial history of the kidney worm are as follows :— (i) Diesing (1839 : 232—233), as already noted, described the kidney worm of swine as Stephanurus dentatus, only species of a new genus Stephanurus. (ii) Leidy (1856 : 54) referred to nematodes, apparently one of the nodular worms of swine, briefly : Sclerostoma dentatum, Rud. Several specimens, male and female, were obtained from the liver of the hog, Sus scrofa. (iii) White (1859 : 428), described specimens of the kidney worm as Stephanurus dentatus, but apparently confused these with the worms reported by Leidy, as implied by the title of his paper : “Dr. James C. White exhibited specimens and figures of Stephanurus dentatus, Diesing, Sclerostomum dentatum ? Rudolphi”’ ; he thus implied that the kidney worm might be the same as Strongylus dentatus Rudolphi, 1803 (now known as Oesophagostomum dentatum). (iv) Verrill (1870a: 248—249; 1870b: 137—138; 1870c) described the kidney worm under the name Sclerostoma | pinguicola ; he was ignorant of Diesing’s description. (v) Dean (1874 : 62—63) described very weil the gross pathology produced by Strongylus [=Stephanurus| dentatus without indicating whether it was Rudolphi’s or Diesing’s name he had in mind. (vi) Cobbold (1879 : 412) recommended the new name Stephanurus nattereri as a possible substitute for Stephanurus dentatus in order to avoid confusion with Sclerostoma [= Oesophago- stomum|] dentatum. (vii) De Magalhdes (1894) published a study of the morphology of the kidney worm. He concluded that it belonged in the genus Strongylus and accepted for it the name “‘ Strongylus (Sclerostomum) pinguicola (Verrill).”’ (viii) Railliet (1896 : 160) synonymized Stephanurus with Sclero- stoma and accepted Sclerostoma pinguicola of Verrill (1870). (ix) Tayler (1900 : 626) also regarded Stephanurus Diesing, 1839, as a synonym of Sclerostoma Rudolphi, 1809. She accord- ingly accepted Sclerostoma pinguicola Verrill, 1870, as the OPINION 340 207 correct name of the kidney worm and placed Stephanurus dentatus, Stephanurus nattereri, and Strongylus dentatus of Dean (1874) as synonyms thereof ; she regarded Sclerostoma dentatum of Leidy (1856) as what is now Oesophagostomum dentatum. (x) Neither de Magalhaes, Railliet, nor Tayler specifically formed a combination between Diesing’s trivial name dentatus and the generic names to which they in effect transferred it ; however, all three rejected it as a homonym. (xi) Drabble (1922, 1923) described the kidney worm under the new name Sclerostomum renium, claiming that it was distinct from ** Sclerostoma pinguicola (syn. Stephanurus dentatus)”’. However, Cameron and Clunies Ross (1924) have shown conclusively that Drabble’s species is the same as Diesing’s. (xii) De Almeida (1928) described as Stephanurus morai specimens that Peters (1931) has shown also to belong to Diesing’s species. (xiii) Peters (1931) and others, both previously and subsequently, reverted to the trivial name dentatus with their recognition of genus Stephanurus as independent. III. Discussion of the Nomenclatorial Problems 8. It is apparent from the foregoing historical summary that :— (i) There are two species of nematodes parasitic in swine bearing the same trivial name, dentatus, but originally described in separate genera ; (ii) Apparent confusion existed between these two species or at least between their names in the works of certain early writers (White, Dean), but these writers did not specifically regard or reject the later trivial name, dentatus of Diesing, 1839, as a homonym of earlier trivial name, dentatus of Rudolphi, 1803. (iii) Later workers (de Magalhaes, Railliet, Tayler) recognised both species and regarded them as congeneric, uniting them either in the genus Strongylus Miiller, 1780, or in the genus Sclero- stoma Rudolphi, 1809 ; they rejected the later name, dentatus of Diesing, 1839, as a homonym of the earlier, dentatus of Rudolphi, 1803, without, however, specifically forming a combination between the later trivial name and the new generic names to which it was transferred. 9. The International Congress at the Paris Meeting officially recognised for the first time two categories of homonymy—primary and secondary. Inasmuch as the two nematodes parasitic in swine 208 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS were originally described in separate genera, their trivial names cannot, in accordance with the definition of primary homonymy provided by the International Congress, be regarded as primary homonyms. 10. Under the definition of secondary homonymy drawn up by the International Commission at its Paris Meetings and subsequently approved by the Congress, a secondary homonym is to be regarded as having been rejected and hence permanently suppressed only if specifically recognised and rejected as such. This was not the case with either White (1859) or Dean (1874). White in effect implied, probably inadvertently, that the kidney worm of swine and that species of nodular worm occurring in the same host and originally given the trivial name dentatus by Rudolphi (1803) were conspecific. This synonymy was subsequently (and is at present) recognised to be untrue. Dean, in designating the kidney worm Strongylus dentatus, created a condition of secondary homonymy, but did not recognise and reject the trivial name dentatus of Diesing, 1839. 11. The position is quite otherwise in the case of de Magalhaes (1894), Railliet (1896) and Tayler (1900), for each of these authors is to be regarded as having definitely recognised, in their estimation, dentatus of Diesing, 1839, to be a secondary homonym of dentatus of Rudolphi, 1803, and as having accordingly rejected the former. It was decided by the Congress at Paris, on the recommendation of the Commission, that, wherever a trivial name is clearly rejected as a second- ary homonym prior to midnight G.M.T., December 31st, 1950/January Ist, 1951, such rejection is to be accepted as valid, and the trivial name in question is to be permanently suppressed. It is seemingly clear, therefore, that under this rule (to be formally constituted in an Article in the forthcoming edition of the Régles Internationales de la Nomen- clature Zoologique), the specific trivial name dentatus of Diesing, 1839, is no longer available for the kidney worm of swine unless it is preserved by the International Commission under its Plenary Powers. 12. However, it has been my experience that some zoologists have held that homonymy does not exist unless a combination of generic and trivial name has been made so that identical specific names exist for two species, of which the trivial name of one (the later) then becomes a homonym. This would seem to be, as the Secretary of the Inter- national Commission might express it, a somewhat “ritualistic ”’ requirement and not a necessary or even reasonable interpretation of the present rulings. However, in order to obviate any doubt, it is to be hoped that the International Commission will issue a ruling on this point in the form of a Declaration. IV. The Correct Name for the Kidney Worm of Swine 13. As de Magalhaes (1894), Railliet (1896), and Tayler (1900) are presumably to be regarded as having rendered Diesing’s dentatus OPINION 340 209 unavailable, the next trivial name to be considered for the kidney worm of swine is the subjective synonym pinguicola of Verrill, 1870. There is no prior usage of this trivial name in the Nematoda, and there- fore the kidney worm would become Stephanurus pinguicola (Verrill, 1870) comb. nov. The names Stephanurus nattereri Cobbold, 1879, Sclerostomum renium Drabble, 1923, and Stephanurus morai de Almeida, 1928, would fall as subjective synonyms thereof. 14. The synonymy of S. pinguicola would be as follows : Stephanurus pinguicola (Verrill, 1870) comb. nov. Synonyms : Stephanurus dentatus Diesing, 1839 ; Sclerostoma pinguicola Verrill, 1870 ; Strongylus dentatus, of Dean, 1874 [non Strongylus dentatus Rudolphi, 1803] ; Stephanurus nattereri Cobbold, 1879 ; ‘* Sclerostomum pinguicola Verrill, 1870”, of de Magalhaes, 1894 ; Strongylus (Sclerostomum) pinguicola (Verrill, 1870) de Magalhaes, 1894 ; Sclerostomum renium Drabble, 1922 ; Stephan- urus morai de Almeida, 1928. 15. The question now arises as to whether the foregoing change is in the best interests of nomenclatorial stability and uniformity. Stephanurus dentatus Diesing, 1839, is a widely used name for an im- portant parasite. Might it not be the wiser procedure to seek to establish this name through an appeal to the International Com- mission’s Plenary Powers ? 16. A solution to the foregoing problems would appear to me to be best realised by canvassing a representative group of parasitologists concerned with problems of nomenclature. As one such person, I should myself favour permitting the regular application of the Régles to this case for the reasons that : (1) The occurrence of two relatively closely related parasitic species having the same trivial name (Stephanurus dentatus and Oesophagostomum dentatum) in the same host should, if possible, be avoided. (ii) I am not convinced that the dislocation of a change in the trivial name (dentatus) of the kidney worm of swine would be serious in view of the stability of its generic name (Stephanurus). (iti) The suspension of the Régles in this case would, I believe, tend to weaken their stability in the long run, for the i issue, without the invocation of Plenary Powers, is apparently clear-cut from the nomenclatorial viewpoint and would thereby serve as a good example of the application of the new rulings on secondary homonymy. 210 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS V. Recommendation for the placing of certain names on the ‘‘ Official Lists ”’ 17. At the present time the genus Stephanurus Diesing, 1839, has but one recognized species, originally designated Stephanurus dentatus by Diesing (1839). The genus has been generally recognized as independent for almost 50 years. It therefore seems desirable that its name be placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with type species Stephanurus dentatus Diesing, 1839 (subjective synonym, Sclerostoma pinguicola, Verrill, 1870—Stephanurus pinguicola (Verrill, 1870) comb. nov.). Depending upon the ultimate decision of the International Commission, either the trivial name dentatus of Diesing will (under Plenary Powers) be validated for the kidney worm of swine, or it must be rejected. In either event, the valid trivial name of the species should be included in the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology. I therefore recommend that on the basis of the action of the International Commission either the trivial name dentatus Diesing, 1839, as published in the binominal combination Stephanurus dentatus, or the trivial name pinguicola Verrill, 1870, as published in the binominal combination Sclerostoma pinguicola, be so placed. If dentatus of Diesing, 1839, is not preserved under Plenary Powers, it must be placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Trivial Names in Zoology. 18. Finally, in order that the decision to be taken in the present case may be as complete as possible, I recommend that, when stabilizing the name of the kidney worm of swine, the International Commission should also stabilize the name of the common nodular worm of swine discussed in the present paper. The earliest name for this form, as now accepted generally, is Strongylus dentatus Rudolphi, 1803. Careful check in Stiles and Hassall’s Index-Catalogue of Medical and Veterinary Zoology. Subjects : Roundworms ... (1920, U.S. Hyg. Lab. Bull. 114) reveals no problem of homonymy as regards this name. However, there are now known four species of nodular worms in domestic swine and in all probability it cannot be stated with absolute certainty to which of these Rudolphi’s name applied. It seems, nevertheless, almost certain that the commonest of these, to which the trivial name dentatum, in the binominal combination Oesophagostomum dentatum, is now universally applied, was one of the species, probably the only one studied by him. Accordingly, I propose that the International Commission place on the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology, along with the name recognized by them as valid for the kidney worm of swine, whichever that may be, the trivia! name dentatus Rudolphi, 1803, as published in the binominal combination Strongylus dentatus, an indication being made by the International Commission at the same time that this trivial name is to be identified by reference to the definitive description and figures published for this species by Goodey (1924, pp. 1—14, figs. 1—15). OPINION 340 211 _ 19. As already explained, this species is currently referred by special- ists to the genus Oesophagostomum Molin, 1861, of which it is regarded as type by reason of its selection by Stiles and Hassall (1905 : 124).* I therefore also ask that the generic name Oesophagostomum Molin, - 1861 (type species, by subsequent selection (Stiles and Hassall, 1905) : Strongylus dentatus Rudolphi, 1803, defined as already indicated) be placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. VI. Summary 20. A survey of the nomenclatorial history and status of the species generally known as Stephanurus dentatus Diesing, 1839, the kidney worm of swine, has been presented. Evidence has been given that, under the recent rulings given by the Congress on the advice of the International Commission at the Paris Meetings, dentatus of Diesing, 1839, must be considered as an invalid secondary homonym of the trivial name dentatus of Rudolphi, 1803, by reason of the rejection of the former by Railliet and others when the two species so named were placed by them in a single genus (Strongylus Miller, 1780, or Sclerostoma Rudolphi, 1809). 21. The fact that in no case did the authors specifically rejecting the trivial name dentatus of Diesing, 1839, make actual combinations of this trivial name with the generic names mentioned in paragraph 20 and thus did not actually create the homonymous combinations raises a point not explicity covered in the emended rulings formulated by the International Commission at the Paris Meetings to cover secondary homonymy. Some zoologists have held that an actual citation of a homonymous specific name is necessary before the trivial name * Prior to the clarification of Article 30 by the XIII International Congress of Zoology at Paris in July, 1948, it would have been a matter of doubt whether . the action by Stiles and Hassall constituted a valid selection of the above species as type of Oesophagostomum (a) because Molin (1861) included Strongylus dentatus Rudolphi, 1803, in this genus only by (i) referring (p. 443) to it once in the discussion of the genus as Oesophagostomum dentatum, but Gii) later in the discussion of individual species merely citing (p. 445) the name Strongylus dentatus as a synonym of a newly named nominal species (Oeso- phagostomum subulatum Molin, 1861) and because (b) Stiles and Hassall, when making their selection for the genus Oesophagostomum, cited the type as follows : ““O. subulatum=O. dentatum (Rudolphi).”? Inasmuch as O. sub- ulatum was recorded by Stiles and Hassall as the more recent of the two names, one is, I feel, entitled to interpret their action as selecting O. dentatum (= Strongylus dentatus) as type, of which O. subulatum was asynonym. Under the decision of the XIII International Congress of Zoology already referred to, it may be seen that Strongylus dentatus Rudolphi, 1803, is to be regarded as an originally included species of the genus Oesophagostomum Molin, 1861, and that the method used by Stiles and Hassall in selecting the type species of this genus constitutes a valid selection of Rudolphi’s species (see 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 179—180—points (3)(a) and (3)(b)). ; 212 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS involved can be rejected as a homonym. The International Com- mission is hereby requested to render a Declaration on this point. 22. It is hoped that before the International Commission reach a decision, it will have before it the views of representative parasitologists on the question whether the trivial name dentatus of Diesing, 1839, should be preserved by invocation of the Commission’s Plenary Powers. Arguments are presented in opposition to suspension of the rules in this case. | 23. It is recommended to the International Commission that the name Stephanurus Diesing, 1839 (type species, by monotypy : Stephan- urus dentatus Diesing, 1839 [subjective synonym, Sclerostoma pinguicola Verrill, 1870 (=Stephanurus pinguicola (Verrill, 1870) comb. nov.)] be placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. At the same time, the valid trivial name of the kidney worm of swine should be placed on the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology. This will be either dentatus Diesing, 1839, as published in the binominal combination Stephanurus dentatus, if preserved by the International Commission through their Plenary Powers, or, if not, pinguicola Verrill, 1870, as published in the binominal combination Sclerostoma pinguicola. I hereby recommend the latter procedure. 24. The trivial name dentatus of Rudolphi, 1803, is the generally accepted name for the most common of the four nodular worms of swine. This nominal species is also type of the genus Oesophago- stomum Molin, 1861. In order to complete the present case, it is recommended to the International Commission that the name Oeso- Phagostomum Molin, 1861 (type species, by subsequent selection (Stiles and Hassall, 1905) : Strongylus dentatus Rudolphi, 1803) also be placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology and that at the same time the trivial name dentatus Rudolphi, 1803, as published in the binominal combination Strongylus dentatus, be placed on the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology and identified with the definitive description and figures of Goodey (1924, pp. 1—14, figs. J1—15). References de Almeida, E., 1928. ‘* Stephanurus morai n. sp., nova especie do genero Stephanurus’’ Bol. Assist. Méd. Indig. (Dirrec. Serv. Saude e Higiene, Angola) 2(11) : 241—242, 4 figs. Cameron, T. W. M., and Clunies Ross, I., 1924. ‘‘ On the identity of the kidney worm of pigs in New South Wales” J. Helminth. 2(3) : 149—150. Chitwood, B. G., and Chitwood, M. G., 1937. An Introduction to Nematology. Sect. 1, (pt. 1) : 1—53, 53 figs. OPINION 340 213 Cobbold, T. S., 1879. Parasites ; a Treatise on the Entozoa of Man and Animals, including some Account of the Ectozoa. xi-+508 pp., 85 figs. Dean, D. V., 1874. ‘‘ Meats and parasites ”’ [in this Author’s : “* Report of the city chemist ’’] Ann. Rep. Board Health, St. Louis, 7: 58—69. Diesing, K. M., 1839. ‘“‘ Neue Gattungen von Biennenwirmern nebst einem Nachtrage zur Monographie der Amphistomen ”’ Ann. Wien. Mus. Naturgesch.. (K. K. Hof-naturalien-Cabinet) 2(2) : 219—242, pl. 14—20. 1861. ‘‘ Revision der Nematoden”? Sitzungsber. K. Akad. Wiss. Wien, Math.-Naturhist. Classe (1860), 42(28) : 595—736, 1 pl., 11 figs. Drabble, J., 1922. ‘‘ The kidney worm of hogs in New South Wales, Sclerostomum renium n. sp.”’ J. comp. Path. and Therap. 35(4) : 302—305, | fig. 1923. ibid. 36(4) : 217—230, 9 figs. Goodey, T., 1924. ‘The anatomy of Oesophagostomum dentatum (Rud.), a nematode parasite of the pig, with observations on the structure and biology of the free-living larvae’? J. Helminthol. 2(1) : 1—14, 15 figs. . Leidy, J., 1856. “A synopsis of Entozoa and some of their ectocon- geners observed by the author’? Proc. Acad. nat. Sci. Philad. 8(1) : 42—58. de Magalhies, P. S., 1894. ‘‘ Uber einen Strongylus in der Niere des Schweines (Sclerostomum pinguicola Verr., Stephanurus dentatus Dies.) Znirlbl. Bakt. 16(7) : 292—297, 1 fig. Molin, R., 1861. “Il sottordine degli acrofalli ordinato scientifica- mente secondo i risultamenti delle indagini anatomiche ed embrio- geniche’’ Mem. r. Ist. veneto Sci., Lett. ed Arti (1860) 9 : 427— 633, pls. 25—33. Railliet, A., 1896. “Quelques rectification 4 la nomenclature des parasites’? Rec. Méd. vét. 73 [8 s., 3] (5) : 157—161. P[eters], B. G., 1931. ‘‘ Imperial Bureau of Agricultural Parasitology. Notes and memoranda. No. 3. The kidney-worm of swine : Stephanurus dentatus’”’ J. Helminth. 9(3) : 179—190. Rudolphi, K. A., 1803. ‘* Neue Beobachtungen iiber die Eingeweide- wurmer ” Arch. Zool. und Zoot. 3(2) : 1—32. 1809. “‘Entozoorum sive Vermium intestinalium Historia naturalis ”’ ibid. 2(Pt. 1), 457 pp., pls. 7—12. 214 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS Stiles, C. W., and Hassall, A., 1905. ‘‘ The determination of generic types and a list of roundworm genera with their original and type species ’’ Bull. U.S. Bur. Animal Ind. 79 : 1—150. Tayler, L., 1900. ‘‘ Our present knowledge of the kidney worm (Sclerostoma pinguicola) of swine” Ann. Rep. U.S. Bur. Animal Ind. (1899) 16 : 612—637, figs. 30—45. Verrill, A. E.,1870a. ‘‘ The internal parasites of the domestic animals ; their effects and remedies ’’ Ann. Rep. Conn. Board Agric. (1869- 70) 4 : 162—251, figs. 49—84. 1870b. The internal Parasites of Domestic Animals. 342 pp., 84 figs. 1870c. ‘* Description of Sclerostoma pinguicola, a new species of Entozoa from the hog”’ Amer. J. Sci. Arts 100 [s. 2, 50] (no. 149) : 223—224, 1 fig. White, J. C., 1859. ‘‘ Dr. James C. White exhibited specimens and figures of Stephanurus dentatus, Diesing, Sclerostoma dentatum ? Rudolphi ”’ Proc. Boston Soc. nat. Hist. 6 : 428. Il—THE SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF THE CASE 2. Registration of the present application : On the receipt of Dr. Dougherty’s preliminary communication of January 1945, the question of the availability of the specific name dentatus Diesing, 1839, as published in the combination Stephanurus dentatus, was allotted the Registered Number Z.N.(S.) 188. 3. Submission by Dr. Ellsworth C. Dougherty in 1947 of a request for Rulings on the interpretation of certain aspects of the provisions in the ‘* Régles’’ relating to specific homonymy : Correspondence in regard to the present case was exchanged between the Secretary and Dr. Dougherty, which led to the sub- mission to the Commission by Dr. Dougherty in January 1947 of a request for Rulings on certain questions relating to the interpretation of Articles 35 and 36 of the Régles in regard to specific homonymy. It was considered that, if the questions of principle so involved were to be determined by the Commission, the question of the availability of the name dentatus Diesing, OPINION 340 215 1839, would no longer present any serious difficulty. The question of the revision of the foregoing Articles had by this time already been placed on the provisional Agenda for the meeting of the International Commission which had been fixed to take place in Paris in July 1948 concurrently with the meeting of the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology. It was accordingly arranged that the question of the availability of the foregoing name for the Kidney Worm of Swine should be set on one side until after the interpretation of Articles 35 and 36 had been considered by the Commission at its Paris Session and decisions thereon had been taken by the Thirteenth International Congress. 4. Issue in 1947 of Public Notices: Although (as explained in paragraph 3 above) it had been decided that the Commission should not be asked to take a decision on the present case until after its Paris Session in 1948, it was judged that it would be advantageous to bring prominently before interested specialists the question of the availability of the name dentatus Diesing, 1839, as published in the combination Stephanurus dentatus, and in particular, to ascertain whether, in the event of its being ruled that the foregoing name was an invalid junior secondary homonym of the name dentatus Rudolphi, 1803, as published in the combination Strongylus dentaius, any objection to the use of the Plenary Powers for the purpose of validating the name dentatus Diesing, 1839, would be likely to be forthcoming. Public Notice of the possible use of the Plenary Powers in this sense was accordingly given on 14th November 1947 in the manner prescribed by the Ninth International Congress of Zoology, Monaco, 1913. The issue of these Notices elicited no objection to the use of the Plenary Powers in the foregoing sense. 5. Submission of the present application in 1950: At its Session held in Paris in July 1948 the International Commission drew up detailed proposals for the revision of the provisions in the Régles (Articles 35 and 36) relating to specific homonymy (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 118—125) and the proposals so submitted were approved and adopted by the Thirteenth Inter- national Congress of Zoology (1950, ibid, 5 : 63—64, 74, 131). The problem of the availability of the name dentatus Diesing, 1839, was considered in the light of the decisions taken in Paris 216 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS in relation to specific homonymy at a meeting between the Secretary to the Commission and Dr. Dougherty held at Mr. Hemming’s London residence on 6th August 1948. It was then agreed that the case of the name dentatus Diesing needed to be presented afresh in the light of the Paris decisions and that the application so revised should contain a discussion of the possible use by the Commission of its Plenary Powers for the purpose of validating the foregoing specific name in the event of that name being found by the Commission to be invalid. It was further agreed that it would not be practicable for Dr. Dougherty to prepare the required application until after the Official Record of the Proceedings of the Commission in Paris had been pub- lished. That Record was published (in volumes 4 and 5 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature) at the beginning of 1950 and on 10th May of that year the application reproduced in paragraph 1 of the present Opinion was submitted to the Commission by Dr. Dougherty. 6. Submission by the Secretary of a note on certain of the issues raised in Dr. Dougherty’s application : Upon the receipt of Dr. Dougherty’s application Mr. Hemming, as Secretary, judged it desirable to prepare a short note drawing attention to the fact that Dr. Dougherty’s paper raised two quite distinct issues, first, the status of the name dentatus Diesing, 1839, under the Law of Homonymy, second, the question whether, if the foregoing name were to be found invalid it was desirable that the Plenary Powers should be used to validate it. At the same time Mr. Hemming drew attention to one question of the interpretation of the Law of Homonymy which, as noted by Dr. Dougherty, was involved in the present case on which no express decision had been taken by the Paris Congress. This was the question whether, in order to establish a situation of secondary homonymy as between two given specific names, it was necessary for the author rejecting and replacing the later published of the two names, actually to cite both names in homonymous combinations as a preliminary to the rejection of the later name. On the second of the main issues raised in Dr. Dougherty’s paper (the question of the possible validation of the name dentatus Diesing, 1839, under the Plenary Powers), Mr. Hemming appealed to specialists to furnish the Commission OPINION 340 217 with advice as to the action which it was desirable should be taken. Mr. Hemming’s paper was as follows :-— On the question of the desirability of retaining the trivial name ‘** dentatus ’’ Diesing, 1839, as published in the binominal combination ‘‘ Stephanurus dentatus ’’, as the trivial name of the Kidney Worm of Swine (Class Nematoda, Order Rhabditida) : an appeal to parasitologists for views on the question raised by Dr. Ellsworth C. Dougherty By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E. (Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) 1. In his application to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature on the subject of the trivial name properly applicable to the Kidney Worm of Swine (the type species of the genus Stephanurus Diesing), Dr. Ellsworth C. Dougherty discusses two separate questions : first, the question whether the trivial name dentatus Diesing, 1839, as published in the binominal combination Stephanurus dentatus, the first trivial name published for that species, should be regarded as an invalid name on the ground that it is a junior secondary homonym of the trivial name dentatus Rudolphi, 1803, as published in the bi- nominal combination Strongylus dentatus, the two species having at different times been placed by different authors in the same genus ; second, the question whether, if dentatus Diesing, 1839, is, under the Régles, a name which must be rejected as a secondary homonym of dentatus Rudolphi, 1803, it is desirable that the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature should use its Plenary Powers for the purpose of validating the name dentatus Diesing, 1839, as the name of the kidney worm of swine. 2. On the first of these questions, Dr. Dougherty points out that Magalhdes (1894), Railliet (1896) and Tayler (1900) each “‘ definitely recognised, in their estimation, dentatus of Diesing, 1839, to be a secondary homonym of dentatus of Rudolphi, 1803 ’’ and “‘ accordingly rejected the former’. Dr. Dougherty then refers to the decisions on the question of the rules governing specific homonymy taken by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology in Paris in 1948 and reaches the conclusion that, under the rules so revised, the trivial name dentatus Diesing, 1839, must be regarded as having been rendered permanently invalid by reason of the action taken by the authors cited above ; at the same time however, Dr. Dougherty recalls that in the past it has been argued that, in order to establish that a state of secondary homonymy exists, it is necessary not only for an author definitely to reject as a secondary honomym, the later published of any pair of homonyms but also to cite both species under the same combination of generic name and specific trivial name. In this, 218 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS connection, it is useful to recall that considerable discussion took place at the Sixth (Public) Meeting of the International Commission at its Paris Session regarding the criteria to be adopted in determining whether a given pair of names were to be regarded as secondary homonyms of one another ; the object of this discussion was to devise criteria which would be clear and unambiguous, depending upon objective data and would at the same time be suitable for application not only to cases arising after the introduction of the new system but also to cases which had arisen prior to that date and to which the new system would need to be applied retrospectively. This discussion is recorded in considerable detail in the Official Record of Proceedings under heading (F) on pp. 112—115 of volume 4 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. The formal record of the recommendation on this subject submitted by the Commission to, and later approved by, the Congress will be found embodied in points (8) and (9) of the Conclusion reached (see page 121 of the volume referred to above). At no time during these discussions was it suggested that the new provision to be adopted should require that, before two names could be regarded as being secondary homonyms of one another, each must be cited simultaneously by the same author under the same specific name (combination of generic name and specific trivial name), although (as stated by Dr. Dougherty) this argument had sometimes been advanced in the past by authors seeking to interpret the ambiguous provisions of the then-existing Article 35 (usually in relation to particular cases where the authors concerned were anxious to find reasons justi- fying the retention of a name which had been rejected by a former author as a secondary homonym but which was no longer considered congeneric with the other species bearing the same trivial name). Not only was no such argument advanced but, on the contrary, the view was strongly expressed that great care must be taken in the revision of Article 35 to avoid the inclusion of formal provisions of a ** ritualistic ’’ character of the kind which (as had previously been rightly pointed out by Dr. J. Brookes Knight (Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.) had marred the amendment to Article 25 made by the Tenth International Congress of Zoology at Budapest in 1926). For this reason therefore it was expressly agreed that no definition of the procedure to be adopted by an author in rejecting one name as a secondary homonym of another should be inserted in the new rule and that, as regards rejections effected prior to Ist January 1951, the test to be applied should be simply whether or not the later author rejected the one name as a secondary homonym of the other. The ** rejections ’’ discussed by Dr. Dougherty in relation to the name Aentatus Diesing, 1839, were all effected long before the Paris Congress and fall therefore to be judged by the above simple test. The evidence brought forward by Dr. Dougherty in regard to the action taken by de Magalhdes, Railliet and Tayler in the last decade of the XIXth century clearly shows that those authors duly “ rejected’ the name dentatus Diesing, 1839, within the meaning of that term as used in Point (8) of the decision of the Paris Congress on this subject. OPINION 340 219 3. Appeal to parasitologists : The position which has now to be considered is therefore (as Dr. Dougherty points out) (1) whether or not confusion would result from the dropping (as an invalid homo- nym) of the name dentatus Diesing, 1839, as the trivial name of the Kidney Worm of Swine, that name being replaced by the name pingui- cola Verrill, 1870, and (2) if the answer to the foregoing question is in the affirmative, whether the International Commission should prevent that confusion from arising by using its Plenary Powers to validate the name dentatus Diesing, 1839 for the Kidney Worm, that course being possible because the nodular worm to which the same trivial name had been given by Rudolphi in 1803 (in the combination Strongylus dentatus) is not considered congeneric with the Kidney Worm and in consequence, according to current taxonomic ideas, there would be no question of homonymy if the name dentatus Diesing were to be used for the Kidney Worm in the genus Stephanurus Diesing. 4. The foregoing is a matter on which the International Commission must naturally rely upon the views of parasitologists concerned with this group, who alone can advise on the relative merits of the question at issue (namely whether it is desirable that the name dentatus Diesing, 1839, or the name pinguicola Verrill, 1870, should be the valid name for the Kidney Worm of Swine). 5. Accordingly, it is particularly hoped that any parasitologist interested in this subject will be good enough to forward as soon as possible, to the Secretary to the Commission (address : 28 Park Village East, Regent’s Park, London, N.W.1, England) a statement setting out his views for the consideration of the International Commission. 7. Publication of the present application : The present applica- tion as revised in January 1950 (paragraph 1 of the present Opinion) was sent to the printer in September 1950, together with the paper by the Secretary reproduced in paragraph 6 above. Various minor questions which arose in connection with the present case delayed publication which did not take place until 15th August 1951, when both the foregoing papers were published in Double-Part 9/10 of volume 2 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (Dougherty, 1951, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 2 : 282—291 ; Hemming, 1951, ibid. 2 : 291—293). 8. Issue of Public Notices in 1951 : Under the revised procedure prescribed by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948 (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 51—56), Public Notice of the possible use by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature of its Plenary Powers in the present case was given 220 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS on 15th August 1951 both in Double-Part 9/10 of volume 2 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (the Part in which Dr. Dougherty’s application was published) and also to the other prescribed serial publications. In addition, Notice was given to certain specialist serial publications in Europe and America. The issue of these Notices elicited comments from seven specialists and groups of specialists. In some cases the specialists furnishing comments expressed the view that the name dentatus Diesing, 1839, as published in the combination Stephanurus dentatus, was not a junior secondary homonym of the name dentatus Rudolphi, 1803, as published in the com- bination Strongylus dentatus, and therefore that it would not be necessary for the Commission to invoke its Plenary Powers for the purpose of validating the name dentatus Diesing. On the issue of policy, all the twenty-five specialists concerned were unanimous in holding the view that the name dentatus Diesing ought to be retained for the Kidney Worm of Swine either under the Plenary Powers or otherwise. The comments so received are reproduced in paragraphs 10—17 below. 9. Submission of a request for a °° Declaration ”’ clarifying an aspect of the Law of Homonymy in relation to the rejection and replacement of secondary homonyms: In order to avoid unnecessary delay in obtaining a decision on the question of the status of the name dentatus Diesing, 1839, as published in the combination Stephanurus dentatus, Mr. Hemming, as Secretary, judged it desirable at once, to seek a decision from the Inter- national Commission on the aspect of the Law of Homonymy in relation to the rejection and replacement of secondary homonyms which was involved in the application in regard to the foregoing name submitted by Dr. Dougherty. The question involved, it will be recalled (paragraph 8) was whether at the time of the rejection and replacement of a secondary homonym it is necessary that the author rejecting such a name should actually cite the two names in homonymous combinations. In August 1951 Mr. Hemming prepared for submission to the Commission a paper in which he recommended the adoption by the Commission of a Declaration in the following terms :— “For the purposes of the provision relating to the rejection of secondary homonyms, an author rejecting one name as a secondary homonym of another name is required to make it clear OPINION 340 Ip) that he considers that the species bearing the trivial name so rejected is congeneric with another species bearing a previously published identical trivial name, but is free to indicate his view on this subject in whatever way he may consider appropriate, provided that the method so adopted leaves no reasonable doubt that he considers the two species concerned to be con- generic with one another”. Mr. Hemming’s paper containing the foregoing proposal was published on 28th September 1951 (Hemming, 1951, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 6 : 120—122)1. 10. Comment on Dr. Dougherty’s application received from Mr. Allen McIntosh (United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Administration, Bureau of Animal Industry, Agricultural Research Center, Beltsville, Maryland, U.S.A.) : On 30th January 1952 Mr. Allen McIntosh (United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Administration, Bureau of Animal Industry, Agricultural Research Center, Beltsville, Maryland, U.S.A.) submitted the following statement, in which he traversed the arguments advanced by Dr. Dougherty in support of the view that the name dentatus Diesing, 1839, was an invalid name by reason of being a junior secondary homonym of the name dentatus Rudolphi, 1803, consequent upon the two species having in the past been placed in the same genus and the former rejected as a secondary homonym of the latter (McIntosh, 1952, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 9 : 141—142) :— With reference to the name of the swine kidney worm (Commission’s Reference Z.N.(S.) 188) I wish to go on record as advocating the preservation of the name Stephanurus dentatus Diesing, 1839. To suppress the trivial name dentatus would, I believe, create a condition of endless confusion. The parasite is not only of considerable economic ‘importance but has seldom been referred to by any other specific name. There are over 300 references to the parasite by this name and less than 25 references for the combined list of synonyms. It is of interest to note that the trivial name pinguicola Verrill, 1870, had never appeared in print in combination with the generic name Stephanurus until placed there by Dr. Ellsworth C. Dougherty (1951, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 2 : 286) in his discussion of the correct name for the swine kidney worm. 4 For the later history of this application see paragraphs 18 and 19 of the present Opinion. 222 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 2. Notwithstanding the excellent discussion by Dougherty (l.c. 2 : 282—291), I believe there is some question as to whether there has ever been a condition of homonymy with reference to Stephanurus dentatus Diesing, 1839. To have a condition of homonymy it is necessary that two species with.the same trivial name must be brought together under the same genus ; that is, the two species must be con- generic or so regarded. 3. In point (8) (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 121) dealing with the rejection of secondary homonyms previous to Ist January 1951, an author is excused from the requirement of regarding the two species as being congeneric. Although not so stated in point (8), one must presume that the Code requires that before an author can reject a trivial name of a species, the species in question must have been placed in a genus containing another species with the identical trivial name. I contend that the case of Stephanurus dentatus Diesing, 1839, does not meet this requirement ; and I will endeavour to show that there has never been a time when the two species of swine parasites, each with the trivial name dentatus, have been brought together under the same genus either by their common trivial name or by any other trivial name. 4. Here are, arranged chronologically, certain pertinent facts about the two swine nematodes with the trivial name dentatus that should not be overlooked :— 1803. Rudolphi named and described Strongylus dentatus, a nodular worm of swine. 1809. Rudolphi listed dentatus Rud., 1803, under the genus Sclero- stoma. Sclerostoma Rudolphi, 1809, is a synonym of Strongylus Mueller, 1780, both genera having the same type species. 1839. Diesing named and described Stephanurus dentatus, the kidney worm of swine, as a new genus and a new species. 1861. Molin proposed the genus Oesophagostomum with subulatum Molin, 1861 as type species, and placed dentatus Rudolphi, 1803, in the genus as a synonym of subulatum Molin, 1861. This action of Molin not only made the trivial name dentatus Rud., 1803, the valid type species of Oesophagostomum, but removed dentatus Rudolphi from future consideration under the genus Strongylus and its synonym Sclerostoma. 1870. Verrill named and described Sclerostoma pinguicola, a synonym of Stephanurus dentatus, Diesing, 1839. This date (1870) appears to be the earliest at which the kidney worm of swine was referred to the genus Sclerostoma (=Strongylus) nine years after dentatus Rud., 1803, had been removed OPINION 340 223 from the genus Sclerostoma. At this date (1870) the name dentatus Diesing, 1839, was not mentioned in combination with the genus Sclerostoma. 1874. Dean, in discussing the pathology of the kidney worm of swine, referred to the parasite as Strongylus dentatus, apparently a faulty determination, having confused the name of the parasite with the old name of the nodular worm of swine. 1894. De Magalhaes was apparently the first author to raise the question of homonymy. He regarded Stephanurus as a synonym of Strongylus and believed that as at one time Strongylus dentatus Rudolphi, 1803, had been the name of a nodular worm of swine, the kidney worm of swine should take the trivial name pinguicola Verrill, 1870. At this date (1894) the trivial name dentatus Diesing, 1839, was not mentioned in combination with the genus Strongylus. Since de Magalhdes did not indicate that he regarded Oesophago- stomum Molin, 1861 (with dentatus Rudolphi as type species), as a synonym of Strongylus Mueller, 1780, he did not set up a condition of homonymy, as dentatus Rudolphi, 1803, had been removed from the pents Strongylus 33 years previously. 1896. Railliet’s brief reference to Stephanurus as a synonym of Sclerostomum has been interpreted by Dougherty (/.c. : 285 (ii1)) to mean that Railliet regarded the two species of swine parasites with the identical trivial name as being con- generic. This is contrary to the facts for Railliet not only in the paper on this date (1896 : 160), but in previous papers, as well as in later publications, recognised the genus Oeso- Phagostomum which has dentatus Rudolphi, 1803, as type species. 1900. ‘Tayler also regarded Stephanurus Diesing, 1839, as a synonym of Sclerostoma, but, contrary to the statement of Dougherty (/.c.), she did not regard the two parasites of swine with the same trivial name as being congeneric. In her publication of this date (1900 : 624) she referred to the nodular worm of swine as “‘ (Oesocphagostoma dentatum)’’. She did not use the trivial name dentatus Diesing, 1839, in combination with Sclerostoma. 5. At no time has any author placed the nodular worm of swine in the genus Stephanurus and at no time has any author placed the kidney worm of swine in the genus Oesophagostomum. In view of the above chronological facts it is difficult to comprehend how there can be a condition of homonymy involving the species Stephanurus dentatus Diesing, 1839. 224 : OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 6. Even should the views of the esteemed and learned members of the Commission, in this case, not agree with the interpretation outlined above, the writer desires to go on record as in favour of retaining the specific name Stephanurus dentatus Diesing, 1839, for the swine kidney worm. 11. Reply by Mr. Ellsworth C. Dougherty to the criticisms of certain of the arguments relating to the interpretation of the Law of Homonymy advanced in his application made by Mr. Allen McIntosh in his comment dated 30th January 1952 : In view of the fact that in his comment dated 30th January 1952 (reproduced in para- graph 10 above) Mr. Allen McIntosh had criticised as incorrect certain of the arguments regarding the status under the Régles of the name dentatus Diesing, 1839, as published in the combination Stephanurus dentatus, advanced by Mr. Dougherty in his applica- tion relating to the present case (paragraph 1 of the present Opinion), Mr. Hemming, as Secretary, considered it appropriate to draw Dr. Dougherty’s attention to Mr. MclIntosh’s paper and so afford him an opportunity of replying to the arguments put forward by Mr. McIntosh should he desire so to do. Dr. Dougherty took advantage of the opportunity so presented and on 11th March 1952 communicated the following statement for the consideration of the Commission :— Comments on Mr. Allen MclIntosh’s letter dealing with the name ‘* Stephanurus dentatus ’’ Diesing, 1839 (Class Nematoda, Order Rhabditida*) By ELLSWORTH C. DOUGHERTY, Ph.D., M.D. (Department of Zoology, University of California, Berkeley, California) Through the courtesy of Mr. Francis Hemming, Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, I have been able to examine a letter by Allen McIntosh (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 9 : 141—142) on the subject of the trivial name to be used for the species commonly referred to as Stephanurus dentatus Diesing, 1839. 2. Mr. McIntosh expresses a doubt that there should be any question of secondary homonymy with reference to the trivial name dentatus Diesing, 1839, in opposition to my assertion (1951, Bull. zool. Nomencl. * Complete citations to the papers discussed herein, where not given, are to be Gao my Spee communication (1951, Bull. zool. Nomencl., 2 : 282—291) int C.D OPINION 340 225 2 : 282—291) that this name has been treated and rejected by certain authors (de Magalhaes ; Railliet ; and Tayler) as a secondary homonym of dentatus Rudolphi, 1803 (originally published in the binominal combination Strongylus dentatus). The consequence of Mr. McIntosh’s analysis, if he were correct, would be to render unnecessary a use of Plenary Powers by the International Commission to secure the use of the name dentatus Diesing, 1839, in place of the name pinguicola Verrill, 1870. 3. Dr. McIntosh has cited several points in which he believes that I am mistaken in my paper (Joc. cit.). I have reviewed these carefully and conclude that in two cases he is correct in asserting that I have erred ; these I will discuss shortly. However, the latter points are actually unimportant and inconsequential to the main issue ; and in certain assertions relating to the crux of the problem Mr. McIntosh is himself wrong. 4. He feels that no case of secondary homonymy has ever existed in the case of the trivial names dentatus Rudolphi, 1803, and dentatus Diesing, 1839, because the two species never have been contemporan- -eously included and cited in the same genus. However, it is possible to show that this involves an erroneous assumption. 5. Problems of secondary homonyms were considered in great detail at the Paris meetings of the International Committee on Zoo- logical Nomenclature in 1948 and were reported in 1950 in vol. 4 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (: 97—106). The discussion at Paris was based largely on a paper presented by Mr. Francis Hemming (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl., 3 : 32—54) in which various types of secondary homonyms were treated. It can be seen by reference to *“case ‘F’ ” in the chart following page 54 of Mr. Hemming’s paper that identical specific names for different species need not be contem- poraneous in order for their trivial names to be considered secondary homonyms. (Actually the examples of secondary homonymy given by Mr. Hemming do not exhaust the possible types, and the case of dentatus Rudolphi, 1803, vs. dentatus Diesing, 1839, most closely resembles, although is not identical to, “‘ case ‘ F’ ’’.) 6. Mr. McIntosh contends that neither de Magalhaes, Railliet, nor Tayler actually treated and cited Strongylus dentatus Rudolphi, 1803, and Stephanurus dentatus Diesing, 1839, as members of a single genus and thus that there could be no case of secondary homonymy. He is correct as regards Railliet and Tayler, my assertions (Joc. cit. 285, para. 8(ii1)) to the contrary, namely that these authors had them- selves treated the two species as congeneric, being in error. However, it does not therefore follow that secondary homonymy is not involved, for both authors recognised, at least on an historical basis, that the two species had been members of the same genus, even if only at different times. This point is more completely treated in paragraph 10. 226 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 7. Moreover, as regards the action of de Magalhaes, neither I nor Mr. McIntosh has presented all the facts correctly ; the latter’s principal point is accurate, it is true—namely that Molin in 1861 had removed the species originally named Strongylus dentatus to a new genus Oesophagostomum and that de Magalhaes did not specifically put it back again by declaring that Oesophagostomum was a synonym of Strongylus. However, I believe that this is not germane to the issue, as I shall show, and furthermore confused by Mr. McIntosh’s assump- tion that Molin in effect made Strongylus dentatus the type of Oesophagostomum. Actually no type was selected for the genus until action by Stiles and Hassall in 1905. 8. Furthermore, Mr. McIntosh asserts that de Magalhaes “ regarded Stephanurus as a synonym of Strongylus and believed that as at one time Strongylus dentatus Rud., 1803, had been the name of a nodular worm of swine, the kidney worm of swine should take the trivial name pinguicola Verrill, 1870’. What the Brazilian worker actually said was : ‘““ Wenn der oben beschriebene Parasit der echte Stephanurus dentatus ist, und wenn das entsprechende Genus unterdrtickt wide, indem man den Nematoden in das Genus Strongylus stellte, so wurde der Speciesname dentatus unméglich werden, weil es schon einen Strongylus dentatus R. giebt. Die Bennennung Strongylus (Sclero- stomum) pinguicola ware nach meiner Ansicht allein anwendbar.’’* I believe that we are entitled on the basis of this statement to assume only that de Magalhdes conditionally treated both Rudolphi’s and Diesing’s species as belonging to the same genus and conditionally rejected dentatus Diesing, 1839, as a junior secondary homonym. In fact these are the sole interpretations that can be objectively made. De Magalhaes did not indicate specifically when he regarded Strongylus dentatus Rudolphi, 1803, to have been the name of the nodular worm of swine. And, as regards Molin’s previous action, we cannot be sure that de Magalhaes even knew of it, for there is nothing in the latter’s paper to indicate that he did. It is, I feel, unreasonable to expect in such cases, namely where species are discussed in a given genus, but have historically been assigned to other genera, that a given author be required to state expressly that he disagrees with all other placement of the species in question in order for his own placement of those species to be accepted as valid for nomenclatorial purposes ; it should be quite enough that he cite the species in a single genus. A contrary stand would produce much confusion in nomenclature by introducing a rigid standard impractical of application, as I am sure working with such a rule would shortly show. * If the above described parasite is the true Stephanurus dentatus and if the corresponding genus were suppressed, the species name dentatus would become untenable, for there is already a Strongylus dentatus R[udolphi]. The designation Strongylus (Sclerostomum) pinguicola would alone be applicable in my opinion. OPINION 340 227 9. In so far as de Magalhdes’s conditional rejection of dentatus Diesing, 1839, is concerned, there might be an argument as to whether this should be interpreted in the sense of the International Commission’s requirement that for a secondary homonym to be permanently rejected it be clear that such a rejection was made on the basis that the trivial name in question was the later published of a pair of secondary homonyms (see paragraph 10 for quotation of this rule). However, as regards Railliet’s and Tayler’s actions, there can be no doubt. 10. It must be admitted that the action of these two authors rendered dentatus Diesing, 1839, a junior secondary homonym of dentatus Rudolphi, 1803, in the sense of “ case ‘ F’ ’”’? in Mr. Hemming’s paper and in the subsequent discussion of the International Commission at Paris in 1948 (Joc. cit.). Thus, the fact that they cannot be assumed to have themselves considered the two species so named as congeneric does not invalidate their rejection of dentatus Diesing, 1839, as the following quotation from the Proceedings of the International Com- mission’s 1948 meeting shows (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 121, para. (8)) : *“* .. Where, prior to midnight G.M.T. (Greenwich Mean Time), 31st December 1950/1st January 1951, an author makes it clear that he rejects a Specific trivial name on the ground that it is part of the later published of a pair of secondary homonyms, that rejection is to be accepted as valid, irrespective of whether the author makes it clear that he himself considers that the condition of homonymy still exists, that is to say, whether he regards the two species as congeneric with one another.”’ 11. In conclusion, it is thus possible to state that, despite minor errors in my historical presentation of the case of Stephanurus dentatus Diesing, 1839, the central issue of the invalidity of the trivial name in question still stands. It therefore remains necessary for the Inter- national Commission to decide between the trivial names dentatus Diesing, 1839, and pinguicola Verrill, 1870, and to invoke its Plenary Powers if the former is to be secured for the kidney worm of swine. 12. Comment received from Mr. John T. Lucker (Zoological Division, Agricultural Research Center, Beltsville, Maryland, U.S.A.) : On 6th February 1952 Mr. John T. Lucker (Zoological Division, Agricultural Research Center, Beltsville, Maryland, U.S.A.) submitted the following comment for the consideration of the Commission (Lucker, 1952, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 9 : 143) :— In response to your “appeal to parasitologists’? (Comm. ref. Z.N.(S.) 188) in connection with the scientific name of the kidney worm of swine, I recommend that the International Commission _ preserve the name, Stephanurus dentatus Diesing, 1839, for this worm, not by exercising its Plenary Powers, but by doing all in its power to see to it that the next International Congress shall revoke all provisions 228 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS of the Rules which presently do apply, or in the past have applied, to so-called secondary homonymy and shall substitute therefor pro- visions which will ensure for the past and future, that the priority of a trivial name, which was, or is, originally perfectly valid and available when proposed in a genus which also was, or is, perfectly valid and available when proposed, cannot be permanently impaired by any action of any subsequent author and that any author who recognises the genus so proposed, but who recognises as congeneric with the animal bearing this originally valid and available trivial name, no other animal for which the same trivial name was earlier validly proposed, shall have the right and obligation to use this trivial name for the animal in that genus. 13. Supplementary statement furnished by Mr. John T. Lucker : On 8th August 1952 Mr. John T. Lucker submitted the following statement of his views on the present case by way of supplement to the statement contained in his letter of 6th February 1952 (paragraph 12 above) :— The case of ‘*‘ Stephanurus dentatus ”’ Diesing, 1839 versus ‘¢ Stephanurus pinguicola ”’ (Verrill, 1870) Dougherty, 1951 as the correct name of the kidney worm of swine . In the published summary of this case (Dougherty, 1951, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 2(9/10) : 282—291) and the published comment thereon (Hemming, 195la. [bidem : 291—293), it has been stated that three authors, de Magalhdes (1894a), Railliet (1896) and Tayler (1900) have “ rejected ’’, or “ apparently rejected ’’ the specific trivial name dentatus Diesing for the kidney worm within the meaning of the provisions on secondary homonymy adopted by the Paris Congress of 1948. 2. Mr. Allen McIntosh has directed to the Secretary a communica- tion in which he has challenged, or at least questioned, the claim that this name has been validly rejected under these provisions. 3. The present communication is a result of discussion of this case with Mr. McIntosh and inevitably repeats some of the points raised in his communication. It may be veiwed as an elaboration of the same fundamental viewpoints held by him, but any errors of fact it contains, any faults in logic or ignorance of the principles of nomen- clature, any misunderstanding of the Rules it displays are to be charged exclusively to the writer. 4. From the published accounts (Hemming, 1950a, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 3(1/3) : 37—54; Hemming, 1950b, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4(4/6) : 107—125) of the discussions on homonymy which took place OPINION 340 : 229 in the Commission previous to the Paris Congress’s adoption of the definitions and provisions drafted by the Commission, the average zoologist is, in the writer’s opinion, entitled to reach such conclusions as follow: The adopted substitutes for Arts. 35 and 36 of the Rules state clearly and exactly the conditions under which a name is a homonym and the conditions under which a name in the past has been, and in the future can be, validly rejected as a homonym. No longer are highly developed legalistic talents or intimate familiarity with a logic special and peculiar to nomenclature required to determine if a name is a homonym, or if it has been validly rejected as such. ‘The adopted definition and provisions say what they mean and mean what they say. Cases are to be decided exclusively on the basis of their language and those inferences which directly follow therefrom. 5. Hence, and since the present case has been submitted to the (Commission partly as a test of the application of the “‘ new regula- tions ’’, the writer has felt free to attempt to determine independently whether the name Stephanurus dentatus is available for the kidney worm under these “ regulations ’’. His contentions are as follows : The applicable provision and definitions 6. From examination of “ Point (8)’’, of the “ Paris decisions ’’, stated (Hemming, 195la, /.c.) to be the provision by which the “rejections ’’ by the aforementioned authors are to be judged, the following facts and direct inferences emerge with respect to valid rejection as a secondary homonym : (1) To be valid, the author’s rejection must be based on a definite ground, ie, “.. . the ground that it [the specific trivial name] is part of the later published of a pair of secondary homonyms... ”’. Therefore, assuredly, just as from a law stating that my imprison- ment is legal if I am imprisoned on the ground that I am a thief, it follows that my imprisonment is illegal if I am proven not to be a thief, so it follows under “ Point (8)” that, if a name is not in fact (i.e., by definition) part of a pair of secondary homonyms, then a rejection of it on the ground that it is part of such a pair must be invalid. (Precedent : A generic name, Cyathostomum Molin, 1861, was rejected as a homonym of Cyathostoma Blanchard, 1849 ; upon rendition by the Commission of an Opinion stipulating that generic names so differing in spelling are not homonyms, Cyatho- stomum Molin is available (sense of remarks by Hemming : in litt.).) (2) The author making the rejection need not regard the two ‘Species as congeneric. & 230 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS (3) ‘‘ Point (8) ” contains the following statement : “. . . irrespec- tive of whether the author makes it clear that he himself considers that the condition of homonymy still exists, that is to say whether he regards the two species as congeneric...”’. 7. Since this statement equates “condition of homonymy ” and ‘““congeneric’’ as synonymous terms, indubitably a condition of homonymy is thereby stated to exist only ““ where’”’ two species are regarded as congeneric. Hence, if an author does not set up a condi- tion of homonymy by himself regarding as congeneric two species. with the same specific trivial name, his rejection obviously is invalid unless he provides evidence and grounds the rejection on the fact that some previous author has placed the species congenerically. 8. For it is nonsense to provide that an author can make a valid rejection without subscribing to the continued existence of the condition of homonymy, unless it is a requirement that there must be in existence a condition of homonymy (a congeneric placement of the species) which the author making the rejection has detected, but need not endorse. 9. Art. 35 has provided for many years that specific homonymy arises only when species are congenerically placed; the “ Paris decisions ’’ cannot possibly have reversed Art. 35 on this point. 10. By examining the definition of “‘ Secondary Homonym”’ and determining from it independently precisely the condition under which a specific trivial name can become part of a pair of secondary homo- nyms, it should be, and is, possible to test the validity of the inferences which have been drawn from the quotation from “‘ Point (8) ”’, given above as item “(3)”. Obviously, it is also necessary to determine from this definition precisely what such a pair of homonyms is and whether anything in addition to the existence of a condition of homo- nymy is necessary to make a specific trivial name part of such a pair of homonyms. 11. This examination shows : (1) A specific trivial name can become part of a pair of secondary homonyms only “‘ where two species”, originally placed “in different genera ’’ and originally given the same specific trivial name, *“ are later placed in the same genus...”’. Naturally, the Rules do not define “‘ genus ’’, “‘ species ’’, or any other category. They, as is universally understood, deal exclusively with names for such categories. The very fact that the framers of the Rules did not deem it necessary to define a genus shows that a genus is what it is understood to be generally, as substantiated by dictionary definition. Thus: a genus is a category of classification, OPINION 340 231 _ precisely, a group of species considered closely related ; exceptionally one species comprises a genus. Accordingly, by definition, a specific trivial name is not part of a pair of secondary homonyms unless two species, meeting the other requirements of the definition, are placed congenerically. This substantiates the conclusion that “ Point (8)”’ provides that a specific trivial name is not validly rejected as a secondary homonym unless the author making the rejection bases it either upon his crea- tion of, or his detection of, a congeneric placement of two species, both of which were originally designated by the specific trivial name. . (2) If the conditions designated “(1)” above are fulfilled, “... each of the specific names so formed is a ° secondary homonym ’ of the other specific name ...”’ ; thus, the two specific names “ so formed ”’ together comprise the “ pair of secondary homonyms ”’ to which reference is made in “ Point 8”’. Although the definition may not explicitly state that “each of the specific names so formed ’”’ is the name of the genus in which the “‘ two species .. . are later placed ’’ combined with the originally published specific trivial name of the species, the meaning cannot be otherwise because, if either of the two species is placed in this genus under a specific trivial name differing from its original one, the “same name ”’ is not applied to “ two different species ”’ and it is only ““ where ’’ there is such application that “ each of the names so used is a homonym of the other ”’ (Definition : ‘““ Homonym ’’). It is scarcely necessary to remark additionally that a specific name is not formed except by a binominal combination of a generic and a specific trivial name and that a specific name has no nomenclatural status unless and until it is published. Their application to the publications in which it is alleged ** dentatus ’? Diesing has been validly rejected 12. De Magalhaes (1894a) It has not been alleged (Dougherty, /.c.) by direct statement that de Magalhdes rejected the generic name Stephanurus as a synonym ; but, this has been alleged in effect. 13. Actually, de Magalhdes (1894a) said merely that if Stephanurus ‘were to be regarded as a synonym of Strongylus, the specific trivial name pinguicola, in his opinion, would become correct for the kidney worm. He did not unconditionally suppress Stephanurus and it follows from this alone, the genus being monotypic, that he cannot be credited with having effected a rejection of dentatus Diesing. 14. Later, he (1894b) related the circumstances which he considered to show that Stephanurus owed its continued recognition as a name 232 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS for an independent genus only to the eminence of Diesing, but he still did not, in the writer’s opinion, formally suppress Stephanurus ; in effect, he left definite rejection of this name to any subsequent author who might agree with his tentative conclusion. 15. It has been stated (Dougherty, /.c.) that de Magalhades “.. . concluded that it [the kidney worm] belonged in Strongylus and accepted for it the name ‘ Strongylus (Sclerostomum) pinguicola’”. The writer concedes that de Magalhdes did consider the kidney worm to belong in Strongylus (the title of his paper alone is evidence of this). However, nomenclatorially the Brazilian author did not implement his conclusion, because he published the above combination in a con- text which is conditionally and hypothetically expressed from beginning to end. Holding the view that de Magalhaes left the kidney worm in Stephanurus and being firmly convinced also that he did nothing to alter the placement of the nodular worm in Oesophagostomum, the writer cannot agree with the allegation (Dougherty, /.c.) that the Brazilian author united these species “‘in the genus Strongylus”’. 16. It is true that de Magalhdes used the name “ Strongylus dentatus R.”’ and no other, for the nodular worm. However, once the original generic position of this species had been rejected by the species’ proper inclusion in a genus named Oesophagostomum by Molin (1861), surely merely the subsequent mention of the species under its original specific name, whether by de Magalhdes or any other author, cannot be held to have automatically transferred the species back to Strongylus ; certainly not, where, as was the case in de Magalhaes’ paper, there is a complete absence of any intent to effect a reallocation. An author cannot be held to have suppressed a generic name as a synonym, or to have rejected a particular species placement, if he is unaware of that generic name and that this species placement has been effected. De Magalhades’ paper contains no evidence that this author either knew that Oesophagostomum had been proposed or that Rudolphi’s species had been removed from Strongylus and included in a genus bearing the former name. The allegation (Dougherty, /.c.) that de Malgalhdes regarded the two species as congeneric probably cannot be either categorically denied or affirmed. But as already seen, the writer does deny that de Magalhdes can be credited with having effected nomenclatorially a congeneric placement of the two species. 17. The evidence as to the degree to which de Magalhdes considered the two worms related is only as follows : He discussed certain features of Str. dentatus R. and compared them with certain features of the kidney worm. He did this because it had been suggested that Rudolphi’s species and the kidney worm might be the same species. It is clear that he decided, as a minimum, that they are not the same species. But, since this is the only point he wished to dispose of, he was not concerned with the exact degree to which they were unrelated OPINION 340 233 beyond the species level. He stated his conclusion in the equivalent of the following language: these considerations forbid a putting, or grouping, together of the kidney worm and S. dentatus R. Thus, it is anything but clear how distantly he thought the two worms related. 18. If the concluding incidental (his main purpose was to show that the worms available to him from the kidney fat of the pig did not have in some particulars the morphology ascribed to Steph. dentatus by Diesing, but agreed with Verrill’s Scl. pinguicola) paragraph of his paper is accepted as evidence of his views as to the degree of relation- ship of the two species (the writer considers that it cannot be so con- strued) it would have to be said that objectively he differentiated the worms subgenerically ; but it must be kept in mind that at this point he had to mention the nodular worm under its original name to show why he believed pinguicola would have to be used for the kidney worm, if Stephanurus fell as a synonym. 19. In any event, as McIntosh (in Jitt.) pointed out, it is certain that what has been called de Magalhdes’s “ rejection’’ of dentatus Diesing was based on nothing but the fact that Str. dentatus had been applied to the nodular worm and the view that use of dentatus for the _ kidney worm would not be proper for that species, if it were placed in Strongylus. 20. Railliet (1896) This paper contains only a very brief statement to the following effect: The genus Stephanurus no longer exists and Steph. dentatus, the only species it contained, re-enters (or enters ; “‘ rentre’’) the genus Sclerostomum under the name Scl. pinguicola. From careful study of the paper as a whole, there is good reason to conclude that this state- ment is reportorial and is not to be construed as an independent action by the French author. De Magalhaes is the only author who had suggested that it might be desirable to reduce Stephanurus to synonomy and if Railliet’s statement is adjudged reportorial, it must be based on de Magalhdes’ papers. In that event, on the foregoing analysis of de Magalhaes’ papers, Railliet’s statement must further be construed to be an erroneous report. 21. For these reasons, the correctness of the allegation (Dougherty, /.c.) that Railliet is to be credited with having synonomized Stephanurus and Sclerostomum is doubtful. Definitely contrary to the allegation, there is, as pointed out by McIntosh (in Jitt.), no evidence that Railliet (1896) regarded the kidney and nodular worms as congeneric or united them in the genus Sclerostoma ; he did not even mention the nodular worm. As far as is known, neither previously nor subse- quently did he reject Oesophagostomum or Molin’s placement of the nodular worm in the genus of thatname. He(1896), like de Magalhaes, made no mention of the word homonym or any derivative of it. 234 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 22. If, contrary to the view here expressed, Railliet is held to have effected a rejection of Stephanurus as a synonym, still there is no evidence that his use of pinguicola for the kidney worm was based on anything, other than the fact, and this only by implication, that the specific name Scl. dentatum had once been applied to the nodular worm. 23. Tayler (1900) In view of the foregoing, the writer holds that of the three authors under consideration, Tayler alone effectively rejected Stephanurus and, therefore, alone took even the first step which under the “ Paris decisions ’? obviously had to be accomplished, before the trivial name dentatus could become susceptible to valid rejection, any question of its rejection based on placement of an older species, dentatus, in Stephanurus not being at issue, and the genus so named being monotypic. 24. However, contrary to the allegation (Dougherty, /.c.), it is clear, as stated by McIntosh (in Jitt.), that she did not regard the two Species in. question in this case as congeneric. She mentioned the nodular worm only incidentally under the names Str. dentatus and Oesoph. dentatum in a manner which, reasonably interpreted, shows. that she considered the latter its acceptable name. Moreover, she indicated her agreement with those helminthologists of her day who deemed Strongylus and Sclerostoma to be designations for separate: genera belonging in separate subfamilies. 25. She did not base her use of the trivial name pinguicola for the kidney worm on a congeneric placement of this species and the nodular worm by any previous author. She repeated Railliet’s report as to the name of the kidney worm. She summarized de Magalhaes’ paper, but failed to take cognizance of the conditional and hypothetical. nature of its conclusion. | 26. She did not create a condition of homonymy by effecting un-. wittingly a congeneric placement of the two species in question. She was rather equivocal in stating her opinion that Stephanurus ought to be synonomized with Sclerostomum. Nevertheless, she accom- plished this synonomy because she applied Sclerostomum pinguicola Verrill to the kidney worm in preference to Stephanurus dentatus, which she listed as a synonym. However, to determine whether she placed this species and the nodular worm in the same genus, it must be asked : With what group of species did her action unite the, kidney worm? The answer obviously is : With that group of species which at the time of her action constituted the genus named Sclero- stomum. The nodular worm was not one of these species, for in 1900 it constituted part of the group of species, the genus, named Oesophagostomum. : OPINION 340 235 27. She used, as “‘ did ’’ both of the other authors under discussion, only the trivial name pinguicola for the kidney worm in Sclerostoma. She did not ground her use of it on the fact of application of the same specific name to the kidney and nodular worms by any antecedent author. She merely mentioned the “ rule of homonyms ”’ as involved in the determination of the correct name of the kidney worm on place- ment of the species in Sclerostoma and said that Verrill’s pinguicola must be accepted and Diesing’s dentatus suppressed for the kidney ‘worm in Sclerostoma because “‘ there is already a binomial Sclerostoma dentatum (Rudolphi, 1803) ”’. Conclusion 28. None of these three authors has accomplished a valid rejection . Of the specific trivial name dentatus for the kidney worm under “Point (8)”’ and the definition of ‘‘ Secondary homonym”’, which together require in application to this case that such a rejection must have been based on (1) congeneric placement of the kidney worm and the nodular worm and (2) the application of the same specific name to both species ; neither of these grounds was the basis of what have been called the “‘ rejections ”’ by these authors. Comment 29. Eventually, the Commissioners may wish to examine the “documentary evidence”’, i.e., the facts, in this case. Obviously, however, disagreement as to the nomenclatorial effect of the facts and as to what the “ new regulations ”’ provide is primarily responsible for the result that the above conclusion is contrary to the published one (Dougherty, /.c., ; Hemming, 1951a). 30. Disagreement (1). One apparent area of disagreement involves a proposition whose Scope is not restricted to determination of questions of homonymy. 31. In the present ‘“‘case’’, there are on one side the statement (Dougherty, /.c.) that three authors regarded the kidney and nodular worms as congeneric, uniting them either in the genus Strongylus or Sclerostoma, plus the apparent acceptance (Hemming, 195la : 291) of such placement as*a fulfilled condition ; on the other side, the writer and McIntosh (at least in effect ; in litt.) have made the reverse state- ment. The writer confesses his inability to determine exactly how closely de Magalhaes subjectively deemed the two species to be related, but considers that that author effected no change in the generic alloca- tion of either species. B94, Furthermore, in accounts of the Commission’s discussions on homonymy, it is reported (Hemming, 1950a ; 1950b) that the acting 236 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS President (Hemming) stated that “Case ‘F’”’, as published and diagrammed by Blackwelder (1948), “is an example of secondary homonyms’’. In “ Case ‘F’”’, there was no interval of time during. which the group of species comprising the genus named “ X-us ”” included* both of the species originally named “ a/bus ”’ trivially. 33. Hence it appears that these authors (Dougherty ; Hemming) would affirm a proposition which may be stated as follows : Two: species are placed in the same genus whenever the condition is historic- ally fulfilled that the same generic name has been published as part of a specific name for one of them and as part of a specific name for the other of them. 34. The idea underlying this proposition can only be that the terms: genus and generic name are synonymous under the Rules. The writer considers that its falsity is demonstrated readily, as for example, by observing the result of making the indicated substitution at any of a number of points in the Commission’s adopted recommendations. on homonymy and by. the fact of Meee reference therein to applica- tion of the same name “‘ to different genera ”’ 35. Disagreement (2). Another apparent area of disagreement, closely related, however, to the one just stated, is as to the actions, or procedures, which effect. nomenclatorially : (a) placement of a species in a genus ; (b) congeneric placement of two species ; (c) rejection of an accomplished reallocation of a species ; (d) rejection of a generic name as a synonym of another generic name. 36. Disagreement (3). Do the adopted recommendations state that the publication of the Same name for two species is a condition which must be fulfilled before any author can validly reject the trivial constituent of the name for either species on ground of secondary hononymy ? 37. It has been stated (Dougherty, /.c.) (a) that “‘ Neither de Magalhdes, Railliet, or Tayler specifically formed a combination * Also, the definition requires the two species to be “‘ later ’’ placed in the same: genus. Certainly ‘“‘later’’ placement congenerically of two species, the stipulation being that they must be described originally in different genera, can be accomplished only after both species have been described. Yet, as the Secretary (Hemming, 1950a : 100) stated, in this hypothetical case, .. “ the transfer to genus ‘ X’ of the species bearing the older trivial name was temporary ’’ and “... entirely prior to. . . the description in that genus of the second of the species . . . with the trivial name albus.” OPINION 340 231 between Diesing’s . . . dentatus and the generic names to which they in effect transferred it ;’’* and (b) that the view that homonymy does not exist in the absence of published identical names for two species seems. to be ““. . . not a necessary or even reasonable interpretation of the present rulings”. Nevertheless, because some zoologists “... have held that an actual citation of the homonymous specific name is neces- sary before the trivial name involved can be rejected as a homonym ”?, the Commission was requested to render a “‘ Declaration ’’, presumably, one stating that an author need not himself apply to each of two species the same homonymous specific name in order to reject effectively the trivial constituent of it for one of the species on ground of secondary homonymy. 38. In discussing this issue, the Secretary (Hemming, 195la : 292) stated that it was not suggested before the Commission that the new provision “should require that before two names could be regarded as being secondary homonyms of one another, each must be cited simultaneously by the same author under the same specific name... ”’ To the writer, it is not clear from this discussion, nor from the later one by the same author (Hemming, 1951 b. Bull. zool. Nomencl. 6(4) : 120-122) whether the Secretary has contended that, under the adopted definitions and provisions, publication of the same name for two species need not be accomplished at all in order to render its. trivial constituent rejectible for one of the species, or whether he con- tends only that it has been provided that the author who rejects the trivial constituent on ground of secondary homonymy need not republish the homonymous combinations. The writer agrees that the provisions do not state that the homonymous combinations must be published by the same author or by the author proposing the rejection. To his previous remarks on the basic question, he would add the fact that it is the actual language of “‘ Point (9) that an author’s rejection is invalid unless he regards as congeneric the two species bearing identical specific names and rejects the later published of these names. 39. Disagreement (4). It is possible that the position has been adopted that, under * Point (8) ”, an author is to be held as having made a valid rejection, if he says or implies that he regards a name as a secondary homonym, irrespective of whether the name is a secondary homonym under the Congress’ definition. This possibility emerges from the following statements : (1) “each of these authors is to be regarded as having definitely recognised, in their estimation, dentatus of Diesing, 1839 to be a secondary homonym ... ” (Dougherty, /.c.) ; (2) “ as regards * This language is interesting in connection with what is said above under item (1) of this section. 238 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS rejections effected prior to Ist January 1951, the test to be applied should simply be whether or not the later author rejected the one name as a secondary homonym of the other.”” (Hemming, 1951a.) 40. Therefore, it is believed that it would be helpful were the Com- mission to state clearly in connection with its decision in the present case, its majority position on the points itemized above. 14. Comment received from Dr. Harold W. Manter (University of Nebraska, Department of Zoology, Lincoln, Nebraska, U.S.A.) : On 27th September 1952 Dr. Harold W. Manter (University of Nebraska, Department of Zoology, Lincoln, Nebraska, U.S.A.) submitted the following comment on the present case (Manter, 1952, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 9 : 143) :— It is probably too late to count, but, as a taxonomic helminthologist, I wish to object to the proposal of Dougherty (1951) to replace the trivial name dentatus of Diesing, 1839 (kidney worm of swine) with pinguicola of Verrill, 1870. The name Stephanurus dentatus is so well established in the literature both of parasitology and veterinary medicine that it surely should be validated. Dougherty made his proposal in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 2 : 282—291 in August 1951. 15. Comment received from Dr. R. Ph. Dollfus (Laboratoire d’Helminthologie Coloniale et de Parasitologie Comparée, Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris): On 16th October 1952 Dr. R. Ph. Dollfus (Laboratoire d’Helminthologie Coloniale et de Parasitologie Comparée, Muséum Nationale d Histoire Naturelle, Paris) submitted the following comment on the present case (Dollfus, 1952, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 9 : 144) :— Je viens de recevoir un séparatum de E. C. Dougherty concernant la question de la possibilité de rejéter l’' appellation Stephanurus dentatus Diesing, 1839, parce qui’l existe un Strongylus dentatus Rudolphi, 1803. Comme Dhiesing d’une part, et Rudolphi d’autre part, n’ont pas employe le nom spécifique dans le méme genre, il n’a eu aucune raison valable pour changer le nom spécifique employé par Diesing et toute controverse a ce sujet est, 4 mon avis, inutile ; c’est du temps perdu de discuter la-dessus. En outre, comme il est impossible de confondre des Nematodes aussi differents que Stephanurus dentatus Diesing et Oesophagostomum dentatum (Rudolphi), tout changement de ces appellations pourrait étre nuisible. OPINION 340 239 Si quelques auteurs ont confondu ces deux espéces, cela montre a quel point ils sont incompétents en mati¢re de Nématodes parasites et il n’y a pas a s’occuper de leur erreur. 16. Comment received jointly from Dr. Benjamin Schwartz (Chief, Zoological Division, United States Department of Agri- culture, Bureau of Animal Industry, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.) and from eighteen other specialists: On 10th December 1952 Dr. Benjamin Schwartz (Chief, Zoological Division, United States Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Animal Industry, Washington, D.C., U.S.A) addressed the following letter to the Commission signed also by the eighteen other specialists whose names are cited in (b) below :— (a) Dr. Benjamin Schwartz’s letter dated 10th December 1952 With reference to the swine kidney worm (Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.) 188), we have recently been informed by Dr. Harold W. Manter that the case is still open for the expression of opinions and comments. Two members of our organization, Mr. Allen McIntosh and Mr. John T. Lucker, have each communicated with you expressing in detail their views on the history, importance and merit of the case. Being thoroughly familiar with the case and in agreement with the views held by our above-mentioned colleagues, we the undersigned wish to go on record as in favour of retaining the name Stephanurus dentatus Diesing, 1839, for the kidney worm of swine. (b) Names of the eighteen specialists who, in addition to Dr. Schwartz signed the letter reproduced in (a) above E. W. Price (Parasitologist, Assistant Chief of Zoological Division) L. A. Spindler (Parasitologist, In Charge, Swine Parasite Investigations) D. A. Shorb (Parasitologist) C. H. Hill (Parasitologist) A. O. Foster (Parasitologist, In Charge, Anthelmintic Investigations) F. D. Enzie (Parasitologist) M. L. Colglazier (Parasitologist) Mildred A. Doss (Zoologist, In Charge, Index Catalogue of Medical and Veterinary Zoology) Judith M. Humphrey (Zoologist) Maybelle B. Chitwood (Parasitologist) Everett E. Wehr (Parasitologist, In Charge, Poultry Parasite Investiga- tions) , 240 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS J. L. Gardiner (Parasitologist) G. Dikmans (Parasitologist, In Charge, Internal Parasites of Ruminants Investigations) K. C. Kates (Parasitologist) James H. Turner (Parasitologist) D. J. Doran (Parasitologist) John C. Lotze (Parasitologist) Charles G. Durbin (Parasitologist) 17. Comment received from Dr. B. G. Peters (Rothamsted Experimental Station, Harpenden, England): On list January 1953, Dr. B. G. Peters (Rothamsted Experimental Station, Harpenden, England) submitted the following comment on the present case :— At the suggestion of Dr. E. C. Dougherty, in a letter to Dr. T. Goodey, I am writing belatedly about Dougherty’s paper on Stephan- urus in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 2 (9/10) : 282—291, and about your commentary following it. The Commission’s reference is Z.N.(S.) 188. I confess to the authorship of the reference cited as “ B.G.P.” in Dougherty’s list, and I also fully agree that “ Therein the nomen- clatorial issues were not directly faced’’. I was asked to prepare a brief summary of current knowledge about this parasite for semi- anonymous publication, and this seemed a most improper place in which to propose nomenclatural changes. In this regard I merely set out ‘‘ The present accepted position ’’, including past confusions with Rudolphi’s dentatus, as the necessary minimum for clarity. On the questions now at issue, I accept Dougherty’s conclusions on the homonymy of dentatus Diesing, 1839, but disagree with his recommendation. Stephanurus dentatus Diesing, 1839 is a readily- identifiable parasite which has long been known under that name. Confusion with Oesophagostomum dentatum (Rudolphi, 1803) is most unlikely as between the actual worms ; it could occur only nomenclatur- ally when misguided helminthologists put the two species into one genus. This seems to me a case where strict application of the Rules would lead to confusion, and I recommend that the International Commission should use its Plenary Powers to validate dentatus Diesing, 1839, in the combination Stephanurus dentatus, for the Kidney Worm of Swine. I also recommend that the generic names Stephanurus Diesing, 1839 and Oesophagostomum Molin, 1861 should be placed on tke Official List of Generic Names, and the trivial names dentatus Diesing OPINION 340 241 1839 and dentatus Rudolphi, 1803 on the Official List of Specific Trivial Names. : I do not wish to labour the point but, as I understand it, it is open to any incompetent person to publish a paper in which (say) the 20-odd roundworms called “ elongatus’’ are placed in one genus and 19 of the names suppressed as homonyms. It would be intolerable if these 19 trivial names were for ever invalidated by such an action. In other words, we need to ensure that the nomenclatural proposals of individuals do not have irreparable after-effects until there is some measure of agreement about them. 18. Adoption by the International Commission in 1952 of a ‘** Declaration ’’ that it is not necessary for the purpose of the rejection and replacement of a junior secondary homonym that the author rejecting such a name should cite both the names in homonymous combinations: After the close of the prescribed six-month waiting period, the Secretary prepared a Voting Paper (V.P.(52)58) in which the Members of the Commission were asked to vote on the question of the adoption of a Declaration on the subject of the interpretation of the Law of Homonymy in relation to the rejection and replacement of secondary homonyms in the terms of the proposal submitted by the Secretary in his paper published on 28th September 1951 (para- graph 9 above). The foregoing Voting Paper was issued on 22nd May 1952 and the Prescribed Voting Period closed on 22nd August 1952. At the end of the Prescribed Voting Period fifteen (15) Commissioners had voted in. favour of the proposed Declaration, none had voted against that proposal, and three had not returned the Voting Papers issued to them. Accordingly, on 23rd August 1952 the Secretary formally declared that the proposal submitted had been adopted by the Commission. In _ view, however, of the near approach of the meeting at Copen- hagen of the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology, it was decided that, contrary to the course which would otherwise have been adopted, arrangements should not be made for the immediate preparation and promulgation of a Declaration embodying the decision taken by the Commission in this matter, it being felt that it would be better to defer such action until after the International Commission had reported its decision in this matter to the forthcoming International Congress of Zoology. 242 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 19. Approval by the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology of the proposal relating to the interpretation of the Law of Homonymy in relation to the rejection and replacement of secondary homonyms adopted by the International Commission in August 1952: In pursuance of the decision described in the preceding paragraph, the Declaration adopted by the Commission in August 1952 that it was not necessary that, when a name is rejected as the junior of two secondary homonyms, the author so rejecting that name should cite both it and the other name in homonymous combinations was entered as Case No. 55 on the Agenda for the Colloquium on Zoological Nomenclature and for the meeting of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to be held at Copenhagen in July 1953. The single document submitted in connection with this Item was a note by the Secretary setting out the terms of the Declaration adopted in this matter by the Commission and asking for approval by the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology of the action so taken (Hemming, 1953, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 10 : 432— 433). The decision taken in this matter by the Commission— which (as already explained) was in the terms of the proposal originally submitted to the Commission (paragraph 9 above)— was approved and adopted by the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology, Copenhagen, 1953, on the advice of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, sup- ported by the Colloquium on Zoological Nomenclature. The decision of the Congress on this subject was published on 31st December 1953 (Copenhagen Decisions zool. Nomencl. : 82, Decision 161)2. Thus by the end of 1953 a decision had been reached on the one question of the interpretation of the Regles affecting the present case, on which a Ruling had previously been lacking and the ground had been cleared for the taking by the Commission of a decision on the status of the name dentatus Diesing, 1839, as the specific name of the Kidney Worm of Swine. 20. Submission of a note by the Secretary on the portion of the present application concerned with the interpretation of the Law of Homonymy : On 5th January 1954 Mr. Hemming, as Secretary, 2 This decision was subsequently promulgated as Declaration 17 (1954, Ops, Decls. int. Comm. zool. Nomencl. 9 ; xlix—lIx. OPINION 340 243 prepared the following note on the issues raised in Dr. Dougherty’s application regarding the interpretation of the Law of Homonymy in relation to secondary homonymy, believing this to be desirable in view of the fact that clearly some of the specialists who had furnished comments on this case had done so without a full understanding of the revision of the Rég/es in this matter carried out by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948 :— | On the problem of homonymy raised in Dr. Ellsworth C. Dougherty’s application regarding the name ‘‘ dentatus ’’ Diesing, 1839, as published in the combination ‘‘ Stephanurus dentatus ”’ By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E., Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature In his application regarding the specific name dentatus Diesing, 1839, as published in the combination Stephanurus dentatus, Dr. Ells- worth C. Dougherty took the view that for the reasons explained below the foregoing name must be regarded as a permanently invalid name by reason of its having been rejected as being, within the genus Sclerostoma Rudolphi, 1809, a junior secondary homonym of the name dentatus Rudolphi, 1803, as published in the combination Strongylus dentatus. Dr. Dougherty concluded therefore that the oldest available name subjectively applicable to the foregoing species (the kidney worm of swine) was the name pinguicola Verrill, 1870, as published in the combination Sclerostoma pinguicola. At the same time Dr. Dougherty expressed the view that it might be possible to argue— though he did not consider that such an argument would be well founded—that for a specific name to be validly rejected as a junior secondary homonym, it was necessary that some author should actually have cited in identical homonymous binominal combinations both that name and also the name of the species bearing as its specific name, an older name consisting of the same word. 2. In some of the comments which have since been received, Dr. Dougherty’s argument that the name dentatus Diesing, 1839, is a permanently invalid name by reason of its having been rejected and replaced as a secondary homonym has been misunderstood. Moreover, since the receipt of his application, the point at issue mentioned at the 244 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS end of the preceding paragraph has been settled by the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology, Copenhagen, 1953. A_ brief note of explanation on each of these points may therefore be useful. 3. On the first of these points it is necessary, in order to examine the validity of Dr. Dougherty’s argument, briefly to recall the relevant circumstances in the early history of the name Stephanurus dentatus Diesing, 1839. These are as follows :—(1) In 1856 Leidy referred the nominal species Strongylus dentatus Rudolphi, 1803, to the genus Sclerostoma Rudolphi, 1809 ; (2) In 1896 Railliet treated the generic name Stephanurus Diesing as a junior synonym of Sclerostoma Rudolphi and referred the type species of that genus (Stephanurus dentatus Diesing) to Sclerostoma ; at the same time he rejected the name dentatus Diesing and applied to that species the name pinguicola Verrill (Sclerostoma pinguicola Verrill, 1870). (3) Tayler in 1900 followed the same course as that previously adopted by Railliet. Neither of these authors regarded Strongylus dentatus Rudolphi as belonging to the genus Sclerostoma, but Railliet considered that, as he himself placed Stephanurus dentatus Diesing in that genus and as previous authors had placed Strongylus dentatus Rudolphi in it, it was necessary to reject the name dentatus Diesing as the specific portion of the junior of the two secondary homonyms which, as he thought, had thus been brought into existence, and to replace that name by the next name available for the species concerned, that is, by the name pinguicola Verrill. The view adopted by Tayler followed the same lines. 4. Having thus established the factual position in this matter, we are now in a position to determine whether the rejection of the name dentatus Diesing is valid under the Régles and therefore whether that name is permanently unavailable for the species to which it was given by Diesing. Up to 1948 this is a question to which, owing to the obscurities of Articles 35 and 36, it would have been impossible to obtain an answer, but the clarifications effected by the Paris Congress make the position absolutely clear. The relevant decisions are recorded in Points (8) and (9) on page 121 of volume 4 of the Bulletin of Zoo- logical Nomenclature. The decision then incorporated into the Régles was twofold : (1) After 31st December 1950 no name can be validly rejected as a junior secondary homonym of another name, unless the author rejecting that name “‘ makes it clear (a) that he regards as congeneric the two species bearing identical specific names and (b) that he rejects the later published of these names as an invalid homonym of the other’’ (Point 9). In the period prior to Ist January 1951, the rejection of a name on the ground that in a given genus it is a junior secondary homonym of an older identical name “is to be accepted, irrespective of whether the author makes it clear that he himself considers that the condition of homonymy still exists, that is to OPINION 340 — 245 say, whether he regards the two species as congeneric with one another ”’ (Point (8). (It will be understood that the purpose of the Congress, in making this distinction between past and future rejections of names on the ground of secondary homonymy, was to prevent the widespread changing of names which, by reason of the large number of names which had been rejected and replaced as secondary homonyms by authors who did not themselves consider the two species concerned to be congeneric, would have resulted if retrospective effect had been given to the new requirement that, in order that a rejection of one name as a junior secondary homonym of another may be a valid rejection, the author making it must make it clear that he himself regards the two species concerned as congeneric with one another.) The foregoing extracts from the provisions incorporated in the Rég/es on the subject of secondary homonymy by the Paris Congress make it clear that, subject to the supplementary point raised by Dr. Dougherty (as to which see the immediately following paragraph), the action of Railliet and Tayler in rejecting and replacing the name dentatus Diesing on the ground of secondary homonymy was valid, for this action was taken long before 1951, and in consequence the foregoing specific name was thereby rendered permanently unavailable. 5. The question of doubt raised by Dr. Dougherty (namely whether, in order validly to reject one name as a junior secondary homonym of another name, it is necessary for an author to cite both the names concerned in homonymous combinations) was one on which at the time that it was raised by Dr. Dougherty it was not possible to provide a definite answer. It was in these circumstances decided to postpone action on the present case until after a decision had been taken by the next International Congress of Zoology. This question was accordingly placed—as Case No. 55 (Hemming, 1953, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 10: 432—433)—on the Nomenclature Agenda for the Fourteenth Inter- national Congress of Zoology, Copenhagen, 1953. The decision of _ the Congress was that the formal citation of both names in homony- mous combinations was not to be treated as a requirement for the valid rejection of one of those names as a junior secondary homonym of the other (1953, Copenhagen Decisions zool. Nomencl. : 82). 6. We see therefore that the action by Railliet (1896) and Tayler (1900) in rejecting and replacing the name dentatus Diesing, 1839, on the ground of the existence of a condition of secondary homonymy with the name dentatus Rudolphi, 1803, in the genus Sclerostoma is in full accord with the provisions of the Régles as amended by the Paris (1948) Congress (paragraph 4 above) and that the one point of doubt raised by Dr. Dougherty in his application has been resolved by a decision by the Copenhagen (1953) Congress (paragraph 5 above). 246 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 7. Accordingly, the name dentatus Diesing, 1839, as published in the combination Stephanurus dentatus, is a permanently invalid name by reason of its having been rejected on the ground of secondary homonymy. The only question which remains for consideration is whether, having regard to the fact that for many years past the kidney worm of swine (Stephanurus dentatus Diesing) and the common nodular worm of swine (Strongylus dentatus Rudolphi) have been regarded by specialists as belonging to different genera, it is desirable that the International Commission should, in the interest of promoting nomen- clatorial stability, use its Plenary Powers for the purpose of validating the name dentatus Diesing, 1839, as the name of the kidney worm of swine. Ill.—THE DECISION OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 21. Issue of Voting Paper V.P.(54)12 : On 27th February 1954 a Voting Paper (V.P.(54)12) was issued to the Members of the Commission in regard to the present case, in which the Members of the Commission were invited to vote either for, or against, the proposal “relating to the name dentatus Diesing, 1839, as published in the combination Stephanurus dentatus set out at the foot of the present Voting Paper’’. This proposal was put forward as being, in part, an amendment to the proposal submitted by Dr. Dougherty. The proposal on which the Members of the Commission were thus asked to vote was in the following terms :— (1) Under the Plenary Powers the specific name dentatus Diesing, 1839, as published in the combination Stephanurus dentatus, is hereby validated. (2) The under-mentioned generic names are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology :—(a) Stephanurus Diesing, OPINION 340 DAT 1839, (gender of name: masculine) (type species by monotypy : Stephanurus dentatus Diesing, 1839); (b) Oesophagostomum Molin, 1861 (gender of generic name: neuter) (type species by selection by Stiles & Hassall (1905): Strongylus dentatus Rudolphi, 1803 (as defined by the description and figures published by Goodey (1924 : 1—14, figs. 1—15)). (3) The under-mentioned specific names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology :—(a) dentatus Diesing, 1839, as published in the combination Stephanurus dentatus ; (b) dentatus Rudolphi, 1803, as published in the combination Strongylus dentatus, as defined in (2) (b) above. 22. The Prescribed Voting Period: As the foregoing Voting Paper was issued under the Three-Month Rule, the Prescribed Voting Period closed on 27th May 1954. 23. Particulars of the Voting on Voting Paper V.P.(54)12 : The state of the voting on Voting Paper V.P.(54)12 at the close of the Prescribed Voting Period was as follows :— (a) Affirmative Votes had been given by the following nineteen (19) Commissioners (arranged in the order in which Votes were received) : omiuiss; . Hermes; Vokes; Boschma; . Riley: do Amaral; Esaki; Lemche; Sylvester-Bradley ; Dymond ; Hemming; Bonnet; Cabrera; Mertens ; Hanko; Pearson; Jaczewski; Bradley, (J. C.); Stoll ; (b) Negative Votes : None ; 248 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS (c) Voting Papers not returned : None. 24. Declaration of Result of Vote : On 28th May 1954, Mr. Hemming, Secretary to the International Commission, acting as Returning Officer for the Vote taken on Voting Paper V.P.(54)12, signed a Certificate that the Votes cast were as set out in paragraph 23 above and declaring that the proposal submitted in the foregoing Voting Paper had been duly adopted and that the decision so taken was the decision.of the International Commission in the matter aforesaid. 25. Preparation of the Ruling given in the present ‘‘ Opinion ”’ ; On 5th November 1954 Mr. Hemming prepared the Ruling given in the present Opinion and at the same time signed a Certificate that the terms of that Ruling were in complete accord with those of the proposal approved by the International Commission in its Vote on Voting Paper V.P.(54)12. 26. The following are the original references for the names placed on Official Lists by the Ruling given in the present Opinion :— dentatus, Stephanurus, Diesing, 1839, Ann. Wiener Mus. Natur- gesch. 2 (2) : 232 | dentatus, Strongylus, Rudolphi, 1803, Archiv. Zool. (Wiedemann) 3.(2)ee 12 | Oesophagostomum Molin, 1861, Mem. r. Ist. veneto Sci. Lett. Arti 9 : 435, 443 Stephanurus Diesing, 1839, Ann. Wiener Mus. Naturgesch. DEO) 232. OPINION 340 249 27. The reference for the type selection for the genus Oesophagostomum Molin, 1861, specified Ruling (2)(b) in the present Opinion is the following :—Stiles & Hassall, 1905, Bull. U.S. Bur. Anim. Ind. 79 : 124. 28. The application dealt with in the present Opinion was published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature prior to the establishment of the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology by the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology, Copenhagen, 1953. It has not been possible since then to deal with this aspect of the present case. This question is, however, now being examined on a separate File to which the Registered Number Z.N.(G.) 122 has been allotted. 29. At the time of the submission of the original application dealt with in the present Opinion, the expression prescribed for the second portion of the binomen which constitutes the scientific name of a species was the expression “trivial name’’ and the Official List reserved for recording such names was styled the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology, the word * trivial ’’ appearing also in the title of the Official Index reserved for recording rejected and invalid names of this category. Under a decision taken by the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology, Copenhagen, 1953, the expression “ specific name ”’ was substituted for the expression “ trivial name’ and corres- ponding changes were made in the titles of the Official List and Official Index of such names (1953, Copenhagen Decisions zool. Nomencl. : 21). The changes in terminology so adopted have been incorporated in the Ruling given in the present Opinion. 30. The prescribed procedures were duly complied with by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature in dealing with the present case, and the present Opinion is accordingly hereby rendered in the name of the said International Commission by the under-signed Francis Hemming, Secretary 250 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, in virtue of all and every the powers conferred upon him in that behalf. 31. The present Opinion shall be known as Opinion Three Hundred and Forty (340) of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. | Done in London, this Fifth day of November, Nineteen Hundred and Fifty-Four. Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature FRANCIS HEMMING Printed in England by MetcatFe & CoorEer LimiTEp, 10-24 Scrutton St., London EC 2 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTER- NATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Edited by FRANCIS HEMMING, c.M.G., C.B.E. Secretary to the Commission VOLUME 10. Part 8. Pp. 251—270 OPINION 341 Addition to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology of the generic names Anguina Scopoli, 1777, and Tylenchus Bastian, 1865 (Class Nematoda) (Opinion supplementary to Opinion 160) > Oo wN\\ TO | PER ee / eit ae \| ; ie \ * 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 1955 Price Nine Shillings and Sixpence (All rights reserved) Issued 19th May, 1955 INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE COMPOSITION AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION: OF THE RULING GIVEN IN OPINION 341 A. The Officers of the Commission Honorary Life President : Dr. Karl Jordan (British Museum (Natural History), Zoological Museum, Tring, Herts, England) President : Professor James Chester Bradley (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) Vice-President: Senhor Dr. Afranio do Amaral (Sao Paulo, Brazil) (12th August 1953) Secretary : Mr. Francis Hemming (London, England) (27th July 1948) B. The Members of the Commission (Arranged in order of precedence by reference to date of election or of most recent re-election, as prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology) Professor H. BOSCHMA (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) (Ast January 1947) Senor Dr. Angel CABRERA (Eva Peron, F.C.N.G.R., Argentina) (27th July 1948) Mr. Francis HEMMING (London, England) (27th July 1948) (Secretary) Dr oe PEARSON (Tasmanian Museum, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia) (27th July 1948 Dr. Henning LEMCHE (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark) (27th July 1948) Professor Teiso ESAKI (Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan) (17th April 1950) Professor Pierre BONNET (Université de Toulouse, France) (9th June 1950) Mr. Norman Denbigh RILEY (British Museum (Natural History) London) (9th June 1950) Professor Tadeusz JACZEWSKI (Unstitute of Zoology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland) (15th June 1950) Professor Robert MERTENS (Natur-Museum u. Forschungs-Institut Senckenberg, Frankfurt a. M., Germany) (Sth July 1950) Professor Erich Martin HERING (Zoologisches Museum der Humboldt-Universitat zu Berlin, Germany) (Sth July 1950) Senhor Dr. Afranio do AMARAL-(S. Paulo, Brazil) (12th August 1953) (Vice- President) Professor J. R. DyYMOND (University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada) (12th August 1953) Professor J. Chester BRADLEY (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) (President) Professor Harold E. Vokes (Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) Professor Béla HANKO (Mezégazdasdgi Muzeum Budapest, Hungary) (12th August 1953) Dr. Norman R. STOLL (Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, New York, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) Mr. P. C. SYLVESTER-BRADLEY (Sheffield University, Sheffield, England) (12th August 1953) Dr. L. B. HOLTHuIs (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Nether- lands) (12th August 1953) OPINION 341 ADDITION TO THE ‘“ OFFICIAL LIST OF GENERIC NAMES IN ZOOLOGY ” OF THE GENERIC NAMES ‘¢ ANGUINA ”’ SCOPOLI, 1777, AND ‘** TYLENCHUS ”’ BASTIAN, 1865 (CLASS NEMATODA) (°° OPINION ”’ SUPPLEMENTARY TO ‘* OPINION ”’ 160) RULING :—_(1) The Interim Ruling given in Opinion 160 in regard to the generic name Anguina Scopoli, 1777, is hereby cancelled and the Rulings (2) to (5) below are hereby substituted therefor. (2) The under-mentioned generic names are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Nos. 847 and 848 respectively :—(a) Anguina Scopoli, 1777 (gender : feminine) (type species, by selection by Chitwood (1935) ; Vibrio tritici Steinbuch, 1799) ; (b) Tylenchus Bastian, 1865 (gender : masculine) (type species, by selection by Bastian, in Stiles & Hassall (1905): Tylenchus davainei (correction of davainii) Bastian, 1865). (3) The under-mentioned specific names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Nos. 454 and 455 respectively :—(a) tritici Steinbuch, 1799, as published in the combination Vibrio tritici (specific name of type species of Anguina Scopoli, 1777) ; (b) davainei (correction of davainii) Bastian, 1865, as published in the combination Tylenchus davainii (specific name of type species of T'ylenchus Bastian, 1865). (4) The under-mentioned generic names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Nos. 235 and 236 respectively :—{a) Anguillulina Gervais & van Beneden, 1859 (a junior objective synonym of Anguina Scopoli, 1777, the two genera having the same nominal species as type species) ; (b) Tylelenchus Bastian, 1865 (an Invalid Original Spelling of Tylenchus Bastian, 1865). JUN 10 1955 254 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS (5) The under-mentioned specific name is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology with the Name No. 122 :—davainii Bastian, 1865, as published in the combination Tylenchus davainii (an Invalid Original Spelling of davainei). I—THE STATEMENT OF THE CASE The International Commission at its Session held at Lisbon in 1935 was unable to give a definite Ruling on an application which had been submitted to it jointly by Dr. H. G. Chitwood and another specialist of the Bureau of Animal Industry, U.S. Department of Agriculture and by three specialists of the Bureau of Plant Industry of the same Department, in regard to the status of the generic name Anguina Scopoli, 1777, owing (a) to doubts as to the interpretation of Proviso (a) to Article 25, in relation to the meaning to be attached to the expression “‘ nomenclature binaire ’’ which at that time appeared in that Proviso, and (b) to doubts as to whether in the work entitled Introductio ad Historiam naturalem, in which the foregoing generic name had been published, Scopoli had complied with the requirements of the foregoing Article. At that stage therefore it was only possible for the Commission to give an Interim Ruling explaining why no substantive Ruling was possible. This Interim Ruling was later embodied in Opinion 160 which was published in 1945 (Ops. Decls. int. Comm. zool. Nomencl. 2 : 291—306).1 The question of the interpretation involved in the present case was settled by the amendment of Article 25 by the Thirteenth Inter- national Congress of Zoology at Paris in 1948, while the individual 1 The Interim Ruling given in Opinion 160 was in the following terms :— For so long as generic names published by authors using a binary, though not a binominal, system of nomenclature are recognised as complying with the requirements of Article 25 of the International Code, the generic names published by Scopoli in 1777 in his Introductio ad Historiam naturalem are to be accepted as available nomenclatorially, but the position will need to be re-examined if later it is decided to reject generic names published by authors not applying the binominal system. No case has been established for the suspension of the rules for the purpose either of invalidating Anguina Scopoli, 1777, and validating Anguillulina Gervais and van Beneden, 1859, or of invalid- ating both Anguina Scopoli, 1777, and Anguillulina Gervais and van Beneden, 1859, and validating Tylenchus Bastian, 1865 (Class Nematoda). OPINION 341 ! Ds) question whether in the Jntroductio of 1777 Scopoli had complied with the requirements of Article 25, as amended by the Paris Congress, was laid before the Commission in a note by the Secretary in 1951. This note was published on 28th September 1951 (Hemming, 1951, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 6 : 122—125). At the same time Mr. Hemming prepared the following note recalling the history of the present case and appealing to specialists for information regarding the names currently used for the genera concerned and the action which, in their view, it was desirable that the Commission should take in regard to the names Anguina Scopoli, 1777, and Tylenchus Bastian, 1865 :— On the question whether it is desirable that the name ‘* Anguina ”’ Scopoli, 1777 (Class Nematoda) should be placed on the °° Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ”’ in preference to such names as ‘‘Anguillulina ’? Gervais & Beneden, 1859, or ‘* Tylen- chus ’’ Bastian, 1865 (a case possibly involving the use of the Plenary Powers) : appeal to specialists for advice By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E. (Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) 1. At its Session held in Lisbon in 1935 (Lisbon Session, 4th Meeting, Conclusion 11) the International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature had under consideration an application submitted by Dr. H. G. Chitwood and other specialists on the staff of the United States Department of Agriculture for the official recognition of the generic name Anguina Scopoli, 1777, for the Nematode species then (as the applicants stated) “‘ known as Tylenchus tritici (= Anguillulina tritici) ”’, together with comments received from various specialists, either for or against the application submitted (1943, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 1 : 37—38). 2. The problem so submitted raised two issues, the first, general in character (namely, the meaning to be attached to Proviso (b) to Article 25) and, second, the question of the name which it was desirable should be accepted for the Nematode genus in question. The dis- cussion of this latter question was obscured in the papers then before the Commission by reason of the divergent views expressed not on that issue but on the acceptability under Article 25 of names in Scopoli’s Introductio of 1777 and therefore on the availability of the name Anguina Scopoli, 1777. Accordingly, the International Commission did not feel able at that time to do more than to rule that, pending a decision by the Congress as to the interpretation of the expression 256 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS ‘“nomenclature binaire’’, the name Anguina Scopoli, 1777, must be accepted as complying with the requirements of Article 25; the Commission added that “‘ no case had been established ’’ for the use of the Plenary Powers to validate the name 7y/enchus Bastian, 1865. These decisions were later embodied in the Commission’s Opinion 1€0 (1945, Op. Decl. int. Comm. zool. Nomencl. 2 : 291—306). The Commission recognised that the foregoing decisions were both incom- plete and provisional in character and expressly placed on record its view that it would be necessary to review the position if later the Congress were to reject the then current ruling (i.e., the ruling in Opinion 20) regarding the availability of names published by authors who adopted a so-called “‘ binary’’ but not a binominal system of nomenclature. 3. At its meeting held in Paris in 1948 the International Congress of Zoology approved a proposal that the expression “‘ nomenclature binominale ”’ should be substituted for the expression “‘ nomenclature binaire ” in Article 25 (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 63—66), thereby eliminating one of the factors which at Lisbon had made it impossible to reach a final conclusion in regard to the status of the name Anguina Scopoli. At the same time the International Commission gave a ruling (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 309—310) that the names published in Briinnich’s Zoologiae Fundamenta of 1771 (a work indistinguishable in character from Scopoli’s Introductio of 1777, both being books concerned with zoological classification down to, but not including, the species level) are available names. In the same Session the International Commission put on record its intention of completing previously rendered Opinions where those Opinions did not cover the whole field involved (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 355). Finally, the Congress directed the Commission in future to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology every available generic name (with a note of the type species of the genus concerned) on which a decision of any. kind was given by the Commission (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 268), and on the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology, the trivial name of the type species of every genus placed on the Official List of Generic Names, except where that trivial name was not the oldest available such name for the species concerned, in which case the oldest available trivial name was to be stabilised in this way (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 270). 4. In the light of the decision taken in 1948 on the status of new generic names published in 1771 in Briinnich’s Zoologiae Fundamenta, the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is now being asked to give a ruling that new generic names published in 1777 in Scopoli’s Introductio are available names under Article 25 (Applica- tion Z.N.(S.) 587), it being understood that the Commission will give sympathetic consideration to applications for the suppression of individual names published in the Jntroductio, where those names are not in current use and where the enforced resurrection of such names OPINION 341 Pay | would lead to confusion by upsetting weil-established names of later date. 5. Immediately a decision is taken by the International Commission on the foregoing question, it will be possible for it to take decisions also on the other matters left unsettled in Opinion 160. If the Inter- national Commission approve the recommendation submitted to it in regard to the status of names in Scopoli’s Jntroductio, it will be necessary, either :— (1) to place (a) the generic name Anguina Scopoli, 1777 (with a note of its type species) on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology, and (b) the trivial name of the type species of that genus, if that name is the oldest available trivial name for that species, on the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology ; Or (2) to take a substantive decision on the question (on which it was considered in 1935 that no case had then been established), whether it is desirable that the name Anguina Scopoli, 1777, should be suppressed under the Plenary Powers for the purpose of validating Tylenchus Bastian, 1865, or whatever other name is currently used for the genus in question. 6. Before taking into consideration the relative merits of the alternative courses outlined above, the International Commission will need to be furnished by specialists in the Nematoda with information regarding the name currently used for the genus concerned and, if there is still diversity of practice, the proportions in which the names concerned are used both by specialists in the Nematoda and also generally in biological, non-taxonomic literature. In this connection, the Commission will take full account of the views by leading specialists recorded in Opinion 160, but, as it is now over fifteen years since those comments were written, it will be necessary to ascertain whether, during the interval that has since elapsed, the position has changed in any, and, if so, in what way. It will be very helpful if at the same time specialists will be so good as to inform the Commission whether they are of the opinion that the strict application of the normal Rules in this case would lead to no unsatisfactory results or, alternatively, whether they are of the opinion that confusion would result from the strict application of the Rules and, in the latter event, to indicate what action is recommended. 7. It is desired to reach a final decision on this long-outstanding case with as little further delay as possible. It will be particularly appreciated, therefore, if specialists will be so good as to furnish the Commission as soon as possible with their advice on the relative merits of the alternative courses set out in paragraph 5 above. All such comments should be marked “ Z.N.(S.) 588’ and addressed to 258 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS the Secretary to the Commission (28 Park Village East, Regent’s Park, London, N.W.1, England). Il—THE SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF THE CASE 2. Registration of the present application : Immediately upon the receipt of Mr. Hemming’s application, the problem of the status of the generic name Anguina Scopoli, 1777, was allotted the Registered Number Z.N.(S.) 588. 3. Publication of the present application : The present applica- tion was immediately sent to the printer and was published on 28th September 1951 in Part 4 of volume 6 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (Hemming, 1951, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 6 : 125—128). 4. Issue of Public Notices : At the time of the publication of the present application it appeared unlikely that the Commission would find it necessary or desirable to use its Plenary Powers in the present case, but, in order to provide against this contingency and thus to put the Commission in a position to reach a decision without delay at the end of the prescribed waiting period following the publication of the present application in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, it was decided forthwith to give Public Notice under the revised procedure prescribed by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948 (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 51—56), of the possible use by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature of its Plenary Powers in the present case. Accordingly, on 28th September 1951, such Public Notice was given in Part 4 of volume 6 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (the Part in which Mr. Hemming’s application was published) and also to the other prescribed serial publications. In addition such Notice was given also to certain other general zoological serial publications. OPINION 341 259 5. Advice received from specialists : The appeal for advice from specialists contained in Mr. Hemming’s application elicited communications from the following specialists: (1) B. G. Chitwood (The Catholic University of America, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.), whom Mr. Hemming had consulted shortly before the publication of the present application in view of the fact that he was the specialist by whom the request for a Ruling on the name Anguina Scopoli had originally been submitted (letter dated 17th September 1951); (2) M. W. Allen, D. J. Raski and S. A. Sher (University of California, Division of Entomology and Parasitology, Berkeley, California, U.S.A.) (joint letter dated 16th April 1952); (3) Ellsworth C. Dougherty (University of California, Department of Zoology, Berkeley, California, U.S.A.), who under cover of a letter dated 14th May 1953 forwarded a considered memorandum prepared jointly by himself and by the three specialists cited in (2) above. The communications so received are reproduced in the immediately following paragraphs. 6. Comment received from Dr. B. G. Chitwood (The Catholic University of America, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.) : On 17th September 1951 Dr. B. G. Chitwood (The Catholic University of America, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.) addressed the following letter to the Commission setting out his views as tothe action which, in his view, it was desirable that it should take in this case :— Since the original submission of the question on Anguina to the Commission many changes have taken place in nematode taxonomy. Tylenchus is now generally recognized for a group of species which does not include the type of Anguina. __ Filtpjev originated this concept and we followed it in this country. Goodey has recently accepted Anguina with Anguillulina as a synonym. This being the case I feel workers in the field will now unanimously accept Anguina as valid. Therefore, I now feel validation of Anguina with A. tritici as type would be the best service the Commission could render. 7. Comment received jointly from Drs. M. W. Allen, D. J. Raski and S. A. Sher (Department of Entomology and Parasitology, University of California, Berkeley, California, U.S.A.): On 260 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 16th April 1952 Drs. M. W. Allen, D. J. Raski and S. A. Sher (Department of Entomology and Parasitology, University of California, Berkeley, California, U.S.A.) addressed the following joint letter setting out the action which they recommend that the Commission should take in the present case :— In our opinion the name Anguina Scopoli, 1777, should be placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology, in preference to the name Anguillulina Gervais and Beneden, 1859. The name Tylenchus Bastian, 1865, should also be placed on the Official List. The type species of this genus (7. davainii Bastian, 1865) clearly represents forms differing from those belonging to the genus Anguina Scopoli, 1777. There is now agreement among nemato- logists on these questions. 8. Comment received jointly from Dr. Ellsworth C. Dougherty (Department of Zoology) and Drs. M. W. Allen, D. J. Raski and S. A. Sher (Department of Entomology and Parasitology, University of California, Berkeley, California, U.S.A.): In response for a request for further information in regard to certain aspects of the present case addressed by the Secretary to Dr. M. W. Allen, Dr. Ellsworth C. Dougherty (Department of Zoology, University of California, Berkeley, California, U.S.A.) communicated to the Commission on 14th May 1953 the following memorandum prepared jointly by Dr. M. W. Allen and his colleagues in the Department of Entomology and Parasitology and himself :— Proposal that ‘‘Anguina ’’ Scopoli, 1777, and ‘‘ Tylenchus ”’ Bastian, 1865 (Class Nematoda, Order Tylenchida) be added to the ** Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ”’ By ELLSWORTH C. DOUGHERTY (Department of Zoology, University of California, Berkeley) and M. W. ALLEN, D. J. RASKI, and S. A. SHER (Department of Entomology and Parasitology, University of California, Berkeley) Secretary Hemming (1951b) has asked for advice on the question of adding the name Anguina Scopoli, 1777, to the Official List of Generic OPINION 341 261 Names in Zoology in preference to such names as Anguillulina Gervais and van Beneden, 1859, and 7y/enchus Bastian, 1865. In our opinion these names refer not to one, but to two separate taxonomic genera, which include nematode species of considerable importance as plant parasites. It is therefore highly desirable that the generic nomen- clature involved be clarified and that names be secured by their incor- poration into the Official List by whatever action on the part of the International Commission appears necessary or desirable. 2. We have examined the pertinent literature, including all papers cited herein. The essential particulars of the three nominal genera under consideration are as follows : A. ‘‘Anguina ’’ Scopoli, 1777 3. This genus was erected by Scopoli (1777 : 374) without reference to a species by scientific name. However, the genus as characterized by Scopoli obviously referred only to the wheat eelworm, which was _ subsequently named by Steinbuch (1799 : 251) as Vibrio tritici under conditions that clearly satisfy the Régles Internationales. Steinbuch referred to earlier authors who had observed the worm, but had not given it a separate specific name. (For example, Linnaeus (1767) discussed it under his composite species Chaos ustilago.) Baylis and Daubney (1926 : 65) listed Anguina as a synonym of Anguillulina Gervais and van Beneden, 1859, without selecting the type of the former. Chitwood (1935 : 53) pointed out that only Vibrio tritici Steinbuch, 1799, fits the original description of Anguina and accord- ingly selected this species as type. He further pointed out that Anguina has priority over Anguillulina. His arguments are given at length in Opinion 160 of the International Commission (1945 : 293— 296). 4. Various authors (see Opinion 160) have argued that Scopoli was a non-binominal author because the work in which Anguina was established went down, for the most part, only to the generic level. However, as has been shown by Hemming (195la), Scopoli must be regarded as a binominal author in the sense of Article 25, proviso (b), of the Régles, as amended at Paris in 1948?. Therefore, there is no basis for rejecting Anguina on such grounds. 5. Although Chitwood referred to Vibrio tritici as type of Anguina, he did not actually establish the combination Anguina tritici. This was subsequently done by Filip’ev (1936 : 82). The present Régles (Article 23) are not clear as to the manner in which combinations should be credited in such cases. We are therefore unable to decide whether the wheat eelworm is now correctly to be known, in its most * This question has since been settled by the International Commission in this sense. See paragraph 9 of the present Opinion. 262 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS complete form, as Anguina tritici (Steinbuch, 1799) Chitwood, 1935, or Anguina tritici (Steinbuch, 1799) Filip’ev, 1936. B. ‘‘Anguillulina ’’ Gervais and van Beneden, 1859 6. This genus was erected by Gervais and van Beneden (1859 : 101), without designation or indication of type, for two species, Vibrio tritici Steinbuch, 1799, and Anguillula dipsaci Kiithn, 1857. Stiles and Hassall (1905 : 86, 146) remarked that V. tritici was “ probably ”’ type of Anguillulina, but we feel that, “‘ rigidly construed ”’ under the Régles (Article 30, rule (g)), this cannot be accepted as type selection. (Nevertheless, this is a point on which the International Commission might rule otherwise.) 7. Type fixation was definitely accomplished by Baylis and Daubney (1926 : 66), who selected Vibrio tritici. It therefore follows that the nominal genus Anguillulina is an objective synonym of the nominal genus Anguina, since both have the same species as type. C. ‘* Tylenchus’’ Bastian, 1865 8. This genus was established, without designation or indication of type, by Bastian (1865 : 94, 125) for 6 nominal species—Tylenchus davainii Bastian, 1865, Vibrio tritici Bauer, 1923 [=Steinbuch, 1799], Tylenchus terricola Bastian, 1865, Tylenchus obtusus Bastian, 1865, Anguillula dipsaci Kiihn, 1857, and Tylenchus agrostidis Bastian, 1865. In Bastian’s paper two spellings were used—Tylelenchus (: 82, 83, 94) and Tylenchus (: 125—128). It is obvious from the derivation given for the genus (: 125) that the spelling Tylelenchus was an error. It seems appropriate, therefore, to accept the spelling Tylenchus as the correct one, even though the spelling Ty/elenchus has priority by page precedence, having even been used in connection with a brief but adequate generic diagnosis (: 95). However, inasmuch as the entire question of emendations is now sub judice by the International Com- mission (see Hemming, 1952), it might therefore be appropriate to secure Tylenchus by the specific suppression of Tylelenchus under the International Commission’s Plenary Powers. 9. Type fixation for Tylenchus was accomplished by Bastian in a letter to Stiles and Hassall (1905 : 147) as Tylenchus davainii, an originally included species. The origin of the trivial name davainii was not specifically given by Bastian, but it is obvious from the content of his paper that it was intended as a patronymic honoring the para- sitologist, Davaine. De Man (1880, : 74) emended it to davainei, and, although this correction has not been generally followed, it is ® In the light of the review by the International Commission here referred to, the provision (Article 19) in the Régles relating to the emendation of names was completely revised by the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology, Copenhagen, 1953 (see 1953, Copenhagen Decisions zool. Nomencl. : 43—46, Decisions 70—76). OPINION 341 263 required by the interpretation of Article 14 given in the Paris revision -of the Régles in 1948 (see 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 68).4 D. Recommendations 10. Since the arguments in the case of Anguina et al. were submitted to the International Commission (see Opinion 160), knowledge of the tylenchide nematodes, or tylenchs, has evolved considerably. Workers such as Filip’ev (1936) and Thorne (1949) have greatly refined the classification of these forms such that now several families and many genera in what a number of authors regard as an order Tylenchida Thorne, 1949 (: 37), have come to be recognized in the place of a relatively few genera in a family TYLENCHIDAE Micoletzley, 1922 (: 108—or ANGUILLULINIDAE Baylis and Daubney, 1926 :65). It is now generally accepted—for example, by such authorities as Goodey in his monograph on soil and fresh water nematodes (1951)—that the species originally named Vibrio tritici (type of the nominal genera Anguina and Anguillulina) and Tylenchus davainei (type of the nominal genus Tylenchus) belong to separate taxonomic genera. Therefore there is no longer any reason for suppressing either Anguina or Anguillulina, or both, in favour of Tylenchus as was suggested by certain of the specialists quoted in Opinion 160. 11. The question of Anguina vs. Anguillulina has essentially been resolved by the passage of time. Several outstanding authorities (Thorne, 1949 ; Chitwood, 1950; Goodey, 1951) have elected to follow priority in this case and sink Anguwillulina Gervais and van Beneden, 1859, as a synonym of Anguina Scopoli, 1777. We believe that such action represents the one that the International Commission should recognize. 12. It is, therefore, our recommendation that the following names be added to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology : Anguina Scopoli, 1777 (gender : feminine), with type Vibrio tritici Steinbuch, 1799 (syn. Anguina tritici (Steinbuch, 1777) Chitwood, 1935, or Filip’ev, 1936) as selected by Chitwood (1935) Tylenchus Bastian, 1865 (gender : masculine), with type Ty/enchus davainei Bastian, 1865, emend. de Man, 1880, as selected by Bastian in Stiles and Hassall (1905) 13. In order that all doubt be dispelled as regards the name Tylenchus, we recommend that the International Commission consider suppressing, under their Plenary Powers, the nominal genus Tylelenchus Bastian, 1865. | * The decision by the Paris Congress here referred to was confirmed by the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology, Copenhagen, 1953, when that Congress reviewed the provisions of Article 14 of the Régles (1953, Copenhagen Decisions zool. Nomencl. : 51—52, Decision 86). 264 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 14. We further recommend that the following names be added to the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology : Anguillulina Gervais and van Beneden, 1859, with type Vibrio tritici Steinbuch, 1799, as selected by Baylis and Daubney (1926). Tylelenchus Bastian, 1865, with type Tylenchus davainei Bastian, 1865, emend. de Man,. 1880, by operation of Article 30, rule (g) (i.e., the type of Tylenchus automatically becomes the type of Tylelenchus). 15. And finally we recommend that the species Vibrio tritici Stein- buch, 1799, and Tylenchus davainei Bastian, 1865, emend. de Man, 1880, be added to the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology. Type material of neither of these species is known to us to exist. References Bastian, H. C., 1865. ‘‘ Monograph on the Anguillulidae, or free nematoids, marine, land, and fresh water ; with descriptions of 100 new species ’’ Trans. linn. Soc. Lond. 25(2) : 73—184 Bauer, F., 1823. ‘* The Croonian lecture. Microscopical observations on the suspension of the muscular motions of the Vibrio tritici ”’ Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. Lond. 1 : 1—16 Baylis, H. A., and Daubney, R., 1926. A synopsis of the families and genera of Nematoda. London, xxxvi--277 pp. Chitwood, B. G., 1935. ‘‘ Nomenclatorial notes, I.’’ Proc. Helminth. Soc. Wash. 2(1) : 51—54 1950. An outline Classification of the Nematoda [Appendix to :| Chapt. Il. General structure of nematodes : 12—25 [of : Chitwood, B. G., and Chitwood, M. B., An Introduction to Nematology, sect. I, pt. 1, 2nd Ed.]. | de Man, J. G., 1880. ‘* Die einheimlischen, frei in der reinen Erde und im stssen Wasser lebenden Nematoden monographisch bearbeitet ’’ Tijdschr. nederl. Dierk. Vereen. 5(1/2) : 1—104 Filip’ev [Fuilipjev], I. N., 1936. ‘‘ On the classification of the Tylen- chinae ” Proc. Helminth. Soc. Wash. 3(2) : 80—82 Gervais, P., and van Beneden, P. J., 1859. Zoologie médicale. Exposé méthodique du régne animal... Vol. 2. viiit455 pp. Goodey, T., 1951. Soil and freshwater nematodes. A monograph. London and New York, xxvi+ 390 pp. Hemming, F., 1951a. “‘ On the nomenclatorial status of names published in 1777 in the Introductio ad historiam naturalem of Giovanni Antonio Scopoli”’ Bull. zool. Nomencl. 6(4) ; 122—125 OPINION 341 265 1951b. ‘* On the question whether it is desirable that the name Anguina Scopoli, 1777 (Class Nematoda) should be placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology in preference to such names as Anguillulina Gervais and Beneden, 1859, or Tylenchus Bastian, 1865 (a case possibly involving the use of Plenary Powers) : an appeal to specialists for advice ’’ ibid. 6(4) : 125—128 1952. The emendation of zoological names: an appeal to zoologists for advice, ibid. 7(1/2) : 4—60 International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, 1945. Opinion 160. On the status of the names Anguina Scopoh, 1777, Anguillulina Gervais and van Beneden, 1859, and Tylenchus Bastian, 1865 (Class Nematoda), Ops. Decls. int. Comm. zool. Nomencl, 2(30) : 291—306 Kuhn, J., 1857. ‘‘ Uber das Vorkommen von Anguillulen in erkrank- ten Blutenképfen von Dipsacus fullonum L.” Z. Wissen. Zool. 9(1) : 129—137 Linnaeus, C., 1767. Systema naturae per regna tria naturae, secundum classes, ordines, genera, species, cum characteribus, differentiis, synonymis, locis, 1(2) : 533—1327. Holmiae Micoletsky, H., 1922. ‘Die freilebenden Erd-Nematoden mit besonderer Berticksichtigung der Steiermark und der Bukowina, zugleich mit einer Revision samtlicher nicht mariner, freilebender Nematoden in Form von Genus-Beschreibungen un Bestim- mungsschliissen’’ Arch. Naturgesch. (1921) 87(8) : 1—320b ; (9) : 321—650 Scopoli, G. A., 1777. Introductio ad historiam naturalem sistens genera lapidum, plantarum, et animalium hactenus detecta, caracteri- bus essentialibus donata, in tribus divisa, subinde ad leges naturae. Pragae, 506 pp. Steinbuch, ie G., 1799. “Das Grasilchen Vibrio agrostis”’ Der Naturforscher 28 :233—259 Stiles, C. W., and Hassall, A., 1905. ‘“‘ The determination of generic types, and a list of roundworm genera, with their original and type species ” U.S. Bur. Anim. Ind. Bull. 79, 150 pp. Thorne, G., 1949. “ On the classification of the Tylenchida, new order (Nematoda, Phasmidia)” Proc. Helminth. Soc. Wash. 16(2) : See 9. Decision by the International Commission on the status of names published in 1777 in Scopoli’s ‘‘ Introductio ad Historiam naturalem’’?: In May 1952 the Commission started to vote (on Voting Paper V.P.(52)59) on the proposal submitted to it 266 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS in relation to the status of names published in 1777 in Scopoli’s Introductio ad Historiam naturalem to which reference has already been made (paragraph 1) (Hemming, 1951, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 6 : 122—125), and at the close of the Prescribed Voting Period it adopted a Ruling that in the foregoing work Scopoli duly applied the principles of binominal nomenclature and therefore that new names published in that work possess rights under the Law of Priority in view of having published therein. This decision has since been embodied in Opinion 329 (1954, Ops. Decls. int. Comm. zool. Nomencl. 9 : 309—320). This decision had an immediate effect upon the present case, for it established that the generic name Anguina Scopoli, 1777, the central name in the present case, is a name possessing rights under the Law of Priority. II.—THE DECISION OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 10. Issue of Voting Paper V.P.(54)15 : On 27th February 1954 a Voting Paper (V.P.(54)15) was issued in which the Members of the Commission were invited to vote either for, or against, the proposal “‘ relating to the name Anguina Scopoli, 1777, set out on the sheet annexed to the present Voting Paper’. The pro- posal so set out was that which appears in the Ruling given in the present Opinion. Annexed to the foregoing Voting Paper were copies of the documents received from the specialists who had assisted in furnishing advice in the present case. 11. The Prescribed Voting Period: As the foregoing Voting Paper was issued under the Three-Month Rule, the Prescribed Voting Period closed on 27th May 1954. OPINION 341 267 12. Particulars of the Voting on Voting Paper V.P.(54)15 : The state of the voting on Voting Paper V.P.(54)15 at the close of the Prescribed Voting Period was as follows :— (a) Affirmative Votes had been given by the following nineteen (19) Commissioners (arranged in the order in which Votes were received) : Hering; Holthuis; Vokes; Boschma; Riley; do Amaral ; Esaki; Lemche ; Sylvester-Bradley ; Dymond ; Hemming; Bonnet; Cabrera; Mertens; Pearson ; Jaczewski; Bradley (J. C.); Hanko; Stoll; (b) Negative Votes : None ; (c) Voting Papers not returned : None. 13. Declaration of Result of Vote: On 28th May 1954, Mr. Hemming, Secretary to the International Commission, acting as Returning Officer for the Vote taken on Voting Paper V.P.(54)15, signed a Certificate that the Votes cast were as set out in para- graph 12 above and declaring that the proposal submitted in the foregoing Voting Paper had been duly adopted and that the decision so taken was the decision of the International Commission in the matter aforesaid. 14. Preparation of the ruling given in the present ‘‘ Opinion ”’ : On 6th November 1954 Mr. Hemming prepared the Ruling given in the present Opinion and at the same time signed a Certificate that the terms of that Ruling were in complete accord with those of the proposal approved by the International Commission in its Vote on Voting Paper V.P.(54)15, 268 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 15. The following are the original references for the names placed on Official Lists and Official Indexes by the Ruling given in the present Opinion :— Anguillulina Gervais & van Beneden, 1859, Zool. med. 2 : 101 Anguina Scopohi, 1777, Introd. Hist. nat. : 374 davainii, Tylenchus, Bastian, 1865, Trans. linn. Soc. Lond. 25(2) : (an Invalid Original Spelling for davainei) tritici, Vibrio, Steinbuch, 1799, Naturforscher 28 : 251 Tylelenchus Bastian, 1865, Trans. linn. Soc. Lond. 25(2) : 82, 83, 94 (an Erroneous Original Spelling for Ty/enchus) Tylenchus Bastian, 1865, Trans. linn. Soc. Lond. 25(2) : 125—128 16. The following are the references to the type selections of genera referred to in the Ruling given in the present Opinion :— For Anguina Scopoli, 1777: selection by Chitwood, 1935, Proc. helminth. Soc. Wash. 2(1) : 53 For Tylenchus Bastian, 1865 : selection by Bastian, 1905, in Stiles & Hassall, Bull. U.S. Bur. Anim. Ind. 79 : 147 17. The acceptance in Ruling (4)(a) given in the present Opinion of Anguillulina Gervais & van Beneden, 1859, as a junior objective synonym of Anguina Scopoli, 1777, rests (a) upon the selection by Baylis & Daubney, 1926 (Synopsis Fam. Gen. Nemat. :66) of Vibrio tritici Stembuch, 1799, to be the type species of the genus Anguillulina Gervais & van Beneden, 1859, and (b) upon the fact that that species is also the type species, by selection by Chitwood (1935), of the genus Anguina Scopoli, 1777. 18. The application dealt with in the present Opinion was published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature prior to the establishment of the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology by the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology, Copenhagen, 1953. It has not been possible since then to deal with this aspect of the present case. This question is, however, now being examined on a separate File to which the Registered Number Z.N.(G.) 122 has been allotted. 19. At the time of the submission of the application dealt with in the present Opinion, the expression prescribed for the second OPINION 341 269 portion of the binomen which constitutes the scientific name of a species was the expression “ trivial name” and the Official List reserved for recording such names was styled the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology, the word “ trivial ” appearing also in the title of the Official Index reserved for recording rejected and invalid names of this category. Under a decision taken by the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology, Copenhagen, 1953, the expression “specific name” was sub- stituted for the expression “trivial name ” and corresponding changes were made in the titles of the Official List and Official Index of such names (1953, Copenhagen Decisions zool. Nomencl. :21). The changes in terminology so adopted have been incor- porated in the Ruling given in the present Opinion. 20. The prescribed procedures were duly complied with by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature in dealing with the present case, and the present Opinion is accordingly hereby rendered in the name of the said International Commission by the under-signed Francis Hemming, Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, in virtue of all and every the powers conferred upon him in that behalf. 21. The present Opinion shall be known as Opinion Three Hundred and Forty-One (341) of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Done in London, this Sixth day of November, Nineteen Hundred and Fifty-Four. Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature FRANCIS HEMMING i guy ’ aa wee | : y Paes, s 4 } : t t , 4 ae. 2? f . a La ‘ 4 > ? Ly . * : : 7 x tA) J 4 e ’ * 7 : ‘ ‘ t © F ve wet : Y b * . * 3 - ; tT. a 7 ‘ t . F Fi 2 : 4 Printed in England by Metcarre & Cooper Lure, OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTER- NATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Edited by. FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E. Secretary to the Commission VOLUME 10. Part 9. Pp. 271—298 ; 1 text-fig. OPINION 342 Designation, under the Plenary Powers, of type species for the nominal genera Lipeurus Nitzsch, 1818, Colpo- cephalum Nitzsch, 1818, and Gyropus Nitzsch, 1818 (Class Insecta, Order Mallophaga) in harmony with current nomenclatorial practice —=== 7 n\ Ths 30 Nig LE C. it iy \\ Ys “) ™ \ 4 JUI 25 ORR} J bows }3 Ee 4 Le fee / ; \ / Inn QY > ~~ l POTATN ~~ Ss a « att enn 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 1955 Price Fourteen Shillings and Sixpence (All rights reserved) Issued 17th June, 1955 INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE COMPOSITION AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THE RULING GIVEN IN OPINION 342 A. The Officers of the Commission Honorary Life President: Dr. Karl Jordan (British Museum (Natural History), Zoological Museum, Tring, Herts., England). President : (Vacant). Vice-President : Senhor Dr. Afranio do Amaral (Sao Paulo, Brazil). Secretary : Mr. Francis Hemming (London, England). B. The Members of the Commission (arranged in order of precedence by reference to date of election or of most recent re-election, as prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology). Senhor Dr. Afranio do AMARAL (S. Paulo, Brazil). (Vice-President) (1st January 1944). Professor J. R. DyYMOND (University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada) (Ast January 1944). Professor J. Chester BRADLEY (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) (28th March 1944). Professor Harold E. Voxes (Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, U.S.A.) (23rd April 1944). Dr. William Thomas CALMAN (Coulsdon, Surrey, England) (Ast January 1947). Professor Béla HANKO (Békéscsaba, Hungary) (1st January 1947). Dr. Norman R. SToL (Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, New York, N.Y., U.S.A.) (Ast January 1947). Professor H. BoscHMA (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The — Netherlands) (Ast January 1947). Senor Dr. Angel CABRERA (Eva Peron, F.C.N.G.R., Argentina) (27th July 1948). Mr. Francis HEMMING (London, England) (Secretary) (27th July 1948). Dr. Joseph PEARSON (Tasmanian Museum, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia) (27th July 1948). Dr. Henning LEMCHE (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark) (27th July 1948). Professor Teiso ESAK1 (Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan) (17th April 1950). Professor Pierre BONNET (Université de Toulouse, France) (9th June 1950). Mr. Norman Denbigh RiLey (British Museum (Natural History), London) (9th June 1950). Professor Tadeusz JACZEWSskKI (Department of Systematic Zoology, Warsaw University, Warsaw, Poland) (15th June 1950). Professor Robert MERTENS (Natur-Museum u. Forschungs-Institut Senckenberg, Frankfurt a. M., Germany) (Sth July 1950). Professor Erich Martin HERING (Zoologisches Museum der Humboldt-Universitat zu Berlin, Germany) (5th July 1950). OPINION 342 DESIGNATION, UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS, OF TYPE SPECIES FOR THE NOMINAL GENERA ‘*LIPEURUS ” NITZSCH, 1818, ‘*‘ COLPOCEPHALUM ”’ NITZSCH, 1818, AND ‘**‘ GYROPUS ” NITZSCH, 1818 (CLASS INSECTA, ORDER MALLOPHAGA) IN HARMONY WITH CURRENT NOMEN- CLATORIAL PRACTICE RULING :—(1) Under the Plenary Powers, all designa- tions, indications or selections of type species for the under-mentioned genera made prior to the present Ruling are hereby set aside and the species severally specified below are hereby designated to be the type species of the genera in question :— (a) To be the type species of Lipeurus Nitzsch, 1818, the nominal species Pediculus caponis Linnaeus, 1758, as defined by the neotype designated by Clay (T.), and Hopkins (G.H.E.), in the document reproduced in paragraph 13 of the present Opinion ; (b) To be the type species of Colpocephalum Nitzsch, 1818, the nominal species Colpocephalum zebra Burmeister, 1838 ; (c) To be the type species of Gyropus Nitzsch, 1818, the nominal species Gyropus ovalis Burmeister, 1838. (2) The under-mentioned generic names are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Nos. severally specified below :— (a) Lipeurus Nitzsch, 1818 (gender : masculine) (type species by designation, under the Plenary Powers, under (1)(a) above : Pediculus caponis Linnaeus, 1758, as defined by the neotype specified in (1)(a) above) (Name No. 849) ; (b) Colpocephalum Nitzsch, 1818 (gender : neuter) (type species, by designation, under the Plenary Powers, under (1)(b) above: Colpocephalum zebra Bur- meister, 1838) (Name No. 850) ; SH 15 1955 274 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS (c) Gyropus Nitzsch, 1818 (gender : masculine) (type species, by designation, under the Plenary Powers, under (1)(c) above: Gyropus ovalis Burmeister, 1838) (Name No. 851) ; (d) Actornithophilus Ferris, 1916 (gender : ~ masculine) (type species, by original designation : Colpo- cephalum uniseriatum Piaget, 1880) (Name No. oy): (e) Gliricola Mjéberg, Jan. 1910 (gender : masculine) (type species by original designation: Gyropus gracilis Nitzsch, 1818) (Name No. 853). (3) The under-mentioned specific names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Nos. severally specified below :— (a) caponis Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the com- bination Pediculus caponis, as defined by the neotype specified in (1)(a) above (specific name, by designation, under the Plenary Powers, under (1)(a) above, of type species of Lipeurus Nitzsch, 1818) (Name No. 456) ; (b) ovalis Burmeister, 1838, as published in the com- bination Gyropus ovalis (specific name of type species, by designation, under the Plenary Powers, under (1)(c) above, of Gyropus Nitzsch, 1818) (Name No. 457) ; (c) porcelli Schrank, 1781, as published in the com- bination Pediculus porcelli and as defined by the neotype designated by Clay (T.) and Hopkins (G.H.E.) (1954, Bull. Brit. Mus. (Nat. Hist.), Ent. 3(6) : 254) and figured as fig. 1 in paragraph 14 of the present Opinion (Name No. 458) ; (d) uniseriatum Piaget, 1880, as published in the com- bination Colpocephalum uniseriatum (specific name of type species of Actornithophilus Ferris, 1916) (Name No. 459) ; OPINION 342 ZS (e) zebra Burmeister, 1838, as published in the com- bination Colpocephalum zebra (specific name of type species, by designation, under the Plenary Powers, under (1)(b) above, of Colpocephalum Nitzsch, 1818) (Name No. 460). (4) The under-mentioned generic names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Nos. severally specified below :— (a) Gliricola Mjéberg, June 1910 (a junior homonym of, and a junior objective synonym of, Gliricola Myjoberg, January 1910) (Name No. 237) ; (b) Liperus Kellogg, 1902 (an Invalid Emendation of Lipeurus Nitzsch, 1818) (Name No. 238). (5) The under-mentioned specific name is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology with the Name No. 123 :—porcelli Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Pediculus porcelli (a nomen nudum). I.—THE STATEMENT OF THE CASE On 2nd June 1948 Mr. G. H. E. Hopkins (British Museum (Natural History), Zoological Museum, Tring, Herts, England) addressed a preliminary inquiry to the Commission in regard to the generic names Lipeurus, Colpocephalum, Gyropus and Eureum, all of Nitzsch, 1818 (Class Insecta, Order Mallophaga) and on 31st August of that year Mr. Hopkins submitted a formal applica- tion to the Commission in regard to these names. For the reasons explained in paragraph 3 of the present Opinion, it was necessary later for this application to be revised in certain respects and at the same time it was decided that the case of the name Eureum Nitzsch, 1818, be removed to form a separate 276 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS application. The application relating to the three other names, as so revised, was as follows :— Proposed use of the Plenary Powers to designate type species for the genera ‘* Lipeurus ’’ Nitzsch, 1818, ‘‘ Colpocephalum ’’ Nitzsch, 1818, and ‘‘ Gyropus ’’ Nitzsch, 1818 (Class Insecta, Order Mallophaga) in harmony with the generally accepted use of those names By G. H. E. HOPKINS, O.B.E., M.A. (British Museum (Natural History), Zoological Museum, Tring, Herts) The object of the present application is to ask the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to use its Plenary Powers to designate as the type species of the genera Lipeurus Nitzsch, 1818, Colpocephalum Nitzsch, 1818, and Gyropus Nitzsch, 1818 (Class Insecta, Order Mallophaga) the species universally accepted as such, thereby avoiding the very serious confusion which would inevitably result from the strict application of the Régles in these cases. The foregoing names were published in a paper entitled “ Die Familien und Gattungen der Thierinsekten . . . als ein Prodromus der Natur- geschichte derselben ’’ which appeared in 1818 in volume 3 of Germar’s Mag. Ent. for that year (Lipeurus on page 291 ; Colpocephalum on page 298 ; Gyropus on page 304). 2. Nitzsch (1818) published the descriptions of a number of genera and subgenera (the latter now all promoted to generic rank) of the Order Mallophaga (Class Insecta). In each instance he listed a number of names of included species, none of which was accompanied by descriptions though some of them had references to earlier descriptions under different names ; he did not designate a type species in any instance. Many of the species listed by Nitzsch were described by Burmeister (1838, Handb. Ent. 2), using Nitzsch’s material but apparently writing independent descriptions ; the rest were described by Giebel in a series of works between 1861 and 1874 ; Giebel attributed the names to Nitzsch and apparently borrowed the descriptions from the latter’s manuscript. 3. Subsequent authors, with the sole exception of Hopkins (1947, Entomologist 80 : 14—19) have either accepted all the trivial names published by Nitzsch in 1818 as being available from that date or have regarded all of them as nomina nuda, so far as the 1818 work is concerned. Actually, most of the names are nomina nuda, but those with references to previous descriptions are accompanied by an “indication”? within the meaning of Article 25 of the Régles, though most of them were 1 For the decision by the International Commission on the case of the name Eureum Nitzsch, 1818, see Opinion 343 (: 299—312 in the present volume). OPINION 342 277 entirely unnecessary and have since been relegated to synonymy. Failure to differentiate between these two classes of trivial names in Nitzsch’s 1818 work has led to invalid selections of type species for the three genera dealt with in the present application. In the remaining instances valid selections of type species either have been made or can still be made without any action on the part of the International Commission. In the case, however, of the names Lipeurus, Colpo- cephalum and Gyropus the subsequent selections of type species for these genera, though today universally accepted, are invalid under the Régles, and their rejection would inevitably involve serious changes in the nomenclature of the group, unless the International Commission sees fit to take action to avoid this. : (a) The type species of ‘‘ Lipeurus ”’ Nitzsch, 1818 4. Johnston and Harrison (1911, Proc. linn. Soc. N.S.W. 36 : 326) purported to select “‘ L. caponis Linn. (syn. L. variabilis N.)”’ as the type species of Lipeurus Nitzsch, 1818. Their action has been accepted by all subsequent authors, notably by Harrison (1916, Parasitology 9 : 22) and by Clay (1938 : 110) in her monograph of Lipeurus and related genera. WHarrison’s work of 1916 is the standard list of the Mallophaga and for all practical purposes the only one, since it is the most recent and also the only one in which any attempt is made to apply the principle of priority to the names. The selection made by Johnston and Harrison is invalid because Nitzsch (1818) did not mention caponis at all and mentioned variabilis (: 293) only as a nomen nudum, whereas other names listed by him in Lipeurus were accompanied by references to prior descriptions and are therefore available names. It is, of course, only from these available names that a type species for the genus can be selected without the use by the International Commission of its Plenary Powers. No valid type selection has as yet been made for this genus, but any such selection would inevitably result in the transfer of the name Lipeurus from the group that has always borne it since the original genus was divided by Harrison (1916 : 26) to a group that has never borne it since the same date, for none of the species with technically available names that were cited by Nitzsch in 1818 is congeneric with Pediculus caponis Linnaeus, 1758 (Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1: 614). Moreover, none of these species belongs to a group that is without a valid generic name. The change would be particularly unfortunate because Lipeurus caponis (Linnaeus) is a parasite of the domestic fowl and therefore is the subject, under that name, of a very extensive mass of economic literature. 5. The only means by which far-reaching confusion can be avoided is by the use by the International Commission of its Plenary Powers to give valid force to the (at present) invalid action by Johnson and Harrison in 1911. What is required, therefore, is that the International Commission should use its Plenary Powers to designate Pediculus caponis Linnaeus, 1758, to be the type species of the genus Lipeurus 278 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS Nitzsch, 1818. It would be well also if the International Commission, when taking this action, were expressly to define the species to which this name is applicable. There is no doubt as to the species to which Linnaeus applied the name Pediculus caponis, but some of the biblio- graphical references that he cited refer to other species. Schrank in 1803 (Fauna boic. : 193) was the first author to draw attention to these erroneous references. The best and most recent definition of Pediculus caponis is that published by Miss Theresa Clay in 1938 (Proc. zool. Soc. Lond. (B) 108°: 111—113, figs. 1, 2a, 2b, 3a). It is accordingly recommended that when this species is designated as the type species of Lipeurus Nitzsch, it should be defined by reference to Miss Clay’s paper, that the generic name Lipeurus Nitzsch should then be placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology, with the above species, defined as suggested, as its type species ; and that the trivial name caponis Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binominal combination Pediculus caponis, defined as suggested, should be placed on the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology. In order to avoid the risk of subsequent misunderstanding, it would be helpful if at the same time the International Commission were to place the invalid emendation Liperus Kellogg, 1902 (J. N. Y. ent. Soc. 10 : 22) on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. (b) The type species of ‘‘ Colpocephalum ”’ Nitzsch, 1818 6. Neumann (1906 : 58) selected Colpocephalum zebra Nitzsch, 1818, as the type species of the genus Colpocephalum Nitzsch, 1818. This selection has been followed by all subsequent writers, including Harrison in his list of the Mallophaga, to which reference has already been made (1916: 21) and Ferris (1924 Parasitology 16 : 59, fig. 2) in one of a series of papers in which he redescribed and figured the type species of some genera of the MENOPONIDAE. But Neumann’s type selection for this genus is invalid, for Nitzsch cited Colpocephalum zebra (1818 : 298) only as a nomen nudum ; it was not until 1838 that this specific name was published with a description by Burmeister (Handb. Ent. 2(2) : 438). On the other hand, Nitzsch (1818 : 299) did cite under the genus Colpocephalum one nominal species, Colpo- cephalum ochraceum Nitzsch, for which he provided an “ indication ”’ for the purposes of Article 25 of the Régles, by giving a reference to a previously published drawing. This species was the only one so cited by Nitzsch and is therefore the type species of Colpocephalum Nitzsch by monotypy. No subsequent writer has however so regarded this species. Nevertheless, a strict application of the Régles would result in the transfer of the name Colpocephalum from the group of species that includes Colpocephalum zebra Burmeister, 1838, to the genus now known by the name Actornithophilus Ferris, 1916 (Canad. Ent. 48 : 303), the type species of which, Colpocephalum uniseriatum Piaget, 1880 (Pédiculines : 562), is undoubtedly congeneric with Colpocephalum ochraceum Nitzsch, 1818. Not only have the zebra- group and the ochraceum-uniseriatum group borne the names Colpoce- OPINION 342 279 phalum and Actornithophilus respectively without disturbance since 1916, but both are large groups (Actornithophilus containing about 40 named species and Colpocephalum in the accepted sense a great many more). The confusion that would be caused by the transfer of the name Colpo- cephalum from the one group to the other would therefore be very great. Moreover, the change so involved would leave five generic names compounded with the word “ Colpocephalum’’ (namely Eucolpocephalum Bedford, 1930 (Rep. vet. Res. S. Afr. 16: 161). ' Neocolpocephalum Ewing, 1933 (J. Parasit. 20 : 65). Pseudocolpoce- phalum Qadri, 1936: Z. Parasitenk. 8 : 640). Allocolpocephalum Qadri, 1939 (ndian J. Ent. 1:66). Corvocolpocephalum Conci, 1942 (Bull. Soc. ent. ital. 74 : 30)) in a division of the family MENOPO- NIDAE to which the genus Colpocephalum would no longer belong. 7. The only way by which disastrous confusion can be avoided in this case is by the International Commission using its Plenary Powers to designate Colpocephalum zebra Burmeister, 1838, to be the type species of the genus Colpocephalum Nitzsch, 1818. In addition to giving a firm legal foundation for the current use of the generic name Colpoce- phalum, such a course would remove the danger to which the name Actornithophilus Ferris, 1916, is at present exposed ; it would be desirable that this latter name should be placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology at the same time that the name Colpoce- phalum Nitzsch, 1818 (with the type species specified above) is stabilised in this way. (c) The type species of ‘‘ Gyropus ’’ Nitzsch, 1818 8. When in 1818 (: 304) Nitzsch first published the generic name Gyropus, he cited under it only (1) Gyropus ovalis (a nomen nudum until first published twenty years later with a description by Burmeister in 1838) and (2) Gyropus gracilis (an unnecessary nomen novum for Pediculus porcelli Schrank, 1781 (Enum. Ins. Austr. indig. : 500, pl. 1, fig. 1). The nominal species Gyropus gracilis Nitzsch, 1818, is thus the type species of this genus by monotypy. 9. Harrison (1916 : 22) selected Gyropus ovalis Burmeister, 1838, as the type species of Gyropus Nitzsch, but that action was ultra vires, since (as shown above) Gyropus gracilis Nitzsch, 1818, has been the type species of this genus ever since the generic name Gyropus was first published in 1818. Nevertheless, Harrison’s type selection has been universally accepted in all works published since 1916, including Ewing’s monograph of the GYROPIDAE (1934) and Werneck’s mono- graph of the Mallophaga of South American mammals (Werneck, 1936 : 419). The latter is a work of high quality which deals with almost all the then known species of GYROPIDAE, but it has recently been superseded by a monograph by the same author of the mammal- infesting Mallophaga of the world (‘Os Maléfagos de Mamiferos. Parte 1: Amblycera e Ischnocera (Philopteridae e parte de Tricho- dectidae) ’’ published at Rio de Janeiro in 1948, in which Gyropus 280 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS ovalis Burmeister is still regarded as the type species of Gyropus Nitzsch. Under a strict application of the Régles, the name Gyropus Nitzsch would, however, have to be transferred to the genus at present known as Gliricola Mjoberg, 1910 (Zool. Anz. 35 : 292) (type species, by original designation : Gyropus gracilis Nitzsch, 1818), and which has been universally accepted ever since. It should be noted, in passing, that the name Gliricola appeared in the January issue of the Zoologischer Anzeiger (on the page noted above) but that later in the same year (llth June) another paper by Mjdberg was published (Ark. Zool. 6 (No. 13) : 18) in which the name Gliricola again appeared as a new name, once more with Gyropus gracilis Nitzsch as type species but this time by monotypy instead of (as in the earlier paper) by original designation. The Gliricola Mjéberg of the Ark. Zool. is both an objec- tive synonym, and a junior homonym, of the Gliricola of the Zool. Anz. and, in accordance with the Commission’s policy of disposing of invalid names, should now be placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names. 10. In addition to the arguments advanced in the preceding para- graph in favour of giving valid force to Harrison’s selection of Gyropus ovalis Burmeister, 1838, as the type species of the genus Gyropus Nitzsch, 1818, it may be noted that since 1910 there have been erected six genera with names compounded of the word “‘ Gyropus ”’ (namely Protogyropus Ewing, 1924 (Proc. U.S. nat. mus. 63 (Art. 20) : 7). Macrogyropus Ewing, 1924: 25. Allogyropus Ewing, 1924 : 20. Heterogyropus Ewing, 1924:27. Monogyropus Ewing, 1924 : 10. Tetragyropus Ewing, 1924 : 21), all of which would cease to be included in the subfamily GYROPINAE, if the change necessitated by the strict application of the Régles were to be made. 11. The foregoing changes in nomenclatorial usage would cause serious confusion, all the more so because both Gyropus ovalis Bur- meister, 1838, and Gliricola porcelli (Schrank, 1781) are parasites of the guinea-pig and, in consequence, are frequently mentioned in the literature of applied entomology. The only way by which these serious results can be avoided is by the International Commission deciding to use its Plenary Powers to designate Gyropus ovalis Bur- meister, 1838, to be the type species of the genus Gyropus Nitzsch, 1818, and to place Gyropus Nitzsch, 1818, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with Gyropus ovalis Burmeister, 1838, as type species. It would be desirable that at the same time the name Gliricola Mjoberg, 1910, which would thus be relieved of the danger which at present threatens it, should also be placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. 12. I further ask that, when the foregoing generic name Gyropus Nitzsch, 1818, is placed on the Official List of Generic Names, the trivial name of its type species, namely the trivial name ovalis Burmeister, 1838, as published in the binominal combination Gyropus ovalis, OPINION 342 281 should be placed on the Official List of Specific Trivial Names. In the case of Gliricola Mjéberg, 1910, it would not be appropriate to place on the foregoing Official List the trivial name of its type species, for (as already explained) the trivial name gracilis Nitzsch, 1818, as published in the binominal combination Gyropus gracilis, is a junior subjective synonym of the trivial name porcel/li Schrank, 1781, as published in the binominal combination Pediculus porcelli. It is there- fore the latter trivial name which should be placed on the Official List. In this connection, it must be noted that the name of the species now universally known as Gliricola porcelli has been commonly, though incorrectly, attributed to Linnaeus, owing to the specific name Pediculus porcelli having been published as a nomen nudum by Linnaeus in 1758 (Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 611) and again in 1767 (ibid. (ed. 12) 1(2) : 1017). What is required, therefore, is that the trivial name porcelli Schrank, 1781, as published in the binominal combination Pediculus porcelli, should be placed on the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology and that the nomen nudum porcelli Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binominal combination Pediculus porcelli, should be placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Trivial Names in Zoology. The figure given by Schrank for his Pediculus porcelli is quite reasonably good but it would nevertheless be convenient, if, when citing the name Pediculus porcelli Schrank in the decision on this case, the International Commission were at the same time to state that the nominal species in question is to be interpreted by the description and figures published in 1936 (Mem. Inst. Oswaldo Cruz 31 : 397—401, figs. 1—9), by Werneck (by whom however the name of this species was then attributed to Linnaeus), the interpretation so given being the best and most recent that has been published and in complete accord with universal nomenclatorial practice. (d) Conclusions and Recommendations 13. The considerations set forth in the preceding portions of the present application were put forward by the present applicant in a paper published in 1947, copies of which were distributed to all workers on Mallophaga with whom it was possible to establish contact, together with a request that the recipients should complete and return voting papers on the question whether application should be made to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature for the use of the Plenary Powers to such extent as might be necessary to ensure the retention of the names Lipeurus, Colpocephalum and Gyropus in the sense in which they are currently used and have been used ever since the genera were divided. 14. J. Bequaert (Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass., U.S.A.) and J. E. Webb (Aberdeen University, Scotland) voted against such application being made, both explaining in letters accompanying their voting papers, that they were opposed in principle to all suspensions of the Rules in such cases : with one exception, they are the only workers, 282 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS among those who replied, whose work on Mallophaga has lain wholly outside the field of systematics. 15. The following voted in favour of application being made to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature :— W. Biittiker (Zurich, Switzerland) T. Clay (London, England) W. Eichler (Berlin, Germany) K. C. Emerson (Stillwater, Oklahoma, U.S.A.) L. R. Guimaraes (Sao Paulo, Brazil) G. H. E. Hopkins (Tring, England) W. L. Jellison (Hamilton, Montana, U.S.A.) S. v. Kéler (Berlin, Germany) R. Meinertzhagen (London, England) E. O’Mahony (Dublin, Eire) G. B. Thompson (Kingston, Jamaica) F. L. Werneck (Rio de Janeiro, Brazil) 16. It seems worth emphasising that it would be useless to attempt to give a comprehensive list of the works in which the generic names under consideration have been used in the sense in which it is sought to retain them, because such a list would include every occasion on which these names have been used since the invalid selections of type species for them were made. No author has ever used any of these names in a published work in the sense in which the strict application of the Régles would require that they should be used. 17. For the reasons set forth in the present application, the Inter- national Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is requested :— (1) to use its Plenary Powers to set aside all indications or selections of type species for the under-mentioned nominal genera made prior to the decision now proposed to be taken, and, having done so, to designate as the type species of those genera the nominal species specified below :— Name of genus Species recommended to be designated as the type species of the genus specified in Col. (1) | (2) Lipeurus Nitzsch, 1818 Pediculus caponis Linnaeus, 1758 (as defined by Clay, 1938) Colpocephalum Nitzsch Colpocephalum zebra Burmeister, 1838? 1818 Gyropus Nitzsch, 1818 | Gyropus ovalis Burmeister, 1838? 2 As the result of an undetected printer’s error, the date ‘‘ 1818 ’’ was incorrectly attributed to the names Colpocephalum zebra Burmeister and Gyropus ovalis Burmeister in place of the date ‘‘ 1838’, where these names appeared in Point (1) in the concluding paragraph (: 60) of Mr. Hopkins’s application, when this paper was published in 1951 (see paragraph 4 of the present Opinion). OPINION 342 283 (2) to place the under-mentioned generic names on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology :— (a) the three generic names specified in (1) above, with the species there specified in Col. (2) as their respective type species ; (b) Actornithophilus Ferris, 1916 (type species, by original designation : Colpocephalum uniseriatum Piaget, 1880 (Pédiculines : 562, pl. 47, fig. 2) ; (c) Gliricola Myjoberg, 1910 (type species, by monotypy : Gyropus gracilis Nitzsch, 1818) ; (3) to place the under-mentioned trivial names on the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology :— (a) caponis Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binominal combination Pediculus caponis, as defined in Col. (2) of (1) above (trivial name of type species of Lipeurus Nitzsch, 1818) ; (b) ovalis Burmeister, 1838, as published in the binominal combination Gyropus ovalis (trivial name of type species of Gyropus Nitzsch, 1818) ; (c) porcelli Schrank, 1781, as published in the binominal combination Pediculus porcelli (as defined in 1936 by Werneck (by whom the name was attributed to Linnaeus)); (d) uniseriatum Piaget, 1880, as published in the binominal combination Colpocephalum uniseriatum (trivial name of type species of Actornithophilus Ferris, 1916) ; (ec) zebra Burmeister, 1838, as published in the binominal combination Colpocephalum zebra (trivial name of type species of Colpocephalum Nitzsch, 1818). (4) to place the under-mentioned names on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology :— (a) Gliricola Mjoberg, June 1910 (an objective synonym, and junior homonym, of Gliricola MjSberg, January 1910) ; (b) Liperus Kellogg, 1902 (an invalid emendation of Lipeurus Nitzsch, 1818) ; (5) to place the trivial name porcelli Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binominal combination Pediculus porcelli (a nomen nudum) on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Trivial Names in Zoology. 284 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS Il.—THE SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF THE CASE 2. Registration of the present application : On the receipt of Mr. Hopkins’s application, the question of the species to be accepted as the type species of the nominal genera of the Order Mallophaga discussed therein was allotted the Registered Number Z.N.<(S.) 343. 3. Revision of the application submitted in this case: At the time of the receipt of the present application, the Paris Session of the Commission had just closed, and the task of preparing the Official Records of that Session had already started. This occupied the whole of the resources of the Commission until 1950 when volumes 3, 4, and 5 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, the volumes devoted to these Records, were published. It was only then that it was possible to resume pre- parations for the publication of volumes of the Bulletin containing applications in regard to individual names submitted to the Commission for decision. Certain of the decisions taken by the Paris Congress—notably those concerned with the placing of names on Official Lists and Official Indexes—involved a certain amount of redrafting in the case of all applications at that time awaiting attention. The required revision of the present case was carried out in the early months of 1951. At the same time (as already explained), it was decided to treat as a separate application the proposals relating to the generic name Eureum Nitzsch, 1818, the problem involved in which differed somewhat from that presented by the three other names included in Mr. Hopkins’s application. Mr. Hopkins’s application, revised in the foregoing manner. was submitted on 17th April 1951. 4. Publication of the present application : The present applica- tion was sent to the printer at the end of April 1951 and was published on 28th September of that year in Part 2 of volume 6 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (Hopkins, 1951, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 6 : 54—60). 5. Issue of Public Notices: Under the revised procedure prescribed by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948 (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 51—56), Public Notice of the possible use by the International Commission on OPINION 342 285 Zoological Nomenclature of its Plenary Powers in the present case was given on 28th September 1951, both in Part 2 of volume 6 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (the Part in which Mr. Hopkins’s application was published) and also to the other prescribed serial publications. In addition, such Notice was given to certain entomological serial publications in Europe and America. 6. Support for the present application received prior to pub- lication: As explained by Mr. Hopkins in his application (para. 13), all workers in the Order Mallophaga with whom it was then possible to communicate were asked to express their views on the action proposed in this case. Of the total of thirteen specialists consulted, eleven supported the action proposed. These were: (1) W. Biuttiker (Zurich) ; (2) Miss Theresa Clay (London) ; (3) W. Eichler (Berlin); (4) K. C. Emerson (Stillwater, Oklahoma, U.S.A.) ; (5) L. R. Guimaraes (S. Paulo, Brazil); (6) W. L. Jellison (Hamilton, Montana, U.S.A.) ; (7) S. von Kéler (Berlin); (8) R. Meinertzhagen (London) ; (9) E. O’Mahony (Dublin); (10) G. B. Thompson (Kingston, Jamaica) ; (11) F. L. Werneck (Rio de Janeiro). 7. Objections received prior to publication : In the consultation described in the preceding paragraph, two of the thirteen specialists concerned expressed themselves as being opposed to the action suggested. These were: (1) J. Bequaert (Cambridge, Mass., U.S.A.) and (2) J. E. Webb (Aberdeen, Scotland), both of whom objected to the use of the Plenary Powers for any purpose. 8. Support received after publication from Dr. Ernst Mayr (American Museum of Natural History, New York): On 3lst October 1951, Dr. Ernst Mayr (then of the American Museum of Natural History, New York) addressed a letter to the Commission commenting upon a number of recently published applications, in which, as regards the present case, he indicated his support as follows (Mayr, 1951, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 6 : 210) :— As an ornithologist, I strongly endorse all of Mr. Hopkins’s pro- posals (1951, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 6 : 54—64) to stabilize the nomen- clature of the Mallophaga. 286 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS I1l—THE DECISION OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 9. Issue of Voting Paper V.P.(52)47: On 15th May 1952, a Voting Paper (V.P.(52)47) was issued in which the Members of the Commission were invited to vote either for, or against, the proposal “relating to the names Lipeurus, Colpocephalum, and Gyropus, all of Nitzsch, 1818, as set out in Points (1) to (5) at the foot of page 59 and on page 60 of volume 6 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature ’’? [i.e., in paragraph 17 of the applica- tion reproduced in the first paragraph of the present Opinion]. 10. The Prescribed Voting Period: As the foregoing Voting Paper was issued under the Three-Month Rule, the Prescribed Voting Period closed on 15th August 1952. 11. Particulars of the Voting on Voting Paper V.P.(52)47 : The state of the voting on Voting Paper V.P.(52)47 at the close of the Prescribed Voting Period was as follows :— (a) Affirmative Votes had been given by the following seventeen (17) Commissioners (arranged in the order in which Votes were received) : Riley ; Hering ; Calman; Dymond ; Hanko ; Bonnet ; Vokes ; do Amaral; Pearson; Bradley; Hemming ; Esaki ; Lemche ; Mertens ; Cabrera ; Stoll ; Boschma ; (b) Negative Votes : None ; (c) Voting Paper not returned, one (1): Jaczewsk1. 8 As explained in footnote 2, through a printer’s error incorrect dates were given for the names Colpocephalum zebra Burmeister and Gyropus ovalis Burmeister, when this application was published in the Bulletin. A note drawing attention to, and correcting, this error was inserted in Voting Paper V.P.(52)47. eee: OPINION 342 287 12. Declaration of Result of Vote : On 16th August 1952, Mr. Hemming, Secretary to the International Commission, acting as Returning Officer for the Vote taken on Voting Paper V.P.(52)47, signed a Certificate that the Votes cast were as set out in para- graph 11 above and declaring that the proposal submitted in the foregoing Voting Paper had been duly adopted and that the decision so taken was the decision of the International Com- mission in the matter aforesaid. 13. Designation by Miss Theresa Clay and Mr. G. H. E. Hopkins of a neotype for the nominal species ‘** Pediculus caponis ”’ Linnaeus, 1758 : When in 1954 Mr. Hemming, as Secretary, came to prepare an Opinion giving effect to the decision taken by the Commission in its vote on Voting Paper V.P.(52)47, he found that in one respect the situation had been changed as the result of the decision of the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology, Copenhagen, 1953, to recognise neotypes as a class of type specimen. This problem arose, first, in connection with the nominal species Pediculus caponis Linnaeus, 1758, as regards which, it will be recalled, Mr. Hopkins had asked the Commission to direct that this nominal species was to be identified by reference to the figures of specimens of that species contained in a paper by Miss Theresa Clay published in 1938 (Proc. zool. Soc. Lond. (B) 108 : 111—113, figs. 1, 2a, 2b, 3a). This, with the other pro- posals submitted by Mr. Hopkins, had been approved by the Commission in its vote on the Voting Paper referred to above. When this case was reviewed in 1954, it was evident that the form of this proposal required re-examination, since it amounted, in effect, to a recommendation in favour of the recognition of two or more specimens as joint neotypes for the foregoing nominal species. Accordingly, on 30th April 1954, Mr. Hemming entered into correspondence with Mr. Hopkins (as the applicant in the present case) and with Miss Theresa Clay (as the specialist whose paper it had been decided should provide the means for securing an unequivocal identification of the nominal species Pediculus caponis Linnaeus). This correspondence showed that the four figures cited above which had been cited from Miss Clay’s paper of 1938 were drawn from different specimens and therefore that for the purpose of giving effect to the request put to, and approved by, the Commission, it was now necessary to select one 288 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS only of the specimens concerned to be the unique standard of reference for the foregoing species. Miss Clay and Mr. Hopkins took the view that of the four figures concerned the most suitable was the figure of a male specimen numbered “ la ” in the former’s paper of 1938, and they accordingly agreed that the best course would be if Miss Clay were to designate the specimen so figured to be the neotype of the foregoing species, so that by this means the Commission could link that species, both with a published figure and with an actual specimen. Accordingly, on 17th May 1954 Miss Clay wrote the following letter to the Commission, enclosing a note containing a designation of the specimen referred to above to be the neotype of Pediculus caponis Linnaeus, 1758 :— Letter dated 17th May 1954 from Miss Theresa Clay (British Museum (Natural History) London) Many thanks for your letter Z.N.(S.) 343 of 13th May on the form of the action to be taken by the Commission to give effect to its decision to approve the proposal submitted to it by Mr. Hopkins that it should prescribe a definite means for identifying Lipeurus caponis (Linnaeus, 1758). I have discussed this matter with Mr. Hopkins and we are agreed that the best course will be for me to designate as the neotype of this species one of the specimens represented in the figures in my paper of 1938 which were cited by Mr. Hopkins in his application to the Commission. We are agreed that the most suitable of these specimens will be that which was illustrated as figure la of my paper. I enclose a note containing a designation of that specimen to be the neotype of this species. Enclosure to Miss Clay’s letter of 17th May 1954 Designation of a neotype for the nominal species ** Pediculus caponis *? Linnaeus, 1758 The following specimen is here selected to be, and is designated as, the neotype of Lipeurus caponis (Linnaeus, 1758) (=Pediculus caponis Linnaeus, 1758) :—the male specimen figured as figure la by Clay (T.) in 1938 (Proc. zool. Soc. Lond. (B) 108 : 112, fig. 1a). The neotype here designated is in the Meinertzhagen Collection (Registered Number B.M.1951-171) in the British Museum (Natural History) on Slide No. 4930. The above slide bears the following labels :— (1) Identification label with “‘ Neotype”’ printed in red and “ Type No. 621”. OPINION 342 289 (2) Museum Registration label “ B.M.1951-171”’. (3) Host label headed “‘ Meinertzhagen ”’ with the following data :— ** Gallus domesticus, Suffolk, August 1936. 4930a”’. See also Clay (T.) and Hopkins (G.H.E.), 1950 (Bull. Brit. Mus: (nat. Hist.), Ent. 1(3) : 262) for a discussion on the interpretation of the original description of Pediculus caponis Linnaeus as representing the species to which the above neotype belongs. 14. Designation by Miss Theresa Clay of a neotype for the nominal species ‘°° Pediculus porcelli’’ Schrank, 1781: The situation in regard to the determination of the nominal species Pediculus porcelli Schrank, 1781, at the time of the preparation of the Opinion relating to this case was very similar to that which, as described in the immediately preceding paragraph, then arose i connection with the determination of the nominal species Pediculus caponis Linnaeus, 1758. In the present case Mr. G. H. E. Hopkins in the application which he had submitted to the Commission in 1948 had asked the Commission to direct, inter alia, that the nominal species Pediculus porcelli Schrank should be interpreted by reference to a description and nine figures pub- lished by Werneck in 1936. This proposal had been approved by the Commission in its vote taken in 1952 but, when in 1954 Mr. Hemming came to prepare the present Opinion, he took the view that that decision had been rendered obsolete by the decision taken by the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology at Copenhagen in 1953 to recognise neotypes as a category of type specimen. Moreover, in a paper written before the Copenhagen Congress but not published until 1954 Miss Theresa Clay (British Museum (Natural History), London) and Mr. G. H. E. Hopkins (British Museum (Natural History), Zoological Museum, Tring, Herts), the original applicant in the present case, had jointly selected a male specimen in the Meinertzhagen Collection in the British Museum (Natural History) to be the neotype of this species. Mr. Hemming accordingly entered into correspondence with Miss Clay and Mr. Hopkins for the purpose of securing an agreed revision of the proposal submitted to the Commission by the latter in 1948. 290 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS Fig. 1. Gliricola porcelli (Schrank, 1781) (=Pediculus porcelli Schrank, 1781) : Male genitalia (x40) of neotype designated by Clay (T.) and Hopkins (G.H.E.), 1954, Bull. Brit. Mus. (Nat. Hist.), Ent. 3(6) : 254. OPINION 342 291 This consultation led to the following letter being addressed to Mr. Hemming by Miss Clay on 16th June 1954 :— Letter dated 16th June 1954 from Miss Theresa Clay (British Museum (Natural History)) Mr. Hopkins and I have considered the questions relating to the identification of the nominal species Pediculus porcelli Schrank, 1781, raised in your letter to us of 22nd May last and we are of the opinion that the best course would be to treat as having been withdrawn Mr. Hopkins’s original proposal that the Commission should direct that the above species be identified by reference to the description and figures published by Werneck in 1936 and that, in place of so doing, it should direct that this species be identified by reference to the neotype which we designated in our paper published at the beginning of this year (Clay & Hopkins, 1954, Bull. Brit. Mus. (Nat. Hist.), Ent. 3(6) : 254). The neotype which we designated for this species is in the collection of the British Museum (Natural History) and bears a red-bordered neotype label. It is also labelled “ Type No. 584 ” and has the follow- ing Host Label :—“‘‘ Cavia porcellus. Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. B.M. 1954-390. F.L.W[erneck].”’ I enclose a figure which Mr. Hopkins has had drawn from the neotype. This shows, he considers, the most diagnostic part of the animal. 15. Submission to the Commission of revised proposals for the determination of the identity of the nominal species ‘‘ Pediculus caponis *’ Linnaeus, 1758, and ‘* Pediculus porcelli ’’ Schrank, 1781 : On 9th July 1954 Mr. Hemming submitted to the Com- mission the following paper in which he reported the developments in regard to the determination of the nominal species Pediculus caponis Linnaeus, 1758, and Pediculus porcelli Schrank, 1781, described respectively in paragraphs 13 and 14 of the present Opinion and submitted revised proposals in regard to these matters :— Proposed minor modification of a decision taken in regard to the identification of the type species of two genera of the Order Mallophaga (Class Insecta) dealt with in Voting Paper V.P.(52)47, dated 15th May 1952 By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E., Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature The present note is designed to draw the attention of the Commission to two minor respects in which the situation has changed since it voted 292 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS on Voting Paper V.P.(52)47 in May, 1952, in regard to certain generic names in the Order Mallophaga (Class Insecta). Of the generic names then voted upon, the present note is concerned with two only, namely, Lipeurus Nitzsch, 1818, and Gyropus Nitzsch, 1818. 2. The application in this case was submitted by Mr. G. H. E. Hopkins (British Museum (Natural History), Zoological Museum, Tring, Herts., England), in association with Miss Theresa Clay (British Museum (Natural History), London). This application was published in volume 6 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (pp. 54—60), a copy of this volume is in the possession of all members of the Com- mission and it is therefore not necessary to restate in detail the issues raised in Mr. Hopkins’s application. 3. The point to which it is necessary to call attention is that in the case of the genera referred to above, the Commission not only (a) used its Plenary Powers to designate for each of them a type species in harmony with accustomed usage, but in addition (b) gave directions as to the manner in which the nominal species so designated were to be interpreted. The directions so given were as follows :— (1) The nominal species ‘‘ Pediculus caponis’’ Linnaeus, 1758, designated by the Commission to be the type species of ** Lipeurus’’ Nitzsch, 1818 The Commission directed that the foregoing nominal species was to be interpreted by reference to the description and figures given in a paper by Miss T. Clay published in 1938 (Clay, 1938, Proc. zool. Soc. Lond. (B) 108 : 111—113, fies: 1) 2a,"2b, 3a): (2) The nominal species *‘ Pediculus porcelli”’ Schrank, 1781. The Commission directed that the above nominal species was to be interpreted by reference to the description and figures given in a paper by Werneck published in 1936. The description and figures cited were those in Werneck’s paper in Mem. Inst. Oswaldo Cruz 31 : 397—401, figs. 1—9. 4. It is agreed that the foregoing figures define correctly the currently accepted concept of the foregoing species. But, as they represent more than one specimen or parts of more than one specimen, their designation, as proposed in the original application in this case, cannot provide an absolutely unshakable standard for the identification of these species. This was unavoidable at the time when Mr. Hopkins’s application was prepared, for at that date no legal recognition had been given to the concept of neotypes. It was OPINION 342 295 the decision of the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology, Copenhagen, 1953, to include provisions in the Régles recognising this category of type specimen which completely altered the position in the foregoing matter. | 5. In April, 1954, I reached the stage at which it was necessary to consider the wording to be adopted in the Ruling to be incorporated in the Opinion giving effect to the decision taken by the Commission in its vote on Voting Paper V.P.(52)47. This led into correspondence between myself and Mr. Hopkins and Miss Clay, as the result of which those authorities have now designated a neotype for each of the nominal species discussed above. Both the neotypes so designated are in the British Museum (Natural History) and each has been given a neotype label, particulars of which, together with particulars of the other labels affixed to the specimen concerned, have been furnished to this Office. The following particulars, abstracted from the information supplied by Mr. Hopkins and Miss Clay, show the relation of the specimens now selected as neotypes to the bibliographical references which in the original application it was proposed should be adopted as the standard of reference for the identification of the two species con- cerned :— (1) Pediculus caponis Linnaeus, 1758 : As will have been noted from paragraph 3(1) above, the original proposal was that the identification of this species should be based upon four figures given in Miss Clay’s paper of 1938. The neotype now selected is not one of the specimens or parts of specimens illustrated in the foregoing figures, as none of those specimens was considered suitable for designation as a neotype. The neotype so designated is however one of the specimens figured in the foregoing paper. It is a complete specimen which can be identified with certainty which was figured as fig. la in the paper referred to above. (2) Pediculus porcelli Schrank, 1781 : Werneck’s figures which, as explained in paragraph 3(2) above, it was proposed to take as the basis for the identification of this nominal species were, Mr. Hopkins has reported, based upon at least three specimens, some mounted and some unmounted. Mr. Hopkins added that, as Werneck’s figures were “ slightly diagrammatic, it would be quite impossible to tell by comparison with his specimens which was the one used for any individual drawing’. In a paper written before, but published after, the Copenhagen Congress, Miss Clay and Mr. Hopkins designated as an unofficial neotype a specimen received from Werneck and identified by him as being Pediculus porcelli Schrank (Clay & Hopkins, 1954, Bull. Brit. Mus. (Nat. Hist.) Ent. 3(6) : 254). 294 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS In the foregoing paper the authors did not describe or figure the neotype which they there designated, considering it sufficient to record that it agreed in all respects with the description and figures given by Werneck in his 1936 paper. As the result of the recent correspondence between the authors and myself, the former have now supplied a drawing of the male genitalia of the neotype which they selected in the paper referred to above. (it is proposed to reproduce this figure in the Opinion relating to the present case).* 6. It will be seen from the particulars given in the foregoing summary that the neotypes for Pediculus caponis Linnaeus and Pediculus porcelli Schrank designated by Miss Clay and Mr. Hopkins are drawn from material closely related to that which in the original application the last-named author asked should be taken as the standard of reference for these species. The designation, as here, of a single specimen, located in the collection of a National Museum and clearly marked in that Institution as the neotype constitutes a far superior method of providing a basis for the identification of a given species than does the designation of a published description and a group of figures drawn from a number of different specimens. Mr. Hopkins and Miss Clay now ask that the portion of the original application by the first-named author in which the Commission was asked to define the nominal species Pediculus caponis Linnaeus, 1758, and Pediculus porcelli Schrank, 1781, by reference to certain specified descriptions and figures should be replaced by a request that the foregoing nominal species should be defined by reference to the neotypes discussed in paragraph 5 above. The decision of the Copenhagen Congress to extend official recognition to the concept of neotypes renders possible a much more satisfactory solution of the present case than was previously obtainable, and it is accordingly recommended that the supplementary proposal submitted by Mr. Hopkins and Miss Clay should be approved. 7. The concrete proposal now submitted for approval is that the Commission should revise the decision taken by it in this case in 1952 by substituting a decision that the nominal species Pediculus caponis Linnaeus, 1758, and Pediculus porcelli Schrank, 1781, shall be defined by the neotypes respectively referred to in paragraph 5 above, which have been designated therefor by Mr. Hopkins and Miss Clay, in place of the decision that those species shall be defined by certain descriptions and figures published, as regards the former species in 1938 in a paper by Miss Clay and, as regards the latter, in 1936 in a paper by Werneck. 16. Issue of Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(54)16 : On 9th July 1954 a Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(54)16 was issued in which the 4 See text-figure on page 290 of the present Opinion. OPINION 342 295 Members of the Commission were invited to vote either for, or against, “the supplementary proposal in relation to the deter- mination of the nominal species Pediculus caponis Linnaeus, 1758, and Pediculus porcelli Schrank, 1781, specified in paragraph 7 of the paper by the Secretary numbered Z.N.(S.) 343 submitted simultaneously with the present Voting Paper ” [i.e., in paragraph 7 of the paper reproduced in paragraph 15 of the present Opinion]. 17. The Prescribed Voting Period for Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.) (54)16: As the foregoing Voting Paper was issued under the One-Month Rule, the Prescribed Voting Period was due to close on 9th August 1954. In view, however, of doubts which arose on the question whether two Members of the Commission (Bradley (J.C.) ; Dymond (J.R.)) had duly received the Voting Papers issued to them, the Secretary gave directions that the Voting Period should be extended for a period sufficient to enable the Commissioners concerned to record their Votes on the duplicate Voting Papers then issued to them. Ultimately, the Voting Period in this case was closed on 11th September 1954. 18. Particulars of the Voting on Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.) (54)16 : At the close of the Voting Period as extended by direction of the Secretary to 11th September 1954 (paragraph 17 above), the State of the voting on Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(54)16 was as follows :— (a) Affirmative Votes had been given by the following seventeen (17) Commissioners (arranged in the order in which Votes were received)? : Holthuis; Hering; Esaki: Lemche ; Hemming ; Mertens ; Bonnet ; Jaczewski; Boschma ; do Amaral ; Riley ; Pearson ; Vokes ; Cabrera ; Stoll ; Bradley (J.C.) ; Dymond ; 5 The following zoologists who were Members of the International Commission at the time of the issue of Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(54)16 were not Members of the Commission at the time of the issue of Voting Paper V.P.(52)47 :— Mr. P. C. Sylvester-Bradley (Sheffield University, Sheffield, England) Dr. L. B. Holthuis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) 296 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS (b) Negative Votes, one (1): Sylvester-Bradley ; (c) Voting Paper not returned, one (1) : Hanko. 19. Declaration of Result of Vote : On 11th September 1954, Mr. Hemming, Secretary to the International Commission, acting as Returning Officer for the Vote taken on Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(54)16, signed a Certificate that the Votes cast were as set out in paragraph 18 above and declaring that the proposal submitted in the foregoing Voting Paper had been duly adopted and that the decision so taken was the decision of the International Commission in the matter aforesaid. 20. Preparation of the Ruling given in the present ‘‘ Opinion ”’ : On 7th November 1954 Mr. Hemming prepared the Ruling given in the present Opinion and at the same time signed a Certificate that the terms of that Ruling were in complete accord with those of the proposal approved by the International Com- mission in its Vote on Voting Paper V.P.(52)47, as amended by its vote on Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(54)16. 21. The following is the gender of the generic names placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology by the Ruling given in the present Opinion: (1) Masculine gender: (a) Actornithophilus Ferris, 1916; (b) Gliricola Mjoberg, 1910 ; (c) Gyropus Nitzsch, 1818; (d) Lipeurus Nitzsch, 1818; (2) Neuter gender: Colpocephalum Nitzsch, 1818. 22. The following are the original references for the names placed on Official Lists and Official Indexes in the Ruling given in the present Opinion :— Actornithophilus Ferris, 1916, Canad. Ent. 48 : 303 caponis, Pediculus, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 614 OPINION 342 297 Colpocephalum Nitzsch, 1818, Mag. Ent. (Germar) 3 : 298 Gliricola Mjoberg, January 1910, Zool. Anz. 35 : 292 Gliricola Mjéberg, June 1910, Ark. Zool. 6 (No. 13) : 18 Gyropus Nitzsch, 1818, Mag. Ent. (Germar) 3 : 282, 302-304 Liperus Kellogg, 1902, J.N.Y. ent. Soc. 10 : 22 Lipeurus Nitzsch, 1818, Mag. Ent. (Germar) 3 : 292 -ovalis, Gyropus, Burmeister, 1838, Handb. Ent. 2 (2) : 443 porcelli, Pediculus, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 611 porcelli, Pediculus, Schrank, 1781, Enum. Ins. Austr. indig. : 500, ples lo tie::1 uniseriatum, Colpocephalum, Piaget, 1880, Pédiculines : 562, pl. 47, fig. 2 zebra, Colpocephalum, Burmeister, 1838, Handb. Ent. 2 (2) : 438. 23. The application dealt with in the present Opinion was published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature prior to the establishment of the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology by the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology, Copenhagen, 1953. It has not been possible since then to deal with this aspect of the present case. This question is, however, now being examined on a separate File to which the Registered Number Z.N.(G.) 122 has been allotted. 24. At the time of the submission of the application dealt with in the present Opinion the expression prescribed for the second portion of the binomen which constitutes the scientific name of a species was the expression “trivial name” and the Official List reserved for recording such names was styled the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology, the word “ trivial ”’ appearing also in the title of the Official Index reserved for recording rejected and invalid names of this category. Under a decision taken by the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology, Copenhagen, 1953, the expression “specific name ’”’ was substituted for the expression “trivial name” and corres- ponding changes were made in the titles of the Official List and Official Index of such names (1953, Copenhagen Decisions zool. Nomencl. : 21). The changes in terminology so adopted have been incorporated in the Ruling given in the present Opinion. 298 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 25. The prescribed procedures were duly complied with by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature in dealing with the present case, and the present Opinion is accordingly hereby rendered in the name of the said International Commission by the under-signed Francis Hemming, Secretary to the Inter- national Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, in virtue of all and every the powers conferred upon him in that behalf. 26. The present Opinion shall be known as Opinion Three Hundred and Forty-Two (342) of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. DONE in London, this Seventh day of November, Nineteen Hundred and Fifty-Four. Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature FRANCIS HEMMING Printed in England by Metcatre & Cooper LimiTeEp, 10-24 Scrutton St., London EC 2 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTER- NATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZQVOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Edited by FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E. Secretary to the Commission VOLUME 10. Part 10. Pp. 299—312 OPINION 343 Designation of a type species for the nominal genus Eureum Nitzsch, 1818 (Class Insecta, Order Mallophaga) in harmony with accustomed nomenclatorial usage GannN et 26 1055 ]) bala /p 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 1955 Price Seven Shillings (All rights reserved) Issued 17th June, 1955 INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE COMPOSITION AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THE RULING GIVEN IN OPINION 343 A. The Officers of the Commission Honorary Life President: Dr. Karl Jordan (British Museum (Natural History), Zoological Museum, Tring, Herts., England). President : (Vacant). Vice-President : Senhor Dr. Afranio do Amaral (Sao Paulo, Brazil). Secretary : Mr. Francis Hemming (London, England). -B. The Members of the Commission (arranged in order of precedence by reference to date of election or of most recent re-election, as prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology). Senhor Dr. Afranio do AMARAL (S. Paulo, Brazil) (Vice-President) (Ast January 1944). Professor J. R. DyMOND (University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada) (\st January 1944). Professor J. Chester BRADLEY (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) (28th March 1944). Professor Harold E. Voxes (Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, U.S.A.) (23rd April 1944). Dr. William Thomas CALMAN (Coulsdon, Surrey, England) (Ast January 1947). Professor Béla HANKO (Békéscsaba, Hungary) (1st January 1947). Dr. Norman R. STOLL (Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, New York, N.Y., U.S.A.) (Ast January 1947). Professor H. BoscHMA (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) (Ast January 1947). Senor Dr. Angel CABRERA (Eva Peron, F.C.N.G.R., Argentina) (27th July 1948). Mr. Francis HEMMING (London, England) (Secretary) (27th July 1948). Dr. Joseph PEARSON (Tasmanian Museum, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia) (27th July 1948). Dr. Henning LEMCHE (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark) (27th July 1948). Professor Teiso Esaki (Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan) (17th April 1950). Professor Pierre BONNET (Université de Toulouse, France) (9th June 1950). Mr. Norman Denbigh RILEY (British Museum (Natural History), London) (9th June 1950). Professor Tadeusz JACZEWSKI (Department of Systematic Zoology, Warsaw University, Warsaw, Poland) (15th June 1950). ) Professor Robert MERTENS (Natur-Museum u. Forschungs-Institut Senchenters Frankfurt a. M., Germany) (5th July 1950). Professor Erich Martin HERING (Zoologisches Museum der Humboldt-Universitat zu Berlin, Germany) (5th July 1950). OPINION 343 DESIGNATION OF A TYPE SPECIES FOR THE NOMINAL GENUS ‘*“* EUREUM ” NITZSCH, 1818 (CLASS INSECTA, ORDER MALLOPHAGA) IN HARMONY WITH ACCUSTOMED NOMENCLATORIAL USAGE RULING :—(1) Under the Plenary Powers, (a) all type selections for the nominal genus Eureum Nitzsch, 1818 (Class Insecta, Order Mallophaga) made prior to the present Ruling are hereby set aside, and (b) Eureum cimicoides Burmeister, 1838, is hereby designated as the type species of the foregoing genus. (2) The under-mentioned generic names are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Nos. 854 to 856 :—(a) Eureum Nitzsch, 1818 (gender : neuter) (type species, by designation, under the Plenary Powers, under (1)(b) above : Eureum cimi- coides Burmeister, 1838) ; (b) Hirundoecus Ewing, 1930 (gender : masculine) (type species, by original designa- tion : Hirundoecus americanus Ewing, 1930) (for use by those specialists who regard the type species of this genus as not being congeneric with Machaerilaemus latifrons _ Harrison, 1915, the type species of Machaerilaemus Harrison, 1915); (c) Machaerilaemus Harrison, 1915 (gender : masculine) (type species, by original designa- tion : Machaerilaemus latifrons Harrison, 1915). (3) The under-mentioned specific names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Nos. 461 to 464 respectively :—(a) cimi- coides Burmeister, 1838, as published in the combination Eureum cimicoides (specific name of type species, by designation under the Plenary Powers under (1)(b) above of Eureum Nitzsch, 1818) ; (b) malleum Burmeister, 1838, as published in the combination Eureum malleum ; (c) americanus Ewing, 1930, as published in the com- bination Hirundoecus americanus (specific name of type species of MHirundoecus Ewing, 1930); (d) Jatifrons Harrison, 1915, as published in the combination Macha- erilaemus latifrons (specific name of type species of Machaerilaemus Harrison, 1915). ML 151955 302 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS (4) The under-mentioned generic names or reputed generic names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Nos. 239 and 240 respectively :—(a) Arndtiella Eichler, [1946] (a junior objective synonym of Eureum Nitzsch, 1818, as defined under the Plenary Powers under (1)(b) above) ; (b) Arndtiella Eichler, 1948 (a junior homonym of Arndtiella Eichler, 1946, and a junior objective synonym of Eureum Nitzsch, 1818, as defined under the Plenary Powers under (1)(b) above). I.—THE STATEMENT OF THE CASE The name Eureum Nitzsch, 1818, was one of a number of generic names in the Order Mallophaga (Class Insecta) which formed the subject of a preliminary inquiry addressed to the Commission by Mr. G. H. E. Hopkins (British Museum (Natural — History), Zoological Museum, Tring, Herts, England) on 2nd June 1948. On 3lst August of the same year Mr. Hopkins submitted a formal application to the Commission in regard to these names. For the reasons explained in paragraph 3 below it became necessary at a later date somewhat to revise the form of the application submitted. The application, so revised, in so far as it related to the generic name Eureum Nitzsch, 1818, was as follows :— Proposed use of the Plenary Powers to designate a type species for the genus ‘‘ Kureum ’’ Nitzsch, 1818 (Class Insecta, Order Méallo- phaga) in harmony with current nomenclatorial practice By G. H. E. HOPKINS, O.B.E., M.A. (British Museum (Natural History), Zoological Museum, Tring, Herts) The object of the present application is to ask the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to give a ruling, if necessary under the Plenary Powers, that Eureum cimicoides Burmeister, 1838 a) OPINION 343 303 (Handb. Ent. 2 (2) : 441) is the type species of the genus Eureum Nitzsch, 1818 (in Germar’s Mag. Ent. 3 : 301), in order to prevent the serious confusion which would arise if, as has been argued by Eichler, it were necessary under the Régles to accept Eureum malleum Burmeister, 1838 (loc. cit. 2 : 441) as the type species of this genus. The facts of this case are set out in the following paragraphs. 2. In 1818 (: 301) Nitzsch published the generic name Eureum' ; he gave an indication for this name, thereby making it available under the Article 25, but he cited under it only two nomina nuda, namely Eureum cimicoides and Eureum malleum. This nominal genus is thus one established without any included nominal species. Accordingly, up to 1948 it would have been necessary to apply the ruling given in Opinion 46 in order to determine what is the type species of this genus. Fortunately, however, it is no longer necessary to attempt this difficult operation, for in 1948 the International Congress of Zoology (on the advice of the International Commission) substituted clear and self-consistent provisions for the, in part, self-contradictory ruling given in the foregoing Opinion (see 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 159— 160, 346). Under this ruling, we have first to ascertain when this generic name was first subsequently used by an author who cited under it nominal species, the names of which had been validly published with an indication, definition or description, the nominal species so cited being, under the foregoing ruling by the Congress the only species to be treated as being originally included species and therefore, where more than one such species is so cited, as the only species eligible to be selected by a later author as the type species of this genus. 3. The first occasion on which any validly described nominal species were clearly referred to the genus Eureum Nitzsch, 1818, was in 1838, when Burmeister (2 : 441) published descriptions of two nominal Species, Eureum cimicoides and Eureum malleum (using, it will be noted, the two specific names cited as nomina nuda in 1818 by Nitzsch, whose material was before Burmeister when he published these descriptions). Under the Paris decision quoted above, these two nominal species alone are eligible for selection as the type species of Eureum Nitzsch, 1818. 4. In 1911 Johnston & Harrison (Proc. linn. Soc. N.S.W. 36 : 321— 328) selected type species for a number of genera of the Order Mallo- phaga ; in the list given in their paper they placed an asterisk against the name of each genus, the type species of which they regarded themselves as having selected on this occasion. Of the genus Eureum, against the name of which no asterisk was placed, these authors wrote :— “Eureum N. is tocluded by Neumann in his list of genera, though Kellogg (1899, p. 133) has shown it to be based on immature forms of 1 The taxon Eureum was treated by Nitzsch as a subgenus of Liotheum, and accordingly the name Eureum Nitzsch was published as a subgeneric name. 304 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS a Menopon. The latter author has studied E. malleus N. (=E. malleum) which, being the better known of Nitzsch’s two species, may be take as the type.” 5. Five years later Harrison (1916, Parasitology 9 : 21) listed what he called “‘Eureum cimicoides Nitzsch’’ (i.e. Eureum cimicoides Bur- meister, 1838) as the type species of the genus Eureum Nitzsch ; in the body of the same paper (: 62) Harrison attributed this species to ‘** Nitzsch in Burmeister’. In making the foregoing statement regarding the type species of this genus, Harrison must either have considered that he and Johnson had not selected Eureum malleum Burmeister as the type species in 1911 or have forgotten the action then taken or have decided to ignore it. 6. Subject to the single exception noted below, all subsequent authors have accepted Eureum cimicoides Burmeister as having been validly selected as the type species of Eureum Nitzsch, 1818, by Harrison in 1916. It may be noted also that all authors subsequent to Harrison have considered E. cimicoides Burmeister and E. malleum Burmeister as not being congeneric with one another. 7. On page 20 of an undated instalment (probably distributed in 1946) of his multigraphed paper “ Phthiraptera Mundi Catalogus ’”? (the status of which, from the point of view of qualifying as having been duly published within the meaning of Article 25 (see 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 215—221) must at present be regarded as doubtful) Dr. Eichler took the view that the action taken by Johnston & Harrison in 1911 (Gin the passage already quoted) constitutes a valid selection by those authors of Eureum malleum Burmeister as the type species of the genus Eureum Nitzsch, 1818, and therefore that it was not open to Harrison in 1916 to select another species (Eureum cimicoides Burmeister) as the type species of this genus. Dr. Eichler accordingly transferred the name Eureum Nitzsch to the genus in which Eureum malleum Burmeister is now placed, sinking, as a synonym, the generic name Hirundoecus Ewing, 1930 (Proc. U.S. nat. Mus. 77 (No. 20) : 1Z), by which that species is now habitually known. At the same time Dr. Eichler established a new nominal genus (: 5) to which he gave the name Arndtiella and for which he designated Eureum cimicoides ““ Ntz. i. Brm.”’ (i.e. Eureum cimicoides Burmeister, 1838) as the type species. About two years later—in 1948—Dr. Eichler again used the name Arndtiella (Naturwissenschaftlichen Rundschau 1948 (2) : 31), 2 Mr. Hopkins has pointed out (in itt., 5th May 1954) that the title given in his application for Dr. Eichler’s work, namely “ Phthiraptera Mundi Catalogus ”’, was incorrect, the actual title being “‘ Phthirapterarum Mundi Catalogus ’’. OPINION 343 305 of which he then stated that the type species was “‘Eureum cimicoides Nitzsch in Burmeister’’. Thus, according to Dr. Eichler’s view, the generic name Arndtiella Eichler should in future be used for the genus universally known by the name Eureum Nitzsch. 8. Hitherto I have taken the view that, under Rule (g) in Article 30, ** rigidly construed ”’ (as required by that Article), Johnson & Harrison (1911) did not select Eureum malleum Burmeister as the type species of Eureum Nitzsch, and I have felt confirmed in this view by reason of the fact that in this paper Johnston & Harrison did not place an asterisk against the name Eureum Nitzsch, as they did against the generic names included in that paper, for which on that occasion they selected type species. I have now seen the decision taken by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology in 1948 (on the recommendation of the International Commission) published last year (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 181—182) that “‘ an author is to be treated as having selected a given originally included nominal species to be the type species of the nominal genus concerned . . . provided in such a case the author concerned makes it clear that he himself accepts, for whatever reason, the species in question as the type species of the genus concerned ”’. I recognise that the object of the foregoing provision was to give valid force to the very large number of currently accepted type selections which rest (as the papers in which they were published show) not upon a definite act of selection by the author concerned but upon a definite statement by that author that the species in question is the type species of the genus under consideration. But this decision by the Paris Congress in no way affects my opinion that Johnson & Harrison (1911) did not make any selection of a type species for Eureum Nitzsch, 1818. The phrase “‘ may be taken as the type ”’ to my mind definitely implies that it also may not be taken as the type, and is in no way the same as “is the type’, and there is nowhere in Johnston and Harrison’s paper a definite statement that any nominal species “is the type ”’ of the nominal genus Eureum. However, as others may take a different view (as, indeed, Dr. Eichler has done) I am assuming for the purpose of this application that Johnston and Harrison did make a valid selection of a type species for Eureum Nitzsch, 1818. _ 9. As already explained, the acceptance of E. malleum Burmeister as the type species of Eureum Nitzsch, 1818, would overthrow the universal practice of all specialists in this group (except Dr. Eichler) and would give rise to totally unnecessary confusion and name-changing, involving, as it would, the transfer of the generic name Eureum Nitzsch, 1818,from the genus containing the species Eureum cimicoides Burmeister, 1838, to the genus to which the species Eureum malleum Burmeister, 1838, is referred by all authors, other than Dr. Eichler. In taking his action, Dr. Eichler applied to this latter genus the name Hirundoecus Ewing, 1930 (Proc. U.S. nat. Mus. 77 (No. 2843) : 12) (type species, by original designation : Hirundoecus americanus Ewing, 1930, ibid. 306 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 77 (No. 2843) : 12). In connection with this genus, it may at this point be noted that many authors (of whom I am one) do not consider that on taxonomic grounds the nominal genus Hirundoecus Ewing, 1930, is separable from Machaerilaemus Harrison, 1915 (Parasitology 7 : 389), the type species of which is, by original designation, Machaerilaemus latifrons Harrison, 1915 (ibid. 7 : 390). 10. In order to avoid the serious consequences indicated above, I accordingly now ask the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature :— (1) to use its Plenary Powers :— (a) to set aside all type selections for the genus Eureum Nitzsch, 1818, made prior to the decision now proposed to be given ; (b) to designate Eureum cimicoides Burmeister, 1838, to be the type species of the foregoing genus ; (2) to place the undermentioned generic names on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology?:— (a) Eureum Nitzsch, 1818 (type species, by designation, as proposed under (1) (a) above, under the Plenary Powers : Eureum cimicoides Burmeister, 1838) ; (b) Hirundoecus Ewing, 1930 (type species, by original desig- nation : Hirundoecus americanus Ewing, 1930) (for use by those specialists who regard the type species of this genus as not being congeneric with Machaerilaemus latifrons Harrison, 1915, the type species of Machaerilaemus Harrison, 1915) ; (c) Machaerilaemus Harrison, 1915 (type species, by original designation : Machaerilaemus latifrons Harrison, 1915) ; (3) to place the undermentioned trivial names on the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology : (a) cimicoides Burmeister, 1838, as published in the binominal combination Eureum cimicoides (trivial name of type species of Eureum Nitzsch, 1818) ; (b) malleum Burmeister, 1838, as published in the binominal combination Eureum malleum ; ° As the result of an undetected printer’s error, the name Eureum was incorrectly attributed in Point (2)(a) to Burmeister instead of to Nitzsch when this paper was published in 1951 (see paragraph 4 of the present Opinion). OPINION 343 307 (c) americanus Ewing, 1930, as published in the binominal combination Hirundoecus americanus (trivial name of type species of Hirundoecus Ewing, 1930) ; (d) latifrons Harrison, 1915, as published in the binominal combination Machaerilaemus latifrons ; (4) to place the undermentioned generic names or reputed generic names on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology :— (a) Arndtiella Eichler, [1946] (a name which, if validly published, is an objective synonym of Eureum Nitzsch, 1818, as proposed, under (1)(b) to be defined under the Plenary Powers) ; (b) Arndtiella Eichler, 1948 (an objective synonym of Eureum Nitzsch, 1818, as proposed, under (1)(b) above, to be defined under the Plenary Powers) ; IlL—THE SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF THE CASE 2. Registration of the present application : When the present application was originally received, it was combined with an application relating to three other generic names in the Order Mallophaga (Lipeurus, Colpocephalum and Gyropus, all of Nitzsch, 1818) and the combined application so received was allotted the Registered Number Z.N.(S.) 343. Later, for the reason explained in paragraph 3 below, it was decided to treat the problem raised by the name Eureum Nitzsch, 1818, as con- stituting a separate application, and this part of Mr. Hopkins’ application was accordingly re-registered under the Number Z.N.(S.) 532. 3. Revision of the application submitted in this case: At the time of the receipt from Mr. Hopkins of the combined applica- tion referred to in the preceding paragraph, the Paris Session of the Commission had just closed, and the task of preparing the Official Records of that Session had already started. This occupied the whole of the resources of the Commission until 1950 when volumes 3, 4, and 5 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, the volumes devoted to these Records, were 308 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS published. It was only then that it was possible to resume preparations for the publication of volumes of the Bulletin containing applications in regard to individual names submitted to the Commission for decision. Certain of the decisions taken by the Paris Congress—notably those concerned with the placing of names on the Official Lists and Official Indexes—involved a certain amount of redrafting in the case of all applications at that time awaiting attention. The required revision of the application relating to the name Eureum Nitzsch was carried out in the early months of 1951. It was then decided that the issues raised in regard to the foregoing name were not sufficiently parallel with those presented by the three other names included in Mr. Hopkins’ application for all four con- veniently to be included in a single application to the Commission. Mr. Hopkins accordingly agreed to divide his application into two portions, the first concerned with the names Lipeurus, Colpocephalum and Gyropus of Nitzsch, 1818,* the second with the name Eureum Nitzsch, 1818, with which alone the present Opinion is concerned. The application relating to the name Eureum, revised and separated in the manner described above, was submitted to the Commission on 15th April 1951. 4. Publication of the present application : The present applica- tion was sent to the printer at the end of April 1951 and was published on 28th September of that year in Part 2 of volume 6 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (Hopkins, 1951, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 6 : 61—64). 5. Issue of Public Notices: Under the revised procedure prescribed by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948 (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 51—56), Public Notice of the possible use by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature of its Plenary Powers in the present case was given on 28th September 1951, both in Part 2 of volume 6 of the © Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (the Part in which Mr. 4 The case of the names Lipeurus, Colpocephalum, and Gyropus of Nitzsch, 1818, has been dealt with in Opinion 342 (the Opinion immediately preceding the present Opinion). OPINION 343 309 Hopkins’ application was published) and also to the other prescribed serial publications. In addition, such notice was given to certain entomological serial publications in Europe and America. 6. Support for the present application received prior to ‘publication : The consultation initiated by Mr. Hopkins prior to the submission of his application relating to the names Lipeurus, Colpocephalum and Gyropus described in Opinion 342 (paragraphs 6 and 7) covered also the case of the name Eureum Nitzsch, which (as explained in paragraph 3 above) at that time formed part of the application relating to the three foregoing names. Of the total of thirteen specialists in different parts of the world with whom it was then possible for Mr. Hopkins to com- municate, the following eleven indicated their support for the present application : (1) W. Biittiker (Zurich) ; (2) Miss Theresa Clay (London); (3) W. Eichler (Berlin); K. C. Emerson (Stillwater, Oklahoma, U.S.A.) ; (5) L. R. Guimaraes (S. Paulo, Brazil); (6) W. L. Jellison (Hamilton, Montana, U.S.A.) ; (7) S. von Kéler (Berlin); (8) R. Meinertzhagen (London); (9) E. O’Mahony (Dublin); (10) G. B. Thompson (Kingston, Jamaica) ; (11) F. L. Werneck (Rio de Janeiro). 7. Objections received prior to publication : In the consultation described in the preceding paragraph, two of the thirteen specialists concerned expressed themselves as being opposed to the action suggested. These were: (1) J. Bequaert (Cambridge, Mass., U.S.A.) and (2) J. E. Webb (Aberdeen, Scotland), both of whom objected to the use of the Plenary Powers for any purpose. 8. Support received after publication from Dr. Ernst Mayr (American Museum of Natural History, New York): On 31st October 1951, Dr. Ernst Mayr (then of the American Museum of Natural History, New York) addressed a letter to the Com- mission commenting upon a number of recently published applications, in which, as regards the present case, he indicated his support as follows (Mayr, 1951, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 6 : 210):— As an ornithologist, I strongly endorse all of Mr. Hopkin’s proposals (1951, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 6 : 544—64) to stabilize the nomenclature of the Mallophaga. | 310 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS I1l—THE DECISION OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 9. Issue of Voting Paper V.P.(52)48 : On 15th May 1952, a Voting Paper (V.P.(52)48) was issued in which the Members of the Commission were invited to vote either for, or against, the proposal “ relating to the name Eureum Nitzsch, 1818, as set out in Points (1) to (4) at the foot of page 63 and on page 64 of volume 6 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature”? [i.e., in paragraph 10 of the application reproduced in the first paragraph of the present Opinion]. 10. The Prescribed Voting Period: As the foregoing Voting Paper was issued under the Three-Month Rule, the Prescribed Voting Period closed on 15th August 1952. 11. Particulars of the Voting on Voting Paper V.P.(52)48 : The state of the voting on Voting Paper V.P.(52)48 at the close of the Prescribed Voting Period was as follows :— (a) Affirmative Votes had been given by the following seventeen (17) Commissioners (arranged in the order in which Votes were received) : Riley ; Hering ; Calman ; Dymond ; Hanko ; Bonnet ; Vokes ; do Amaral; Pearson; Bradley; Hemming ; Esaki ; Lemche ; Mertens ; Cabrera ; Stoll ; Boschma ; (b) Negative Votes : None ; (c) Voting Papers not returned, one (1) : Jaczewsk1. 12. Declaration of Result of Vote : On 16th August 1952, Mr. Hemming, Secretary to the International Commission, acting as Returning Officer for the Vote taken on Voting Paper V.P.(52)48, signed a Certificate that the Votes cast were as set out in OPINION 343 TT paragraph 11 above and declaring that the proposal submitted in the foregoing Voting Paper had been duly adopted and that the decision so taken was the decision of the International Commis- sion in the matter aforesaid. 13. Preparation of the Ruling given in the present ‘* Opinion”? : On 8th November 1954 Mr. Hemming prepared the Ruling given in the present Opinion and at the same time signed a Certificate that the terms of that Ruling were in complete accord with those of the proposal approved by the International Commission in its Vote on Voting Paper V.P.(52)48. 14. The following are the original references for the names placed on Official Lists and Official Indexes in the Ruling given in the present Opinion :— americanus, Hirundoecus, Ewing, 1930, Proc. U.S. nat. Mus. 77 (No. 2843) : 12 Arndtiella Eichler, [1946], Phthirapterarum Mundi Cat. : 5 Arndtiella Eichler, 1948, Naturwissenschaftl. Rundsch. 1948(2) : 31 cimicoides, Eureum, Burmeister, 1838, Handb. Ent. 2 (2) : 441 Eureum Nitzsch, 1818, Mag. Ent. (Germar) 3 : 301 Hirundoecus Ewing, 1930, Proc. U.S. nat. Mus. 77 (No. 2843) : 12 latifrons, Machaerilaemus, Harrison, 1915, Parasitology 7 : 390 Machaerilaemus Harrison, 1915, Parasitology 7 : 389 malleum, Eureum, Burmeister, 1838, Handb. Ent. 2 (2) : 441 15. The application dealt with in the present Opinion was published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature prior to the establishment of the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology by the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology, Copenhagen, 1953. It has not been possible since then to deal with this aspect of the present case. This question is, however, now being examined on a separate File to which the Registered Number Z.N.(G.) 122 has been allotted. 16. At the time of the submission of the application dealt with in the ‘present Opinion, the expression prescribed for the second portion of the binomen which constitutes the scientific name of a 312 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS species was the expression “ trivial name” and the Official List reserved for recording such names was styled the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology, the word “trivial” appearing also in the title of the Official Index reserved for recording rejected and invalid names of this category. Under a decision taken by the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology, Copenhagen, 1953, the expression “ specific name ”’ was substituted for the expression “ trivial name ” and corresponding changes were made in the titles of the Official List and Official Index of such names (1953, Copenhagen Decisions zool. Nomencl. :21). The changes in terminology so adopted have been incor- porated in the Ruling given in the present Opinion. 17. The prescribed procedures were duly complied with by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature in dealing with the present case, and the present Opinion is accordingly hereby rendered in the name of the said International ‘Commission by the under-signed Francis Hemming, Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, in virtue of all and every the powers conferred upon him in that behalf. 18. The present Opinion shall be known as Opinion Three Hundred and Forty-Three (343) of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. DOoNE in London, this Eighth day of November, Nineteen Hundred and Fifty-Four. Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature FRANCIS HEMMING Printed in England by Mretcatre & Cooper LimiTeD, 10-24 Scrutton St., London EC 2 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTER.- NATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Edited by FRANCIS HEMMING, CM.G., C.B.E. Secretary to the Commission VOLUME 10. Part 11. Pp. 313—352 OPINION 344 Validation under the Plenary Powers of the generic name Truncatella Risso, 1826, and addition of that name and the names Acmaea Eschscholtz, 1833, and Acicula Hartmann, 1821 (Class Gastropoda) to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology 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 1955 Price Nineteen Shillings and Sixpence (All rights reserved) _ Issued 17th June, 1955 INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE COMPOSITION AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THE RULING GIVEN IN OPINION 344 A. The Officers of the Commission Honorary Life President: Dr. Karl Jordan (British Museum (Natural History), Zoological Museum, Tring, Herts., England). President : Professor James Chester Bradley (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12th August 1953). Vice-President: Senhor Dr. Afranio do Amaral (Sao Paulo, Brazil) (\2th August 1953). Secretary : Mr. Francis Hemming (London, England) (27th July 1948). B. The Members of the Commission (Arranged in order of precedence by reference to date of election or of most recent re-election, as prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology.) Professor H. BoscHMA (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) (Ast January 1947). Senor Dr. Angel CABRERA (Eva Peron, F.C.N.G.R., Argentina) (27th July 1948). Mr. Francis HEMMING (London, England) (27th July 1948) (Secretary). Dr. Joseph PEARSON (Tasmanian Museum, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia) (27th July 1948). Dr. Henning LEMCHE (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark) (27th July 1948). Professor Teiso ESAKI (Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan) (17th April 1950). Professor Pierre BONNET (Université de Toulouse, France) (9th June 1950). Mr. Norman Denbigh RILkry (British Museum (Natural History) London) (9th June 1950). Professor Tadeusz JACZEWSKI (Institute of Zoology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland) (15th June 1950). . Professor Robert MERTENS (Natur-Museum u. Forschungs-Institut Senckenberg, Frankfurt a. M., Germany) (5th July 1950). : dd Professor Erich Martin HERING (Zoologisches Museum der Humboldt-Universitat zu Berlin, Germany) (5th July 1950). Senhor Dr. Afranio do AMARAL (S. Paulo, Brazil) (12th August 1953) (Vice- President). ee J. R. DyMonpD (University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada) (12th August 1953). Professor J. Chester BRADLEY (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) (President). Professor Harold E. Vokes (Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, U.S.A.) (12th August 1953). Professor Béla HANKO (Mezégazdasdgi Muzeum, Budapest, Hungary) (12th August 1953). Dr. Norman R. SToLL (Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, New York, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12th August 1953). : Mr. P. C. SYLVESTER-BRADLEY (Sheffield University, Sheffield, England) (12th August 1953). ~ Dr. L. B. Hottuutis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Nether- lands) (12th August 1953). OPINION 344 VALIDATION, UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS OF THE GENERIC NAME ‘“‘ TRUNCATELLA ” RISSO, 1826, AND ADDITION OF THAT NAME AND THE NAMES ‘* ACMAEA ”’”? ESCHSCHOLTZ, 1833, AND ‘s ACICULA ”’’? HARTMANN, 1821 (CLASS GASTROPODA) TO THE “ OFFICIAL LIST OF GENERIC NAMES IN ZOOLOGY ”’ RULING :—(1) Under the Plenary Powers :— (a) the under-mentioned generic names are hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homo- nymy :— (i) Acmea Hartmann, 1821 (in Steinmiiller’s Neue Alpina 1 : 204, 212, 213, 214) ; (ii) Acmea Hartmann, 1821 (in Sturm’s Deutsch- lands Fauna 6 (Heft 5) : 49); (iii) Acme Hartmann, 1821 ; (iv) Fidelis Risso, 1826 ; (v) Fidela Risso, 1826 ; (b) the under-mentioned generic name is hereby sup- pressed for the purposes both of the Law of Priority and of the Law of Homonymy :— Acicula Renier, [1807]. (2) The under-mentioned generic names are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Nos. 857 to 859 respectively :— (a) Acmaea Eschscholtz, 1833 (gender : feminine) (type species, by selection by Dall (1871): Acmaea mitra Eschscholtz, 1833) ; (b) Truncatella Risso, 1826, as validated by the sup- pression under the Plenary Powers of the senior subjective synonyms Acmea Hartmann, 1821 (Steinmiiller’s Neue Alpina), Fidelis Risso, 1826, SL 15 1955 re 316 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS and Fidela Risso, 1826, under (1)(a)(1), (iv) and (v) above respectively (gender: feminine) (type species, by selection by Woodward (S.P.) (1854) : Truncatella laevigata Risso, 1826) ; (c) Acicula Hartmann, 1821, as validated by the suppression under the Plenary Powers under (1)(b) above of Acicula Renier, [1807] (gender : feminine) (type species, by monotypy : Bulimus lineatus Draparnaud, [1801)). (3) The under-mentioned specific names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Nos. 465 to 467 respectively :— (a) mitra Eschscholtz, 1833, as published in the com- bination Acmaea mitra (specific name of type species of Acmaea Eschscholtz, 1833) ; (b) subcylindrica Linnaeus, 1767, as published in the combination Helix subcylindrica ; (c) lineatus Draparnaud, [1801], as published in the combination Bulimus lineatus (specific name of type species of Acicula Hartmann, 1821). (4) The under-mentioned generic names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers severally specified below :— (a) the five names suppressed for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy under the Plenary Powers under (1)(a) above (Name Nos. 241 to 245 respectively) ; (b) Acicula Renier, [1807], as suppressed for the pur- poses both of the Law of Priority and of the Law of Homonymy under the Plenary Powers under (1)(b) above (Name No. 246) ; (c) Acicula Oken, 1815 (a nomen nudum) (Name No. 47) ; p) (d) Acmaea Eschscholtz, 1830 (a nomen nudum) (Name No. 248). OPINION 344 317 (5) The under-mentioned family-group names are hereby placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology with the Name Nos. 6 to 8 respectively :— (a) ACICULIDAE Woodward (S.P.), 1854 (type genus : Acicula Hartmann, 1821) ; (b) ACMAEIDAE Carpenter (P.C.), 1857 (type genus : Acmaea Eschscholtz, 1833) ; (c) TRUNCATELLIDAE Gray (J.E.), 1840 (type genus: Truncatella Risso, 1826). (6) The under-mentioned family-group names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology with the Name Nos. 25 and 26 respectively :— (a) ACMEIDAE Pollonera (C.), 1905 (type genus : Acme Hartmann, 1821) (a junior objective synonym of ACICULIDAE Woodward, 1854, the respective type genera of the two family-groups having the same nominal species as type species) ; (b) ACMIDAE Kobelt (W.), 1908 (type genus: Acme Hartmann, 1821) (a junior objective synonym of ACICULIDAE Woodward, 1854, the respective type genera of the two family-groups having the same nominal species as type species). I.—THE STATEMENT OF THE CASE On 22nd September 1934 Dr. Avery R. Grant! (then of the Department of Zoology, University of California, Berkeley, py In a letter dated 29th December 1944 the applicant in this case informed Mr. Hemming that her surname was now Test and suggested that a note giving the following information be inserted in the documents relating to the present case. First, the earlier of her papers had been published under her maiden name Ransome ; second, later papers, including the above application, had been written under her married name Grant ; third, on her second marriage, her surname became Test, under which all her more recent papers had been published in the form: Avery R. Test. 318 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS California, U.S.A.) addressed the following letter to Dr. C. W. Stiles, at that time Secretary to the International Commission, asking for a Ruling from the Commission on the relative status of the generic names Acmaea Eschscholtz, 1833, and Acmea Hartmann, 1821 :— On the question whether the name ‘‘Acmaea’’ Eschscholtz, 1830 (Class Gastropoda, Order Archaeogastropoda) is a homonym of ‘‘Acmea ’’ (=emended form of ‘‘Acme ’’) Hartmann, 1821 (Class Gastropoda, Order Mesogastropoda) By AVERY R. TEST! (Laboratory of Vertebrate Biology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan) I have been very much troubled by a difficult taxonomic tangle, which has cropped up in the literature again and again. The evidence in the case is as follows :— Acmaea Eschscholtz versus Acmea Hartmann 1821 Hartmann (in Sturm, Deutsch. Fauna (VI. Wiirm.) 5 : 37) described a terrestrial gastropod, now known as Truncatella Risso, 1826, Hist. nat. princ. Prod. Eur. merid. 4 : 124, naming it Acme. Later, in the same year, he (Hartmann, 1821, N. Alpina 1 : 204) changed the name to Acmea. The Greek root of this word assertedly is aku (see Willcox, M. A., 1900, Proc. Boston Soc. nat. Hist. 29 : 217—218, “A revision of the systematic names employed by writers on the morphology of the Acmaeidae ’’). 1830 Eschscholtz (in Kotzebue, O., 1830, Reise 2 (Appendix) : 350 ‘““A new Voyage round the World ’’) briefly but sufficiently, in my opinion, described a genus of marine gastropods, naming it Acmaea (which has been called a nomen nudum by Sherborn, but, since the original description includes the chief generic character, I do not believe the name to be a nomen nudum). 1833 Eschscholtz’s genus was again described, more thoroughly, and the derivation of the name given as from the Greek axpx@os. This publication occurred in the Zoologischer Atlas, by Esch- scholtz, in a Heft edited by Rathke. It seems very likely that this was Eschscholtz’s own derivation, however, since, in his OPINION 344 319 original paper (1830, op. cit.) he compared the Acmaea to Fissurella, the keyhole limpet (hence “‘ unfinished ”’ limpet), and meant the name Acmaea in the sense of “completed’’ or ‘finished ’’. (See Eschscholtz, J. F., Zoologischer Atlas, Heft 5 : 16—17.) 1845 Agassiz (Agassiz, L., Nomenclatoris zoologici Index uni- versalis: 4) changes Acmea Hartmann to Acmaea, and calls Acmaea Eschscholtz a homonym, with no discussion. 1886 Watson (‘Report on the Scaphopoda and Gasteropoda collected by H.M.S. ‘Challenger’. The Voyage of H.M.S. * Challenger ’ (Zoology) 15 : 28) discussed the question and decided in favor of the use of the name Acmaea Eschscholtz. 1887 Bouvier (“‘ Systeme nerveux, morphologie générale et classifica- tion des Gastéropodes Prosobranches”’. Ann. Sci. nat., Paris (7) 3 : 22), on the other hand, did not approve the use of the name Acmaea Eschscholtz considering that its use could only result in confusion. To quote him: “En 1821, Hartmann désigna sous le nom d’Acmea un gastéropode terrestre et, en 1828, Eschscholtz donna le nom presque identique d’Acmaea aux gastéropodes qui nous occupent ici. Le nom choisi par Esch- scholtz pouvant donner lieu 4 une confusion j’ai pensé qu’on devait conserver le terme d’Acmea pour les Gastéropodes terrestres et choisir pour nos Cyclobranches le nom de Tectura créé en 1830 par Audouin et Milne Edwards.’ 1900 Willcox (Proc. Boston Soc. nat. Hist. 29 : 217—218) says: * Bouvier, °87, p. 22, offers one argument unmentioned in either of these statements [referring to Dall’s and Watson’s discussions of this matter|—the great similarity between the names Acmaea and Acmea. The latter was proposed by Hartmann in 1821, but, according to Watson (op. cit.), was abandoned by him that same year. I have been unable to consult Hartmann’s paper ; but I am informed on excellent authority that his Acmea is derived from axuy; Acmaea, on the other hand, comes from aKuatos (Rathke, ?33, p. 16), and should therefore stand.” 1915 Iredale (Proc. malacol. Soc. Lond. 11 : 330) says: “‘“Acmaea Eschscholtz has been preferred to Tectura, and I note that this was long a source of discussion which was at last decided in favour of Acmaea on the score of priority. That there was a prior Acmea seems to have been ignored by all disputants, but such is a fact, which was on record all the time. Acmea is a valid, molluscan name, and I think it quite impossible to maintain as well, in practical usage, Acmaea.”’ 320 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 1926 Stewart (“‘ Gabb’s California fossil type Gastropods’’. Proc. Acad. nat. Sci. Philad. 78 : 312) expressed the general feeling on the subject of these names when he said : ““Acmaea Eschscholtz is not considered homonymous with Acmea Hartmann= Acme Hartmann.” 1934 Winckworth (“‘ Names of British Mollusca. II’. J. Conch. 20 : 11—12) apparently failing to note the recommendation included under Article 36 and the gist of Opinion 25, of the International Rules of Nomenclature, and ignoring previous discussions on the controversy regarding derivation of the names, says :— it seems to me that, since ae and e are variants of the same letter in Latin, Acmaea 1833 is pre-occupied by Acmea 1821; both names are presumably derived from axpy, and Hartmann’s genus of 1821 was emended to Acmaea by Agassiz. Unfortunately a loophole for argument is left, in that, while the point is settled for specific names in Article 35 of the International Rules, where it is laid down that ‘specific names . . . shall be considered homonyms if they are distinguished from each other only by... the use of ae, oe, and e, caeruleus, coeruleus, ceruleus’, no similar “statement is made for generic names.? Presumably the same ruling must be applied to genera, although not definitely stated, since the rejection of homonyms is governed by similar rules for genera and species (Arts. 34, 35). Acmaea, therefore, being no longer 39 available for the limpet... .”’. Concerning these names, I should like to say that it is definitely certain that Acmaea Eschscholtz, 1830, in Kotzebue, Reise 2 App. : 350, has the right of priority over Tectura Gray, 1847, Proc. zool. Soc. Lond. 15 (178) : 158, and Patelloida Quoy and Gaimard, [1834], in d’Urville, Voy. “Astrolabe ” (Zool.) 3: 349 (= Patelloidea Courthouy, 1839, Boston J. nat. Hist. 2(2) : 171). Consequently, these names do not enter into the question unless Acmaea Eschscholtz is to be considered a homonym or a nomen nudum. I do not believe it to be a nomen nudum, because the description accompanying the original publication appears ample. I quote it here, with the comment that the characters mentioned are sufficient to enable a member of the genus to be ascertained thereby. Eschscholtz (1830 op. cit.) wrote : “‘... there are found here [northwest coast of North * Since this passage was written, the deficiency here referred to has been made good by the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology, Copenhagen, 1953, which inserted in the Régles a provision that ‘“‘ a generic name is not to be rejected as a homonym of another such name if it differs from it in spelling by even -one letter’? (1953, Copenhagen Decisions zool. Nomencl. ::78 Decision 152). OPINION 344 321 America] six species of a genus which, from its simple, unwound shell, would be immediately taken for a Patella; the creature, however, closely resembles the Fissurella, with the difference that only one gill is visible in the fissure over the neck. It is remarkable that, on the whole northwest coast of America down to California, no Patella, only the animals of the genus Acmaea, were to be met with ”’. Further, after a study of the information contained in Article 36, and Opinion 25, of the International Rules, I do not believe that the name can be thrown out as a homonym, especially when the different derivations of the two names Acmea and Acmaea are considered. Lastly, I believe that most conchologists would deem it very ill- advised to throw out such a well-established name as Acmaea Esch- scholtz, unless it is absolutely essential to do so. Almost the entire literature has been published under this generic name, and it will cause considerable confusion to throw it out. However, the matter has been discussed so frequently over a long period of years, with such contradictory results, and has again cropped up so recently, that it seems advisable to get the matter definitely settled once and for all. To accomplish this, would it not be advisable to ask for a ruling the question of Acmaea Eschscholtz versus Acmea Hartmann ? Il—THE SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF THE CASE 2. Consultations in the period 1934—1935 : Dr. Test’s applica- tion was communicated to the Commission by Dr. Stiles in November 1934 in Circular Letter C.L.266, with a request that he might be furnished by members of the Commission with further particulars regarding the early history of the names involved in the present case. No practical advance was secured by these consultations. 3. Postponement of consideration of the present application at Lisbon in 1935 : The present case was placed on the Agenda for the Session of the International Commission then about S22: OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS to be held at Lisbon in Circular Letter C.L.309 issued to the Members of the Commission in March 1935. Owing to the absence through ill-health of the Secretary (Dr. Stiles) and the fact that in consequence the papers relating to this case were not available in Lisbon, it was not possible for the International Commission to deal with this case on that occasion. 4. Difficulties arising from the change in the Secretaryship of the Commission in 1936 and the outbreak of war in Europe in 1939 : Dr. Stiles was succeeded as Secretary to the Commission by Mr. Francis Hemming in October 1936 but it was not until 1938 that the papers relating to the present case were transferred to Mr. Hemming’s charge. On receipt of these documents, the case of the names Acmaea Eschscholtz and Acmea Hartmann was allotted the Registered Number Z.N.(S.)27 under the re- organisation of the Secretariat then carried out. It had not however been found possible to make any progress with the present case by the time when in September 1939 the outbreak of war in Europe led to a decision to evacuate the records of the Commission from London to the country as an insurance against the risk of destruction by air raids. The Secretariat in London was re-opened in 1942 and steps were immediately taken to establish the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature as a means for bringing to the attention of zoologists applications submitted to the International Commission for decision. Work was at once started on the preparation of all outstanding applications for publication in the Bulletin so established. 5. Comment received from Dr. Joshua L. Baily, Jr. (San Diego, California, U.S.A.) : On 28th March 1946, Dr. Joshua L. Baily, Jr. (San Diego, California, U.S.A.), with whom Mr. Hemming had been in correspondence in regard to the present case, addressed a letter to the Commission, covering a memorandum dealing with the present case. This memorandum, as later slightly revised by Dr. Baily (and transmitted by him under cover of a letter dated 12th July 1946) was as follows :— The question of Acmea Hartmann, 1821 vs. Acmaea Eschscholtz, 1830 recently raised by Dr. Avery R. Test and bearing your index OPINION 344 323 number Z.N.(S.) 27 is one of such great complexity that it will probably require several separate Opinions to dispose of it permanently. The first of these Opinions will concern itself with the application of Opinion 147, which among things recites : “a generic name of the same origin and meaning as a previously published generic name is to be rejected as a homonym if it is ¢ 9 distinguished therefrom only by .. . the use of ‘ae’, ‘oe’, and 4 e 93 99 In the present case there is reasonable doubt as to whether these names are of the same origin and meaning ; the majority of those whose opinions I have asked in this case (but by no means all of them) believe: that Acmea Hartmann is derived from dxuy, meaning a sharp point, while Acmaea Eschscholtz is derived from axpatos, meaning perfect or complete. If these two etymologies are held to be the same, the effect of the Opinion hereinabove cited would be to reject Acmaea Eschscholtz in favor of Acmea Hartmann, but if they are held to be not the same, then the Opinion will not apply ; both names will then stand. In either case, Hartmann’s name will be preserved. At this point it is interesting to note that in 1847 Agassiz published the name Acmaea as an emendation of Acmea Hartmann, 1821. The orthography of this emendation is identical with that of Acmaea Eschscholtz, 1830, which Agassiz rejected as a homonym. It may be that Agassiz misunderstood the etymology of the name which he was emending, and adjusted its orthography to bring it into conformity with his preconceived notion, but as he does not discuss its etymology I cannot see that any assumption can be made except that since Agassiz was only emending an earlier name, his name must have the same etymology as that of the name he was emending, and that therefore his name, although orthographically identical with Eschscholtz’s name, is not necessarily of the same derivation and meaning. The publication of Agassiz’s name came too late, fortunately, to add any further complications to this case, but it suggests the thought as to what might have been the status of Acmaea Eschscholtz, 1830, had it been preceded by. Acmaea Agassiz, 1847. The only rule covering such a case is Article 34 of the Code, which provides that ‘‘ a generic name is to be rejected as a homonym when it has been previously used for some other genus...”’. Nothing is said about etymology in this case. Probably the Commission felt that identical orthography constituted prima facie evidence of identical etymology. But it seems an unnecessary complication to disregard 3 As explained in footnote 2 a revised provision on the subject was adopted by the Fourteenth International Congress on Zoology, Copenhagen, 1953. 324 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS etymology where the orthography is identical and to attach erg to it ee the orthography differs only in the use of “‘ae”’, “ oe”, and ““e’’. It would be better practice to keep the anes as simple as posuere so that there could be no misunderstanding as to their intent, and to correct by suspension of the Rules under the Plenary Powers those instances where the Commission holds that strict enforce- ment would lead to-absurdity, inconvenience, or confusion. In the question here under consideration there are two courses which the Commission might take. First, the rules might be retained as at present, so that both names would be available, or second, the rules might be interpreted so that one of the names would be rejected as a junior homonym. If I may be pardoned for expressing my own personal opinion, I would suggest that the latter course is the preferable, as not only are the two names too close to each other for convenience, but each of the genera concerned is the type of its family, so that we would then have two families, ACMEIDAE and ACMAEIDAE. Whether the rules be re-interpreted or not, a supplementary Opinion would be desirable, for the application of Article 34 would result in the suppression of Acmaea Eschscholtz, 1830, in favor of the earlier Acmea Hartmann, 1821. This would be an unsatisfactory result, as may be seen by comparing the relative merits of the two names. Acmaea Eschscholtz, 1830, has been in universal use ever since it was first proposed, and has been universally understood. It was used in two monographs of the family, that by Dall (1871, Amer. Journ. Conch. 6 : 227) and that by Pilsbry (1891, Man. Conch. 13 : 5) both of which I have seen, and also in two others, that by Philippi (1846, Handbuch Conch. : 199) and an unpublished monograph by Dr. Test herself, both of which I have not seen. On the other hand, the name Acmea Hartmann, 1821, has never come into popular use, chiefly because there has been considerable disagreement among subsequent writers as to its signification. Hart- mann published it twice in the same year in articles contributed to the following documents : Steinmiiller, Neue Alpina, 1 : 204—215 Sturm, Deutsch. Fauna, V1 Abth. 5 Heft (Wiirm.) : 37 et seq. In the Steinmiiller document the genus Acmea is described on page 204. On pages 212—214 is a discussion of the species. Acmea truncata= Cyclostoma truncatulum Draparnaud, and three new species. No type is designated, the earliest type designation for this genus being probably by Herrmannsen (1846, Index Gen. Malac. 1:15) who selected Cyclostoma truncatulum Draparnaud. OPINION 344 325 On page 205 of the same work is described another important genus, Acicula. The sole example is discussed on page 215. This is Auricula lineata Draparnaud which thus becomes the type by monotypy. These two types, as will later appear, are not congeneric. In the Sturm document a new name is used—Acme. This genus is described without species in 5 Heft at page 37, with the statement that the name is a new name for the genus called Acicula in the Neue Alpina. Later in the Sturm document (6 Heft : 2—3) the species Acme lineata—Acicula lineata is discussed, and this becomes the type by monotypy, so that Acme is an identical synonym of Acicula. Also, in the Sturm document (5 Heft : 48) there is a reference to the genus Acmea with the statement that it was described in the Neue Alpina, but that so very little is known of its relationships that the author is unwilling to assign to it a systematic position. No species of this genus are mentioned in this reference. The way in which Hartmann speaks of the two genera Acmea and Acme=Acicula indicates pretty clearly that he did not consider them identical. Unfortunately, however, in the same document (5 Heft : 49) there is among the list of species set out thereon the name Acmea lineata. This I take to be a typographical error intended for Acme lineata, as this species is the type of Acme and is nowhere else referred to Acmea. Further, the genus Acme is not mentioned in this list, as it clearly should be, and finally the statement of the author that he does not intend to assign a position to Acmea makes it clear that this mention of it was intended to be something else. It might be possible to maintain that this reference of the generitype of Acme to Acmea, even though accidental, has the effect of uniting the two genera. This might be the case if the Sturm work had appeared first, since no other species is referred to Acmea in this work. This view is taken by Dr. Test, who states that the Neue Alpina was published later in the year than the Deutsch. Fauna. Also Sherborn (1922, Index Animalium, (1) : 40) takes the same attitude. I have not seen Sherborn’s work, but make this statement about it on the authority of Pilsbry (1926, Nautilus, 40 : 32). On the other hand, E. A. Smith states that the Neue Alpina appeared first, and that Hartmann changed the name Acicula to Acme in the Deutsch. Fauna because Acicula was preoccupied (1891, Journ. of Conch. 6 : 343—344). I have not consulted this reference, but am depending on the testimony of Rehder at the United States National Museum who has examined it for me. Also Herrmannsen (1846, Ind. Gen. Malac. 1 : 15) states that Acme was formerly Acicula (antea= formerly) which implies that the Neue Alpina was the first to appear. 326 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS And finally the Deutsch. Fauna contains several references to the Neue Alpina, while the Neue Alpina does not mention the Deutsch. Fauna, which seems to me to constitute conclusive evidence. Although Hartmann gives no reason for his change of the name Acicula to Acme there can be no doubt that the earlier name was preoccupied. Reference to the Nomenclator Zoologicus edited by S. A. Neave and published by the Zoological Society of London discloses that the name has been used by Renier (1807, Tavole, Tav. 6 Verm. Nemert.) and by Oken (1815, Lehrb. Nat., 3(1) : 383 (n.n.) Verm. Nemert.). It seems safe therefore, to conclude that the Neue Alpina appeared before the Deutsch. Fauna, and that the type of Acmea is therefore Cyclostoma truncatulum Draparnaud. I have not examined either the Renier or the Oken reference, but I have no reason to question the accuracy of the Nomenclator Zoologicus. The identity of the generitypes can be readily determined. According to Iredale (1915, Proc. Malac. Soc. Lond. 11 : 332) Acmea truncata Hartmann= Helix subcylindrica Linnaeus. I have not seen Iredale’s article but it is quoted by Burch (1946, Minutes Conch. Club Sou. Calif. no. 56:7). According to Catlow and Reeve (1845, Conchologist’s Nomenclator : 169) Helix subcylindrica Linnaeus=Truncatella laevigata Risso. The genus Truncatella was established in 1826 by Risso (Hist. Nat. princ. prod. Eur. merid. 4 : 124) for two species of which Truncatella laevigata was one. According to Woodward (1851, Rud. Treat. Rec. and Foss. Sh. : 132) the type of Truncatella is Trunca- tella truncatula which is the same species. For the sake of completeness it may be noted here that Gray (Proc. zool. Soc. Lond. for 1847 : 159) states that the name Truncatella dates from 1813, but Gray’s article is full of typographical errors, and I know of no other authority who has ever dated this name earlier than 1826. The other generitype, Acicula lineata, according to Catlow and Reeve (1845, loc. cit. : 78)=Acicula fusca Walker. And according to Sowerby (1852, Conch. Man. : 59) Acme Hartmann, 1821 is a genus founded on Turbo fuscus Walker. Now these two generitypes belong to different families—in fact, Hartmann himself in the Steinmiiller document put them into separate families. Their shells are figured by Tryon (1882, Struct. and Syst. Conch., 2: pl. 75, figs. 24—25) the animals in the act of crawling by H. and A. Adams (1858, Genera of Recent Mollusca, 3: pl. 88, eS 1—2) and the radulae by Paul Fischer (1887, Man. de Conchyl. 1 : figs. 514 and 516) all of which illustrations make obvious the wide differences between the two species. OPINION 344 327 Whether the International Commission decides that there is reason- able doubt as to which of two rather remotely related genera the name Acmea rightfully belongs, or whether they feel as I do, that the species which Draparnaud called Cyclostoma truncatulum is the true generi- type, it would seem wise to suppress the name Acmea Hartmann in order to preserve the two names Acmaea Eschscholtz, 1830, and Truncatella Risso, 1826, which have been in universal use for well over a century and which are universally understood, and I would respectfully request that you take favorable action on this suggestion. The name Acme Hartmann, 1821, differs sufficiently from Acmaea Eschscholtz, 1830, to coexist with it, but perhaps it is of interest to note that at least three authors have favored the suppression of this name also. The first of these was Agassiz, who called the genus Pupula (1837, Charpentier, V.D. Allg. Schweiz Gesellsch. 1 : 22 Moll.). Ihave not seen this work, or the other work of Agassiz quoted above. I have obtained my knowledge of this one from the Zoological Record (6 : 581). The second writer was Pfeiffer. According to Woodward (1851, loc. cit. : 178) Pfeiffer abandoned both the names Acme and Acmea, on account of their resemblance to Acmaea Eschscholtz, thinking that the use of Hartmann’s names would lead to more confusion than would their abolition. I have not seen this work of Pfeiffer’s ; in fact, Woodward gives no reference, but in the year after Woodward’s statement was published, Pfeiffer, in another work (1852, Monog. Pneum. Viv. : 3) does use the name Acicula in preference to the more correct Acme. The third writer was Schaufuss, who according to the Zoological Record (loc. cit.) published a new name Acutalia for this genus. This was published in Paetel’s Systeme und Catalog : 16 and 92, according to the Zoological Record, a work to which I do not have access, but Mr. Maxwell Smith has examined his copy for me and reports that Schaufuss’s name of Acutalia does not occur in it. To my mind it is not necessary that Acme be suppressed, but since some have thought it should be, perhaps the above data may not be considered amiss. There is one more matter to be considered. If the Commission should decide to place the name Acmaea Eschscholtz, 1830, on the Official List of Generic Names, as I hope will be done, it will be necessary to set out the type designation. Grant and Gale (1931, Memoirs S. D. Soc. N. H. 1 : 809) state that the first designation was of Acmaea mitra Eschscholtz by Dall, 1871. But examination of Dall’s work (1871, Amer. Journ. Conch. 6 : 227) shows that he did not designate atype. What Dall states was that Eschscholtz had first used the name 328 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS in 1828 (App. Kotzbue’s New Voyage, etc. Dorpat ; translation by Colburn and Bently in 1830, 2 : 350) without mentioning any species at all; later he published a complete generic diagnosis (1833, Zool. Atlas (5) : 16, pl. 23—24) in which Acmaea mitra is the only species mentioned, but in the same publication there are descriptions of numerous other species, any of which might be eligible for generitype. I have seen the Zool. Atlas, but not the earlier work. The first type designation, according to Dall (/oc. cit.) was by Philippi (1846, Joc. cit. : 159) ; this work I have been unable to examine. If this be a legitimate designation it will stand, for apparently there was no earlier designation. But the fact that later writers have ignored Philippi makes me suspicious. For instance, Pilsbry (1891, loc. cit. 13 : 5) states that A. mitra is the type but gives no reference to Philippi. The next year after Philippi’s work, Gray designated Acmaea scutum Eschscholtz, 1833, as type. This is the species known today as Acmaea patina Eschscholtz, 1833. The name scutum has page priority, but we must use the name patina because it was selected by Carpenter, the first reviser (1864, Report on the Mollusca of the West Coast of North America : 684) presumably to avoid the confusion that might result from the fact that there was another Acmaea scutum, from South America, named by d’Orbigny. -Acmaea patina would constitute a much more appropriate type than Acmaea mitra because it is the most abundant species of the genus, and occurs over a much wider geographic range. Also the subgenus to which it belongs is found on both shores of both oceans, while Acmaea mitra is confined to the northeastern Pacific, and is plentiful only in certain restricted localities. The type of the genus Acmaea is not such an important matter as some of the other matters brought up in this discussion, but the place- ment of a name on the Official List fixes its status permanently, and it is therefore desirable that every phase of a question be examined before an irrevocable step is taken. For that reason I have added this information about the type. In closing I wish to apologize for the extraordinary length of this communication, which in view of the complexities of the subject I could not very well abbreviate. Except in those cases where the contrary is stated, I have personally examined every reference hereinabove set out. OPINION 344 329 6. Publication of the present application : After an exchange of letters between Mr. Hemming and Dr. Avery Test (who by that time was working at the Laboratory of Vertebrate Biology, University of Michigan, Department of Human Heredity, Ann Arbor, Michigan, U.S.A.), the present application was sent to the printer in October 1944. Owing, however, to difficulties arising from paper rationing, shortage of labour at the printing works and similar causes, publication did not actually take place until 26th June 1946 when the present application appeared in Part 8 of volume 1 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (Test, 1946, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 1 : 178—180). 7. Comment received from Dr. Th. Mortensen (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen) : The publication of Dr. Test’s application elicited the following comment from Dr. Th. Mortensen (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen) who in a letter dated 20th April 1947 commenting upon a number of applications then recently published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, wrote as follows in regard to the present case :— ““Acmea ’’ and ‘‘Acmaea ”’ I think that both of these names should be preserved. They are sufficiently different not to be homonyms. 8. Issue of Public Notices in 1947: On 29th September 1947 Public Notice of the possible use by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature of its Plenary Powers in the present case was given in the manner prescribed by the Ninth International Congress of Zoology, Monaco, 1913. The publication of these Notices elicited no objection to the use of the Plenary Powers in the present case. 9. Plan suggested by the International Commission in Paris in 1948: The present case was considered at length by the Commission at the Thirteenth Meeting of its Paris Session held at the Sorbonne in the Amphithéatre Louis-Liard on Monday, 26th July 1948 at 17.30 hours. Hitherto, the present case had been 330 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS considered mainly from the point of view whether the well known name Acmaea Eschscholtz, 1833, was invalid, by reason of being a junior homonym of the older and somewhat similar name Acmea Hartmann, 1821. This was an aspect of the case which by that time no longer presented any difficulty, for at an earlier meeting during the same Session the Commission had recom- mended, and the Section on Nomenclature of the Thirteenth International Congress had agreed, upon a clarification of the provisions of Article 34 (relating to generic homonymy). Under this provision generic names consisting of the words “ Acmea” and “‘ Acmaea’’ were not to be treated as homonyms of one another (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 161—162). On this occasion, therefore, the Commission addressed itself to the more substantial question of whether the Plenary Powers should be used in such a way as to preserve the generic name T7runcatella Risso, 1826, at the same time that a secure position was given to the name Acmaea Eschscholtz, 1833. At the conclusion of the discussion on the present case the Commission drew up the outline of a solution on the foregoing lines, which it agreed should be submitted to specialists for consideration. The following is an extract from the Official Record of the Proceedings of the Com- mission when the present case was under consideration, which records both the general tenor of the discussion and the preliminary decision then taken (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 389—392) :— 31. THE COMMISSION had under consideration an application ~ (file Z.N.(S.) 27) submitted by Mrs. Avery R. Test (formerly Avery R. Grant) (University of California, Berkeley, U.S.A.) for a ruling on the question whether the name Acmaea Eschscholtz, 1833 (Class Gastropoda, Order Archaeogastropoda) was to be treated as a homo- nym of Acmea Hartmann, 1821 (there treated as an emendation by Hartmann of the name Acme Hartmann published in the same year) (Class Gastropoda, Order Mesogastropoda) (Test, 1946, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 1 : 178—180). THE ACTING PRESIDENT (MR. FRANCIS HEMMING) said that, since Mrs. Test’s application had been published in the Bulletin, he had received a detailed communication on this case from Mr. Joshua L. Baily, Jr. (San Diego, California, U.S.A.). This communication threw a new light on this case and presented data OPINION 344 331 which differed in important respects from the information previously available to the Commission. The most important point of difference made by Mr. Baily was that Acmea Hartmann, 1821, was not (as many authors, including Mrs. Test in her application to the Commission, had considered) an emendation by Hartmann of his own name Acme Hartmann published in the same year, but had in fact been given by Hartmann to a different genus. Further, evidence was advanced by Mr. Baily to show that the Neue Alpina in which the name Acmea Hartmann first appeared was actually published earlier in 1821 than the portion (Heft 5) of volume 6 of Sturm’s Deutschland’s Fauna in which the name Acme Hartmann first appeared. There were there- fore three (and not merely two) generic names to consider :—(1) Acmaea Eschscholtz, 1833 (Class Gastropoda, Order Archaeogastro- poda), a well-established name in universal use which all interested specialists were agreed should, if possible, be preserved ; (2) Acme Hartmann, 1821, originally described on page 37 of Heft 5 of Vol. 6 of Sturm’s Deutschland’s Fauna without included species, and in 1822 used by Hartmann (ibid. 6 (Heft 6) : 61), for Bulimus lineatus Drapar- naud, [1801], in place of Acicula Hartmann, 1821 (Acme Hartmann, 1821, an invalid homonym, was stated by Mr. Baily to be in general use, though he pointed out that some authors (but not he himself) had rejected it on the ground of its similarity to Acmaea Eschscholtz, 1833) ; (3) Acmea Hartmann, 1821, had, it appeared, never been in popular use, the genus concerned having been consistently known by the name Truncatella Risso, 1826, until Iredale in 1915 had drawn attention to the earlier name. Continuing, the Acting President recalled that it had been decided to recommend a clarification of Article 34, which would put an end to all doubts as to the circumstances in which two similar but not identical generic names were to be regarded as homonyms of one another. That decision affected the present case in two ways: (1) It was now clear that neither the name Acmea Hartmann, 1821, nor the name Acmaea Eschscholtz, 1833, was a homonym of Acme Hartmann, 1821; . (2) the names Acmea Hartmann, 1821, and Acmaea Eschscholtz, 1833, were to be regarded as homonyms of one another only if it was “ évident ’’ that they were based upon the same Latin or Latinised word. On this latter question, extensive data had been advanced in the papers submitted to show that the words of which these two names were composed—which were admittedly Latinised Greek words— were entirely distinct from one another and possessed quite different meanings. In these circumstances, it was not “‘ évident’’ that these two names were based upon the same word. Accordingly, Acmea Hartmann, 1821, and Acmaea Eschscholtz, 1833, were not to be regarded as homonyms of one another. This was satisfactory, in that it enabled the strong general desire of specialists that the well-known generic name Acmaea Eschscholtz should be preserved to be realised. On the other hand, it could not be disputed that the concurrent 332 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS existence within a single Class (the Class Gastropoda) of two generic names differing from one another by so little as did the names Acmea and Acmaea was calculated to give rise to confusion. For this reason, there seemed to the Acting President to be good reason to use the Plenary Powers to suppress the name Acmea Hartmann, 1821, the separate existence of which as a generic name had only recently been brought to light by the bibliographical investigations conducted by Mr. Baily. Moreover, this course had the further important advantage that it would validate the well-known and universally-accepted name Truncatella Risso, 1826, which otherwise would fall to the resurrected name Acmea Hartmann, 1821. IN DISCUSSION, it was generally agreed that a solution of the long-standing difficulties associated with these names ought to be found with as little further delay as possible, and the hope was expressed that the suggestion which: had been put forward would provide the ground for such a settlement. The case in favour of using the Plenary Powers to suppress the name Acmea Hartmann, 1821, was a strong one, for not only would that action eliminate all possibility of con- fusion arising from the use of the later name Acmaea Eschscholtz, 1833, but it would also provide a means for preserving the long-established name Truncatella Risso, 1826, which otherwise would fall a victim to Acmea Hartmann, 1821, the separate existence of which, as a generic name, had only just been established. It was desirable that the suggested solution should be put to specialists as quickly as possible with a view to early action by the Commission and the issue of an Opinion as soon as the desires of the specialists concerned had been ascertained. THE COMMISSION agreed :— (1) that the generic name Acme Hartmann, 1821 (type species, by monotypy: Bulimus lineatus Draparnaud, [1801]), was an available name in the sense that it was not a homonym of any previously published generic name, and further that no evidence had been adduced which would justify the emendation, under Article 19, of this name from Acme to Acmea ; OPINION 344 333 (2) that, under the clarification of Article 34 agreed upon during the present Session, the undermentioned generic names were not to be regarded as hononyms of one another :— (a) Acmea Hartmann, 1821 (type species, by selection by Iredale, 1915) : Acmea truncata Hartmann, 1821 (=Cyclostoma truncatulum Draparnaud, [1801]) (Class Gastropoda, Order Mesogastropoda) ; (b) Acmaea Eschscholtz, 1833 (type species, by selection by Dall, 1871 : Acmaea mitra Eschscholtz, 1833) (Class Gastropoda, Order Archaeogastropoda) ; (3) that, in view of the likelihood of continued confusion if two such similar names as Acmea Hartmann, 1821, and Acmaea Eschscholtz, 1833, were both used in a single Class (Class Gastropoda) and having regard also to the strong objection to which the substitution of the unknown name Acmea Hartmann, 1821, for the well- known and long-established name Truncatella Risso, 1826, would be open, specialists should be asked to express their opinion on the proposal that the Plenary Powers should be used to suppress the name Acmea Hartmann, 1821, thereby eliminating all possibility of confusion arising from the use of the name Acmaea Eschscholtz, 1833, and at the same time validating the name Truncatella Risso, 1826, while the third genus concerned (of which Bulimus lineatus Draparnaud, [1801], is the type species) would be known by its valid name Acme Hartmann, 1821 ; (4) to invite the Secretary to the Commission to re-submit this case as soon as the inquiry instituted under (3) above had been completed ; (5) to reach a decision on this case, and to render an Opinion thereon, as quickly as possible after the receipt of the Report asked for in (4) above, the case in the meantime to be regarded as sub judice and the name Truncatella Risso, 1826, not to be replaced by the name Acmea Hartmann, 1821. 334 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 10. Comment received from Mr. R. Winckworth (London) : On 22nd March 1949 Mr. R. Winckworth (London), with whom Mr. Hemming had previously discussed the present case, sub- mitted the following statement for the consideration of the Commission :— The name Acmaea Eschscholtz, 1833, appears to be invalidated by Acmea Hartmann, 1821. There is a loophole for argument, since, while Article 35 states that “* specific names . . . shall be considered homonyms if they are distinguished from each other only by... the use of ae, oe and e’’, no similar statement is made for generic names. Presumably the same ruling should be applied to generic names. The names Acmea and Acme Hartmann both date from 1821 and I give the relevant references under three headings below. (i) Hartmann, 1821, in Steinmiillers’ Neue Alpina 1 : Page 204. Acmea, here a nomen nudum. Page 212. Acmea described with first species A. truncata Draparnaud, clearly a misspelled reference to Cyclostoma truncatulum Draparnaud, [1801]. Page 213. Acmea acicula, A. picta, A. circinnata, all new species. Page 215. Acicula lineata Draparnaud, sole species of new genus Acicula. (i) Hartmann, 1821, in Sturm’s Deutschlands Fauna 6, Heft 5: Page 31. Acme, here a nomen nudum. Page 37. Acme described but no species mentioned. Page 48. Gattung Hydrobia. Hierher gehdrte nun noch die Gattung Rissoa, welche ich als Landbewohner unter den Namen Acmea in der Alpina aufstellte, und tiber welche izt noch viele Dunkelheit schwept, ich verspare daher die weitere Bestimmung bis Sammler das Nahere des Wohnorts erzeigt hat. Page 49. Acmea lineata, name only in list, perhaps an error for Acme lineata. (ii) Hartmann, 1822, in Sturm’s Deutschlands Fauna 6, Heft 6 : Page 61. Acme lineata Mihi. Neue Alpina I. Acicula lineata. Drap. Auricula lineata. Description and plate. [Auricula lineata Drap., [1805]=Bulimus lineatus Drap., [1801]]. OPINION 344 335 Acmea Hartmann, 1821, type A. truncata Hartmann—Cyclostoma truncatulum Draparnaud, ({1801], selected by Iredale, 1915, is the earliest name for the genus consistently called Truncatella Risso, 1826, until Iredale drew attention to this earlier name: see Iredale, 1915, Proc. Malacol. Soc. 11 : 332. Acme Hartmann, 1822, type by monotypy, 4. /ineata Hartmann— Bulimus lineatus Draparnaud, [1801], is in regular use. The name Acicula Hartmann, [1821], is preoccupied by Acicula Renier, [1807], Tavole : vi, which has a brief (perhaps insufficient) diagnosis and named example A. macula Renier, not described. One solution of this confusion would be to suppress Acmea Hart- mann, and to put the following names on the Official List. Acme Hartmann, 1822 (diagnosis 1821), Sturm’s Deutschlands Fauna 6(6) : 61. Type by monotypy, A. Jineata Hartmann, 1822— Bulimus lineatus Draparnaud, [1801]. Acmaea Eschscholtz, 1833, Zool. Atlas,5: 16. The type is discussed by Dall, 1871, Am. J. Conch. 6 : 243. Truncatella Risso, 1826, Hist. Nat. Eur. Mérid. 4:124. Type, T. costulata Risso, 1826=Cyclostoma truncatulum Draparnaud, [1801]— Helix subcylindrica Linné, 1767. The name Fidelis Risso, 1826, on p. 121 (also spelled Fidela) refers to the young of the same species and should be suppressed, as well as Acmea. [Acme and Truncatella belong to Order Mesogastropoda, and Acmaea to Order Archaeogastropoda, of the Subclass Prosobranchia of the Class Gastropoda]. 11. Issue in 1952 of an appeal to specialists for comment on the provisional plan drawn up by the Commission in Paris in 1948 ; It was not possible to make any substantial progress with the present, and certain other, cases which had been deferred for further consultations by the Commission at its Paris Session until the Official Record of the Proceedings at that Session had been studied by interested workers. These Proceedings were pub- lished in 1950. In those cases, including the present case, as regards which no comments had been elicited in this way, Mr. Hemming, when reviewing the situation in 1951, judged that the best course would be to publish in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature a brief resumé of the questions at issue, at the 336 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS same. time broadcasting an appeal to specialists to come forward with comments and advice. The statement prepared by Mr. Hemming for this purpose in the present case was published on 15th April 1952 (Hemming, 1952, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 7 : 210— Zi): 12. Issue of Public Notices in 1952: In order still further to attract the attention of zoologists to the plan of settlement proposed by the Commission in the present case, it was decided in: 1952 to give Public Notice of the possible use by the Inter- national Commission on Zoological Nomenclature of its Plenary Powers in the present case, notwithstanding the fact that such Notice had already been given in 1947 and had failed to elicit any objection to the use of those Powers in this case. Accordingly, on 15th April 1952 Public Notice in the foregoing matter was given in the manner prescribed by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948 (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 ; 51—S6) (a) in Double-Part 7/8 of volume 7 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (the Part in which Mr. Hemming’s appeal to specialists had been published) and (b) to the other prescribed serial publications. 13. Advice received in response to the appeal issued in April 1952 : The appeal for advice on the present case contained in the note by Mr. Hemming published in April 1952 (paragraph 11 above) elicited comments from the following specialists : (1) Dr. Ernest Mayr (then of the American Museum of Natural History, New York); (2) Dr. A. Myra Keen and Dr. Siemon W. Muller (Stanford University, Stanford, California, U.S.A.) ; (3) Dr. Avery R. Test (Mrs. Frederick H. Test) (Ann Arbor, Michigan, U.S.A.); (4) Mr. S. Stillman Berry (Harlowton, Montana, U.S.A.) ; (5) Dr. L. R. Cox (British Museum (Natural History), London). The communications so received are repro- duced in the immediately following paragraphs. 14. Comment received from Dr. Ernest Mayr (then of the American Museum of Natural History, New York) : On 27th May 1952 Dr. Ernest Mayr (then of the American Museum of Natural OPINION 344 337 History, New York) addressed a letter to the Commission com- menting upon a number of applications which had recently been published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature or as regards which notices had been published in that serial. The following is an extract from Dr. Mayr’s letter of the portion dealing with the present case :— I might add as a further reason for suppressing the name Acmea Hartmann, 1821, that the genus Acmaea of Eschscholtz is very well known in biology and has been extensively quoted in the speciation literature on the basis of the work of Mrs. Test. To change this name would certainly cause considerable confusion. 15. Comment received from Dr. Myra Keen and Dr. Siemon Muller (Stanford University, Stanford, California, U.S.A.) : Ist July 1952 Dr. Myra Keen (Stanford University, Stanford, California, U.S.A.) addressed a letter to the Commission, enclosing the following note setting out jointly the views of her colleague Dr. Siemon Muller and herself on the present case (Keen & Muller, 1952, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 9 : 130) :— We favor the suppression of Acmea Hartman, 1821, and the reten- tion of Truncatella Risso, 1826, and Acmaea Eschscholtz, 1833, in conformity with accepted usage. 16. Comment received from Dr. Avery R. Test (Ann Arbor, Michigan, U.S.A.) : On 28th August 1952 Dr. Avery R. Test (Mrs. Frederick H. Test) (Ann Arbor, Michigan, U.S.A), the original applicant in the present case, addressed the following letter to the Commission giving her support for the solution suggested by the Commission at its Paris SLU (1952, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 9 : 130) :— In reply to your communication, reference number Z.N.(S.) 27, re the Acmaea/Acmea/Acme problem, I first want to thank you for the opportunity to express my feelings upon it, and then to say that I am very pleased with the recommendation as outlined in the discussion 1950 (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 389—392), and the later one (1952, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 7 : 210—211). I had not realized two well established genera would be benefited by the suppression of Hartmann’s name, so am doubly pleased that the 338 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS recommendation is to suppress the latter, thereby establishing un- equivocally Eschscholtz’s name Acmaea and also another generic name of long usage. I am sorry my original information concerning Hartmann’s names and dates of publication was incorrect, but I was never able to obtain a copy of the publications or even a photostat or photograph of the pages concerned, so had to rely upon secondhand information con- cerning them. I would like to congratulate the Commission upon what seems a very sensible recommendation, and hope it soon becomes an Opinion. 17. Comment received from Mr. S. Stillman Berry (Harlowton, Montana, U.S.A.) : On 9th September 1952 Mr. S. Stillman Berry (Harlowton, Montana, U.S.A.) addressed the following letter to the Commission commenting on the present case :— I note in the June 20th issue of Science that among the questions to be voted on by the Commission on Oct. 15th is the problem posed by the matter of Acmaea Eschscholtz, 1833 vs. Acmea Hartmann, 1821. I respectfully submit that no real homonymy is involved and that therefore no problem properly exists since the two names are of completely different derivation. In the last section of the Zoologischer Atlas the derivation of Acmaea is expressly stated to be from the Gr. axpatos, meaning integer. This statement was overlooked by Winckworth who endeavoured to derive it from axyy, the same as Acmea. Furthermore the two words are not pronounced alike unless one happens to be pronouncing them as in English, so there is no very great chance of confusion. If Acmaea be rejected on such grounds, many other names would consistently have to pass into limbo likewise. 18. Comment received from Dr. L. R. Cox (British Museum (Natural History), London) : On 27th August 1953 Dr. L. R. Cox (British Museum (Natural History), London) communicated the following statement to the Commission in which he gave his support to the plan suggested in 1948 for the settlement of the present case and added particulars relating to various subsidiary OPINION 344 339 matters with which it would be necessary for the Commission to deal, if it adopted a solution on the lines suggested :— The Generic Names ‘‘Acme ’”’ Hartmann, 1821, ‘‘Acmea ’? Hartmann, 1821, and ‘‘Acmaea ”’ Eschscholtz, 1833 (Class Gastropoda). By Ie’ Rs COX; Sc:D., F-R:S. (British Museum (Natural History), London) Specialists have been asked to comment on the Commission’s suggestion regarding the generic names Acmea Hartmann, 1821, and Acmaea Eschscholtz, 1833, set out in 1952, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 7 : 211. 2. I agree that of these names, the more important one to conserve is Acmaea Eschscholtz, 1833, as this is a name in general use, upon which a family name ACMAEIDAE has been based. 3. I agree that it is desirable to suppress Acmea Hartmann, 1821, which has seldom been used and became a prior subjective synonym of the familiar generic name Truncatella Risso, 1826, only because of Iredale’s action (1915, Proc. Malac. Soc. 11 : 332) in selecting Acmea truncata Hartmann as type species. 4. I agree that the familiar generic name TJruncatella Risso, 1826 (type species, Truncatella laevigata Risso, 1826) should be placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. This will, as previously noted, also involve the suppression of the generic names Fidelis Risso, 1826, and Fidela Risso, 1826, subjective synonyms of Truncatella, over which Fidelis has page priority. The type species of Fidelis and of Fidela, by monotypy, is F. theresa Risso, 1826. 5. I wish to point out that the generic name Acme Hartmann, 1821 (Deutschlands Fauna) is an objective synonym of Acicula Hartmann, 1821 (Neue Alpina), both having as type species Bulimus lineatus Draparnaud*. The works in which these names appeared were * The name Acme Hartmann (1821, in Sturm, ‘‘ Deutschlands Fauna ’’, Abt. VI, Heft 5, p. 37), as published on the page cited, was accompanied by a generic description, but no particular species was mentioned. The animal but not the shell of ““Acme’’ was represented in his Pl. 1, fig. 4, but the illustration is not identifiable, even generically. On p. 49 the name of what was clearly intended to be the same genus, as indicated by its number (4), is spelt Acmea and the species A. lineata, author not mentioned, is cited. It is assumed that Bulimus lineatus Drap. was the species intended. This Acmea Hartmann, 1821, is not to be confused with the Acmea Hartmann, 1821, already mentioned. It is obvious that both are best suppressed. (Int’d. L.R.C.) 340 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS published in the same year, and it is uncertain which has priority. Acicula Hartmann, 1821, has been rejected by some authors as an invalid junior homonym of Acicula Renier, [1807] ( Tavole . . . animali”’, Tav. VI), but if Renier’s works are suppressed in accordance with applications by the present writer now under consideration by the International Commission}, Acicu/a Hartmann becomes an available name. Acicula Hartmann and Acme Hartmann have synonymous. family names ACICULIDAE and ACMEIDAE based upon them, and have been used to an almost equal extent in the literature. It is, therefore, suggested that to avoid the risk of future confusion between the generic names Acme and Acmaea and, more particularly, between the family names ACMEIDAE and ACMAEIDAE, the name Acicula Hartmann, 1821, should be declared valid and Acme Hartmann, 1821, its rejected synonym. Summary of Recommendations. (a) That the generic names Acmaea Eschscholtz, 1833 (type species, by selection by Dall, 1871: A. mitra Eschscholtz); Truncatella Risso, 1826 (type species, by selection by Wenz, 19394: Truncatella laevigata Risso, 1826 (=AHelix subcylindrica Linnaeus, 1767)); and Acicula Hartmann, 1821 (type species, by monotypy : Acicula lineata Hartmann=SBulimus lineatus Draparnaud, [1801]) be placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. (b) That the specific names mitra Eschscholtz, 1833, (Acmaea), subcylindrica Linnaeus, 1767, (Helix) and lineatus Draparnaud, [1801], (Bulimus) be placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. + Note by the Secretary : Two applications have been received for the rejection of Renier’s Tavole of 1807 for nomenclatorial purposes : the first by Dr. Myra Keen (Stanford University, Stanford, California, U.S.A.); the second by Dr. L. R. Cox. These applications (File Z.N.(S.) 688) will appear in an early part of the Bulletin®. The position as regards the foregoing work is not dis- similar from that of the same author’s Prodromo and Prospetto of 1804, which, on another application by Dr. Cox (1951, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 2 : 299—300), strongly supported (a) by Mr. R. Winckworth (London) (Bull. 2 : 312) and (b) by the Joint Committee on Zoological Nomenclature for Paleontology in America, the Commission (by Voting Paper V.P.(52) 36) has unanimously rejected for nomenclatorial purposes®. (Intl’d. F. H. 27th March 1954.) 4 In a letter dated 10th May 1954, Dr. Cox reported that he had ascertained that the selection by Wenz (1939) of Truncatella laevigata Risso, 1826, to be the type species of the genus TJruncatella Risso, 1826, had been anticipated by the selection of the same species by Woodward (S.P.), 1851, Manual of the Mollusca : 137. 5 The applications here referred have since been published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature on 22nd October 1954 (Keen, 1954, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 9 : 257—262 ; Cox, 1954, ibid. 9 : 205). 6 The decision here referred to has since been embodied in Opinion 316. (See 1954, Ops. Decls. int. Comm. zool. Nomencl. 9 : 91—106). OPINION 344 341 (c) That the generic names Acme Hartinann, 1821, Acmea Hartmann, 1821 (both as published in the Neue Alpina and in the Deutschlands Fauna), Fidelis Risso, 1826, and Fidela Risso, 1826, be placed on the Official List of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names. (d) That ACMAEFIDAE and ACICULIDAE be placed on the Official List of Family Names, and ACMEIDAE on the List of Rejected Family Names. 19. Submission to the Commission in April 1954 of definite proposals for the settlement of the present case : In March 1954 the present case was reviewed by the Secretary who took the view that the time was now ripe for the submission to the Com- mission of definite proposals for its settlement along the lines of the solution suggested by the Commission at its 1948 Session (paragraph 9 above). Mr. Hemming accordingly prepared for the consideration of the Commission a memorandum, in which, after recalling the plan put forward by the Commission in 1948 and taking note of the fact that the issue of the prescribed Public Notices had elicited unanimous support for the action proposed from leading specialists in Europe and America, he submitted for the consideration of the Commission the following draft of a Ruling providing for the settlement of the present case along the lines of the suggestion made in 1948, supplemented in various respects by the additional information furnished by Dr. Cox. The principal modification of the 1948 proposals was the recommendation that the name Acicula Renier, [1807], should be suppressed, thereby making the name Acicu/a Hartmann, 1821, available for the genus having Bulimus lineatus Draparnaud, [1801], as type species in place of the unfamiliar name Acme Hartmann, 1821, the use of which would, it was considered, be misleading. Mr. Hemming’s paper, together with the draft Ruling referred to above, was submitted to the Commission on 3rd April 1954. The following is the text of the draft Ruling so submitted :— Draft Ruling (Submitted to the Commission by Mr. Hemming in an Annexe to a memorandum dated 3rd April 1954) (1) Under the Plenary Powers, (a) the under-mentioned generic names are hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Law of Priority 342 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS but not for those of the Law of Homonymy :—(1) Acmea Hartmann, 1821, (in Steinmiiller’s Neue Alpina 1 : 204, 212, 213, 214 ; Gi) Acmea Hartmann, 1821 (in Sturm’s Deutschlands Fauna 6 (Heft 5) : 49) ; (111) Acme Hartmann, 1821 ; (iv) Fidelis Risso, 1826 ; (v) Fidela Risso, 1826 ; (b) the under-mentioned generic name is hereby suppressed for the purposes both of the Law of Priority and of the Law of Homo- nymy : Acicula Renier, [1807]. (2) The under-mentioned generic names are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology : (a) Acmaea Eschscholtz, 1833 (gender : feminine) (type species, by selection by Dall (1871): Acmaea mitra Eschscholtz, 1833) ; (b) Truncatella Risso, 1826 (gender : feminine) (type species, by selection by Wenz (1939)? : Truncatella laevigata Risso, 1826) ; (c) Acicula Hartmann, 1821 (gender : feminine) (type species, by monotypy : Bulimus lineatus Draparnaud, [1801]). (3) The under-mentioned specific names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology : (a) mitra Eschscholtz, 1833, as published in the combination Acmaea mitra (specific name of type species of Acmaea Eschscholtz, 1833); (b) subcylindrica Linnaeus, 1767, as published in the combination Helix subcylindrica ; (c) lineatus Draparnaud, [1801], as published in the combination Bulimus lineatus (specific name of type species of Acicula Hartmann, 1821). (4) The under-mentioned generic names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology : (a) the five names specified in (1)(a) above as there suppressed under the Plenary Powers ; (b) the name Acicu/a Renier, [1807], as suppressed under the same Powers under (1)(b) above. (5) The under-mentioned family names are hereby placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology :—(a) ACMAEIDAE (type genus : Acmaea Eschscholtz, 1833) : (b) ACICULIDAE (type genus : Acicula Hartmann, 1821). (6) The under-mentioned family name is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology : ACMEIDAE (type genus Acme Hartmann, 1821). 7 For an earlier type selection reported by Dr. L. R. Cox in a letter dated 10th May 1954 see Footnote 3. OPINION 344 343 II.—THE DECISION OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 20. Issue of Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(54)3 : On 3rd April 1954, a Voting Paper (V.P.(O.M)(54)3) was issued in which the Members of the Commission were invited to vote either for, or against, the proposal “ relating to the names Acmaea Eschscholtz, 1833, Acme Hartmann, 1821, and Acmea Hartmann, 1821, and matters connected therewith as set out in the Draft Ruling submitted by the Secretary concurrently with the present Voting Paper ”’ [i.e., the draft Ruling reproduced in paragraph 19 of the present Opinion]. 21. The Prescribed Voting Period: As the foregoing Voting Paper was issued under the One-Month Rule, the Prescribed Voting Period closed on 3rd May 1954. 22. Particulars of the Voting on Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(54)3 : The state of the voting on Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(54)3 at the close of the Prescribed Voting Period was as follows :— (a) Affirmative Votes had been given by the following sixteen (16) Commissioners (arranged in the order in which Votes were received) : iowhuis ; Memche: =-Vokes; Hering; Sylvester- Bradley; Bonnet; Dymond; Mertens; Cabrera ; Riley ; Esaki; Stoll; Pearson;. Hemming; Bradley (J.C.) ; Boschma ; (b) Negative Votes : None ; (c) Voting Papers not returned, three (3) : do Amaral® ; Hanko ; Jaczewski®. 8 After the close of the Prescribed Voting Period, affirmative Votes were received _ from Commissioner Jaczewski (8th May 1954) and from Commissioner do Amaral (19th May 1954). 344 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 23. Declaration of Result of Vote: On 4th May 1954, Mr. Hemming, Secretary to the International Commission, acting as Returning Officer for the Vote taken on Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(54)3, signed a Certificate that the Votes cast were as set out in paragraph 22 above and declaring that the proposal submitted in the foregoing Voting Paper had been duly adopted and that the decision so taken was the decision of the International Commission in the matter aforesaid. 24. Submission to the Commission in July 1954 of supplementary proposals relating to the family-group-name aspect of the present case : When, following the adoption of the proposal voted upon by the Commission in Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(54)3, Mr. Hemming came to prepare the draft of the Opinion embodying. that decision, he encountered serious difficulties in ascertaining the original references for the family-group names which by that Vote the Commission had decided to place on the Official List and Official Index of family-group names respectively. The nature of these difficulties and the manner in which it was pro- posed that they should be overcome were reported to the Com- mission by Mr. Hemming on 2nd July 1954 in the following paper : Addition of certain family-group names relating to the ‘‘Acmaea/Acmea/ Acme ”’ complex to the ‘‘ Official List ’’ and ‘‘ Official Index ”” of Family-Group Names respectively and matters incidental thereto By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E., _ Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature Under cover of a note numbered Z.N.(S.) 27 I submitted to the International Commission on 3rd April, 1954, proposals for the settle- ment of the problems centred around the generic name Acmaea ° Eschscholtz, 1833, on the lines of the solution of this question fore- shadowed by the Commission at the conclusion of its discussion of this subject at its Session held in Paris in 1948. The proposal so submitted was put to the Commission in Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(54)3, which was submitted simultaneously with the paper referred to above. The proposals submitted with the foregoing Voting Paper secured the unanimous approval of the Commission. OPINION 344 345 2. The proposals referred to above included recommendations for the addition of certain associated family-group names to the Official List and to the Official Index of family-group names. When at the close of the Prescribed Voting Period, I came to prepare the Opinion required to give effect to the decision taken by the Commission, I encountered great difficulty in ascertaining the references for the family-group names concerned, just as at the same time I met with similar difficulties in locating corresponding references for the family- group names dealt with in Opinions 140 and 143, the proposed codi- fication of which was included in the proposals submitted to the Commission on 5th April, 1954, in connection with Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(54)4°. In each case, I postponed action on the case in question until by consultation with specialists in the group concerned I had obtained the information needed to enable me to resubmit the case to the Commission. The problems associated with the family- group names dealt with in Opinions 140 and 143 have to-day been resubmitted under cover of a note annexed to Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(54)12". 3. In the present case the Commission is indebted for the information set out below to Dr. L. R. Cox (British Museum (Natural History), London). In furnishing these particulars Dr. Cox reported that the search of the literature necessary to obtain the required reference had occupied two and a half days of the time of his assistant and himself. That the application of the Copenhagen decision that the relative status of family-group names should be subject to the principle of priority should have called for so large a diversion of valuable time from systematic work clearly raises the question whether the decision taken in this matter is the best that could be devised. The general question so raised is discussed in Paper Z.N.(S.) 844 submitted to the Commission simultaneously with the present paper, to which reference is invited", 4. In the paper submitted with Voting Paper (V.P.(O.M.)(54)3, I recommended that two family-group names should be placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology. These were the names ACMAEIDAE (type genus : Acmaea Eschscholtz, 1933) and ACICULIDAE (type genus : Acicula Hartmann, 1821). In order to complete the action required, there should have been added to these a third name, TRUNCA- TELLIDAE (type genus: Jruncatella Risso, 1826). Dr. Cox has now supplied what he believes to be the oldest reference for each of these ® For the decision taken by the Commission on Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(54)4 see Direction 4 (1954, Ops. Decls. int. Comm. zool. Nomencl. 2 : 629—652). 10 For the decision taken by the Commission on Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(54)12 see Direction 6 (1954, Ops. Decls. int. Comm. zool. Nomencl. 2 : 665—684). 11 The paper here referred has been reproduced in paragraph 2 of Declaration 18 (1954, Ops. Decls. int. Comm. zool. Nomencl. 6 : i—xx). 346 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS names. In reporting that the oldest use of the name ACICULIDAE which it had been possible to trace, namely, that by Woodward (S.P.) in 1854, Dr. Cox added :—“‘ Several authors attribute this family to Gray, 1850, but no use of this name by him can be traced. It was possibly merely on a museum label.” 5. The paper submitted with Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(54)3 con- tained a recommendation that one name should be added to the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology, namely the name ACMEIDAE (type genus: Acme Hartmann, 1821) Dr. Cox has reported that he has traced this name back in the literature to a paper by Pollonera (C.) published in 1905. Dr. Cox added, by way of illustration of the difficulties involved in tracing family-group names, that, until he had made the search of the literature which I had asked him to undertake, he had been unaware of the existence of this paper by Pollonera and indeed had never heard of that author. Dr. Cox at the same time drew attention to the name ACMIDAE, which he had traced back as far as Kobelt (W.), by whom it had been published in 1908 as a name for a family based upon the same type genus as ACMEIDAE Pollonera. This name is a junior objective synonym of the name ACI- CULIDAE Woodward, 1854. Dr. Cox recommends that this name also should be placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family- Group Names in Zoology, a view which I share. 6. In the course of preparing the Ruling required to give effect to the decision taken by the Commission on Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(54)3, I re-checked the references for all the generic and specific names which the Commission had decided to place on one or other of the Official Lists and Official Indexes. In doing so, I established the existence of two generic names, each of which would have been a senior homonym of one of the names which it has been decided to place on the Official List if it had not been these names were published as nomina nuda and are therefore without status in zoological nomenclature. The names in question are :—Acicula Oken, 1815, and Acmaea Eschscholtz, 1830. I recommend that in accordance with current standard practice these names should now be placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. 7. I submit in the Annexe set out below, a Supplementary Proposal which I recommend that the Commission should now adopt for the purpose of disposing of the matters discussed in the preceding para- graphs in accordance with the General Directive issued to it by the International Congress of Zoology that decisions taken on individual cases should cover the whole of the ground and that in all relevant cases names dealt with in such decisions should be placed on the appropriate Official List or Official Index. The original references OPINION 344 347 for the names concerned are given in the Supplementary Proposal now submitted. ANNEXE Proposal supplementary to the decision in regard to the generic name **Acmaea ”’ Eschscholtz, 1833, and matters incidental thereto taken in the Vote on Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(54)3, dated 3rd April, 1954 (1) The following names to be placed on the Official List of Family- Group Names in Zoology :— (a) ACICULIDAE Woodward (S.P.), 1854, Manual of the Mollusca : 178 (type genus : Acicu/a Hartmann, 1821) (b) ACMAEIDAE Carpenter (P. C.), 1857, Catalogue of Mazatlan Shells : 202 (type genus : Acmaea Eschscholtz, 1833) (c) TRUNCATELLIDAE Gray (J.E.), 1840, Synopsis of the Contents of the British Museum (ed. 42): 117 (type genus : Truncatella Risso, 1826) (2) The following names to be placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology. (a) ACMEIDAE Pollonera (C.), 1905, Boll. Mus. Zool. Anat. comp. Torino 20 (No. 517) : 1 (type genus : Acme Hartmann, 1821) (a junior objective synonym of ACICULIDAE Woodward, 1854, the respective type genera of the two families having the same nominal species as type species) (b) ACMIDAE Kobelt (W.), 1908, Jahrb. nassau. Ver. Naturkunde 61: 157 (type genus: Acme Hartmann, 1821, im Sturm’s Deutschlands Fauna 6 (Wirm.) (5) : 49) (a junior objective Synonym of ACICULIDAE Woodward, 1854, the respective type genera of the two families having the same nominal species as type species) (3) The following names to be placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology :— (a) Acicula on 1815, Lehrb. Naturgesch. 3(1) (Zool.) : 383 (a nomen nudum) 348 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS (b) Acmaea Eschscholtz, 1830, in Kotzebue’s Neue Reise um die Welt 2 : App. 24 (a nomen nudum). 25. Issue of Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(54)14: On 2nd July 1954, a Voting Paper (V.P.(O.M.)(54)14) was issued in which the Members of the Commission were invited to vote either for, or against, the “‘ incorporation in the decision already taken on Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(54)3 in regard to the names of the Acmaea/Acmea/Acme complex of the supplementary decisions recommended in the Annexe attached to the note by the Secretary submitted simultaneously with the present Voting Paper ”’ [i.e., in the annexe to the paper reproduced in paragraph 24 of the present Opinion]. 26. The Prescribed Voting Period: As the foregoing Voting Paper was issued under the One-Month Rule, the Prescribed Voting Period was due to close on 2nd August 1954. In view, however, of doubts which arose on the question whether two Members of the Commission (Bradley (J.C.) ; Dymond (J.R.)) had duly received the Voting Papers issued to them, the Secretary gave directions that the Voting Period be extended for a period sufficient to enable the Commissioners concerned to record their Votes on the duplicate Voting Papers then issued to them. Ultimately, the Voting Period was closed on 11th September 1954. 27. Particulars of the Voting on Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(54)14 : At the close of the Voting Period, extended as explained in para- graph 26 above, the state of the voting on Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(54)14 was as follows :— (a) Affirmative Votes had been received from the following eighteen (18) Commissioners (arranged in the order in which Votes were received) : Holthuis ; Hering ; Vokes ; Cabrera ; Esaki; Lemche ; Hemming; Stoll; Sylvester-Bradley; Pearson; do Amaral ; Mertens ; Jaczewski; Bonnet ; Boschma ; Riley ; Bradley (J.C.) ; Dymond ; OPINION 344 349 (b) Negative Votes : None ; (c) Voting Paper not returned, one (1) : Hanko. 28. Declaration of Result of Vote : On 11th September 1954, Mr. Hemming, Secretary to the International Commission, acting as Returning Officer for the Vote taken on Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(54)14, signed a Certificate that the Votes cast were as set out in paragraph 27 above and declaring that the proposal submitted in the foregoing Voting Paper had been duly adopted and that the decision so taken was the decision of the International Commission in the matter aforesaid. 29. Preparation of the Ruling given in the present ‘‘ Opinion ”’ : On 12th November 1954, Mr. Hemming prepared the Ruling given in the present Opinion and at the same time signed a Certificate that the terms of that Ruling were in complete accord with those of the proposal approved by the International Com- mission in its Vote on Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(54)3, as supplemented by its Vote on Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(54)14. 30. The following are the original references for the generic names and specific names placed on the Official Lists and Official Indexes in the Ruling given in the present Opinion :— Acicula Renier, [1807], Tavole : pl. 6 Acicula Oken, 1815, Lehrbuch Naturgesch. 3(1)(Zool.) : 383 Acicula Hartmann, 1821, in Steinmiiller’s Neue Alpina 1 : 205, 215 Acmaea Eschscholtz, 1830, in Kotzebue, Neue Reise Welt 2: App. 24 Acmaea Eschscholtz, 1833, Zool. Atlas 5 : 16 Acme Hartmann, 1821, in Sturm’s Deutschlands Fauna 6 (Wirm.) Oy 37 350 ~ OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS Acmea Hartmann, 1821, in Sturm’s Deutschlands Fauna 6 (Wirm.) (5) : 49 Acmea Hartmann, 1821, in Steinmiller’s Neue Alpina 1 : 204, 212, 213, 214 Fidela Risso, 1826, Hist. nat. princip. Product. Europ. mérid. 1: 154; ibid. 4: 435 Fidelis Risso, 1826, Hist. nat. princip. Product. Europ. mérid. 4: 121 lineatus, Bulimus, Draparnaud, [1801], Tabl. Moll. terrestr. fluviat. France : 67 : mitra, Acmaea, Eschscholtz, 1833, Zool. Atlas 5 : 18 subcylindrica, Helix, Linnaeus, 1767, Syst. Nat. (ed. 12) 1(2) : 1248 Truncatella Risso, 1826, Hist. nat. princip. Product. Europ. mérid. 4 : 124. 31. The following are the references cited in the Ruling given in the present Opinion for the selection of type species for the under-mentioned nominal genera :— Acmaea Eschscholtz, 1833: Dall, 1871, Amer. J. Conch. 6 : 24, 243 Truncatella Risso, 1826: Woodward (S.P.), 1851, Manual Moll. SST. | 32. The following are the original references for the under- mentioned family-group names placed on Official Lists and Official Indexes in the Ruling given in the present Opinion :— ACICULIDAE Woodward (S.P.), 1854, Manual Moll. : 178 (type genus : Acicula Hartmann, 1821) ACMAEIDAE Carpenter (P.C.), 1857, Cat. Mazatlan Shells : 202 (type genus : Acmaea Eschscholtz, 1833) ACMEIDAE Pollonera (C.), 1905, Boll. Mus. Zool. Anat. comp. Torino 20 (No. 517): 1 (type genus: Acme Hartmann, 1821) ACMIDAE Kobelt (W.), 1908, Jahrb. nassau. Ver. Naturkunde 61 : 157 (type genus : Acme Hartman, 1821) TRUNCATELLIDAE Gray (J.E.), 1840, Synopsis Contents Brit. Mus. (ed. 42) : 117 (type genus : Truncatella Risso, 1826). 33. At the time of the submission of the original application dealt with in the present Opinion, the expression prescribed for OPINION 344 351 the second portion of the binomen which constitutes the scientific name of a species was the expression “trivial name” and the Official List reserved for recording such names was styled the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology, the word ** trivial ’’ appearing also in the title of the Official Index reserved for recording rejected and invalid names of this category. Under a decision taken by the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology, Copenhagen, 1953, the expression “‘ specific name” was substituted for the expression “ trivial name” and corresponding changes were made in thetitles of the Official Listand Official Index of such names (1953, Copenhagen Decisions zool. Nomencl. : 21). The changes in terminology so adopted have been incorporated in the Ruling given in the present Opinion. 34. The prescribed procedures were duly complied with by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature in dealing with the present case, and the present Opinion is accordingly hereby rendered in the name of the said International Commission by the under-signed Francis Hemming, Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, in virtue of all and every the powers conferred upon him in that behalf. 35. The present Opinion shall be known as Opinion Three Hundred and Forty-Four (344) of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Done in London, this Twelfth day of November, Nineteen Hundred and Fifty-Four. Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature FRANCIS HEMMING OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTER- NATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Edited by FRANCIS HEMMING, c..c., C.B.E. Secretary to the Commission 1C1 VOLUME 10. Part 12. Pp. 353—388 OPINION 345 Rejection of a proposal for the use of the Plenary Powers for the benefit of the generic name Rhina Latreille, [1802—1803] (Class Insecta, Order Coleoptera) and addition of the generic name Rhina Schneider, 1801 (Class Elasmobranchii) to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ; designation under the Plenary Powers for the genera Rhinostomus Rafinesque, 1815, and Magdalis Germar, 1817 (Class Insecta, Order Coleoptera) of type species in harmony with accustomed usage : validation under the Plenary Powers of the specific name barbicornis Latreille, [1803—1804], as published in the combination Rhina barbicornis (Class Insecta, Order Coleoptera) 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 1955 Price Eighteen Shillings (Al! rights reserved) Issued 17th June, 1955 \ a) mo rp or = bw we [= 5 1¢ INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE COMPOSITION AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THE RULING GIVEN IN OPINION 345 A. The Officers of the Commission Honorary Life President: Dr. Karl Jordan (British Museum (Natural History), Zoological Museum, Tring, Herts., England). President : (Vacant). Vice-President : Senhor Dr. Afranio do Amaral (Sao Paulo, Brazil). Secretary : Mr. Francis Hemming (London, England). B. The Members of the Commission (arranged in order of precedence by reference to date of election or of most recent re-election, as prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology). Senhor Dr. Afranio do AMARAL (S. Paulo, Brazil) (Vice-President) (Ast January 1944). Professor J. R. DyMOND (University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada) ({Ast January 1944). Professor J. Chester BRADLEY (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) (28th March 1944). Professor Harold E. Vokes (Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, U.S.A.) (23rd April 1944). Dr. William Thomas CALMAN (Coulsdon, Surrey, England) (Ast January 1947). Professor Béla HANKO (Békéscsaba, Hungary) (1st January 1947). Dr. Norman R. STOLL (Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, New York, N.Y., U.S.A.) (Ast January 1947). Professor H. BoscHMA (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) (Ast January 1947). Senor Dr. Angel CABRERA (Eva Peron, F.C.N.G.R., Argentina) (27th July 1948). Mr. Francis HEMMING (London, England) (Secretary) (27th July 1948). Dr. Joseph PEARSON (Tasmanian Museum, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia) (27th July 1948). Dr. Henning LEMCHE (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark) (27th July 1948). Professor Teiso EsAkI (Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan) (17th April 1950). Professor Pierre BONNET (Université de Toulouse, France) (9th June 1950). Mr. Norman Denbigh RILeEy (British Museum (Natural History), London) (9th June 1950). Professor Tadeusz JACZEWSKI (Depariment of Systematic Zoology, Warsaw University, Warsaw, Poland) (15th June 1950). Professor Robert MERTENS (Natur-Museum u. Forschungs-Institut Senckenberg, Frankfurt a. M., Germany) (5th July 1950). Professor Erich Martin HERING (Zoologisches Museum der Humboldt-Universitdat zu Berlin, Germany) (5th July 1950). OPINION 345 REJECTION OF A PROPOSAL FOR THE USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE GENERIC NAME ‘“ RHINA ”? LATREILLE, [1802—1803] (CLASS INSECTA, ORDER COLEOPTERA) AND ADDITION OF THE GENERIC NAME “RHINA” SCHNEIDER, 1801 (CLASS ELASMOBRANCHI]) TO THE “ OFFICIAL LIST OF GENERIC NAMES IN ZOOLOGY ” : DESIGNATION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS FOR THE GENERA ‘¢s RHINOSTOMUS ”? RAFINESQUE, 1815, AND ‘¢ MAGDALIS ’? GERMAR, 1817 (CLASS INSECTA, ORDER COLEOPTERA) OF TYPE SPECIES IN HARMONY WITH ACCUSTOMED USAGE: VALI- DATION, UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS, OF THE SPECIFIC NAME ‘“‘ BARBICORNIS ”’ LATREILLE, [1803—1804], AS PUBLISHED IN THE COMBINATION ‘‘ RHINA BARBI- CORNIS °? (CLASS INSECTA, ORDER COLEOPTERA) RULING :—(1) The application for the use of the Plenary Powers for the benefit of the generic name Rhina_ Latreille, [1802—1803] (Class Insecta, Order Coleoptera) is hereby rejected, since the foregoing name is a junior homonym of the name Rhina Schneider, 1801 (Class Elasmobranchii), a name which has been in general use ever since it was first published over 150 years ago. (2) The under-mentioned action is hereby taken under the Plenary Powers :— (a) All designations or selections of type species for the under-mentioned nominal genera made prior to the present Ruling are hereby set aside :—(a) Rhinostomus Rafinesque, 1815; (b) Magdalis Germar, 1817. HH 1:5 1955 356 ‘OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS (b) The nominal species Curculio barbirostris Fabricius, 1775, is hereby designated to be the type species of Rhinostomus Rafinesque, 1815. (c) The nominal species Curculio violaceus Linnaeus, 1758, is hereby designated to be the type species of Magdalis Germar, 1817. (d) The reference to Curculio barbicornis Fabricius, 1775, under the generic name Rhina made in 1802—1803 by Latreille (: 198) when establishing the nominal genus Rhina is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Law of Homonymy. (3) The under-mentioned generic names are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Nos. 860 to 863 respectively :— (a) Magdalis Germar, 1817 (gender: feminine) (type species, by designation under the Plenary Powers under (2)(c) above : Curculio violaceus Linnaeus, 1758) (Class Insecta, Order Coleoptera) ; (b) Platyrhina Miller & Henle, 1838 (gender : feminine) (type species, by original designation: Rhina sinensis Schneider, 1801) (Class Elasmobranchit) ; (c) Rhina Schneider, 1801 (gender: feminine) (type species, by indication under Opinion 6: Rhina ancylostomus Schneider, 1801) (Class Elasmo- branchit) ; (d) Rhinostomus Rafinesque, 1815 (gender : masculine) (type species, by designation under the Plenary Powers under (2)(b) above : Curculio barbirostris Fabricius, 1775) (Class Insecta, Order Coleoptera). (4) The under-mentioned generic names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Nos. 249 to 256 respectively :— (a) Analithis Gistl, 1848 (a junior objective synonym of Platyrhina Miiller & Henle, 1838) ; OPINION 345 350 (b) Discobatus Garman, 1880 (a junior objective syno- nym of Platyrhina Miiller & Henle, 1838) ; (c) Magdalinus Germar, 1843 (a j junior once syno- nym of Magdalis Germar, 1817) ; (d) Rhina Schaeffer, 1760 (a name published in a work rejected for nomenclatorial purposes) ; (e) Rhina Walbaum, 1792 (a name published in a work rejected for nomenclatorial purposes) ; (f) Rhina Latreille, [1802—1803] (a junior homonym of Rhina Schneider, 1801) ; (g) Rhina Rafinesque, 1810 (a junior homonym of Rhina Schneider, 1801) ; (h) Thamnophilus Schoenherr, 1823 (a junior homonym of Thamnophilus Vieillot, 1816, and a junior objective synonym of Magdalis Germar, 1817). (5) The under-mentioned specific names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Nos. 468 to 473 respectively :— (a) ancylostomus Schneider, 1801, as published in the combination Rhina ancylostomus (specific name of type species of Rhina Schneider, 1801) ; (b) barbicornis Fabricius, 1775, as published in the combination Curculio barbicornis ; (c) barbicornis Latreille, [1803—1804], as published in the combination Rhina barbicornis and as vali- dated under the Plenary Powers under (2)(d) above ; (d) barbirostris Fabricius, 1775, as published in the combination Curculio barbirostris (specific name of type species, by designation under the Plenary Powers under (2)(b) above, of Rhinostomus Rafinesque, 1815) ; 358 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS (e) sinensis Schneider, 1801, as published in the com- bination Rhina sinensis (specific name of type species of Platyrhina Miller & Henle, 1838) ; (f) violaceus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the com- bination Curculio violaceus (specific name of type species, by designation under the Plenary Powers under (2)(c) above, of Magdalis Germar, 1817). (6) The title of the under-mentioned work is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Works in Zoological Nomenclature with the Name No. 29 :— Schneider (J. C.), 1760, Epistola ad Regio-Borussicam Societatem Litterariam Duisbergensem de Studi ichthyo- logici faciliori ac tutiori Methodo (a work in which the author did not apply the principles of binominal nomen- clature). I.—THE STATEMENT OF THE CASE On 15th November 1945 Professor J. Chester Bradley (Cornell University, Department of Entomology, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) submitted an application for a Ruling from the Commission on the question of the species to be accepted as the type species of the genus Rhina Latreille, [1802—1803] (Class Insecta, Order Coleoptera). Later, this application was recast to form a request that the Commission should use its Plenary Powers for the purpose of designating for the genus Rhina Latreille a type species in harmony with current usage and of taking corresponding OPINION 345 359 action in regard to the genus Magdalis Germar, 1817 (paragraph 6 below). The application so submitted was as follows :— Proposed use of the Plenary Powers to validate the generic names ‘* Rhina ’’ Latreille, [1802—1803], and ‘* Magdalis ’’ Germar, 1817, for use respectively in their accustomed sense (Class Insecta, Order Coleoptera) By J. CHESTER BRADLEY (Department of Entomology, Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y.) In “An XI” of the French Revolutionary calendar (September 1802—September 1803), Latreille published the generic name Rhina (Hist. nat. gén. part. Crust. Ins. 3 : 198), (Class Insecta, Order Cole- optera). Latreille cited two species under this generic name, the second with a query. The species so cited were : ‘‘ Curculio barbicornis F.’” and “‘ Curculio cerasi ? F.”’. 2. Since Latreille did not at that time designate or indicate a type species and his second species is excluded as a possible type species under Rule (e), (7) in Article 30 of the Code, the type species of this genus is barbicornis Fabricius, by monotypy. But the name “ barbi- cornis F.’’ applied by Latreille to that species, was a Japsus calami for “ barbirostris F.’’, as is proven by the following considerations. 3. Fabricius in 1775 (Syst. Ent. : 134) described one species under the name Curculio barbicornis and on the following page (: 135) a second species under the name Curculio barbirostris. Of C. barbicornis he says amongst other things : ““ Rostrum corpore longius ... Antennae . . . filiformes, hirtae, articulis undecim cylindricis versus apicem rostri insertae...”. But Latreille, when publishing the generic name Rhina, wrote of the species which he then mistakenly called “ barbi- cornis F.”’: “Trompe de la longueur de la moité du corps... le huitiéme article des antennes formant la massue”’. Under the generic description Latreille wrote: ‘“‘Antennes insérées vers le milieu des. cotés de la trompe ’’. barbicornis F. barbicornis Latreille Rostrum as long as body one half as long as body Antennae filiform with a club : : of eleven segments of eight segments inserted towards the inserted towards the apex of the beak middle of the beak 360 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 4. The nominal species Curculio barbirostris Fabricius is ordinarily identified with a very large common Neotropical weevil with which the description given by Fabricius agrees in all respects, including such conspicuously characteristic matters as the bearded beak (but this is sexual) and the tridentate anterior femora. The characters given by Latreille for “ barbicornis F.’’, although not in all respects those mentioned by Fabricius for C. barbirostris, agree perfectly with the insect itself, including the statement made in the generic description in regard to the antennae: “le huitiéme ou neuvieme article paroissant former 4 lui seul une massue tres-allongé, ellipsoide ”’. 5. The nominal species Curculio barbicornis Fabricius, 1775, is ordinarily identified with a large and common New Zealand species of BRENTIDAE now placed in the genus Lasiorhynchus Dejean. 6. It seems clearly apparent that Latreille, confused by the two similar Fabrician names appearing on facing pages of the same work, simply wrote ‘“ barbicornis F.”’ when he meant “ barbirostris F.’’. 7. In volume 11 of his Histoire naturelle des Crustacés et des Insectes (1804 : 101) Latreille wrote further of his genus Rhina. In volume 3 he had been giving a synopsis of the genera with brief mention of species. In volume 11 he treated each genus more fully. He now dwelt upon the essential characters of the genus Rhina and there again included two species, which I believe he meant to be the same two ; but he rectified his error in regard to the name of the first, which he now called Rhina barbirostris, citing as a synonym Lixus barbirostris F. (but making no mention of the fact that he himself had previously called it barbi- cornis). In the meanwhile he had evidently realised that his second Species was not cerasi F. and rechristened it Rhina barbicornis (Authors currently list both barbicornis Latreille and cerasi F. in the same genus but as distinct species.) But the species which Latreille now called Rhina barbicornis was a totally different barbicornis from Curculio barbicornis Fabricius ; in the light of current knowledge it is a well-known European species of the genus Magdalis Germar, 1817, which is now also adventive in North America, and a species of some economic importance. 8. Latreille in 1810 (Consid. gén. Crust. Arach. Ins. : 431) cited ** Lixus barbirostris F.”’ as the type species of Rhina, without mentioning other species. 9. Current usage (e.g., Csiki, Coleopt. Catalogus 149 : 87, published in 1936) employs the name Rhina as though C. barbirostris F. were the type species, although there has been some attempt to make it replace the Magdalis, the type genus of the sub-family MAGDALINAE, OPINION 345 361 which it could only do if the second species (first called by Latreille *‘ cerasi? F.”? and later named by that author barbicornis as a new species) were the type species. 10. The method to be pursued in determining the type species of a nominal genus, which, as in the present case, was based upon a misidentified type species, has twice in the past been the subject of rulings by the Commission (in Opinions 65 and 168 respectively) and in 1948 was further clarified by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, which agreed to the insertion in the Reégles of an express provision on this subject. This new provision makes it clear that an author who publishes a name for a genus is “to be assumed to have identified correctly the nominal species referred by him to the genus so named and therefore that, where . . . the original author himself designates or indicates, or the same or some other author later selects, one of the originally included nominal species. | to be the type species of the genus, the designation, indication or, as the case may be, the selection so made, is not to be rejected on the ground that the original author misidentified some other nominal species with that nominal species, but that, where there are grounds for considering that such species had been misidentified by the original author of the genus, the case is to be submitted to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, which, if satisfied that the species in question had been so misidentified, is, under its Plenary Powers, to designate as the type species of the genus concerned, either (a) the species intended by the original author when citing the name of the erroneously determined species, or (b), if the identity of that species is doubtful, a species in harmony with current usage ’”’ (see 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 158—159), except in cases where the Commission considers that greater confusion than uniformity would result from so doing. In the present case I have shown both that the species indicated by Latreille as the type species was a species which, as the result (as I believe) of a Japsus calami, was a misidentified species, and also that the species which Latreille intended to include in the genus Rhina, when he cited the name “ barbicornis F.”’ was the species Curculio barbirostris Fabricius, 1775. I have further shown that the genus Rhina Latreille is interpreted as though Latreille had in fact cited C. barbirostris Fabricius as an included species and that great confusion would result if, under a strict interpretation of the Régles it were necessary now to accept Curculio barbicornis Fabricius, 1775, as the type species of this genus. I accordingly ask the International Commission to apply to this case the procedure agreed upen in Paris, by using their Plenary Powers to designate Curculio barbirostris Fabricius, 1775, as the type species of the genus Rhina Latreille, [1802— 1803]. 11. Prior to the Paris Congress of 1948, the availability of the name Rhina barbicornis Latreille, 1804 (which, as I have explained, applies 362 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS to a well-known species of the genus Magdalis) would have been a matter of doubt, for it might have been held that this name was invalid on account of secondary homonymy, owing to the prior (inadvertent) use by Latreille in 1802—1803 of the same binominal combination for the species, the true name of which is Curculio barbirostris Fabricius, 1775. Under the Paris decisions (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 118— 125) a name is not to be rejected on the ground of secondary homonymy if the two species concerned are no longer regarded as congeneric and if, during the period when they were regarded as belonging to the same genus, no author replaced the later published of the two names in question. Under this decision the new name Rhina_ barbicornis Latreille, 1804 (which belongs to the species now regarded as referable to the genus Magdalis) is not invalidated by the prior use by Latreille of the same binominal combination for Curculio barbirostris Fabricius, as it was never replaced on the ground that it was a secondary homonym by any author who considered the two species congeneric. In order, however, to underline the fact that the trivial name barbicornis Latreille, 1804, as published in the binominal combination Rhina barbicornis, is an available name, it is desirable that this trivial name should now be placed on the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology. 12. Although, as explained, the generic name Rhina Latreille [1802—1803], is in general use, it has in the past been suggested that it was invalid, on the ground that it was a junior homonym of Rhina Schaeffer, 1760, and of Rhina Walbaum, 1792 (in a reprint of Klein, 1744), both of which are names which have been applied to genera of fish. It was for this reason that Rafinesque in 1815 (Analyse : 165) replaced the name Rhina Latreille by the substitute name Rhinostomus. Rafinesque was, however, mistaken in rejecting the name Rhina Latreille, which is not a homonym of any available name of older date and is perfectly valid!. Of the two names, by which it was alleged that Latreille’s name Rhina was preoccupied, the first, Rhina Schaeffer, 1760, was examined by the late President David Starr Jordan (1917, Genera of Fishes) and rejected as having been published by a non- binominal author, while the second, Rhina Walbaum, 1792, is unavailable nomenclatorially under the decision in the Commission’s _ Opinion 21 that Walbaum’s reissue of Klein’s pre-1758 work does not confer availability on the names published therein. 13. In view of the decision taken by the Commission in 1948 that in future Opinions should deal fully with all aspects of the problem under consideration (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 355), coupled with the instruction given to the Commission by the Congress to foster the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 267—269), I recommend that, at the same time that the generic 1 As will be seen from the additional information brought forward in paragraph 15 of the present Opinion, this statement was made under a misapprehension of the facts. OPINION 345 363 name Rhina Latreille is placed on the Official List, there should be added thereto also the name Magdalis Germar, 1817, owing to the connection of that generic name with the present case through the name Rhina barbicornis Latreille, 1804, the name of a species currently referred to Germar’s genus. (It may be noted that, prior to the Paris Congress, this well-known name, Magdalis, would have been considered _ as having been first established by Samouelle in 1819, with the definitely designated type species Curculio aterrimus Fabricius, 1775, since Germar in 1817 published it without any definition or description, but with included nominal species, none of which was designated or indicated as the type species. Under the liberalisation of the expression “‘ indication” in proviso (a) to Article 25 then agreed to (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 78—80), the name Magdalis Germar, 1817, acquired availability as of that date). Type Species of Magdalis Germar, 1817 14. The name Magdalis was first used by Germar in 1817 (Mag. Ent. 2 : 340). No description was given and no indication except that three nominal species were included : “ Rhynch. Pruni, violaceus, aterrimus’’. No authors’ names were mentioned and no bibliographical references given. ‘‘ Rhynch.” is an abbreviation of the Fabrician generic name Rhynchaenus. : 15. The following question arises: Since Germar, 1817, in giving the specific names Rhynch. aterrimus, etc., to the species that he included in his new genus Magdalis, failed to cite the authors of those names and gave no bibliographical clue to what species were meant, (a) did he fail to establish Magdalis or (b) canthe species named be accepted as those, if any, that at the time of his writing bore or had borne those complete specific names (1.e., generic and specific name) ?* 16. If the answer to (a) were to be “ yes’, then Magdalis was not established by Germar, 1817, nor by Samouelle, 1819, since neither gave the author’s name nor any bibliographical reference to the trivial name or names. In that case the genus was established by Germar in Neue Annalen Wetterauische Gesellsch. fiir die gesammte Naturkunde zu Hanau 4: 130. Germar here included :— (1) M. violacea Fbr., Linn., Rossi, Pzr., Payk., Laich., DeGeer, Hrbst. * The answer to this question seems to be explicit in the action taken by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature at Paris in 1948 (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 80, concl. 13, par. 1). ‘‘A generic name published before Ist January 1931, shall be available (under Art. 25)... when the name, on being first published, was accompanied by no verbal definition or description, the only indication given being that provided by the cita.ton under the generic . name concerned of the names of one or more previously published noyninal species.”’ Since the only requirement is the name of the species, the name of the author is not required and equally no other bibliographic reference. 364 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS (2) M. nassata (descr. follows) ‘‘ Ob sie vielleicht Rhynch. carbon- arius Fabr. ist ?”’ (3) M. duplicata (descr. follows) ‘* Vielleicht Curculio cerasi L. und vielleicht auch Curculio cerasi Hrbst., Payk. (mas) ”’. (4) M. aterrima Fbr., Hrbst., Oliv. (5) M. cerasi Fbr., Clairv., Hrbst. (fem.). (6) M. Lymexylon Fbr., Panz., Payk., Hrbst. No type species was either designated or indicated. 17. The first type selection known to me was by Schoenherr in 1823 Usis (Oken) 2 : 1136), who there proposed Thamnophilus as a sub- stitute name for Magdalis, designated Rhynch. violaceus auct. as type species and therefore ipso facto made it also the type species of Maedailis. 18. If, on the other hand (as appears inevitable from reasons stated in the preceding footnote), the answer to (b) is “ yes ’’, then it becomes necessary to ascertain whether any or all of three nominal species bearing the names “ Rhynch.” (i.e., Rhynchaenus) “ Pruni., violaceus and aterrimus’’ stood in the genus Rhynchaenus in the year 1817 or had earlier been placed init. We need here only consider aterrimus. In Syst. Eleuth. (2 : 486), Fabricius transferred Curculio aterrimus (see 1792, Ent. Syst. 1: 439, No. 189) to Rhynchaenus. This was the species which Germar meant by “ Rhynch. aterrimus’”’ in 1817, a fact which he himself corrobrated in 1819 by giving a reference to Fabricius as the first authority cited after his “‘ Magdalis aterrima”’. b) 19. If, therefore, citation of “‘ Rhynch. aterrimus’’ and others is accepted as adequate to validate the publication of the generic name Magdalis, and it is apparent that it must be, then Samouelle in 1819 validly selected the originally included species R. aterrimus as its type species.* * Samouelle, George. The Entomologists’ useful Compendium, 1919, p. 204. “In... Germar’s and Zincker Sommer’s Magazin de Entomologie, v. 111 [sic/, should read 11] for 1817, notice is given of the following genera lately established (the species mentioned may be considered the types). ““ Genus Magdalis Germar. Sp. 1. aterrimus.”’ _ (Then followed eight more genera, in one or two instances, two species being mentioned under each). In the two cases where Samouelle named two species, he did not effect a type-selection. In the other cases he certainly did, under even the most rigorous construction. OPINION 345 365 The identity of Rhynchaenus aterrimus 20. Schenkling, in the Coleopterorum Catalogus, and other authors attribute Magdalis aterrima to Fabricius. But Fabricius never had any intention of establishing a new species under that name, and no act of his could be construed as doing so. He first mentioned aterrimus as a species of Curculio in 1792 (Ent. syst. 2 : 439, No. 189), but in doing so cited Curculio aterrimus Linnaeus, Syst. Naturae and Fauna suecica. In 1801 (Syst. Eleuth, 2 : 486, No. 225) he transferred Curculio aterrimus Linnaeus to his new genus Rhynchaenus, citing Curculio aterrimus by name, and giving a reference to his own Ent. syst. aS well as both the Linnean references above mentioned. 21. Consequently, only one species has been established, namely, Curculio aterrimus Linnaeus, changed in 1801 to Rhynchaenus aterrimus (Linnaeus) Fabricius and in 1817 to Magdalis aterrima (Linnaeus) Germar. 22. While I am not familiar with the taxonomy of these beetles, and have no basis for a subjective opinion as to what actual species Linnaeus meant by Curculio aterrimus, it is clear that coleopterists are in doubt. This is evident from the fact that Schenkling (Coleopterorum Catalogus 29 (pt. 141) :12) refers under Magdalis to “ aterrima Fabricius’ (as a synonym of armigera Geoff., 1785), but gives no reference to aterrimus Linnaeus, and that Wagner (Joc. cit. 28 (pt. 6) : 40) cites Curculio aterrimus Linnaeus as a synonym of Apion marchicum Herbst. He does not query the synonymy, but since Curculio aterrimus Linnaeus is the older name, he either was sufficiently in doubt about the identification to be unwilling to use it to replace marchicum, or else he simply disregarded priority in order to avoid overthrowing that name. 23. The general presumption in all such cases is that Fabricius correctly identified Curculio aterrimus Linnaeus when he transferred it to Rhynchaenus, and that therefore Germar really meant Curculio aterrimus in the sense of Linnaeus when he cited Rhynch. aterrimus as one of the three original species of Magdalis. Nevertheless, in view of the strong probability that they actually were misidentifying the Linnean species, it seems appropriate that the Commission, acting under their Plenary Powers, as directed at the Paris Session, should set aside the selection by Samouelle, 1819, of Curculio aterrimus Linnaeus as type species of Magdalis, and all other selections (if any) prior to 1823, and should validate the selection of Curculio violaceus Linnaeus, 1758, by Schoenherr in 1823 in Isis von Oken (2 : 1136) as type species not only of Thamnophilus, which was there proposed as a substitute for Magdalis Germar, but also ipso facto, as type species of Magdalis. 9° 366 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 24. It will be noted that Curculio violaceus Linnaeus is one of the three species originally included in Magdalis, that it was treated as type species of the subgenus Magdalis by Daniel in his revision of the subgenera, 1903, and is included in that subgenus by Schenkling in the Coleopterorum Catalogus, but that “* aterrima L.” is placed by Daniel as a synonym of armigera Geoffroy and that Curculio aterrima Fabricius, treated as a synonym of armigera, is placed by Schenkling in another subgenus.* To select Curculio violaceus Linnaeus as type species would therefore be to select “a species in harmony with current usage ’’, as the Commission is now directed to do (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 ; 158—159). 25. In the light of the considerations set out above, I ask the Inter- national Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to stabilize the generic names Rhina Latreille and Magdalis Germar each in its accus- tomed sense, by using for this purpose their Plenary Powers to such extent as may be necessary, and, having done so, to place these names on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology and to take such other consequential action as may be necessary. The proposal which I accordingly submit is that the Commission should : (1) use their Plenary Powers (a) to set aside all selections of type species for Rhina Latreille [1802—1803], and for Magdalis Germar, 1817, made prior to the date of the proposed decision ; (b) to designate Curculio barbirostris Fabricius, 1775, to be the type species of Rhina Latreille [1802—1803] ; (c) to designate Curculio violaceus Linnaeus, 1758, to be the type species of Magdalis Germar, 1817 ; (2) place the under-mentioned generic names on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology, with the type species specified below, together with a note that the gender of the generic names in question is that specified below : (a) Rhina Latreille, [1802—1803] (type species by designation under the Plenary Powers under (1) (b) above : Curculio barbirostris Fabricius, 1775) (gender of generic name : feminine*) ; * The subgeneric name ‘‘Magdalinus Germar’’ is incorrectly applied to this subgenus. Magdalinus was proposed by Germar (in Schoenherr, Gen. Spec. Curc. 7(2) : 135, footnote) as a substitute for the preoccupied Thamnophilus, and thereford has violacea as type species. The subgenus in question probably has no valid name. OPINION 345 367 (b) Magdalis Germar, 1817 (type species by designation under the Plenary Powers under (1) (c) above : Curculio violaceus Linnaeus, 1758) (gender of generic name : feminine*) ; (3) place the under-mentioned invalid or non-existent generic names on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. (a) Rhina Schaeffer, 1760 ; (b) Rhina Walbaum, 1792 ; (c) Rhinostomus Rafinesque, 1815 ; (d) Thamnophilus Schoenherr, 1823+ ; (e) Magdalinus Germar, 1843¢ ; (4) place the under-mentioned specific trivial names on the Official _ List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology : (a) barbicornis Latreille, 1804, as published in the binominal combination Rhina barbicornis (a species now currently placed in Magdalis Germar). (b) barbicornis Fabricius, 1775, as published in the binominal combination Curculio barbicornis (a species now currently placed in the brentid genus Lasiorhynchus Dejean) ; (c) barbirostris Fabricius, 1775, as published in the binominal combination Curculio barbirostris (the type species of Rhina Latreille) ; (d) violaceus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binominal combination Curculio violaceus (the type species of Magdalis Germar). Postscript. Dated 16th October 1950. (1) The present application was originally submitted in November 1945 ; it was “‘ advertised ’’ in November 1947, as a case possibly involving the use by the Commission of its Plenary Powers. It was not however, brought before the Com- mission at its session held in Paris in July 1948, for it was realized that fresh light had been thrown on some of the issues involved through decisions in regard to the meaning of the Rég/es then taken by the International Congress of Zoology. I have since re-examined this case in the light of the Paris decisions and have, accordingly, revised the * See Annexe. + Thamnophilus was proposed by Schoenherr (1823, Isis von Oken, 2 : col. 1136) as a substitute for Magdalis with the specified type species Curc. violacea L. t Magdalinus was proposed by Germar (in Schoenherr, 1843, Gen. Spec. Curc. 7(2) : 135, footnote) as a substitute name for the pre-occupied Thamnophilus. 368 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS application to such extent as I have found to be necessary. The revision includes a request for Plenary action involving Magdalis that was not previously suggested. (2) I am informed by the Secretary to the Commission that no objection to the use of the Plenary Powers in the manner proposed in the case of the name Rhina, has been lodged, as the result of the ‘* advertisement ’’ of this case made over two years ago. I am con- firmed, therefore, in the belief that the action recommended in regard to Rhina corresponds with the desires of interested specialists. Annexe Gender of Rhina Pliny (32, 11, 53) used the word rhina in the feminine gender for a kind of shark. The word was taken over from the Greek feminine noun ‘pivy (a rasp or file, but also applied to a shark with a rough skin). The gender is therefore clearly feminine. Gender of Magdalis The gender is feminine, from three considerations : (1) The name magdalis does not occur in that form in either Greek ‘or Latin, except in Greek with the prefix azo- The Greek feminine noun paydaAca is a later form of amopaydada The variant dmowaydadrs —idas was also used (see Eust. 1857, 17) as a feminine noun. (2) Greek nouns ending in —is are universally feminine. (3) Germar in 1819 was the first author to combine trivial names with Magdalis. Yn doing so he placed them all in the feminine gender. Il—THE SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF THE CASE 2. Registration of the present application: On receipt of Professor Chester Bradley’s communication, the question of the OPINION 345 369 species to be accepted as the type species of the genus Rhina Latreille, ({1802—1803], was allotted the Registered Number Z.N.(S.) 202. 3. Receipt in 1946 of a revised application asking for the designation, under the Plenary Powers, of a type species for “* Rhina ”’ Latreille, [1802—1803], in harmony with current usage : Following correspondence with the Secretary, Professor Chester Bradley addressed a letter to the Commission on 9th January 1946, in which he substituted for his earlier application a request that the Commission should use its Plenary Powers for the purpose of designating as the type species of the genus Rhina Latreille, [1802—1803], the nominal species Curculio _ barbirostris Fabricius, 1775, the object of this change being to secure the continued use of this generic name in its accustomed sense. 4. Issue of Public Notices in 1947 : On 20th November 1947, Public Notice of the possible use by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature of its Plenary Powers in the present case was given in the manner prescribed by the Ninth Inter- national Congress of Zoology, Monaco, 1913. The issue of these Notices elicited no objection to the use of the Plenary Powers in the manner proposed. 5. Postponement of the present application at Paris in 1948 : At the time when the Agenda was being prepared for the Session of the International Commission to be held in Paris in 1948 it was evident that the greater part of the time of that Session would be required for the consideration of the proposals which had been submitted for the clarification, amendment, and expansion of the Régles and that the time remaining for the consideration ef applications relating to individual names would not be sufficient to permit of decisions being taken on all the applications then awaiting attention. It was inevitable therefore that some of those applications would need to be postponed. The present was one of the applications which for the foregoing reason was not brought before the Commission at its Paris Session. 6. Revision of the present application in 1950: In the period immediately following the close of the Paris Session of the 370 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS Commission the entire resources of its Office were devoted to the preparation of the Official Record of the Proceedings of the Commission at that Session and it was not until 1950 that it was possible to resume work on applications relating to individual names submitted by specialists to the Commission for decision. Like all other applications then outstanding, the present applica- tion required certain minor revisions in order to bring it into line with the procedure prescribed by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948, under which it became in future the duty of the Commission to place on the Official List and the Official Index of specific names any such names which in its Opinions it might accept as available names or, as the case might be, it might reject under its Plenary Powers or might declare to be invalid under the Régles. When making these formal amendments in the presen. application, Professor Chester Bradley took advantage of the opportunity so presented to expand his application in order to make it cover the whole field involved by adding a request that, when using its Plenary Powers for the purpose of designating as the type species of the genus Rhina Latreille, [1802—1803], a species (Curculio barbirostris Fabricius, 1775) in harmony with current usage, it should take corresponding action under the same Powers for the purpose of validating the current usage of the generic name Magdalis Germar, 1817, by designating the nominal species Curculio violaceus Linnaeus, 1758, to be the type species of the genus so named. These revisions of the present application were completed by 20th November 1950, when the final text was submitted to the Office of the Commission. 7. Publication of the present application : The present applica- tion was sent to the printer on 4th December 1950 and was published on 20th April 1951 in Part 2 of volume 2 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (Bradley, 1951, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 2 : 47—5S5). 8. Issue of Public Notices in 1951 : Under the revised arrange- ments prescribed by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948 (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 51—56), Public Notice of the possible use by the International Com- mission on Zoological Nomenclature of its Plenary Powers in OPINION 345 371 the present case was given on 20th April 1951 (a) in Part 2 of volume 2 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (the Part in which Professor Chester Bradley’s application was published) and (b) to the other prescribed serial publications. In addition, such Notice was given to a number of general zoological serial publications and to certain entomological serials in Europe and America. As in the case of the Public Notice given in 1947 (paragraph 4 above), the issue of the foregoing Public Notices in 1951 elicited no objection to the use of the Plenary Powers in the manner proposed. The publication of these Notices led, however, to the submission of one letter of support. This is reproduced in the immediately following paragraph. 9. Support received from Dr. Klaus Giinther (Institut fiir Genetik der Freien Universitat Berlin): On Sth July 1951 Dr. Klaus Ginther (nstitut ftir Genetik der Freien Universitdt Berlin) addressed the following letter to the Commission in support of the present application (Giinther, 1951, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 6 : 89—90) :— In the light of the considerations set out in Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.) 202, I beg the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to rule the generic names Rhina Latreille, [1802— 1803] and Magdalis Germar, 1817, to be valid names, each to be used in its accustomed sense. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature should use its Plenary Powers for this purpose to such extent as may be necessary. The specific proposals to which I wish to give my entire support are those submitted by Professor J. Chester Bradley (Department of Entomology, Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y.) as given by that scholar in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, volume 2, Part 2, of 20th April 1951, p. 53 seq., under Points (1), (2), (3) and (4). 10. Submission by Professor Chester Bradley of a supplementary request for the use of the Plenary Powers in the present case : On 23rd October 1951 Professor Chester Bradley submitted a supplementary request for the use of the Commission’s Plenary Powers in the present case, this request having as its object the use of the Plenary Powers for the purpose of suppressing for the purposes of the Law of Homonymy the reference to Curculio barbicornis Fabricius, 1775, under the generic name Rhina made by Latreille in the work in which he first published that generic name. The supplementary request so submitted by Professor 372 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS Chester Bradley was as follows (Bradley, 1952, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 6 : 147) :— A supplementary point on the name ‘‘ Magdalis ’’ Germar, 1817 (Class Insecta, Order Coleoptera) By J. CHESTER BRADLEY (Department of Entomology, Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y.) In rewriting the case of Rhina and Maegdalis (1951, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 2 : 47—55) to bring it into conformity with acts taken at Paris in 1948, the fact was overlooked that Pierce (1918, Proc. ent. Soc. Wash., 20 : 72) did reject the name Rhina barbicornis Latreille, 1804, on the grounds that it is pre-occupied (by R. barbicornis (Fabricius), Latr.). Therefore, the conclusion (in paragraph 11) that Rhina barbicornis Latreille, 1804, a secondary homonym of R. barbicornis (Fabricius, 1775) Latreille [1802—1803], is an available name, is not fully correct. At least it requires further consideration. Since Pierce’s rejection was made prior to 1951, it makes no difference that he did not regard the two as congeneric (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4: 121, para. 8). I have demonstrated (Joc. cit.2 : 4748) that Latreille ([1802—1803]) transferred Curculio barbicornis Fabricius to Rhina only by some sort of lapsus calami, that he wrote barbicornis F., when he meant to write barbirostris F. Had it not been for this unintentional use of the wrong word, barbicornis Latreille, 1804, would never have been a secondary synonym of barbirostris (Fabricius) Latreille. While technically it cannot be argued that homonymy did not exist, under the circumstances it would be a feeble reason (even though the later name was rejected by Pierce) for now rejecting the universally used trivial name of this economic species. I therefore propose as necessary one further action by the Com- mission, to be added to those previously submitted (Joc. cit. 4 : 53). This is, that the Commission should : (1) Use their Plenary Powers (d) to suppress for purposes of the Law of Homonymy the reference to Curculio barbicornis Fabricius, 1775, under the genus Rhina, made by Latreille [1802—1803] Hist. nat. gén. partic. Crust. Ins. 3 : 198. Although the paper and an earlier one by W. D. Pierce dealing with the subject were used by me in preparing my original proposal, I am indebted to Mr. Elwood C. Zimmerman for calling my attention OPINION 345 373 to them again, and thus enabling me to note that Pierce had actually rejected the trivial name barbicornis Latreille, 1804, as preoccupied. I.—THE DECISION OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 11. Issue of Voting Paper V.P.(5Z2)43 : On 15th May 1952, a Voting Paper (V.P.(52)43) was issued in which the Members of the Commission were invited to vote either for, or against, the proposal “ relating to the names Rhina and Magdalis as set out in Points (1) to (4) on pages 53 and 54 of vol. 2 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, together with the proposals in regard to the gender of the above names set out on page 55 of the above volume” [i.e., the proposals submitted in the application reproduced in the first paragraph of the present Opinion], “‘ and (b) the supplementary proposal numbered (1)(d) set out on page 147 of vol. 6 of the above Bulletin” [i.e., the proposal submitted in the supplementary paper by Professor Chester Bradley repro- duced in paragraph 10 of the present Opinion]. 12. The Prescribed Voting Period for Voting Paper V.P.(52)43 : As the foregoing Voting Paper was issued under the Three- Month Rule, the Prescribed Voting Period closed on 15th August 1952. 13. Particulars of the Voting on Voting Paper V.P.(52)43 : The state of the voting on Voting Paper V.P.(52)43 at the close of the Prescribed Voting Period was as follows :— (a) Affirmative Votes had been given in the following sixteen (16) Commissioners (arranged in the order in which Votes were received) : Hering ; Calman ; Dymond ; Riley ; Hanko ; Bonnet ; Vokes ; do Amaral; Pearson? ; Bradley ; Hemming ; Esaki ; Lemche ; Cabrera ; Stoll ; Boschma ; 2 Commissioner Pearson exercised in this case the right conferred by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948, under which a Commissioner may, if he so desires, signify his willingness to support the view, or the majority view, of other Members of the Commission (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 50—S1). 374 , OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS (b) Negative Votes : None: (c) On Leave of Absence, one (1): Mertens ; (d) Voting Papers not returned, one (1) : Jaczewski. 14. Declaration of Result cf Vote on Voting Paper V.P.(52)43 : On 16th August 1952, Mr. Hemming, Secretary to the Inter- national Commission, acting as Returning Officer for the Vote taken on Voting Paper V.P.(52)43, signed a Certificate that the Votes cast were as set out in paragraph 13 above and declaring that the proposal submitted in the foregoing Voting Paper had been duly adopted and that the decision so taken was the decision of the International Commission in the matter aforesaid. 15. Discovery in 1954 of a flaw in the application submitted in the present case: In April 1954 the work in the Office of the Commission had reached the stage at which the next case for which an Opinion was due to be prepared was that relating to the generic name Rhina Latreille, [1802—1803]. In accordance with the standard practice in the Office of the Commission all the bibliographical references for the names involved in the foregoing case were then re-checked as a preliminary to the preparation of the proposed Opinion. This examination led to the discovery that the name Rhina Latreille, [1802—1803] (Class Insecta, Order Coleoptera), which it had been the purpose of Professor Chester Bradley’s application to preserve, was a junior homonym of the generic name Rhina Schneider, 1801 (Class Elasmobranchii). Mr. Hemming realised immediately that an entirely new situation had been created by the discovery of this unfortunate flaw in the application submitted in the OPINION 345 Si 5) present case. As a first step, he entered into correspondence with the ichthyologists at the British Museum (Natural History), who reported that the name Rhina Schneider, 1801, had been in general use for over a century and half and that its suppression under the Plenary Powers—as would be necessary if the name Rhina Latreille were to be validated—-would be open to strong objection from the point of view of their speciality. At this stage Mr. Hemming reported the foregoing developments to Professor Chester Bradley, to whom he expressed the view that in the circumstances described above, it would no longer be tight to proceed with the proposal relating to the name Rhina Latreille and that the proper course would be to replace that proposal with a revised proposal placing the name Rhina Schneider, 1801 (Class Elasmobranchii) on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology and the name Rhina Latreille, [1802— 1803], on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. On 22nd June 1954 Professor Chester Bradley replied, concurring in the foregoing course and asking Mr. Hemming to prepare the required application on his behalf. Accordingly on 9th July 1954 Mr. Hemming prepared the following paper in which he reported to the Commission the unfortunate developments described above and submitted revised proposals on the lines which he had agreed with Professor Chester Bradley. The paper so submitted was the following :— Revised proposals relating to the name ‘‘ Rhina ’’ Latreille, [1802—1803] (Class Insecta, Order Coleoptera) and proposals relating to ‘* Rhina ’’ Schneider, 1801 (Class Elasmobranchii) By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E., Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature — The object of the present paper is to call attention to a serious flaw which has been discovered in the proposal submitted to the Commission regarding the name Rhina Latreille, [1802—1803] (Class Insecta, Order Coleoptera) and to submit revised proposals prepared in the light of the discovery so made. 2. By way of introduction, it is necessary to recall that the principal object of the proposal originally submitted in this case by Professor J. Chester Bradley was to provide a legal basis for the currently accepted 376 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS usage of the generic name Rhina Latreille, by designating for that genus a type species in harmony with that usage. A secondary purpose was to secure the approval of the Commission for corresponding - action in regard to the generic name Magdalis Germar, 1817 (the name of another genus in the Order Coleoptera). Professor Bradley’s proposal was published in April 1951 (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 2 : 47—55). Public Notice of this application was given in the prescribed manner, and this elicited a letter of support from Dr. Klaus Giinther Unstitut ff. Genetik der Freien Universitat, Berlin). No objection to the action proposed was received from any source. On 15th May 1952, Professor Bradley’s proposal was submitted to the Commission in Voting Paper V.P.(52)43 and was approved by sixteen affirmative votes to no negative votes (two Voting Papers not being returned). 3. About two months ago I reached the stage at which the problem of Rhina Latreille was the next case for which an Opinion was due to be prepared. In accordance with the standard practice in the Office of the Secretariat, all the references cited in this application were re-checked as a preliminary to the preparation of the Ruling required to give effect to the vote taken by the Commission. It was at this point that the disconcerting discovery was made which now renders it necessary to withdraw the proposal submitted by Professor Bradley and to draw up revised proposals for substitution for those previously submitted. I must explain that at the time when this application was submitted, Professor Bradley was of the belief that the name Rhina Latreille, [1802—1803], was an available name and that when, prior to the publication of that application, I myself checked the references, I came to the same conclusion. In Neave’s Nomenclator (4 : 41), I found references to two usages of the name Rhina for fishes prior to its publication by Latreille for a genus of beetles, but the works in which these earlier names had been published were both by non-binominal authors, namely Schaeffer, 1760 and Walbaum (ex Klein). Schaeffer’s book had been examined and rejected on the foregoing ground by Jordan & Evermann (1917, Genera of Fishes), while Walbaum’s edition of Klein had already been expressly rejected by the Commission in its Opinion 21. Although (as already explained) it seemed at that time that Rhina Latreille, [1802—1803], was an available name, Professor Bradley, on my suggestion, inserted in his application an express reference to the earlier names referred to above. When this year I re-checked these references in Neave’s Nomenclator, I noticed for the first time that, in addition to the references discussed above, he gave a third reference to the use of the name Rhina in fishes of a date older than that of Rhina Latreille. This reference had not been allotted an entry for itself but had been inserted in the same line as the reference to Schaeffer, 1760, and it was on this account that it had been overlooked at the time of the earlier search. The name in eens was Rhina Schneider, 1801 (in Bloch, Systema Ichthyologiae : 352). OPINION 345 an 4. On discovering the existence of the foregoing name, I at once notified Professor Bradley and at the same time consulted Miss Ethel- wynn Trewavas and Mr. Denys W. Tucker (British Museum (Natural History), London) on the question whether Rhina Schneider, 1801, was currently accepted as the name of a taxonomically valid genus and as to what would be their attitude to a proposal that that name should be suppressed in favour of the name Rhina Latreille in Cole- optera. In his reply dated 27th April 1954, with which Miss Trewavas associated herself, Mr. Tucker explained that Bloch’s Systema was a strictly binominal work and constituted indeed one of the basic texts of ichthyology and that the name Rhina Schneider published in that work had been in general use ever since it was published in 1801, and he expressed the view that this name ought not to be suppressed by the Commission for the purpose of preserving its junior homonym Rhina Latreille in the Order Coleoptera. An extract from Mr. Tucker’s letter is given in Annexe | to the present paper. 5. It has always been the policy of the Commission to avoid using its Plenary Powers in the interests of stability in the nomenclature of one part of the Animal Kingdom if by so doing name-changing and instability would be caused in the nomenclature of some other group. Accordingly, immediately upon the receipt of Mr. Tucker’s letter, I took the view that a totally new situation had arisen and one in which it would be improper for the Commission to use its Plenary Powers to suppress the name Rhina Schneider, 1801, for the purpose of valid- ating Rhina Latreille, [1802—1803], and therefore that the application for the use of the Plenary Powers for the purpose of designating for the latter genus a type species in harmony with current usage had lost its relevance and would have to be abandoned. I at once communicated to Professor Bradley the information which I had received from Mr. Tucker and at the same time expressed the view set out above as to the action which should be taken. Professor Bradley replied concurring in this view. 6. The next matter which called for consideration was the nature of the revised proposal which in the circumstances ought now to be placed before the Commission. So far as the name Rhina is concerned, it is clear that the application should ask that the name Rhina Schneider, 1801, in Elasmobranchs should be placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology and that its invalid junior homonym Rhina Latreille, {1802—1803], should be placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. Clearly also, the revised application should ask that the specific name ancylostomus Schneider, 1801, as published in the combination Rhina ancylostomus, the name of the type species of Rhina Schneider, 1801, should be placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology, that name being the oldest available name for the species concerned. As will be seen from Mr. Tucker’s letter, the above species became the type species of Rhina Schneider by indication under Opinion 6, that species being one of two species 378 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS included in the genus by Schneider, of which the other, Rhina sinensis Schneider, 1801, became in 1838 the type species by original designation of the genus Platyrhina Miiller & Henle, 1838 (Arch. Naturgesch. 4(1) : 85 (also in the same year in Mag. nat. Hist. (n.s.) 2 : 90)). I am informed by Miss Trewavas (in litt.) that the genus Platyrhina Miiller & Henle, 1838, is currently regarded as a taxonomically valid genus and that the specific name of its type species, sinensis Schneider, 1801, as published in the combination Rhina sinensis, is the oldest available such name for the species concerned. Further as pointed out by Mr. Tucker, the generic names Analithis Gistl, 1848 (Nat. Thierr. : x) and Discobatus Garman, 1880 (Proc. U.S. nat. Mus. 3 : 523) are junior objective synonyms of Platyrhina Miller & Henle, 1838, both of these generic names having been published as substitute names for Platyrhina Miller & Henle in the mistaken belief that that name was unavailable as being a junior homonym of Platyrhinus Schellenberg, 1798. In accordance with the Directive given by the Congress to the Commission that it should deal comprehensively with all problems arising in connection with cases submitted to it for decision, the following recommendations should be included in the revised proposal now to be submitted to the Commission :—(1) that the name Platy- rhina Miller & Henle, 1838 (type species by original designation : Rhina sinensis Schneider, 1801) should be placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ; (2) that the name sinensis Schneider, 1801 (in Bloch, Syst. Ichthyol. : 352), as published in the combination Rhina sinensis (specific name of type species of Platyrhina Muller & Henle, 1838) should be placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology ; (3) that the names Analithis Gistl, 1848, and Discobatus Garman, 1880, both junior objective synonyms of Platyrhina Miller & Henle, 1838, should be placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. 7. Action on the lines indicated above would clear up the ichthyo- logical aspects of this case, but it remains to be considered what action ought to be taken in regard to the beetle names dealt with in Professor Bradley’s original application. Here there are two points of which it is necessary to take note. First, as explained in paragraph 2 above, a considerable part of Professor Bradley’s application was concerned with matters which, though allied to the problem raised by the name Rhina Latreille, were not directly tied to that problem. In consequence the proposals submitted in connection with these matters are not adversely affected in any way by the discovery that the name Rhina Latreille is an invalid name. It is evident therefore that this section of the original proposals ought to be incorporated in the revised application to be submitted to the Commission. Second, it is necessary to consider what is the nomenclatorial position of the genus of beetles currently known by the invalid name Rhina Latreille. The material required for this purpose was supplied in the original application (: 50) by Professor Bradley who there explained that the next name for this genus was the name Rhinostomus (misspelt Rino- OPINION 345 379 stomus on the page cited above)? Rafinesque, 1815, which had been published as a substitute for the name Rhina Latreille, which Rafinesque had regarded as an invalid junior homonym of the name Rhina as previously used in fishes. Now that it is seen that, contrary to the view till now currently held, Rafinesque was correct in rejecting the name Rhina Latreille, his substitute name Rhinostomus becomes the oldest available name for the genus of beetles concerned. Since this latter name was no more than a substitute name for Rhina Latreille, it takes the same type species as that name. Accordingly, if it is to be used in the sense intended by Rafinesque, it will be necessary for the Commission to use its Plenary Powers to vary its type species in pre- cisely the manner as that which in his original application Professor Bradley recommended should be adopted in the case of the nominal genus Rhina Latreille, that is, it will be necessary for the Commission to designate Curculio barbirostris Fabricius, 1775, to be the type species of Rhinostomus Rafinesque, 1815. 8. The proposals included in the original application for the placing of names on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology are unaffected by the new situation, except that naturally the name Rhinostomus Rafinesque, 1815, will need to be deleted. There should however be added to that Index the name Rhina Rafinesque, 1810 (Car. n. gen. : 14), a name which was accidentally overlooked in the original application. 9. Finally, in accordance with the procedure laid down by the Copenhagen Congress in 1953, the titles of the invalid (because non- binominal) works in which the names Rhina Schaeffer, 1760, and Rhina Walbaum, 1792, were respectively published should now be placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Works in Zoological Nomenclature. A recommendation in this sense is accordingly submitted as regards the work in which the name Rhina Schaeffer, 1760, was published. The work in which the name Rhina Walbaum, 1792, was published presents however certain difficulties, for, although part of that work has already been rejected by the Commission in its Opinion 21, the remainder of it has not yet been examined in detail for the purpose of determining whether in any part of it the nomen- clature employed was binominal in character. Everything suggests that the whole work is non-binominal and that all of it ought to be placed on the Official Index. Pending an examination of this question, it would, I consider, be inconvenient, because possibly misleading, to place on the Official Index the single volume which has already been rejected by the Commission. Accordingly, it is proposed to examine this matter as quickly as possible with a view to the sub- mission to the Commission of a comprehensive recommendation, and for this purpose the Registered Number Z.N.(S.) 847 has been allotted to this question. For the moment therefore no proposal is * This misspelling has been corrected in the version of Professor Bradley’s application reproduced in the first paragraph of the present Opinion. 380 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS submitted for the addition to the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Works in respect. of the works published by Walbaum. 10. Having completed the foregoing survey of the action which the Commission should be recommended to take in view of the change im the situation described in paragraphs 3 and 4 above, I submitted my conclusions to Professor Chester Bradley, at the same time enquiring how he would wish that this matter should be laid before the Com- mission. In a reply (dated 7th June 1954) just received, Professor Bradley has asked me to make the required submission to the Commission and to include in that submission a statement that the action now recommended has his full approval and support. I accordingly now submit in Annexe 2 to the present note the revised proposal which I have prepared on the lines explained in paragraphs 6 to 9 above. ANNEXE 1 Extract from a letter dated 27th April 1954, from Mr. Denys W. Tucker (British Museum (Natural History), London) The following reply to your query concerning the use of the generic name Rhina is made with Dr. Trewavas’s approval. (1) It would be well to give you the lay-out of the title-page so as to indicate precisely the nature of the work :— M. E. BLOCHII, DOCTORIS MEDICINAE BEROLINENSIS, ET SOCIETATIBUS LITERARUS MULTIS ADSCRIPTI, SYSTEMA ICHTHYOLOGIAE ICONIBUS CX ILLUSTRATUM POST OBITUM AUCTORIS OPUS INCHOATUM ABSOLVIT, CORREXIT, INTERPOLAVIT JO. GOTTLOB SCHNEIDER, SAXO BEROLINI, SUMPTIBUS AUCTORIS IMPRESSUM ET BIBLIOPOLIO SANDERIANO COMMISSUM. 1801. There is sometimes a little confusion in the correct citation of this work, but there is no doubt that genera and species proposed should properly be attributed to Schneider. The Systema Ichthyologiae OPINION 345 381 is one of the basic texts of ichthyology, it is a validly published work, and it does correctly apply the principles of binominal nomenclature. (2) Rhina Schneider (1801), (nec (ex Klein) Walbaum (1792)), is in current use by ichthyologists. To amplify this a little :— Schneider (1801), op. cit., p. 352, proposed Rhina with an adequate diagnosis, and gives, in order, ancylostomus and sinensis as the two species. R. sinensis was made the type of a new genus Platyrhina by Miller & Henle (1838, Mag. nat. Hist. (n.s.) 2 : 90 ; Arch. f. Naturg. VI(1) : p. 85); synonymous with this, and with the same type species are Analithes Gistl (1848) and Discobatus Garman (1880). Rhina Schneider thus became restricted to R. ancylostomus Schneider from the Indo- Pacific, and remains monotypic. The combination Rhina ancylostoma has been in very general use since its proposal, but the species has been nominated as the type Species of two generic synonyms, viz. Demiurga Gistl, 1848, and Rhamphobatis Gill (1862) (post. (3)), these authors having accepted Rhina (ex Klein) Walbaum, 1792. Now for the use of the combination Rhina ancylostoma. I have taken the following list verbatim, without checking, from Cantor, T.., 1850, “‘ Catalogue of Malayan Fishes ’’, Calcutta, p. 409. Obviously if you wish to cite this it will be necessary to expand the titles and check each reference and this I shall be most willing to do, but for the present the secondhand list will serve :— Rhina ancylostomus, Bloch-Schneider, 352, Tab. 72. , Cuvier, R. A. II. 396 (3). , Gray : Ill. Ind. Zool. II. Pl. 102, Fig. 2. 99 99 29 29 (Teeth). 2 ss , Swainson, II. 322. * 3 , Agassiz : Tab. II. Fig. 3, 4. (Teeth.) a3 fs , Owen : Odontogr. Pl. 23. (Teeth.) sy ie , Miiller und Henle, 110. (Very young.) , Richardson : Report, 1845, 195. and, of course, Cantor himself. Ginther, A., 1870, Cat. Fish. Brit. Mus. 8 : 440 is best left out of the discussion if possible, because he becomes confused and puts his 382 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS species as Rhynchobatus ancylostomus along with R. djeddensis to which it is not related. The most recent use of Rhina ancylostomus that I know is that of G. P. Whitley, 1940, The Fishes of Australia Part 1. Sharks, Rays... Sydney, P. 179. It applies, in one work and correctly, Rhina sensu Schneider and Squatina sensu Dumeril. (3) We are opposed to the suppression of Rhina Schneider in favour of Rhina Latreille in Coleoptera, on the grounds that the former has clear priority and that the original combination Rhina ancylostoma Schneider has been in general use in Pisces since 1801. ANNEXE 2 ** Rhina ”’ Latreille, [1802—1803] (Class Insecta, Order Coleoptera) and °° Rhina ’’ Schneider, 1801 (Class Elasmobranchii) : Revised proposals prepared for the consideration of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is now asked :— (1) to reject the application for the use of its Plenary Powers for the benefit of the generic name Rhina Latreille, [1802—1803] (Class Insecta, Order Coleoptera), since the foregoing name is a junior homonym of the generic name Rhina Schneider, 1801 (Class Elasmobranchii), a name which has been in general use ever since it was published over 150 years ago. (2) to use its Plenary Powers :— (a) to set aside all designations or selections of type species for the nominal genera Rhinostomus Rafinesque, 1815, and Magdalis Germar, 1817, made prior to the decision now recommended ; (b) to designate Curculio barbirostris Fabricius, 1775, to be the type species of Rhinostomus Rafinesque, 1815 ; (c) to designate Curculio violaceus Linnaeus, 1758, to be the type species of Magdalis Germar, 1817 ; (d) to suppress for the purposes of the Law of Homonymy the reference to Curculio barbicornis Fabricius, 1775, under the generic name Rhina made in 1802—1803 by Latreille (: 198), when establishing the nominal genus Rhina ; . OPINION 345 383 (3) to place the under-mentioned generic names on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology :— (a) Magdalis Germar, 1817 (gender : feminine) (type species, by designation under the Plenary Powers under (2)(c) above : Curculio violaceus Linnaeus, 1758) (Class Insecta, Order Coleoptera) ; (b) Platyrhina Miiller & Henle, 1838 (gender : feminine) (type species by original designation : Rhina sinensis Schneider, 1801 (Class Elasmobranchit) ; (c) Rhinostomus Rafinesque, 1815 (gender : masculine) (type species by designation, under the Plenary Powers, under (2)(b) above ; Curculio barbirostris Fabricius, 1775) (Class Insecta, Order Coleoptera) ; (d) Rhina Schneider, 1801 (gender : feminine) (type species by indication under Opinion 6: Rhina_ ancylostomus Schneider, 1801) (Class Elasmobranchii) ; (4) to place the under-mentioned invalid generic names on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology :— (a) Analithis Gistl, 1848 (a junior objective synonym of Platyrhina Miller & Henle, 1838) ; (b) Discobatus Garman, 1880 (a junior objective synonym of Platyrhina Miller & Henle, 1838) ; (c) Rhina Schaeffer, 1760 (a name published in a work rejected for nomenclatorial purposes) ; (d) Rhina Walbaum, 1792 (a name published in a work rejected for nomenclatorial purposes) ; (e) Rhina Latreille, [1802—1803] (a junior homonym of Rhina Schneider, 1801) ; (f) Rhina Rafinesque, 1810 (a junior homonym of Rhina Schneider, 1801) ; (g) Thamnophilus Schoenherr, 1823 (a junior homonym of Thamnophilus Vieillot, 1816, and a junior objective synonym of Magdalis Germar, 1817) ; (h) Magdalinus Germar, 1843 (a junior objective synonym of Magdalis Germar, 1817) ; (5) to place the under-mentioned specific names on the Official List _ of Specific Names in Zoology : (a) ancylostomus Schneider, 1801, as published in the com- bination Rhina ancylostomus (specific name of type species of Rhina Schneider, 1801) ; 384 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS (b) barbicornis Latreille, [1803—1804], as published in the combination Rhina barbicornis and as validated under the Plenary Powers under (2)(d) above ; (c) barbicornis Fabricius, 1775, as published in the combination Curculio barbicornis ; (d) barbirostris Fabricius, 1775, as published in the combination Curculio barbirostris (specific name of type species, by designation, under the Plenary Powers, under (2)(b) above of Rhinostomus Rafinesque, 1815) ; (e) sinensis Schneider, 1801, as published in the combination Rhina sinensis (specific name of type species of Platy- rhina Miller & Henle, 1838) ; (f) violaceus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Curculio violaceus (specific name of type species, by designation, under the Plenary Powers, under (2)(c) above, of Magdalis Germar, 1817) ; (6) to place the title of the under-mentioned work on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Works in Zoological Nomen- clature : Schneider (J.C.), 1760, Epistola ad Regio-Borussicam Societatem Litterariam Duisbergensem de Studi Ichthyologici faciliori ac tutiori Methodo (a work in which the author did not apply the principles of binominal nomenclature). 16. Issue of Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(54)18 : On 9th July 1954 a Voting Paper (V.P.(O.M.)(54)18) was issued in which the Members of the Commission were invited to vote either for, or against, the “adoption of the proposal relating to the name Rhina Schneider, 1801 (Class Elasmobranchii) and Rhina Latreille, [1802—1803] (Class Insecta, Order Coleoptera) set out in Annexe 2 to the paper by the Secretary submitted simultaneously with the present Voting Paper ” [i.e. the proposal submitted in Annexe 2 to the paper reproduced in paragraph 15 of the present Opinion]. 17. The Prescribed Voting Period: As the foregoing Voting Paper was issued under the One-Month Rule, the Prescribed Voting Period was due to close on 9th August 1954. In view, however, of doubts which arose on the question whether two Members of the Commission (Bradley (J.C.) ; Dymond (J.R.)) had duly received the Voting Papers issued to them, the Secretary gave directions that the Voting Period be extended for a period OPINION 345 385 sufficient to enable the Commissioners concerned to record their Votes on the duplicate Voting Papers then issued to them. Ultimately, the Voting Period closed on 11th September 1954. 18. Particulars of the Voting on Voting Paper V.P.(O.M)(54)18 : At the close of the Voting Period, extended as explained in paragraph 17 above, the state of voting on Voting Paper V.P. (O.M.)(54)18 was as follows :— (a) Affirmative Votes had been received from the following eighteen (18) Commissioners (arranged in the order in which Votes were received) : Holthuis; Hering; Esaki; Lemche; Hemming; Sylvester-Bradley ; Mertens; Jaczewski; Bonnet ; Boschma; do Amaral; Riley; Pearson; Vokes; Cabrera ; Stoll; Bradley (J.C.) ; Dymond ; (b) Negative Votes : None ; (c) Voting Paper not returned, one (1): Hanko. 19. Declaration of Result of Vote : On ilth September 1954, Mr. Hemming, Secretary to the International Commission, acting as Returning Officer for the Vote taken on Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(54)18, signed a Certificate that the Votes cast were as * The following zoologists who were Members of the International Commission at the time of the issue of Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(54)18 were not Members of the Commission at the time of the issue of Voting Paper V.P.(52)43 :— Mr. P. C. Sylvester-Bradley (Sheffield University, Sheffield, England) Dr. L. B. Holthuis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) 386 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS set out in paragraph 18 above and declaring that the proposal submitted in the foregoing Voting Paper had been duly adopted and that the decision so taken was the decision of the Inter- national Commission in the matter aforesaid. 20. Preparation of the Ruling given in the present ‘‘ Opinion ”’ : On 14th November 1954, Mr. Hemming prepared the Ruling given in the present Opinion and at the same time signed a Certificate that the terms of that Ruling were in complete accord with those of the proposal approved by the International Commission in its Vote on Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(54)18. 21. The following are the original references for the names placed on Official Lists and Official Indexes by the Ruling given in the present Opinion :— Analithis Gistl, 1848, Nat. Thierr. : x ancylostomus, Rhina, Schneider, 1801, in Bloch, Syst. Ichthyol. 2 SS barbicornis, Curculio, Fabricius, 1775, Syst. Ent. : 134 barbicornis, Rhina, Latreille, [1803—1804], Hist. nat. gén. partic. Crust. Ins. 11 : 103 barbirostris, Curculio, Fabricius, 1775, Syst. Ent. : 135 Discobatus Garman, 1880, Proc. U.S. nat. Mus. 3 : 523 Magdalinus Germar, 1843, in Schoenherr, Gen. Spec. Curcul. TQ) 435 Magdalis Germar, 1817, Mag. Ent (Germar) 2 : 340 Platyrhina Miller & Henle, 1838, Arch. Naturgesch. 4(1) : 85 Rhina Schaeffer, 1760, Epistola Stud. ichthyol. Meth. : 20 Rhina Walbaum, 1792, Artedi Sueci Gen. Pisc. Ichthyol. (3) (Ed. 2) : 580 Rhina Schneider, 1801, in Bloch, Syst. Ichthyol. : 352 Rhina Latreille, [1802—1803], Hist. nat. gén. partic. Crust. Ins. 3 : 198 Rhina Rafinesque, 1810, Caratt. nuov. Gen. nuov. Spec. Anim. Sicilia : 14 Rhinostomus Rafinesque, 1815, Analyse Nature : 115 sinensis, Rhina, Schneider, 1801, in Bloch, Syst. Ichthyol. : 352 Thamnophilus Schoenherr, 1823, Isis (Oken) 1823 : 1136 violaceus, Curculio, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 378 OPINION 345 387 22. The application dealt with in the present Opinion was published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature prior to the establishment of the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology by the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology, Copenhagen, 1953. It has been ascertained that an addition, or additions, to the foregoing Official List and/or to the corres- ponding Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology will need to be made in order to complete the action, which, under the General Directives given to the International Commission by the International Congress of Zoology, is required to be taken in the present case. This question is now being examined on a separate File to which the Registered Number Z.N.(G.) 122 has been allotted. 23. At the time of the submission of the application dealt with in the present Opinion, the expression prescribed for the second portion of the binomen which constitutes the scientific name of a species was the expression “trivial name” and the Official List reserved for recording such names was styled the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology, the word ** trivial ’’ appearing also in the title of the Official Index reserved for recording rejected and invalid names of this category. Under a decision taken by the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology, Copenhagen, 1953, the expression “specific name” was substituted for the expression “trivial name” and corres- ponding changes were made in the titles of the Official List and Official Index of such names (1953, Copenhagen Decisions zool. Nomencl. : 21). The changes in terminology so adopted have been incorporated in the Ruling given in the present Opinion. 24. The prescribed procedures were duly complied with by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature in dealing with the present case, and the present Opinion is accordingly hereby rendered in the name of the said International Commission by the under-signed Francis Hemming, Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, in virtue of all and every the powers conferred upon him in that behalf. 388 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 25. The present Opinion shall be known as Opinion Three Hundred and Forty-Five (345) of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Done in London, this Fourteenth day of November, Nineteen Hundred and Fifty-Four. Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature FRANCIS HEMMING pc a Ie Printed in England by Metcatre & Cooper LimitED, 10-24 Scrutton St., London EC2 Issued 17th June, 1955 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTER- NATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Edited by FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E. Secretary to the Commission VOLUME 10. Part 13. Pp. 389—408 OPINION 346 Designation, under the Plenary Powers, for the genus Geotrupes Latreille, 1796 (Class Insecta,Order Coleoptera) of a type species in harmony with current usage 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 1955 Price Ten Shillings (All rights reserved) INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE COMPOSITION AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THE RULING GIVEN IN OPINION 346 A. The Officers of the Commission Honorary Life President : Dr. Karl Jordan (British Museum (Natural History), Zoological Museum, Tring, Herts., England) President : Professor James Chester Bradley (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) Vice-President: Senhor Dr. Afranio do Amaral (Sao Paulo, Brazil) (12th August 1953) . | Secretary ; Mr. Francis Hemming (London, England) (27th July 1948) B. The Members of the Commission (Arranged in order of precedence by reference to date of election or of most recent re-election, as prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology) Professor H. BoscHMA (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) (Ast January 1947) Senor Dr. Angel CABRERA (Eva Peron, F.C.N.G.R., Argentina) (27th July 1948) Mr. Francis HEMMING (London, England) (27th July 1948) (Secretary) as a) PEARSON (Tasmanian Museum, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia) (27th | uly 1948 Dr. Henning LEMCHE (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark) (27th July 1948) | Professor Teiso Esaki (Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan) (17th April 1950) Professor Pierre BONNET (Université de Toulouse, France) (9th June 1950) Mr. Norman Denbigh RILEY (British Museum (Natural History) London) (9th June 1950) Professor Tadeusz JACZEWSKI (Institute of Zoology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland) (15th June 1950) Professor Robert MERTENS (Natur-Museum u. Forschungs-Institut Senckenberg, Frankfurt a. M., Germany) (Sth July 1950) Professor Erich Martin HERING (Zoologisches Museum der Humboldt-Universitat zu Berlin, Germany) (Sth July 1950) Senhor Dr. Afranio do AMARAL (S. Paulo, Brazil) (12th August 1953) (Vice- President) pee J. R. DyMonD (University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada) (12th August 1953) Professor J. Chester BRADLEY (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U. S.A.) (12th August 1953) (President) Professor Harold E. Vokes (Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) Professor Béla HANKO (Mezogazdasdgi Muzeum, Budapest, Hungary) (12th August 1953) Dr. Norman R. STOLL (Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, New York, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) Mr. P. C. SyLvesTeR-BRADLEY (Sheffield University, Sheffield, England) (12th August 1953) Dr. L. B. Hottuuts (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Nether- lands) (12th August 1953) OPINION 346 DESIGNATION, UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS, FOR THE GENUS ‘‘ GEOTRUPES ”’ LATREILLE, 1796 (CLASS INSECTA, ORDER COLEOPTERA) OF A TYPE SPECIES IN HARMONY WITH CURRENT USAGE RULING :—(1) Under the Plenary Powers all type selections for the nominal genus Geotrupes Latreille, 1796 (Class Insecta, Order Coleoptera) made prior to the present Ruling are hereby set aside, and the nominal species Scarabaeus stercorarius Linnaeus, 1758, is hereby designated to be the type species of the foregoing genus. (2) The under-mentioned generic names are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Nos. 864 and 865 respectively :— (a) Geotrupes Latreille, 1796 (gender : feminine) (type species, by designation under the Plenary Powers under (1) above: Scarabaeus _ stercorarius Linnaeus, 1758) ; (b) Ceratophyus Fischer de Waldheim, 1824 (gender : masculine) (type species, by selection by Jekel (1866) : Scarabaeus dispar Fabricius, 1781). (3) The under-mentioned specific names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Nos. 474 and 475 respectively :— (a) stercorarius Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Scarabaeus stercorarius (specific name of type species, by designation under the Plenary Powers under (1) above, of Geotrupes Latreille, 1796) ; (b) dispar Fabricius, 1781, as published in the com- bination Scarabaeus dispar (specific name of type species of Ceratophyus Fischer de Waldheim, 1824). ‘fem 15 1955 392 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS I.—THE STATEMENT OF THE CASE On 3rd January 1948 Dr. Robert W. L. Potts (State of California Department of Agriculture, San Francisco, California, U.S.A.) addressed a preliminary communication to the Com- mission asking for the use of the Plenary Powers for the purpose of designating the nominal species Scarabaeus stercorarius Linnaeus, 1758, to be the type species of the nominal genus Geotrupes Latreille, 1796 (Class Insecta, Order Coleoptera), in order thereby to avoid the confusion which would result, if, as appeared to be necessary under the ordinary provisions of the Régles, the nominal species Scarabaeus dispar Fabricius, 1781, were to be accepted as the type species of the foregoing genus. Later, this application was revised in certain minor respects (paragraph 3 below). As finally submitted, it was as follows :— Proposed use of the Plenary Powers to designate a type species for the genus ‘‘ Geotrupes ’’ Latreille, 1796 (Class Insecta, Order Coleoptera) in harmony with current nomenclatorial usage By ROBERT W. L. POTTS (California State Department of Agriculture, San Francisco, California, 3 U.S.A.) In checking early references to the generic name Geotrupes Latreille, 1796 (Préc. Caract. gen. Ins. : 6) (Class Insecta, Order Coleoptera) for a proposed general paper on the genus, it became apparent that the current use of this name is not in accordance with the Rules and that the strict application of those Rules would do serious violence to our current concept of this genus. It 1s to avoid confusion which would so result that the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is now asked to use its Plenary Powers to designate, as the type species of this important genus, a species in harmony with current nomen- clatorial practice. 2. The early history of the generic name Geotrupes may be summarised as follows :— (1) The generic name Geotrupes was first published in 1796 by Latreille. He gave a short generic diagnosis, but cited no nominal species as belonging to this genus, for which he designated no type species. 24 ee OPINION 346 393 (2) The next author to use the generic name Geotrupes was Fabricius, who in 1798 (Suppl. Ent. syst. : [1], 7—22) gave a description for the genus so named not at all parallel to that previously given by Latreille. Fabricius placed in this genus sixty-three species, most of which are now placed in the subfamily DYNASTINAE; only five of the species included by Fabricius in this genus belong to the present subfamily GEOTRUPINAE, one of these being Scarabaeus dispar Fabricius, 1781 (Spec. Ins. 1:5). Elsewhere in the Suppl. Ent. syst. (:2, 23—24) Fabricius listed under the generic name Scarabaeus species which are now treated as belonging to the genus Geotrupes. (3) In 1801 (Syst. Eleuth. : 2—26) Fabricius added further species both to Geotrupes and Scarabaeus, still preserving his con- cept of the two genera. (4) In 1802 (Hist. nat. gén. partic. Crust. Ins.) Latreille listed two species under the generic name Geotrupes, the first of these being Scarabaeus stercorarius Linnaeus, 1758 (Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 349). (5) In 1804 Latreille (ibid. 10 : 142—147) listed seven species in the genus Geotrupes ; of these the first was dispar Fabricius and the - fourth stercorarius Linnaeus. In his introduction to the genus Latreille complained at the way in which Fabricius had transposed the use of the names Geotrupes and Scarabaeus as used in the Précis des Caractéres of 1796, saying: “‘ Javois posé les bases de ce genre Geotrupes dans mon ouvrage intitulé * Précis des Caractéres génériques des Insectes,’ ou, pour parler plus vrais, je n’avois fait que donner un dénomination ala seconde coup des scarabées d’Olivier, car ce naturaliste avait exposé tous les caractéres de ce genre avant moi. Fabricius, en adoptant ce travail, a fait malheuresement une transposition de noms; mes scarabées sont devenus des geotrupes, et mes geotrupes des scarabées. Ce changement n‘étant pas fondé, on me permettre de n’y avoir pas égard”’. 3. The position is therefore that the name Geotrupes was published in 1796 for a genus for which a diagnosis was given, but for which no nominal species were cited. Accordingly, the type species of Geotrupes would until 1948, have had to be determined under the provisions of the Commission’s Opinion 46, but now has to be determined under the amended and clarified provisions adopted by the International Congress of Zoology in Paris in 1948 (see 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 159—160, 346). Under those provisions the only species which are eligible for selection as the type species of a genus established without any nominal 394 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS species referred thereto are those species cited by name as belonging to the genus in question on the first occasion on which any species are so cited. 4. In the present case therefore the only species eligible for selection as the type species of Geotrupes Latreille, 1796, are those cited by Fabricius in 1798, unless it could be shown that Fabricius published the name Geotrupes in 1798 in ignorance of the fact that the same name had been published two years earlier by Latreille for what (at that time) was regarded a closely allied group of species. Ifit could be established that this is what happened—and a ruling from the Commission would be needed to set this question at rest—the name Geotrupes Fabricius, 1798, would be a new name, quite independent of (though a junior homonym of) Geotrupes Latreille and the species cited by Fabricius for that genus would have no bearing on the question of the species which are to be regarded as the sole originally included species of Geotrupes Latreille. There is, however, no evidence which would support such a hypothesis and it must therefore be dismissed. Another possibility that has been considered is that it really was by accident and not by intention that Fabricius used the names Geotrupes and Scarabaeus in the opposite sense to that in which those names had been used by Latreille ; here again there is no evidence to support such a contention. Moreover, if such evidence had been available, it would have been necessary for the Commission to use its Plenary Powers to secure the necessary correction, for such an error, if it had been com- mitted could not have been corrected automatically under Article 19, which is concerned only with the correction of the spelling of names. 5. Thus, under the Rules the only species eligible for selection as the type species of Geotrupes Latreille are those cited by Fabricius as belonging to that genus. As already explained Scarabaeus dispar Fabricius, 1781, is the only one of the species cited by Fabricius in 1798 which was also cited by Latreille in 1804. The selection of that species, as the type species, would alone secure that the genus Geotrupes remained in the subfamily GEOTRUPINAE as at present understood. The selection of that species would, however, be open to strong objection : first, it would involve the transfer of the name Geotrupes to the genus now known as Ceratophyus Fischer de Waldheim, 1824 (Entomogr. Imp. russ. 2 : 143), of which Scarabaeus dispar Fabricius is also the type species (by selection by Jekel (1866, Ann. Soc. ent. France (4) 3 : 522, 535)). Second, such a transfer would do violence to the concept of the genus Geotrupes Latreille, which for nearly one hundred and fifty years has been based upon the belief that, under the selection made by Latreille in 1810 (Consid. gén. Crust. Arach. Ins. : 428). ae on species of this genus was Scarabaeus stercorarius Linnaeus, OPINION 346 395 6. In these circumstances I ask the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to use its Plenary Powers to prevent the confusion which would certainly arise if it were no longer possible to accept Scarabaeus stercorarius Linnaeus as the type species of Geotrupes Latreille. The specific request which I put forward is that the Commission should :— (1) use its Plenary Powers to set aside all type selections for the genus Geotrupes Latreille, 1796, made prior to the decision now proposed to be taken, and to designate Scarabaeus stercorarius Linnaeus, 1758, to be the type species of the foregoing genus ; (2) to place the under-mentioned generic names on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology :— (a) Geotrupes Latreille, 1796 (gender of generic name: feminine) (type species, by designation, as proposed in (1) above, under the Plenary Powers: Scarabaeus stercorarius Linnaeus, 1758) ; (b) Ceratophyus Fischer de Waldheim, 1824 (gender of generic name: masculine) (type species, by selection by Jekel (1866) : Scarabaeus dispar Fabricius, 1781) ; (3) to place the under-mentioned trivial names on the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology :— (a) stercorarius Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binominal combination Scarabaeus stercorarius! (trivial name of type species of Geotrupes Latreille, 1796) ; (b) dispar Fabricius, 1781, as published in the binominal combination Scarabaeus dispar (trivial name of type species of Ceratophyus Fischer de Waldheim, 1824). Il—THE SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF THE CASE 2. Registration of the present application : On receipt of Dr. Potts’s preliminary communication in January 1948, the question * Through an undetected typing error this name appeared as Scarabaeus dispar instead of as Scarabaeus stercorarius when Dr. Potts’s application was published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 396 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS of the species to be accepted as the type species of the genus Geotrupes Latreille, 1796, was allotted the Registered Number Z.NAS.) 338. 3. Revision of the present application in 1951: The present application was received too late for consideration by the International Commission at its Session held in Paris in 1948, where the time available for dealing with applications relating to individual names was not sufficient to permit of decisions being taken on a number of such applications received at considerably earlier dates. In the period immediately following the close of the Paris (1948) Session the entire resources of the Office of the Commission were devoted to the preparation and publication of the Official Record of Proceedings at that Session, and it was not until 1950 that it was possible to resume consideration of applications relating to individual names submitted to the Commission for decision. Like all other applications then outstanding, the present application required certain minor revisions in order to bring it into line with the procedure pre- scribed by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948, under which it became in future the duty of the Commission to place on the Official List and Official Index of specific names any such name as in its Opinions it might accept as an available name or, as the case might be, it might reject under its Plenary Powers or might declare to be invalid under the Régles. When making these formal amendments to the present application, Dr. Potts took advantage of the opportunity so presented to expand his application to cover also the generic name Ceratophyus Fischer de Waldheim, 1824, which was intimately concerned with the case of the name Geotrupes Latreille, 1796, since, in the absence of action by the Commission under its Plenary Powers, the type species of that genus (Scarabaeus dispar Fabricius, 1781) was also the type species of Geotrupes Latreille. These revisions of the present application were completed by Ist May 1951, when the final text was submitted to the Commission. 4. Publication of the present application : The present applica- tion was sent to the printer on 27th May 1951 and was published OPINION 346 397 on 28th September 1951 in Part 2 of volume 6 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (Potts, 1951, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 6 : 49—51). 5. Issue of Public Notices: Under the revised procedure prescribed by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948 (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 51—56) Public Notice of the possible use by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature of its Plenary Powers in the present case was given on 28th September 1951 (a) in Part 2 of volume 6 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (the Part in which Dr. Potts’s applica- tion was published) and (b) to the other prescribed serial publications. In addition, Public Notice was given to a number of general zoological serial publications and also to certain entomological serials in Europe and America. 6. Comment received from Dr. Henry Townes and Dr. Henry Howden (North Carolina State College of Agriculture and Engineering of the University of North Carolina, Raleigh, North Carolina, U.S.A.): On 31st January 1952 Dr. Henry F. Howden (State College of Agriculture and Engineering of the University of North Carolina, Division of Biological Sciences, Raleigh, North Carolina, U.S.A.) addressed a letter to the Commission covering the following paper prepared jointly by Dr. Henry Townes of the same Institution and himself, commenting upon Dr. Potts’s application and advancing a different interpretation of the nomenclatorial issues involved (Townes & Howden, 1952, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 6 : 207—209) :— On the type species of the genus ‘* Geotrupes ’’ Latreille, 1796 (Class Insecta, Order Coleoptera) and a discussion on the Fabrician (1798) usage of other names proposed by Latreille in 1796 : comment on the application submitted by Dr. Robert W. L. Potts By HENRY TOWNES and HENRY HOWDEN (North Carolina State College, Raleigh, North Carolina, U.S.A.) Potts (1948, Pan-Pac. Ent. 24 : 23—26) has recently published a study of the literature pertinent to the application of the name Geotrupes 398 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS and reached certain conclusions. A review of the facts by us has led to different conclusions, which seem worthwhile to offer and discuss. 2. In 1796 Latreille (Précis Caract. génér. Ins. : 6) proposed and characterised Geotrupes as a new genus of SCARABAEIDAE (Coleoptera) but did not place species in the genus. In 1798 Fabricius (Suppl. Ent. syst. : 7) defined and used Geotrupes as a genus of scarabaeids and placed 63 species in it. Since Latreille included no species when he proposed Geotrupes, the type species should be one of the first group of species placed under the generic name by later authors (i.e., possibly one of those referred to Geotrupes by Fabricius in 1798). (See Opinion 46 of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature.) Literature is replete with cases of this kind and the case of Geotrupes, if similar to these, should be handled in the same way. A study of the case of Geotrupes, however, shows that this is probably a quite different one. It appears rather that Fabricius’ use of Geotrupes was an inde- pendent proposal of the name and not dependent on Latreille’s publication. | 3. Fabricius’ 1798 usage of Geotrupes was in his Supplementum Entomologiae systematicae. This book is a supplement to his Entomologia systematica, for the purpose of adding new genera and species to the earlier work. In the Supplementum, new genera and ones which Fabricius wished to redefine are described at the beginning of each Order. Genera which Fabricius described as new have an additional descriptive footnote at the place where the genus is treated. All the species known to Fabricius are listed under the new genera, while only new species are placed under old or redefined genera (as in the case of Scarabaeus). If the genus is simply adopted from some other author or is redefined, the footnote description is not present. Although Fabricius did not give references to previous uses of a generic name and did not state when he was proposing a new genus, the footnote description in small type is used so regularly in connection with the new genera that its presence may be taken as a sign that Fabricius intended a genus as a new one. We have checked through the Supplementum for consistency in this practice and find only the following exceptions : 1, The new genera Scyllarus, Galleria, Phycis, and Crambus lack the footnote. 2, A few previously proposed genera of Crustacea have the footnote. 3, Five generic names used in Latreille’s Précis are used again by Fabricius but with the footnote description accom- panying the proposal of a new name. This third set of cases is of particular interest because Geotrupes is one of the names involved. In his Précis, Latreille proposed scores of new generic names, only seven of which appear in Fabricius’ Supplementum. ‘These are Geotrupes, Sicus, Thereva, Mulio, Psochus, Orusses, and Ypsilopha. The names Orussus and Ypsilopha are emended to Oryssus and Ypsilophus res- pectively and are treated as previously proposed names (i.e., without the footnote description). The name Psochus is emended to Psocus OPINION 346 399 and treated as a new name (i.e., with the footnote description). In the cases of Geotrupes, Sicus, Thereva, and Mulio, though the names had been published by Latreille in 1796, Fabricius used them in 1798 with his footnote description that indicated he was describing them as new genera. In all four cases Fabricius’ descriptions and Latreille’s later criticisms (1802 and 1804, Hist. nat. Crust. Ins. 3 : 429, 436, 439 and 456 ; 10 : 142; 1807, Gen. Crust. Ins.3 : 296) show that Fabricius applied the names to quite different concepts than did Latreille. It seems clear that Fabricius was either not aware of Latreille’s previous use (or at least not of his application) of these names when he was writing his Supplementum, or if he did know how they were applied by Latreille, he chose to ignore Latreille’s intent and to propose them as new names with applications more pleasing to himself. In either case, he proposed homonyms and put species into his own preoccupied genera and not into Latreille’s genera of the same names, which were proposed without included species. 4. Fabricius is well known as a person who picked up unpublished (or published) names of other authors and published them as his own new genera, often with a changed application. Classic examples of this habit are the Hymenoptera names pirated from Jurine. The handful of previously published generic names in Crustacea which Fabricius Indicated as new in his Supplementum may be other examples. 5. Since the Supplementum was published only two years after Latreille’s Précis, one could assume that Fabricius was ignorant of it, while writing the Supplementum, especially since most of its new genera are not in the Swpplementum. ‘The seven that were adopted or pirated there may have been learned of through correspondence with Latreille or may have been last minute changes in the manuscript, after the printed Précis was received by Fabricius. The fact that scores of other names were ignored by Fabricius indicates his ignorance of the body of Latreille’s contribution, and the fact that Latreille showed knowledge in his Précis (pages 71—72) of the name Eudomychus which Fabricius was expected to propose in his Supplementum (actually as Endomychus) indicates simultaneous work and some exchange of manuscript names between the two authors. The fact that Fabricius proposed new names for Latreille’s Gasteruption and Psammochares (Foenus and Pompilus respectively) is another instance of his ignorance or disregard of the published Précis. _ 6. With the above understanding of the Latreille names that appear in Fabricius’ Supplementum, it seems that Geotrupes Fabricius, 1798, 400 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS was proposed as a new genus, but is a homonym of Geotrupes Latreille, 1796. The first species included in Geotrupes Latreille (not Fabricius) ~ are stercorarius and vernalis Latreille, 1802 (Hist. nat. Crust. Ins. 3: 145). In 1810, Latreille (Consid. générales sur Il’ Ordre nat. : 428) lists ‘* Scarabaeus stercorarius Fab.’ as an example (“‘type’’) of Geotrupes. Many authors accept this list as designating type species?. Those who do not would accept Curtis’ designation (1829, Brit. Ent., Coleoptera 1 : 266) of “‘ Scarabaeus stercorarius Linn.’ as the type, unless it could be shown that there is some earlier acceptable selection. The species stercorarius is the traditional type species of Geotrupes and its acceptance as such preserves the traditional application of the name. 7. If Potts’ conclusions (1948, Pan-Pac. Ent. 24 : 23—26) are accepted, the type species must be some species other than stercorarius. Potts states that it would then be dispar, which is placed in a different genus (Ceratophysus) of GEOTRUPINI than stercorarius. With dispar as the type species, the application of the name Geotrupes would need to be shifted, except under those schools of thought which consider usage or authority dominant factors in scientific nomen- clature. Potts, however, seems to have dismissed too easily the possibility that Fabricius described his Geotrupes as a new genus. His conclusion in this regard was influenced in part by the absence of a ““ genotype’ description for Geotrupes such as Fabricius commonly gave when describing new genera. (See Malaise, 1938, Ent. Tidskr. 59 : 99106 and Blackwelder, 1946, Bull. Brooklyn ent. Soc. 41 : 72— 78.) An examination of the entire volume, however, shows that Fabricius regularly omitted “‘ genotype ’’ descriptions in his Supple- mentum. Potts did not mention the kinds of evidence we bring out in the discussion above. 8. Latreille himself and authors after his time (except Potts) reached the same general conclusion as we have. If, however, the conclusion reached by Potts could be supported by indisputable bibliographic facts, technical honesty would require adjustment of the nomen- clature to fit the facts. Potts has recently requested (1951, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 6 : 49) the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature for protection against the necessity of acting according to his published conclusions and the Commission has accepted the case and invited comment from interested parties before a decision is reached. (See Science 114 : 673—674, 1951.) We therefore send this paper to the Commission, in the hopes of convincing it that, in this case at least, the commonly accepted rules of nomenclature should be allowed to operate. * The acceptance of the entries in Latreille’s Table des Genres as validly made selections of type species is now obligatory under the Ruling given in OP (i as Clarified by the Ruling given in Opinion 136. OPINION 346 401 7. Presentation to the Commission of alternative courses of action in the present case : When in February 1954 the work of the Office of the Commission had reached the stage at which the issues raised in the present case were the next to be submitted to the Commission for decision, consideration was given by the Secretary as to the procedure to be adopted in placing the present case before the Commission, having regard to the fact that the difference of view between Dr. Potts on the one hand and Drs. Howden and Townes on the other hand was not concerned with the question of the desirability or otherwise of the acceptance of the nominal species Scarabaeus stercorarius Linnaeus, 1758, as the type species of Geotrupes Latreille, 1796, but with the question whether or not that species was already the type species of that genus under the Rég/es, Dr. Potts holding the view that it was not, and Drs. Townes and Howden holding that it was. Mr. Hemming concluded that the course most convenient for the purpose of enabling the Commission to take a decision by postal voie in the present case would be, first, for the Commission to take a decision on the question whether it was desirable that the foregoing species should be maintained as the type species of the genus Geotrupes Latreille, and, second, to take a vote on the alternative courses which had been submitted for consideration, namely (1) the use of the Plenary Powers as recommended by Dr. Potts, and (2) the acceptance of the thesis advanced by Drs. Townes & Howden that the foregoing species was already the type species of Geotrupes Latreille. The alternative draft Rulings prepared in connection with the second of the proposed votes were the following :— ALTERNATIVE DRAFT RULINGS SUBMITTED IN CONNECTION WITH VOTE NO. 2 ALTERNATIVE ‘A ”’ (adoption of Potts’s proposal that the Plenary Powers should be used to secure that ‘‘ Scarabaeus stercorarius ’’ Linnaeus, 1758, shall be the type species of ‘* Geotrupes ’’ Latreille, 1796) (1) Under the Plenary Powers all type selections for the genus Geotrupes Latreille, 1796, made prior to the present Ruling are hereby 402 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS set aside, and Scarabaeus stercorarius Linnaeus, 1758, is hereby designated to be the type species of the foregoing genus. (2) The under-mentioned generic names are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology: (a) Geotrupes Latreille, 1796 (gender of generic name : feminine) (type species by designation under the Plenary Powers: Scarabaeus stercorarius Linnaeus, 1758) ; (b) Ceratophyus Fischer de Waldheim, 1824 (gender of generic name : masculine) (type species, by selection by Jekel (1866): Scarabaeus dispar Fabricius, 1781). (3) The under-mentioned specific names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: (a) stercorarius Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Scarabaeus stercorarius (specific name of type species of Geotrupes Latreille, 1796); (b) dispar Fabricius, 1781, as published in the combination Scarabaeus dispar (specific name of type species of Ceratophyus Fischer de Waldheim, 1824). ALTERNATIVE ‘°° B”’ (adoption of argument advanced by Townes & Howden, under which ‘* Scarabaeus stercorarius’’ Linnaeus, 1758, is already the valid type species of the genus ‘* Geotrupes ”’ Latreille, 1796) (1) The usage by Fabricius (J.C.) in 1798 and 1801 of the generic name Geotrupes is to be interpreted as constituting an independent publication of that name and not as a usage of the name Geotrupes Latreille, 1796, and, in consequence, the species placed by Fabricius in the genus Geotrupes Fabricius, 1798, have no bearing on the question of what species are to be regarded as alone eligible for selection as the type species of the genus Geotrupes Latreille, 1796 (a genus established without cited nominal species). (2) The under-mentioned generic names are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology: (a) Geotrupes Latreille, 1796 (gender of generic name: feminine) (type species, by selection by Latreille (1810): Scarabaeus stercorarius Linnaeus, 1758) ; (b) Ceratophyus Fischer de Waldheim, 1824 (gender of generic name : masculine) (type species, by selection by Jekel (1866): Scarabaeus dispar Fabricius, 1781). OPINION 346 403 (3) The under-mentioned specific names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: (a) stercorarius Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Scarabaeus stercorarius (specific name of type species of Geotrupes Latreille, 1796); (b) dispar Fabricius, 1781, as published in the combination Scarabaeus dispar (specific name of type species of Ceratophyus Fischer de Waldheim, 1824). (4) The under-mentioned generic name is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology : Geotrupes Fabricius, 1798 (a junior homonym of Geotrupes Latreille, 1796). III—THE DECISION OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 8. Issue of Voting Paper V.P.(54)13 : On 27th February 1954 a Voting Paper (V.P.(54)13) was issued, in which the Members of the Commission were invited to vote either for, or against, two independent but connected propositions. The following are the propositions so suomitted :— VOTE NO. 1 Under Vote No. 1 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote either for, or against the proposal that the Commission should “ensure that Scarabaeus stercorarius Linnaeus, 1758, should be maintained as the type species of Geotrupes Latreille, 1796”’. Annexed to this part of the Voting Paper was the following note: “ On the question of the procedure to be adopted to secure the foregoing object see VOTE No. 2 at the foot of the present page ’’. 404 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS VOTE NO. 2 Under Vote No. 2 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote either for :— ““* ALTERNATIVE “A’’’ (use of the Plenary Powers as proposed by Potts) as set out in the annexed sheet” [i.e., the draft Ruling reproduced as “ Alternative ‘A’ ” in paragraph 7 of the present Opinion], OR ““ALTERNATIVE “B”’ (adoption of the Townes/ Howden view that the name Geotrupes, after having been published by Latreille in 1796, was independently published in a different sense by Fabricius in 1798) as set out in the annexed sheet” [i.e., the draft Ruling reproduced as “ Alternative “B’” in paragraph 7 of the present Opinion]. 9. The Prescribed Voting Period: As the foregoing Voting Paper was issued under the Three-Month Rule, the Prescribed Voting Period closed on 27th May 1954. 10. Particulars of the Voting on Voting Paper V.P.(54)13 : At the close of the Prescribed Voting Period the state of the voting on the two votes submitted on Voting Paper V.P.(54)13 was as follows :— (1) Particulars of the voting on Vote No. 1 in Voting Paper V.P.(54)13 (a) Affirmative Votes had been given by the following nineteen (19) Commissioners (arranged in the order in which Votes were received) : Sylvester-Bradley ; Holthuis ; Hering ; Vokes ; OPINION 346 405 Boschma ; Riley; do Amaral; Esaki; Lemche; Jaczewski; Dymond; Bonnet; Cabrera; Mertens; Hemming ; Hank6o; Pearson? ; Bradley (J.C.); Stoll; (b) Negative Votes : None ; (c) Voting Papers not returned : None. (2) Particulars of the voting on Vote No. 2 in Voting Paper V.P.(54)13 (a) Votes had been given in favour of Alternative “A” (Potts proposal) by the following fourteen (14) Commissioners : Sylvester-Bradley ; Holthuis ; Hering ; Vokes ; Boschma ; Riley ; Esaki; Lemche ; Dymond ; Bonnet ; Cabrera ; Hemming; Pearson®; Stoll ; (b) Votes had been given in favour of Alternative ““ B” (Townes| Howden interpretation) by the following five Commissioners: do Amaral; Jaczewski; Mertens; Hankdé; Bradley (UKGe a Commissioner Pearson exercised in this case the right conferred by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948, under which a Commissioner may, if he so desires, signify his willingness to support the view, or the majority Tae of other members of the Commission (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : SO—5 406 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS (c) Voting Papers not completed : None. 11. Declaration of Result of Vote: On 28th May 1954, Mr. Francis Hemming, Secretary to the International Commission, acting as Returning Officer for the Votes taken on Voting Paper V.P.(54)13, signed a Certificate that the Votes cast in Vote No. 1 and Vote No. 2 respectively on the foregoing Voting Paper were as set out in paragraph 10 above and declaring that, as the proposal submitted as Alternative “ A” in Vote No. 2 had not only received a majority of the votes cast but had also, as required for the adoption of a proposal involving the use of the Plenary Powers, received not less than two affirmative votes out of every three votes cast, the said proposal had been duly adopted and that the decision so taken was the decision of the International Commission in the matter aforesaid. 12. Preparation of the Ruling given in the present ‘* Opinion ”’ : On 15th November 1954 Mr. Hemming prepared the Ruling given in the present Opinion and at the same time signed a Certificate that the terms of that Ruling were in complete accord with those of the proposal approved by the International Commission in its Votes on Voting Paper V.P.(54)13. 13. The following are the original references for the names placed on Official Lists by the Ruling given in the present Opinion :— Ceratophyus Fischer de Waldheim, 1824, Entomogr. Imp. ross. 2s 43 dispar, Scarabaeus, Fabricius, 1781, Spec. Ins. 1:5 Geotrupes Latreille, 1796, Précis Caract. gén. Ins. : 6 stercorarius, Scarabaeus, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 349 14. The following is the reference to the type selection for the genus Ceratophyus Fischer de Waldheim, 1824, referred to in OPINION 346 407 Ruling (2)(b) given in the present Opinion: Jekel, 1866, Ann. Soc. ent. France (4) 5 : 522, 535. 15. The application dealt with in the present Opinion was published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature prior to the establishment of the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology by the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology, Copenhagen, 1953. It has not been possible since then to deal with this aspect of the present case. This question is, however, now being examined on a separate File to which the Registered Number Z.N.(G.) 122 has been allotted. 16. At the time of the submission of the application dealt with in the present Opinion, the expression prescribed for the second portion of the binomen which constitutes the scientific name of a species was the expression “ trivial name” and the Official List 1eserved for recording such names was styled the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology, the word ** trivial ’’ appearing also in the title of the Official Index reserved for recording rejected and invalid names of this category. Under a decision taken by the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology, Copenhagen, 1953, the expression “‘ specific name ”’ was substituted for the expression “ trivial name” and corres- ponding changes were made in the titles of the Official List and Official Index of such names (1953, Copenhagen Decisions zool. Nomencl. : 21). The changes in terminology so adopted have been incorporated in the Ruling given in the present Opinion. 17. The prescribed procedures were duly complied with by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature in dealing with the present case, and the present Opinion is accordingly hereby rendered in the name of the said International Commission by the under-signed Francis Hemming, Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, in virtue of all and every the powers conferred upon him in that behalf. 408 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 18. The present Opinion shall be known as Opinion Three Hundred and Forty-Six (346) of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Done in London, this Fifteenth day of November, Nineteen Hundred and Fifty-Four. Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature FRANCIS HEMMING a OS Printed in England by Metcatre & Cooper Limitep, 10-24 Scrutton St., London EC 2 [<= ‘ig OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTER- NATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Edited by FRANCIS HEMMING, cM. CBE, Secretary to the Commission VOLUME 10. Part 14. Pp. 409—420 OPINION 347 Validation, under the Plenary Powers, of the generic name Lysippe Malmgren, 1865 (Class Polychaeta) 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 1955 Price Six Shillings (All rights reserved) Issued 27th June, 1955 INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE COMPOSITION AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THE RULING GIVEN IN OPINION 347 A. The Officers of the Commission Honorary Life President : Dr. Karl Jordan (British Museum (Natural History), Zoological Museum, Tri ing, Herts., England) President : Professor James Chester Bradley (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) Vice-President: Senhor Dr. Afranio do Amaral (Sao Paulo, Brazil) (12th August 1953) Secretary : Mr. Francis Hemming (London, England) (27th July 1948) B. The Members of the Commission (Arranged in order of precedence by reference to date of election or of most recent re-election, as prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology) Professor H. BoscHMA (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) (Ast January 1947). Senor Dr. Angel CABRERA (Eva Peron, F.C.N.G.R., Argentina) (27th July 1948). Mr. Francis HEMMING (London, England) (27th July 1948) (Secretary). Dr. Ea PEARSON (Tasmanian Museum, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia) (27th July 1948). Dr. Henning LEMCHE (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark) (27th July 1948). Professor Teiso Esaki (Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan) (17th April 1950). Professor Pierre BONNET (Université de Toulouse, France) (9th June 1950). Mr. Norman Denbigh RILEY (British Museum (Natural History) London) (9th June 1950). Professor Tadeusz JACZEWSKI (Unstitute of Zoology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland) (A5th June 1950). Professor Robert MERTENS (Natur-Museum u. Forschungs-Institut Senckenberg, Frankfurt a. M., Germany) (Sth July 1950). Professor Erich Martin HERING (Zoologisches Museum der Humboldt- Universitat zu Berlin, Germany) (Sth July 1950). Senhor Dr. Afranio do AMARAL (S. Paulo, Brazil) (42th August 1953) (Vice- President). aay J. R. DyMonD (University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada) (12th August Professor J. Chester BRADLEY (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) (President). Professor Harold E. VoKxes (Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, U.S.A.) (12th August 1953). Professor Béla HANKO (Mezégazdasdgi Muzeum, Budapest, Hungary) (12th August 1953). Dr. Norman R. STOLL (Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, New York, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12th August 1953). Mr. P. C. SYLVESTER-BRADLEY (Sheffield University, Sheffield, England) (12th August 1953). Dr. L. B. Hottuuts (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Nether- lands) (12th August 1953). OPINION 347 VALIDATION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS OF THE GENERIC NAME ‘* LYSIPPE ’’? MALMGREN, 1865 (CLASS POLYCHAETA) RULING: (1) Under the Plenary Powers, (a) the generic name Lysippe Kinahan, 1858 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda) is hereby suppressed for the purposes both of the Law of Priority and of the Law of Homonymy; and (b) the name Lysippe Malmgren, 1865 (Class Poly- chaeta) is hereby validated. (2) The under-mentioned generic names are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Nos. 866 and 867 respectively :— (a) Lysippe Malmgren, 1865, as validated under the Plenary Powers under (1) (b) above (gender : feminine) (type species, by monotypy: Lysippe labiata Malmgren, 1865) ; (b) Thoralus Holthuis, 1947 (gender : masculine) (type species, by original designation: Hippolyte cranchii Leach, 1817). (3) The under-mentioned generic name is_ hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology with the Name No. 257: Lysippe Kinahan, 1858, as suppressed under the Plenary Powers under (1) (a) above. wr 2) 1955. 412 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS (4) The under-mentioned specific names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Nos. 476 and 477 respectively :— (a) cranchii Leach, [1817], as published in the com- bination Hippolyte cranchii (specific name of type species of Thoralus Holthuis, 1947) ; (b) labiata Malmgren, 1865, as published in the com- bination Lysippe labiata (specific name of type species of Lysippe Malmgren, 1865). I.—THE STATEMENT OF THE CASE On 15th January 1949, Dr. L. B. Holthuis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) submitted a pro- posal for the suppression under the Plenary Powers of the totally overlooked generic name Lysippe Kinahan, 1858 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda) for the purpose of validating the well-known but later name Lysippe Malmgren, 1865 in the Class Polychaeta. Later, this application was revised in certain minor respects (paragraph 3 below). As finally submitted, it was as follows :— Proposed use of the Plenary Powers to suppress the generic name ‘* Lysippe ’’ Kinahan, 1858 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda) and to validate the generic name ‘‘ Lysippe ’’ Malmgren, 1865 (Class Polychaeta) By L. B. HOLTHUIS (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) The object of the present application is to seek the assistance of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to validate the name Lysippe Malmgren, 1865, by suppressing the older name Lysippe Kinahan, 1858, under its Plenary Powers. 2. In 1858 J. R. Kinahan in a paper entitled “‘ Natural History Notes in Devon and Cornwall” (Nat. Hist. Rev., Dublin, 5 : 266— 271) mentioned a species of shrimp as Hippolyte (Lysippe) Cranchii OPINION 347 413 (p. 266). In 1859 the same paper was published in Proc. Dublin Univ. zool.-bot. Ass., 1 : 141—148, the name Hippolyte (Lysippe) Cranchii being mentioned there on page 142. 3. The name Lysippe Kinahan (1858) for a Decapod Crustacean is valid as Kinahan used a binominal nomenclature, for the name was not preoccupied, and it was provided with an indication (the sub- generic name Lysippe was used by Kinahan for the species Hippolyte cranchii Leach only, so that that species becomes the type species of the subgenus). Thus, all the requirements specified in Article 25 of the Régles were duly fulfilled. 4. As far as I am able to ascertain the name Lysippe Kinahan has been overlooked by all subsequent authors ; it is not even included in Neave’s Nomenclator zoologicus. The only name Lysippe men- tioned by Neave (1939, Nomencl. zool., 2 : 1024) is Lysippe Malmgren, 1865, for a genus of Polychaeta. Kinahan’s name Lysippe is older, however, than that of Malmgren, so that under the normal operation of the Régles the latter would have to be rejected as a junior homonym. 5. On my request Dr. Pierre Fauvel, Professor at the Faculty of Sciences of the Université Catholique at Angers, France, and one of the foremost specialists of Polychaeta, kindly provided me with the following information: “ Depuis 1865, le nom de Lysippe labiata a été employé, sans discussion, par tous les spécialistes: a lexception de Grube et de Theéel, qui ne le distinguaient pas du genre Amphicteis. En 1936, je Vai employé également pour une espéce nouvelle du Maroc: Lysippe vanelli. Changer ainsi un nom de genre aussi longtemps employé sans discussion et correspondant a une description détaillé et précise, accompagnée de bonnes figures, parceque ce nom a été employé quelques années auparavant pour un Crustacé, et alors que ce nom était resté a4 peu pres inconnu des Carcinologues, me parait étre une de ces déplorables aberrations de l'emploi trop strict de la loi de priorité. C’est ainsi qu’on arrive a rendre inintelligible la nomenclature pour les non-spécialistes, et cela sans aucune utilité et, en outre, ces changements de noms sont rarement définitifs, car on est encore a la merci d’une découverte d’un nom encore plus ancien ou d’une synonymie plus ou moins discutable. Je serais donc d’avis de conserver le nom de Lysippe pour les Polychetes et, si besoin est, den créer un autre pour |’ Hippolyte cranchii’’. 6. Judged solely from the standpoint of carcinologists, the accep- tance of the name Lysippe Kinahan, 1858, would not be open to any strong objection for the only result would be that it would replace the generic name Thoralus Holthuis, 1947 (Siboga Exped. Mon. 414 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 39(A)(8) : 45, type species, by original designation: Hippolyte cranchi (emend. of cranchii) Leach, [1817], Malac. Podophth. Brit. (16) : pl. 38, figs. 17—21), a name published for the genus having the above species as its type species, at a time prior to the rediscovery of the name Lysippe Kinahan, 1858. I entirely agree, however, with Professor Fauvel that it is not from the foregoing point of view that this case should be judged. What is important and relevant in this case is the strong objection that there would be to the suppression, as a homonym, of the well known generic name Lysippe Malmgren, 1865 in the Polychaeta, for the benefit of the earlier name Lysippe Kinahan, 1858, in the Class Crustacea, a name which, as already explained, has never been used by carcinologists. 7. I accordingly now ask the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature :— (1) to use its Plenary Powers :— (a) to suppress the generic name Lysippe Kinahan, 1858, for the purposes both of the Law of Priority and of the Law of Homonymy ; (b) to validate the generic name Lysippe Malmgren, 1865 ; (2) to place the under-mentioned generic names on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology :— (a) Lysippe Malmgren, 1865 (gender of generic name: feminine) (type species, by monotypy: Lysippe labiata Malmgren, 1865), as proposed, under (1)(b) above, to be validated under the Plenary Powers ; (b) Thoralus Holthuis, 1947 (gender of generic name: masculine) (type species, by original: designation : Hippolyte cranchi (emend. of cranchii) Leach, [1817] ; (3) to place the generic name Lysippe Kinahan, 1858, as proposed, under (1)(a) above, to be suppre:,sed under the Plenary Powers, on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology ; (4) to place the under-mentioned trivial names on the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology :— (a) labiata Malmgren, 1865, as published in the binominal combination Lysippe labiata (trivial name of type species of Lysippe Malmgren, 1865) ; OPINION 347 415 (b) cranchi (emend. of cranchii) Leach, [1817], as published in the binominal combination Hippolyte cranchii (trivial name of type species of Thoralus Holthuis, 1947). Il.—THE SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF THE CASE 2. Registration of the present application : On the receipt of Dr. Holthuis’s communication of 15th January 1949, the question of the validation of the name Lysippe Malmgren, 1865, by the suppression under the Plenary Powers of the name Lysippe Kinahan, 1858, was allotted the Registered Number Z.N.(S.) 373. 3. Revision of the present application in 1951 : In the period immediately following the Session of the International Com- mission in Paris in 1948 the entire resources of the Office of the Commission were devoted to the preparation and publication of the Official Record of the Proceedings of the Commission at its Paris Session, and it was not until 1950 that it was possible to resume work on applications relating to individual names. The present application was the subject of correspondence between the Secretary and Dr. Holthuis in the summer of 1951, for, like all applications submitted before the publication of the Paris Proceedings, it required certain minor revisions for the purpose of bringing it into line with the procedure prescribed by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948, under which it became in future the duty of the Commission to place on the Official List and Official Index of specific names any such name which in any of its Opinions it might accept as an available name or, as the case might be, might reject under its Plenary Powers or might declare to be invalid under the Régles. These revisions of the present application were completed by 11th June 1951, when the final text was submitted to the Commission. 4. Publication of the present application : The present applica- tion was sent to the printer on 30th January 1952 and was published 416 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS on 15th April 1952 in Part 5 of volume 6 of the Bulletin of Zoo- logical Nomenclature (Holthuis, 1952, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 6: 148—149). 5. Issue of Public Notices: Under the revised procedure prescribed by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948 (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 51—56) Public Notice of the possible use by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature of its Plenary Powers in the present case was given on 15th April 1952 (a) in Part 5 of volume 6 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (the Part in which Dr. Holthuis’s application was published) and (b) to the other prescribed serial publications. In addition, Public Notice was given to a number of other general zoological serial publications. The publication of these Notices elicited no objection to the action proposed. 6. Support received from Professor Pierre Fauvel (Université Catholique, Angers, France) : As explained by Dr. Holthuis in his application (paragraph 5), the proposals submitted by him had the strong support, from the point of view of the nomen- clature of the Polychaeta, of Dr. Pierre Fauvel, Professor at the Faculty of Sciences at the Université Catholique at Angers, France. Ill.—THE DECISION OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 7. Issue of Voting Paper V.P.(54)16 : On 27th February 1954, a Voting Paper (V.P.(54)16) was issued in which the Members of the Commission were invited to vote either for, or against, the proposal “relating to the generic name Lysippe Kinahan, 1858, set out in the concluding paragraph on page 149 in volume 6 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature ”’ [i.e. in paragraph 7 of the application reproduced in the first paragraph of the present Opinion]. OPINION 347 417 8. The Prescribed Voting Period: As the foregoing Voting Paper was issued under the Three-Month Rule, the Prescribed Voting Period closed on 27th May 1954. 9. Particulars of the Voting on Voting Paper V.P.(54)16 : The state of the voting on Voting Paper V.P.(54)16 at the close of the Prescribed Voting Period was as follows :— (a) Affirmative Votes had been given by the following seventeen (17) Commissioners (arranged in the order in which Votes were received) : Sylvester-Bradley ; Holthuis ; Hering ; Vokes ; Boschma ; do Amaral ; Esaki; Riley ; Lemche ; Dymond ; Hemming; Bonnet ; Cabrera ; Mertens; Bradley (J.C.) ; Hanko ; Stoll ; (b) Negative Votes, One (1): Pearson ; (c) Voting Paper not returned, One (1): Jaczewskil. 10. Declaration of Result of Vote: On 28th May 1954, Mr. Hemming, Secretary to the International Commission, acting as Returning Officer for the Vote taken on Voting Paper V.P.(54)16, signed a Certificate that the Votes cast were as set out in paragraph 9 above and declaring that the proposal submitted in the fore- going Voting Paper had been duly adopted and that the decision so taken was the decision of the International Commission in the matter aforesaid. 1 After the close of the Prescribed Voting Period an affirmative vote was received (on Ist June 1954) from Commissioner Jaczewski. 418 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 11. Preparation of the Ruling given in the present ‘‘ Opinion ”’ : On 16th November 1954, Mr. Hemming prepared the Ruling given in the present Opinion and at the same time signed a Certificate that the terms of that Ruling were in complete accord with those of the proposal approved by the International Commission in its Vote on Voting Paper V.P.(54)16. 12. The following are the original references for the names ‘ placed on Official Lists and Official Indexes by the Ruling given in the present Opinion :— cranchii, Hippolyte, Leach, [1817], Malac. Podophth. Brit. (16) : pl. 38, figs. 17—21 labiata, Lysippe, Malmgren, 1865, Ofvers. Vetensk Akad. Forhandl., Stockholm 22 : 367 Lysippe Kinahan, 1858, Nat. Hist. Rey., Dublin 5 : 266—271 Lysippe Malmgren, 1865, Ofvers. Vetensk Akad. Forhandl., Stock- holm 22 : 367 Thoralus Holthuis, 1947, Siboga Exped. Mon. 39(A)(8) : 45 13. The nominal genus Lysippe Malmgren, 1865, is not the type genus of a family-group taxon and accordingly no question arises in the present case of placing any name on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology. 14. At the time when the application dealt with in the present Opinion was submitted to the Commission, the Rég/es provided, under an amendment adopted by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948 (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 68), that infringements of certain Articles, including Article 14, were to be subject to automatic correction by later authors. Under this provision a specific name based upon the modern patronymic of a man and formed in the genitive case was subject to automatic correction if published with a double “1” as a termination (as “-ii’’) instead of with a single “1” (as ° In the present case this problem arose in connection with the name 6 399 -/ ° OPINION 347 419 of the type species of the genus Thoralus Holthuis, 1947, namely Hippolyte cranchii Leach, [1817], the second (specific) portion of which was, as will be seen, published incorrectly as “* cranchii”’ instead of as “cranchi”. Accordingly, in conformity with the decision of the Paris Congress referred to above, this name was corrected to the form “ cranchi”’ at the time of the publication of Dr. Holthuis’s application. The question of principle involved was considered further at Copenhagen in 1953 by the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology, which amended the Paris (1948) Congress’s decision, by inserting a provision in the Régles that in cases such as that discussed above the terminations “i” and “ -i1”’ are permissible variants having no nomenclatorial significance (1953, Copenhagen Decisions zool. Nomencl. : 54, Decision 91). In compliance with this decision the original spelling “‘ cranchii ” has been substituted for the spelling “* cranchi ” in the portion of the Ruling given in the present Opinion relating to the name published as Hippolyte cranchii by Leach in 1817. 15. At the time of the submission of the original application dealt with in the present Opinion, the expression prescribed for the second portion of the binomen which constitutes the scientific name of a species was the expression “ trivial name” and the Official List reserved for recording such names was styled the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology, the word “trivial” appearing also in the title of the Official Index reserved for recording rejected and invalid names of this category. Under a decision taken by the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology, Copenhagen, 1953, the expression “ specific name” was substituted for the expression “trivial name” and corre- sponding changes were made in the titles of the Official List and Official Index of such names (1953, Copenhagen Decisions zool. Nomencl.:21). The changes in terminology so adopted have been incorporated in the Ruling given in the present Opinion. 16. The prescribed procedures were duly complied with by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature in dealing with the present case, and the present Opinion is accordingly hereby rendered in the name of the said International Com- mission by the under-signed Francis Hemming, Secretary to the 420 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, in virtue of all and every the powers conferred upon him in that behalf. 17. The present Opinion shall be known as Opinion Three Hundred and Forty-Seven (347) of the International Com- mission on Zoological Nomenclature. DONE in London, this Sixteenth day of November, Nineteen Hundred and Fifty-Four. Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature FRANCIS HEMMING Printed in England by Mrtcatre & Cooper LimiTED, 10-24 Scrutton St., London EC 2 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTER- NATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Edited by FRANCIS HEMMING, c.M.G., cC.B.E. Secretary to the Commission VOLUME 10. Part 15. Pp. 421—436 OPINION 348 Suppression, under the Plenary Powers, of the generic -name Titania Meigen, 1800, for the purpose of validating the generic name Chlorops Meigen, 1803 (Class Insecta, Order Diptera) [ : awy™ F ce ' BI eS 4 pr \ piece aes SNe baie anal ¥ a ee | Q / SQ. Lipo nay Af a et Wn | #8 , = Set remersanr LONDON : Beene 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 1955 Price Eight Shillings (All rights reserved) fumed 21th June, 1955 INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE COMPOSITION AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THE RULING GIVEN IN OPINION 348 A. The Officers of the Commission Honorary Life President : Dr. Karl Jordan (British Museum (Natural History), Zoological Museum, Tring, Herts, England) President : Professor James Chester Bradley (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) Vice-President: Senhor Dr. Afranio do Amaral (Sao Paulo, Brazil) (12th August 1953) Secretary : Mr. Francis Hemming (London, England) (27th July 1948) B. The Members of the Commission (arranged in order of precedence by reference to date of election or of most recent re-election, as prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology) Professor H. BoscHMA (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) (Ast January 1947) Senor Dr. Angel CABRERA (Eva Peron, F.C.N.G.R., Argentina) (27th July 1948) Mr. Francis HEMMING (London, England) (27th July 1948) (Secretary) pe Se PEARSON (Zasmanian Museum, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia) (27th uly Dr. Henning LEMCHE (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark) (27th July 1948) Professor Teiso Esaki (Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan) (A7th April 1950) Professor Pierre BONNET (Université de Toulouse, France) (9th June 1950) Me ines, Denbigh RILEY (British Museum (Natural History) London) (9th une Professor Tadeusz JACZEWSKI (Institute of Zoology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland) (15th June 1950) Professor Robert MERTENS (Natur-Museum u. Forschungs-Institut Senckenberg, Frankfurt a. M., Germany) (5th July 1950) Professor Erich Martin HERING (Zoologisches Museum der Humboldt-Universitat zu Berlin, Germany) (5th July 1950) Senhor Dr. Afranio do AMARAL (S. Paulo, Brazil) (12th August 1953) (Vice- President) ite a J. R. DyMoNnD (University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada) (12th August Professor J. Chester BRADLEY (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) (President) Professor Harold E. Voxes (Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) Professor Béla HANKO (Mezégazdasdgi Muzeum, Budapest, Hungary) (12th August 1953) Dr. Norman R. STOLL (Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, New York, N.Y., U.S.A.) (2th August 1953) Mr. P. C. SyYLVESTER-BRADLEY (Sheffield University, Sheffield, England) (12th August 1953) Dr. L. B. Hottuuts (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Nether- lands (12th August 1953) OPINION 348 SUPPRESSION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS OF THE - GENERIC NAME ‘“‘ TITANIA ”? MEIGEN, 1800, FOR THE PURPOSE OF VALIDATING THE GENERIC NAME ‘* CHLOROPS ”’ MEIGEN, 1803 (CLASS INSECTA, ORDER DIPTERA) RULING :—(1) The following action is hereby taken under the Plenary Powers :— (a) The generic name Titania Meigen, 1800, is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy ; (b) The generic name Chlorops Meigen, 1803, is hereby validated ; (c) The nominal species Musca pumilionis Bjerkander, 1778, is hereby designated as the type species of the genus Chlorops Meigen, 1803. (2) The under-mentioned generic name is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name No. 868 : Chlorops Meigen, 1803 (gender : feminine) (type species, by designation under the Plenary Powers under (1)(c) above : Musca pumilionis Bjerkander, 1778). | (3) The under-mentioned specific name is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the name No. 478 : pumilionis Bjerkander, 1778, as published in the combination Musca pumilionis (specific name of type species, by designation under the Plenary Powers under (1)(c) above, of Chlorops Meigen, 1803). (4) The under-mentioned generic name is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology with the Name No. 258: Titania Meigen, 1800, as suppressed under the Plenary Powers under (1)(a) above. “Hu 2 1 1955 424 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS I.—THE STATEMENT OF THE CASE On 8th November 1945 there was received in the Office of the Commission an application by Dr. Curtis W. Sabrosky (then of the United States Public Health Service, Malaria Control in War Areas, Manning, South Carolina, U.S.A. and now of the United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Entomology Research Branch, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.), asking for the use of the Plenary Powers to suppress the generic name Titania Meigen, 1800, for the purpose of validating the later name Chlorops Meigen, 1803 (Class Insecta, Order Diptera). Subject to the adoption of a minor drafting change agreed upon between the Secretary and Dr. Sabrosky, the application so submitted was as follows :— Application for the use of the Plenary Powers to validate the generic name ‘‘ Chlorops ’’ Meigen, 1803 (Class Insecta, Order Diptera) By C. W. SABROSKY (United States Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Entomology and Plant Quarantine, Washington, D.C.) The name Titania Meigen is one of the disputed names of Meigen, 1800, declared available in Opinions 28 and 152. (For facsimile, see 1945, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 1 : 155—156). Hendel (1908, Verh. zool.— bot. Ges. Wien, 58 : 63) who resurrected the Meigen 1800 paper, stated that Titania was equal to Chlorops Meigen, 1803, and he was followed in this by Coquillett (1910, Proc. U.S. Nat. Mus. 37 : 499— 647) and Stone (1941, Ann. ent. Soc. Amer. 34 : 415). 2. Except for mere mention in a few lists, and in general papers such as those of Hendel and Stone, the name Titania has never been applied in any taxonomic work on the CHLOROPIDAE in the 145 years since its appearance. The name Chlorops, on the other hand, has been used constantly since 1803 for a great number of species in every faunal region of the world, and has given its name to the family CHLOROPIDAE. Change of the name to Titania would be confusing, undesirable and, in view of the patent error involved, as explained below, particularly inappropriate. 3. The type species of Chlorops Meigen, 1803, is considered by the writer to be Chlorops pumilionis (Bjerkander, 1778) (= Musca pumilionis Bjerkander, 1778), by selection by Westwood (1840), although most OPINION 348 425 workers have cited the selection of Chlorops laeta Meigen, 1830, by Coquillett (1910). The discussion of this question is presented by Sabrosky (1941, Ann. ent. Soc. Amer. 34 : 735—765). (For an extract from this paper, see Annexe 1.) HISTORY OF THE NAME TITANIA MEIGEN 4. Meigen, 1800 : Titania erected. “‘ 7 espéces,”” none mentioned by name. Hendel, 1908 ( : 63) : Titania, 1800 = Chlorops Meigen, 1803. Coquillett, 1910 (Proc. U.S. nat. Mus. 37) : Titania = Chlorops ; type species of both, Chlorops laeta Meigen. Hendel, 1910 (Wien ent. Ztg. 29 : 312): suggested that Titania was more like Gaurax than Chlorops (two quite different genera, in different subfamilies !). Duda, 1933 (Chloropidae, in “‘Die Fliegen der palaearktischen Region ’’, Lfg. 70 : 147) : used Chlorops. Stone (1941, Ann. ent. Soc. Amer. 34 : 415) : Titania recognized, with Chlorops as synonym. Type species, Chlorops laeta Meigen. Sabrosky (1941) : Chlorops recognized. Titania a genus dubium on Zoological grounds. (Foran extract from this paper, see Annexe 2.), Titania Meigen, 1800 versus Chlorops Meigen, 1803. 5. Hendel (1908 : 63) stated that these names applied to the same genus. The writer believes that this is an untenable position zoologic- ally, for the following reasons :— (1) The description of Titania will not apply to a single species of Chlorops. Hendel (1910) quickly saw his error and his 1908 reference must have been ill-considered. (2) There is no basis whatsoever for associating the brief descriptions of Titania Meigen, 1800, and Chlorops Meigen, 1803. The former was said to have an oblong, obtuse distal antennal segment, with a bearded arista (which fits no Chlorops !) ; the latter, an almost circular segment with naked arista. (3) Assuming that the group represented by the name Titania Meigen, 1800, appeared somewhere in Meigen’s 1803 paper, a compari- son of the descriptions shows that there is only one which is 426 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS almost identical (Chamaemyia), and it is strange indeed that Hendel did not notice it. compared as follows :— Chlorops Meigen, 1803 Die Fuhlhorner zweiglie- derig das vorderste Glied fast kreisund, flach mit nakkter Borste an der Wurzel Titania Meigen, 1800 Antennes a deux articu- lations la seconde oblongue, ob- tuse garnie a la base dun poil barbu The three descriptions can be Chamaemyia Meigen, 1803 Die Fuhlh6rner — sen- krecht, zweigliederig das vorderste Glied ldnglich, flach mit einer haarigen Borste an der Wurzel Die Stirne breit, unge- | Front large Die Stirne breit, unge- streift streift Der Hinterleib flach, nakkt} Corps glabre, plat Der Hinterleib feinhaarig oder nakkt Die Fligel parallel Ailes croisées Die Fliigel parallel 6. It is obvious that the non-essential details are alike for the three ; in the only critical points given, Chlorops and Titania are dissimilar, but Titania and Chamaemyia are the same. The two new points in the 1803 description (“‘senkrecht’’ antennae and “ ungestreift”’ front) were applied to several genera in the 1803 paper but not in the 1800 paper, and thus were characters that Meigen added apparently as the result of later study. Even though it would appear that a mistake was made, it would certainly serve no good purpose even to consider replacing Chamaemyia, nor would any good result from overthrowing the properly established and well-known Chlorops. _ 7. Therefore, (1) because the name Titania has never been applied in the entire literature on CHLOROPIDAE : (2) because its adoption would overthrow a long established name for a large and cosmopolitan genus used as the root of the family name; and (3) because the name Titania was patently associated with the wrong genus of Meigen, 1803, It is respectfully requested that the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature : (i) acting in virtue of their Plenary Powers should suspend the Régles and : (a) suppress the name Titania Meigen, 1800, for all purposes other than Article 34 ; (b) validate the name Chlorops Meigen, 1803, and OPINION 348 427 (c) designate Musca pumilionis Bjerkander, 1778, as the type species of Chlorops Meigen, 1803 ; (ii) place the name Chlorops Meigen, 1803, with the above species as type species, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. Annexe 1 Extract from a paper by Sabrosky (C.W.), 1941, Ann. ent. Soc. Amer. 34 : 740 Chlorops Meigen, 1803, Mag. f. Insekt. (Illiger) 2, p. 278. No species. 1830, Syst. Berschr., 6, p. 140. Sixty species Type, Chlorops pumilionis (Bjerkander) (=Musca pumilionis Bjerkander, 1778) as Chlorops lineata Fabricius, the twenty-first species. (By designation by Westwood, 1840, p. 147, referred to in error as “‘ C. pumilionis L.’’). Synonyms : Oscinis Latreille, 1804 Gsogenotypic). Cotilea Lioy, 1864. For many years, Chlorops and Oscinis were regarded as synonymous. In his studies of the Palaearctic Chloropidae, however, Duda (1933) separated them on the character of the haired vs. bare mesopleura of what he regarded as their respective genotypes. The controversy affects the generic name of hundreds of species in all faunal regions. Coquillet (1910), Malloch (1913, 1931, 1938), Duda (1933) and others have accepted Chlorops laeta Meigen as the genotype of Chlorops, by designation of Rondani (1856, p. 125). They have overlooked the prior designation by Westwood (1840) cited above. Under the Code (Opinion 71) Westwood’s designations are available if the species were originally included. The species in question C. pumilionis, was included by Meigen in the synonymy of C. lineata (Fabricius), and was also represented in Meigen (1830) by the synonymous names, C. nasuta Schrank, the fifth species, and C. taeniopus Meigen, the ninth species. The present synonymy as accepted by Duda (1935, p. 192) is as follows : Chlorops pumilionis Bjerkander, 1778 (Musca) = Musca lineata Fabricius, 1781. = Musca nasuta Schrank, 1781. = Chlorops taeniopus Meigen, 1830. It is true that Westwood credited pumilionis to Linnaeus on p. 147, but this is an apparent lapse, for in other parts of his work (e.g. on p. 574) he discussed the species and referred to it properly as of Bjerkander, 1778. Since Chlorops and Oscinis are found to have the same species as genotypes, the latter name must fall as an absolute synonym. Of 428 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS recent workers, both Balachowsky and Mesnil (1935, Les Insectes nuisibles aux plantes cultivées, I, p. 935) and Collin (1939, Ent. Monthly Mag., LXXV, p. 152) have recognized this fact. Chlorops in the sense of Duda (including species with hairs on the mesopleura, as in laeta) is thus left without a name. No name will be proposed here, however, because the validity of the grouping is doubtful. Collin (1939, loc. cit.) comments that ‘‘ Duda’s character for the subdivision of the genus Chlorops does not hold good in all specimens.” Annexe 2 Extract from a paper by Sabrosky (C.W.), 1941, Ann. ent. Soc. Amer. 34 : 747—748. Titania Meigen, 1800, Nouvelle Classification, p. 35. No species. Genus dubium. Many authors (e.g. Hendel, 1908 ; Coquillett, 1910) have regarded Titania 1800 as identical with Chlorops Meigen, 1803, but Hendel (1910, Wien. Ent. Zeit., XXIX, p. 312) suggested that it might be Gaurax. From the brief description (“‘ la seconde [antennal segment] oblongue ’’), it seems not to be Chlorops s.str. and probably not Gaurax. Since the guesses include two such distinct genera in opposite sub- families, it seems futile as well as dangerous to try to place the name. If we follow the dictum that “no species is available as genotype unless it can be recognised from the original generic publication ”’ (Opinion 46), the name Titania can never be used, for the description is unrecognisable as it stands. Under the rule of the first reviser, we should probably have to accept the action of Hendel, 1908 (Verh. zool.-bot. Ges. Wien LVIII, p. 63), who stated that Chlorops = Titania. The genotype of Chlorops would thereupon become ipso facto the genotype of Titania (Article 30, II, f), and the name Chlorops would fall as an isogenotypic synonym. Hendel’s association of generic names was based in large part upon a comparison of the wording of the generic descriptions in the 1800 and 1803 papers. However, when we compare the descriptions of Chlorops and Titania, it is difficult to understand how Hendel reconciled them. Under Titania, Meigen wrote : ‘““Antennes 4 deux articulations : la seconde oblongue, obtuse, garnie a la base d’un poil barbu”’ (a bearded bristle). The description of Chlorops 1803 on the other hand is as follows : “*‘ Die Fiihlhérner zweigliederig : das Vorderste Glied fast kreisrund, flach, mit nakkter Borste an der Wurzel.”’ The error of associating a genus having an oblong distal antennal segment and plumose arista with one having a rounded antennal segment and naked arista was later recognised by Hendel himself (1910, op. cit.), when he suggested that Titania was more like Gaurax. Actually there is little evidence that it is even a Chloropid. The safest course is to regard it as unrecognisable and a genus dubium. OPINION 348 429 Il.—THE SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF THE CASE 2. Registration of the present application: On the receipt of Dr. Sabrosky’s application the question of the use of the Plenary Powers for the purpose of validating the generic name Chlorops Meigen, 1803, was allotted the Registered Number Z.N.(S.) 197. 3. Issue of Public Notices in 1947 : In the period 1946-1947 a large amount of material for publication in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature had already been for some time in the hands of the printer who was unable to give delivery of proofs owing to difficulties arising from paper rationing, shortage of labour at the works and similar causes. In these circumstances it was judged that no useful purpose would be served by sending further papers to the printer until the arrears in his hands had been cleared off. In order however, to make some progress with the present case and to clear the ground for the proposed use by the Commission of its Plenary Powers at its Session then arranged to be held in Paris in 1948, Public Notice of the possible use of the foregoing Powers in the present case was given on 20th November 1947 in the manner prescribed by the Ninth Inter- national Congress of Zoology, Monaco, 1913. 4. Postponement of the present application at Paris in 1948 : When the Commission met in Paris in 1948 the time available was so short and so much of it was devoted to the consideration of proposals for the reform of the Rég/es that the opportunities for considering applications relating to individual names submitted by specialists for decision were insufficient to enable the Com- mission to deal with the whole of the cases then awaiting attention. The present application was one of those which for the foregoing reason was not brought before the Commission at its Paris Session. 5. Submission of a Supplementary Application in 1950: In the period immediately following the close of the Paris Session of the Commission the entire resources of its Office were devoted to the preparation of the Official Records of the Proceedings of the Commission at that Session and it was not until 1950 that it was possible to resume work on applications relating to individual 430 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS names. Like all other applications then outstanding, the present application required either to be revised in certain minor respects or to be completed by supplementary proposals in order to bring it into line with certain procedural requirements imposed upon the Commission by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948. In the present case the additional proposals so required were provided by Mr. Hemming, as the Secretary in the following note :— It should be noted that the application relating to the generic names Titania Meigen, 1800, and Chlorops Meigen, 1803, submitted to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature by Dr. C. W. Sabrosky, was received in November 1945, and was therefore prepared long before the establishment by the International Congress of Zoology either of the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology or of the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology. If the Commission approve the proposals submitted by Dr. Sabrosky, the action which, under the decisions referred to above, it will be necessary to take will be somewhat more extensive than that indicated in the application, for in addition it will be necessary (1) to place the name Titania Meigen, 1800 (consequent upon its suppression under the Plenary Powers) on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology, and (2) to place the trivial name pumilionis Bjerkander, 1778, as published in the binominal combination Musca pumilionis, on the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology. The generic names Titania and Chlorops are both feminine in gender. 6. Support for Dr. Sabrosky’s proposals received prior to the publication of his application : In 1950 the following specialists submitted statements supporting Dr. Sabrosky’s application prior to its publication in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature : (1) Mr. H. Oldroyd (British Museum (Natural History), London) ; (2) Dr. John Smart (Cambridge University, Cambridge). The communications so received are given in the immediately following paragraphs. 7. Support received from Mr. H. Oldroyd (British Museum (Natural History), London) : On 28th September 1950, Mr. H. Oldroyd (British Museum (Natural History), London) addressed to the Commission the following letter in support of Dr. Sabrosky’s application :— Use of the names Chlorops and Titania The name Chlorops is used in the British Museum collection, and generally, I do not know of any author who uses Titania. OPINION 348 431 I think there is no doubt of the fact that Chlorops is Titania. The later (German) description is almost an exact translation of the earlier French. Neither can honestly be recognized without reference to later work. In 1830 Meigen himself claims Chlorops as an earlier name for Oscinis and thereby identifies it retrospectively. 8. Support received from Dr. John Smart (Cambridge University, Department of Zoology, Cambridge): On 2nd October 1950, Dr. John Smart (Cambridge University, Department of Zoology, Cambridge) addressed the following letter to the Commission in support of the present application :— | I am in favour of the suppression of Titania Meigen, 1800, and the validation of Chlorops Meigen, 1803. 9. Publication of the present application: On 7th January 1951, Dr. Sabrosky’s application, Mr. Hemming’s supplementary proposal, and the communications received from Mr. Oldroyd and Dr. Smart were sent to the printer and on 4th May 1951 these documents were published in Part 5 of volume 2 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (Sabrosky, 1951, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 2 : 134—138 ; Hemming, 1951, ibid. 2 : 138 ; Oldroyd, Iein word. 2: 139; Smart, 1951, ibid. 2 : 139). 10. Issue of Public Notices in 1951: Under the revised procedure prescribed by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948 (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl, 4 : 51—56) Public Notice of the possible use by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature of its Plenary Powers in the present case was given (a) in Part 5 of volume 2 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (the Part in which Dr. Sabrosky’s application was published) and (b) to the other prescribed serial publications. In addition, such Notice was given to certain general zoological serial publications and to a considerable number of entomological serials in Europe and America. The publication of these Notices elicited support from the following specialists :—(1) Dr. W. Hennig (Deutsches Entomologisches Institut, Berlin) ; (2) Professor C, P. Alexander (University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Mass., U.S.A.); (3) Dr. F. R. Shaw (University of Massachusetts, Department of Entomology, Amherst, Mass., U.S.A.). These 432 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS communications are reproduced in the immediately following paragraphs. No objection to the action proposed was received from any source. 11. Support received from Dr. W. Hennig (Deutsches Ento- mologisches Institut, Berlin) : On 22nd May 1951, Dr. W. Hennig (Deutsches Entomologisches Institut, Berlin) addressed a letter to the Commission in which he opposed proposals which had been submitted by various specialists for the suppression under the Plenary Powers of four of the generic names published by Meigen in 1800 (the names 7ylos, Dorilas, Philia, Tendipes) but supported Dr. Sabrosky’s proposal for the suppression of the name Titania Meigen, 1800, in favour of the name Chlorops Meigen, 1803. The following is the portion of Dr. Hennig’s letter dealing with the names Titania and Chlorops (Hennig, 1951, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 2 : 348) :— It is quite another situation with Titania versus Chlorops. Titania has never been used in recent publications. Its introduction in the place of the well-known and very important name Chlorops would lead, therefore, to considerable disadvantage and confusion, especially in the literature of economic entomology. I think that there will be general agreement in this case with the proposal of Dr. Sabrosky. 12. Support received from Professor C. P. Alexander (University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Mass., U.S.A.) : On 8th October 1951 Professor C. P. Alexander (University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Mass., U.S.A.) addressed the following letter to the Commission in support of the proposed suppression under the Plenary Powers of the generic name Titania Meigen, 1800 and of certain other generic names published by Meigen in his Nouvelle Classification (Alexander, 1952, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 6 : 172) :— I have noted the suggestions in various publications regarding the proposed suspension of the rules in various cases. The notice to which I refer specifically is in The Entomologist, July 1951, pp. 164165. As a dipterist, I would like to vote upon the five names that you mention : that is Titania, Dorilas, Tendipes, Philia, and Tylos. In all cases I vote most strongly in favour of the 1803 names, which in all but one case are also by Meigen. I feel that these longer—used names— Chlorops, Pipunculus, Chironomus, Dilophus and Micropeza—should OPINION 348 433 be retained. It has been argued that a great injustice has been done to Meigen by ignoring the 1800 names. I can never see the justice of such an argument, since, as is well known, Meigen was the first to ignore his 1800 names and replace them with the better known ones in 1803. If the final ruling of the Commission is to recognise the 1803 names in preference to the 1800 ones, I believe that it would establish a precedent whereby all of the (to me) obnoxious 1800 names proposed by Meigen could be discarded. There can be little question that for the past 40 years the recognition of these 1800 names has caused vast confusion. All during my entomological life we have been faced with this situation, and it is greatly to be regretted that firm steps were not taken in the matter some 40 years ago. 13. Support received from Dr. F. R. Shaw (University of Massa- chusetts, Department of Entomology, Amherst, Mass., U.S.A.) : On 10th October 1951 Dr. F. R. Shaw (University of Massachusetts, Department of Entomology, Amherst, Mass., U.S.A.) addressed the following letter to the Commission supporting the proposed use of the Plenary Powers to suppress certain generic names, including the generic name Titania, published by Meigen in 1800 (Shaw, 1952, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 6 : 179) :— I note in a recent issue of the Entomologist a statement asking specialists in Diptera to express their views on the following :— Titania Meigen, 1800, vs. Chlorops Meigen, 1803 Dorilas Meigen, 1800, vs. Pipunculus Latreille [1802—03] Tendipes Meigen, 1800, vs. Chironomus Meigen, 1803 Philia Meigen, 1800, vs. Dilophus Meigen, 1803 Tylos Meigen, 1800, vs. Micropeza Meigen, 1803. With no exceptions I would vote against the use of the Meigen, 1800 names. The names in themselves are meaningless and the fact that a later worker set up some type species, concerning which in many cases he knew nothing, would not seem to me to warrant the retention of the 1800 names. II.—THE DECISION OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 14. Issue of Voting Paper V.P.(54)24: On 6th March 1954, a Voting Paper (V.P.(54)24) was issued in which the Members 434 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS of the Commission were invited to vote either for, or against, the proposal “ relating to the name Chlorops Meigen, 1803, as set out in Dr. Sabrosky’s paper (last paragraph on page 136 before - the Annexe) in volume 2 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, as supplemented in the note by Mr. Hemming on page 138 of the same volume” [i.e., as regards Dr. Sabrosky’s application, in paragraph 7 of the application reproduced in the first paragraph of the present Opinion, and, as regards Mr. Hemming’s note, the note reproduced in paragraph 5 of the present Opinion]. 15. The Prescribed Voting Period: As the foregoing Voting Paper was issued under the Three-Month Rule, the Prescribed Voting Period closed on 6th June 1954. 16. Particulars of the Voting on Voting Paper V.P.(54)24: The state of the voting on Voting Paper V.P.(54)24 at the close of the Prescribed Voting Period was as follows :— (a) Affirmative Votes had been given by the following eighteen (18) Commissioners (arranged in the order in which Votes were received) : Holthuis; Hering; Riley; Lemche; Vokes; do Amaral ; Esaki ; Sylvester-Bradley ; Dymond ; Bonnet ; Boschma; Hemming; Mertens; Pearson; Bradley (J.C.) ; Hanko ; Stoll ; Cabrera ; (b) Negative Votes : None ; (c) Voting Papers not returned, one (1): Jaczewskil. 17. Declaration of Result of Vote: On 7th June 1954, Mr. Hemming, Secretary to the International Commission, acting as Returning Officer for the Vote taken on Voting Paper V.P.(54)24, signed a Certificate that the Votes cast were as set + An affirmative vote was received (on Ist July 1954) from Commissioner Jaczewski after the close of the Prescribed Voting Period. OPINION 348 435 out in paragraph 16 above and declaring that the proposal sub- mitted in the foregoing Voting Paper had been duly adopted and that the decision so taken was the decision of the International Commission in the matter aforesaid. 18. Preparation of the Ruling given in the present ‘‘ Opinion ”’ ; On 25th November 1954, Mr. Hemming prepared the Ruling given in the present Opinion and at the same time signed a Certificate that the terms of that Ruling were in complete accord with those of the proposal approved by the International Com- mission in its Vote on Voting Paper V.P.(54)24. 19. Original References : The following are the original refer- ences for the names placed on Official Lists and Official Indexes by the Ruling given in the present Opinion :— Chlorops Meigen, 1803, Mag. f. Insektenk. (Illiger) 2 : 278 pumilionis, Musca, Bjerkander, 1778, K. svensk. Vetensk.-Akad. Handl., Stockholm, 39 : 201 Titania Meigen, 1800, Nouv. Class. Mouches deux Ailes : 35—36 20. The application dealt with in the present Opinion was published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature prior to the establishment of the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology by the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology, Copenhagen, 1953. It has not been possible since then to deal with this aspect of the present case. This question is however now being examined on a separate File to which the Registered Number Z.N.(G.) 122 has been allotted. 21. At the time of the submission of the original application dealt with in the present Opinion, the expression prescribed for the second portion of the binomen which constitutes the scientific name of a species was the expression “trivial name” and the Official List reserved for recording such names was styled the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology, the word “ trivial ” appearing also in the title of the Official Index reserved for recording rejected and invalid names of this category. Under a decision taken by the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology, Copenhagen, 1953, the expression “ specific name ”’ 436 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS was substituted for the expression “trivial name” and corre- sponding changes were made in the titles of the Official List and Official Index of such names (1953, Copenhagen Decisions zool. Nomencl. : 21). The changes in terminology so adopted have been incorporated in the Ruling given in the present Opinion. 22. The prescribed procedures were duly complied with by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature in dealing with the present case, and the present Opinion is accordingly hereby rendered in the name of the said International Com- mission by the under-signed Francis Hemming, Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, in virtue of all and every the powers conferred upon him in that behalf. 23. The present Opinion shall be known as Opinion Three Hundred and Forty-Eight (348) of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Done in London, this Twenty-Fifth day of November, Nineteen Hundred and Fifty-Four. Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature FRANCIS HEMMING Printed in England by MretcaLtFe & Cooper LimiTED, 10-24 Scrutton St, London EC 2 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTER- NATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Edited by FRANCIS HEMMING, c.M.G., C.B.E. Secretary to the Commission VOLUME 10. Part 16. Pp. 437—450 OPINION 349 Acceptance of the emendation to Enarmonia of the generic name Ernarmonia Hiibner, [1825] (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera) 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 1955 Price Seven Shillings (All rights reserved) SSS Issued 27th June, 1955 2 INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE COMPOSITION AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THE RULING GIVEN IN OPINION 349 A. The Officers of the Commission Honorary Life President : Dr. Karl Jordan (British Museum (Natural History), Zoological Museum, Tring, Herts., England) President : Professor James Chester Bradley (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) Vice-President: Senhor Dr. Afranio do Amaral (Sao Paulo, Brazil) (12th August 1953) Secretary : Mr. Francis Hemming (London, England) (27th July 1948) B. The Members of the Commission (Arranged in order of precedence by reference to date of election or of most recent re-election, as prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology) Professor H. BoscHMA (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) (Ast January 1947) Senor Dr. Angel CABRERA (Eva Peron, F.C.N.G.R., Argentina) (27th July 1948) Mr. Francis HEMMING (London, England) (27th July 1948) (Secretary) Dr. Joseph PEARSON (Tasmanian Museum, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia) (27th July 1948) Dr. Henning LEMCHE (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark) (27th July 1948) Professor Teiso EsAKi (Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan) (17th April 1950) Professor Pierre BONNET (Université de Toulouse, France) (9th June 1950) Mr. Norman Denbigh Ritey (British Museum (Natural History) London) (9th June 1950) Professor Tadeusz JACZEWSKI CUnstitute of Zoology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland) (15th June 1950) Professor Robert MERTENS (Natur-Museum u. Forschungs-Institut Senckenberg, Frankfurt a. M., Germany) (Sth July 1950) Professor Erich Martin HERING (Zoologisches Museum der Humboldt-Universitat zu Berlin, Germany) (Sth July 1950) Senhor Dr. Afranio do AMARAL (S. Paulo, Brazil) (12th August 1953) (Vice- President) cae J. R. DyMOND (University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada) (12th August 1953 Professor J. Chester BRADLEY (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) (President) Professor Harold E. Voxes (Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) Professor Béla HANKO (Mezogazdasdgi Muzeum, Budapest, Hungary) (12th August 1953) Dr. Norman R. STOLL (Rockefeiler 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. HoLttuuis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Nether- lands) (12th August 1953) OPINION 349 ACCEPTANCE OF THE EMENDATION TO ** ENARMONIA ” OF THE GENERIC NAME ‘¢ KRNARMONIA ” HUBNER, [1825] (CLASS INSECTA, ORDER LEPIDOPTERA) RULING :—(1) It is hereby ruled that on the evidence provided in Hiibner’s Verzeichniss bekannter Schmettlinge [sic] the emendation to Enarmonia of the name Ernarmonia Hiibner, [1825], published in the foregoing work, is a Valid Emendation. (2) The under-mentioned generic name is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name No. 870: Enarmonia (emend. of Ernar- monia) Hiibner, [1825] (gender : feminine) (type species, by selection by Walsingham (1895): Phalaena (Tortrix) woeberiana [Denis & Schiffermiiller], 1775. (3) The under-mentioned generic names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Nos. 264 and 265 respectively :— (a) Ernarmonia Hiibner, [1825] (an Invalid Original Spelling for Enarmonia) ; (b) Ernamonia Diakonoff, 1952 (an Erroneous Subse- quent Spelling of Enarmonia Hiibner, [1825]). (4) The under-mentioned specific name is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name No. 482: formosana Scopoli, 1763, as published in the combination Phalaena formosana. mim 4 1 4058 440 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS I—THE STATEMENT OF THE CASE On 26th June 1951, Dr. A. Diakonoff (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) submitted the following application in which he asked the Commission to approve the emendation to Enarmonia of the generic name Ernarmonia Hubner, [1825] (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera) :— Proposed addition to the ‘* Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ”’ of the generic name ‘‘ Enarmonia ’’ Hubner, [1825] in order to prevent unnecessary confusion with ‘‘ Ernarmonia’’, being the misspelled equivalent of this generic name (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera, Suborder Heterocera) By A. DIAKONOFF (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) I submit herewith the proposal for addition to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology of the generic name Enarmonia Hubner [1825] in the Sub-Order Heterocera, Order Lepidoptera, Class Insecta. I have satisfied myself that the generic name Enarmonia is an available name in the sense that it is not a homonym of a previously published name. The nominal genus is currently accepted by specialists as having the oldest available name for the taxonomic genus which it represents. The species proposed to be specified in the Official List as the type. species of the genus Enarmonia has been correctly determined as such under the Régles, that species having been so selected by the first subsequent author to select a type species for this genus. 2. My reason in submitting the generic name Enarmonia Hiibner [1825], for addition to the Official List is to prevent unnecessary confusion arising through the use of the generic name Ernarmonia which is a misspelled equivalent of Enarmonia. 3. The following are the references to the generic name and its misspelling dealt with in the present application :— Enarmonia Hiibner [1825], Verz. bek. Schmett. (24) : 375, line 2 ; [1826], ibid., Anzeiger : 63 (type species by subsequent selection by Stephens, 1834 (l/l. Brit. Ent., Haustell. 4 : 120): Tortrix woberiana [Denis & Schiffermiiller], 1775, Ankund. syst. Werk. Schmett. Wiener Gegend : 126). Ernarmonia Hiibner [1825], Verz. bek. Schmettlinge (24) : 375, line 4. OPINION 349 44] 4. In the Verzeichniss bekannter Schmettlinge [sic.], Augsburg, 1816—1826, on page 375, Hubner treats a “‘ Coitus ”’ of Lepidoptera calling it “‘Enarmonien, Enarmoniae’”’; under this title follows a short description of the “‘ Coitus ” and a list of five species belonging - thereto. Unfortunately in the first binominal combination used the generic name is misspelled thus ‘“* Ernarmonia woeberiana Schiff.’’, and in the following four specific names the generic name is abbreviated to“E.”. In his Anzeiger [1826], which is generally regarded as an index to the Verzeichniss, Hiibner spells on page 63 : ‘““Enarmonia woeberiana Schiff.”. Through the triple usage of the spelling ‘“‘ Enarmonia”’ by Hubner himself in the same original publication, as against the single usage of the spelling ‘“* Ernarmonia ”’ there is no doubt as to the intention of that author to use the generic name Enarmonia (being a correct derivation from the Greek word évappovios), and as to the fact that ** Ernarmonia ”’ is simply a printer’s error (cf. Article 19 of the Régles, and Conclusion 15(2)(a) of the Sixth Meeting of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature held during the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 142). 5. It is therefore senseless to use Ernarmonia, as is done by some authors, on the ground that this generic name was validated through its use in the above binominal combination, thereby under the Law of Priority technically superseding Enarmonia, validated in the same way in the Anzeiger, only one year later. I accordingly ask the Inter- national Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to prevent, if necessary through the use of the Plenary Powers, the quite unnecessary confusion which would follow such a change. The concrete proposals which I therefore submit for consideration are that the Commission should :— (1) place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the generic name Enarmonia (emend. of Ernarmonia) Hiibner [1825] (gender of generic name: feminine) (type species, by subse- quent selection by Stephens (1834) : Tortrix wéberiana [Denis & Schiffermuller], 1775) ; (2) place the generic name Ernarmonia! Hiibner [1825], on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology ; (3) place on the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology the trivial name wéberiana [Denis & Schiffermiiller], 1775, as published in the binominal combination Tortrix wéberiana (trivial name of type species of Enarmonia Hubner [1825}). * By an unfortunate oversight which is regretted this name was misspelled as “ Ernamonia’’ when the application in the present case was published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature in 1952. 442 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS II.—THE SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF THE CASE 2. Registration of the present application : On the receipt of Dr. Diakonoff’s application the question of the spelling to be adopted for the generic name Enarmonia Hubner, [1825], was allotted the Registered Number Z.N.(S.) 576. 3. Publication of the present application : The present applica- tion was sent to the printer on 30th January 1952 and was published on 15th April 1952 in Part 5 of volume 6 of the Bulletin of Zoo- logical Nomenclature (Diakonoff, 1952, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 6 : 155—156). 4. Comment received from Dr. Joshua L. Baily, Jr. (San Diego, California, U.S.A.) : On 24th June 1952, a number of communica- tions to the Commission on current cases were received from Dr. Joshua L. Baily, Jr. (San Diego, California, U.S.A.), including the question of the spelling to be adopted for the generic name of Hiibner’s published with the spelling Ernarmonia. In his com- munication on this latter subject Dr. Baily, after indicating his support for the action proposed by Dr. Diakonoff, drew attention to the fact that in the application, as published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, a second variant spelling—Ernamonia— had inadvertently been printed. Dr. Baily’s communication was as follows :— This application deals with a name in the original description of which two different spellings were used, and recommends the acceptance of Enarmonia and rejection of Ernarmonia. Unfortunately in the discussion in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature a third spelling has inadvertently been used, Ernamonia. I would suggest that the action called for here would be the placing of Enarmonia with its type on the Official List of Generic Names, and the placing of both of the other spellings separately on the Index of Invalid and Rejected Names. 5. Supplementary proposal submitted by Dr. Diakonoff : On 23rd October 1952, Dr. Diakonoff submitted the following state- ment by way of supplement and, in part, amendment of the OPINION 349 443 proposal which he had submitted in June 1951 (see paragraph 1 of the present Opinion) :— Supplementary note to my Proposed Addition to the ** Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ”’ of the generic name ‘‘ Enarmonia ’’ Hiibner, [1825], etc. By A. DIAKONOFF (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) Dr. N. Obraztsov of Sea Cliff, L.I., N.Y., U.S.A., kindly drew my attention to the following facts concerning the addition to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology of the generic name Enarmonia Hiibner, [1825] (Suborder Heterocera, Order Lepidoptera, Class Insecta) ; (a) The generic name Enarmonia was actually published by Hittbner not in 1825, as was stated by me previously but in 1826, in the Anzeiger to his Verzeichniss bekannter Schmettlinge, p. 63. The name of the *““Coitus”’ (in generic sense) published by Hiibner in 1825 in the Verzeichniss, p. 375, line 2, is spelled “‘ Enarmoniae’’, and, being a name in plural, is unsuitable for a generic designation (cf. Rules, Art. 8). (b) Stephens in 1834 (7//., Brit. Ent. Haustell, 4 : 120) did not propose, in fact, a selection of the type of the genus Enarmonia, viz., Tortrix woberiana Schiff., as I state on p. 155 of my proposal, but simply adopted the genus as a subgenus or subdivision of the genus Carpocapsa Tr., with four species, and of these wéberiana Schiff. is the single one of the species given originally by Hiibner under his “coitus ”’ *“Enarmoniae’’. The first author who definitely selected wdberiana Schiff. as the type of the genus Enarmonia was Walsingham (Trans. ent. Soc. London 1895 : 516). (c) The oldest available name for the species selected by Walsingham as the type of the genus Enarmonia is Phalaena formosana Scopohi, 1763 (Ent. carn. : 237, fig. 599). There is no doubt that the insect mentioned by Scopoli under that name is conspecific with wéberiana Schiff. The description and figure given by Scopoli are correct, while the description of Phalaena Tortrix wéberiana given by Schiffermiuller & Denis (1776)* is inadequate. There is therefore no basis for placing * IT am in agreement with Dr. Obraztsov’s soon to be published view as to the questionable priority of ‘“‘ Ankiindung Syst. Werk. Schmett. Wiener Gegend ”’ by Schiffermuller & Denis (1775) over the ‘Syst. Verz. Schmett. Wiener Gegend”’ by those authors (1776). 444 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS the trivial name wéberiana Schiff., 1776, on the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology. In order to amend my proposals I submit to the Commission for judgment and resolution the following wording to replace lines 17—26 from top of page 156 of my above-mentioned proposal. (1) place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the generic name Enarmonia (emendation of “‘ Ernarmonia’’) Hiibner, [1826] (gender of generic name: feminine) (type species by subsequent selection by Walsingham, 1895 : Phalaena (Tortrix) woberiana Schiffermiiller & Denis, 1776=Phalaena formosana Scopohi, 1763 ; (2) place the generic name Ernarmonia Hubner, [1825], on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology ; (3) omitf. 6. Note by the Secretary on the dates of publication of the portions of Hiibner’s ‘‘ Verzeichniss bekannter Schmettlinge [sic] ”’ containing the spellings ‘‘ Ernarmonia ’’ and ‘* Enarmonia ”’ ;: On Ist November 1952, Mr. Hemming, as Secretary, placed on the Commission’s File Z.N.(S.) 576 the following Minute on the subject of the dates on which the spellings Ernarmonia and Enarmonia_ respectively were published in Jacob Hubner’s Verzeichniss bekannter Schmettlinge [sic] :— On the dates on which the spellings ‘‘ Ernarmonia ’’ and ‘* Enarmonia ”’ were respectively published in Hubner’s ‘* Verzeichniss bekannter Schmettlinge ’’ [sic] MINUTE by FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E., Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature The object of the present Minute is to draw attention to the dates properly applicable to the spellings Ernarmonia and Enarmonia + In view of the omission of the original (3) a revised proposal—for the addition of formosana Scopoli, 1763, as published in the combination Phalaena formosana—is submitted in its place. OPINION 349 445 respectively as published in Jacob Hiibner’s work entitled the Ver- zeichniss bekannter Schmettlinge |sic|, having regard to the fact that this question has been touched upon in the supplementary note submitted to the Commission by Dr. Diakonoff on 23rd October 1952. 2. For over a century following the death of Hiibner in 1826 the uncertainty which existed as to the dates on which the various portions of his Verzeichniss had been published was one of the major sources of instability in the nomenclature of the butterflies. The discovery some twenty years ago of Hubner’s surviving manuscripts provided evidence of great value both as regards the subject matter of the illustrated works published by that author with little or no text and as regards the dates on which those and others of his books were published. Prominent among the benefits secured under this latter head was the provision of evidence which made it possible for me, when examining the Hiibner manuscripts, to determine closely the dates on which each 16-page signature of the Verzeichniss was published. The dates so determined, together with a full summary of the supporting evidence, was published in 1937 (Hemming, 1937, Hiibner 1 : 488—517). The seal of official approval for the dates so ascertained was bestowed by the International Commission by the Ruling given in its Opinion 150 (1943, Ops. Decls. int. Comm. zool. Nomencl. 2. : 161—168)?. 3. In the light of the Ruling given in Opinion 150 the position is seen to be as follows :— (a) The spelling Ernarmonia (with the associated German and Latin terms “‘Enarmonien”’ and ‘*‘ Enarmoniae’’) appeared on page 375 of the Verzeichniss, which forms part of Signature 24 of that work. The ascertained date of publication of this Signature is 1825. (b) The emended spelling Enarmonia appeared on page 63 of the separately paged alphabetical index annexed to the Verzeichniss under the title Anzeiger der im Verzeichnisse bekannter Schmettlinge [sic] angenommenen Benennungen ihrer Horden, Rotten, Stdmme, Familien, Vereine und Gattungen. The incorrect original spelling Ernarmonia does not appear in the 2 By a decision taken by the Commission in 1954 the title of Hiibner’s Verzeichniss bekannter Schmettlinge [sic] has been entered with the Title No. 16 on the Official List of Works Approved as Available for Zoological Nomenclature with the dates for the Signatures of which it is composed as specified in Opinion 2 See Direction 4 (1954, Ops. Decls. int. Comm. zool. Nomencl. 2 : 629— 652). 446 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS Anzeiger at all. The ascertained date of publication of the whole of the Anzeiger is 1826. 4. Thus, if the Commission accepts the view that the emendation Enarmonia published in the Anzeiger to the Verzeichniss, taken in conjunction with the evidence afforded by the spelling used on page 375 of the main text of the Verzeichniss where (as explained in paragraph 3(a) above) the German and Latin terms “‘ Enarmonien’”’ and ‘* Enarmoniae’’ appear a few lines above the spelling Ernarmonia (the only spelling used in the nominative singular for the noun con- cerned), the emendation Enarmonia will, under a decision taken by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948, rank for priority as from the date on which it was first published in the incorrect form ‘* Ernarmonia’’ (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 68), that is, it will rank from 1825. IIl—THE DECISION OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE .- 7. Issue of Voting Paper V.P.(54)17 and V.P.(54)17 (Revise) : On 6th March 1954 a Voting Paper (V.P.(54)17) was issued to the Members of the Commission for the purpose of obtaining a decision on the present case. Within a few weeks of the issue of this Voting Paper, the Secretary realised that the recommenda- tion so submitted did not take full account of the supplementary proposal submitted by Dr. Diakonoff in October 1952. Mr. Hemming at once withdrew the foregoing Voting Paper and on 5th April 1954 he submitted a Revised Voting Paper (V.P.(54)17 (Revise)), in which the Members of the Commission were invited to vote either for, or against, the proposal “ relating to the name Enarmonia Hibner, [1825], as set out at the foot of the present Voting Paper”. The proposal so submitted was as follows :— Draft Proposal submitted with Voting Paper V.P.(54)17 (Revise) (1) The under-mentioned name is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology :—Enarmonia (emend. of Ernarmonia) OPINION 349 447 Hiibner, [1825] (gender : feminine) (type species, by selection by Wal- singham (1895) : Phalaena Tortrix woéberiana Denis & Schiffermiiller, WT). (2) The under-mentioned generic names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology :— (a) Ernarmonia Hibner, [1825] (an Invalid Original Spelling) ; (b) Ernamonia Diakonoff (an Invalid Subsequent Spelling) arising from a misprint published in 1952. (3) The under-mentioned specific name is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology :—formosana Scopoli, 1763, as published in the combination Phalaena formosana. 8. The Prescribed Voting Period : As Voting Paper V.P.(54)17 (Revise) was issued under the Three-Month Rule, the Prescribed Voting Period was due to close on Sth July 1954. This period was, however, extended by the Secretary to 23rd July 1954, owing to the fact that it coincided with the time of year when zoologists are commonly absent from their headquarters either on field work or on holiday. 9. Particulars of the Voting on Voting Paper YV.P.(54)17 (Revise): The state of the voting on Voting Paper V.P.(54)17 (Revise) at the close of the Prescribed Voting Period as extended to the date specified in paragraph 8 above was as follows :— (a) Affirmative Votes had been given by the following nineteen (19) Commissioners (arranged in the order in which Votes were received) : Holthuis ; Bonnet ; Hering ; Vokes ; Sylvester-Bradley ; Riley; Esaki; Dymond; Boschma; Jaczewski ; Hemming; Lemche; do Amaral; Hank6; Bradley (J.C.) ; Pearson ; Cabrera ; Stoll; Mertens ; (b) Negative Votes: None ; 448 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS (c) Voting Papers not returned : None ; 10. Declaration of Result of Vote: On 23rd July 1954, Mr. Hemming, Secretary to the International Commission, acting as Returning Officer for the Vote taken on Voting Paper V.P.(54)17 (Revise), signed a Certificate that the Votes cast were as set out in paragraph 9 above and declaring that the proposal submitted in the foregoing Voting Paper had been duly adopted and that the decision so taken was the decision of the International Commission in the matter aforesaid. 11. Preparation of the Ruling given in the present ‘* Opinion ”’ : On 29th November 1954, Mr. Hemming prepared the Ruling given in the present Opinion and at the same time signed a Certifi- cate that the terms of that Ruling were in complete accord with those of the proposal approved by the International Commission in its Vote on Voting Paper V.P.(54)17 (Revise). 12. Original references : The following are the original references for the names placed on Official Lists and Official Indexes by the Ruling given in the present Opinion : at Enarmonia (emend. of Ernarmonia) Hubner, [1825], Verz. bekannt. Schmett. (24) : 375 Ernamonia Diakonoff, 1952, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 6 : 156 Ernarmonia Hubner, [1825], Verz. bekannt. Schmett. (24) : 375 formosana, Phalaena, Scopoli, 1763, Ent. carniol. : 237, fig. 599 13. The following is the reference for the type selection for the genus Enarmonia (emend. of Ernarmonia) Hubner, [1825], OPINION 349 449 specified in Ruling (2) given in the present Opinion :—Walsing- ham, 1895, Trans. ent. Soc. Lond. 1895 : 516. 14. The application dealt with in the present Opinion was published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature prior to the establishment of the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoo- logy by the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology, Copenhagen, 1953. It has not been possible since then to deal with this aspect of the present case. This question is however now being examined on a separate File to which the Registered Number Z.N.(G.)122 has been allotted. 15. At the time of the submission of the application dealt with in the present Opinion, the expression prescribed for the second portion of the binomen which constitutes the scientific name of a species was the expression “trivial name” and the Official List reserved for recording such names was styled the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology, the word “ trivial ” appearing also in the title of the Official Index reserved for recording rejected and invalid names of this category. Under a decision taken by the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology, Copenhagen, 1953, the expression “ specific name ”’ was substituted for the expression “trivial name’ and corre- sponding changes were made in the titles of the Official List and Official Index of such names (1953, Copenhagen Decisions zool. Nomencl. : 21). The changes in terminology so adopted have been inco;porated in the Ruling given in the present Opinion. 16. The prescribed procedures were duly complied with by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature in dealing with the present case, and the present Opinion is accord- ingly hereby rendered in the name of the said International Commisson by the under-signed Francis Hemming, Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, in virtue of all and every the powers conferred upon him in that behalf. 450 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 17. The present Opinion shall be known as Opinion Three Hundred and Forty-Nine (349) of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Done in London, this Twenty-Ninth day of November, Nineteen Hundred and Fifty-Four. Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature FRANCIS HEMMING ge" Printed in England by Metcatre & Cooper LimiTED, 10-24 Scrutton St., London EC 2 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTER- NATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Edited by FRANCIS HEMMING, c.o.G., C.B.E. Secretary to the Commission VOLUME 10. Part 17. Pp. 451—462 OPINION 350. _ Validation, under the Plenary Powers, of the generic | name Dionide Barrande, 1847 (Class Trilobita) _ 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 1955 Price Six Shillings (All rights reserved) Issued 27th June, 1955 INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE COMPOSITION AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THE RULING GIVEN IN OPINION 350 A. The Officers of the Commission Honorary Life President : Dr. Karl Jordan (British Museum (Natural History), Zoological Museum, Tring, Herts., England) President : Professor James Chester Bradley (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) Vice-President : Senhor Dr. Afranio do Amaral (Sao Paulo, Brazil) (12th August 1953) Secretary : Mr. Francis Hemming (London, England) (27th July 1948) B. The Members of the Commission (Arranged in order of precedence by reference to date of election or of most recent re-election, as prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology) Professor H. BoscHMaA (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) (Ast January 1947) Senor Dr. Angel CABRERA (Eva Peron, F.C.N.G.R., Argentina) (27th July 1948) Mr. Francis HEMMING (London, England) (27th July 1948) (Secretary) DE eae (Tasmanian Museum, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia) (27th uly 1948 Dr. Henning LEMCHE (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark) (27th July 1948) Professor Teiso Esaki (Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan) (A7th April 1950) Professor Pierre BONNET (Université de Toulouse, France) (9th June 1950) ai Se) Denbigh RILEY (British Museum (Natural History) London) (9th une 1950 Professor Tadeusz JACZEWSKI (Institute of Zoology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland) (15th June 1950) Professor Robert MERTENS (Natur-Museum u. Forschungs-Institut Senckenberg, Frankfurt a.M., Germany) (Sth July 1950) Professor Erich Martin HERING (Zoologisches Museum der Humboldt-Universitat zu Berlin, Germany) (Sth July 1950) Senhor Dr. Afranio do AMARAL (S. Paulo, Brazil) (12th August 1953) (Vice- President) Hee J. R. DyMOND (University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada) (12th August Professor J. Chester BRADLEY (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) (President) Professor Harold E. Vokes (Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) _ Professor Béla HANKO (Mezogazdasagi Muzeum, Budapesi1, Hungary) (12th August 1953) Dr. Norman R. Stott (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. Ho.tuuis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurliike Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) (12th August 1953) OPINION 350 VALIDATION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS OF THE GENERIC NAME “ DIONIDE ”? BARRANDE, 1847 (CLASS TRILOBITA) RULING :—(1) Under the Plenary Powers the generic name Polytomurus Corda, 1847, is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy. (2) The under-mentioned generic name is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name No. 871: Dionide Barrande, 1847 (gender : feminine) (type species, by monotypy: Dione formosa Barrande, 1846). (3) The under-mentioned generic names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Nos. 266 and 267 respectively :— (a) Dione Barrande, 1846 (a junior homonym of Dione Hiibner, [1819)) ; (b) Polytomurus Corda, 1847, as suppressed under the Plenary Powers under (1) above). (4) The under-mentioned specific name is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name No. 483: formosa Barrande, 1846, as published in the combination Dione formosa (specific name of type species of Dionide Barrande, 1847). x 9 1 1955 454 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS I.—THE STATEMENT OF THE CASE On 7th September 1951, Dr. H. B. Whittington (Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massa- chusetts, U.S.A.) submitted the following application for the validation of the generic name Dionide Barrande, 1847 (Class Trilobita) by the suppression under the Plenary Powers of the generic name Polytomurus Corda, 1847 (a name which, when published, was attributed to Hawle & Corda) :— Proposal to suppress the generic name ‘‘ Polytomurus ’’ Hawle and Corda, 1847, and to place the generic name ‘‘ Dionide *’ Barrande, 1847 (Class Trilobita) on the ‘‘ Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ”’ By H. B. WHITTINGTON, D.Sc. (Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts, U.S.A.) 1. The generic name Dionide Barrande, 1847 (: 391) was proposed to replace Dione Barrande, 1846 (: 32), a junior homonym of Dione Hubner, [1819] (: 31). The type species, by monotypy, of Dionide Barrande is Dione formosa Barrande, 1846 (: 33). 2. The generic name Polytomurus Hawle and Corda, 1847 (: 152— 153, or : 36—37) was also proposed by these authors as a replacement of Dione Barrande, 1846. 3. Dionide Barrande, 1847, and Polytomurus Hawle and Corda, 1847, are therefore objective synonyms. It would require knowledge of the exact date of publication of these two names to establish which is the senior name, and such knowledge does not seem to be obtainable :— (a) The Neues Jahrbuch for 1847 was issued in seven parts. Dr. R. Richter, Frankfurt-am-Main, Germany, has kindly made a search for a record of the dates of issue of these parts. No library in Germany has the covers of these parts with the dates preserved, no catalogue contains the information, and the publishers of the Neues Jahrbuch, E. Schwarzerbeit of Stuttgart, have no means of establishing the date. The seven parts begin with pages 1, 129, 257, 385, 513, 641, 769 OPINION 350 455 respectively. They were issued at intervals of about two months, so that part IV, containing Barrande’s article, was issued about Ist July 1847. (b) Hawle and Corda’s work (1847) was issued in a serial publication and also distributed as a separate volume. I have not been able to find a volume of the serial publication bearing the date of issue of the part in question. The copy of Hawle and Corda’s work in the Geological Survey and Museum, London, is marked as having been received on 19th August 1847. The work was reviewed in Neues Jahrbuch (1847 : 753—757), and this review, aS paragraph 3(a) indicates, was published about Ist September 1847. 4. Barrande (1852 : 640—642) was the first author to deal with the two names, and, in describing more fully the genus Dionide and the type species, he placed Polytomurus Hawle and Corda, 1847, in the synonymy of Dionide. Authors since that date have followed Barrande, and I am not aware of any subsequent use of the name Polytomurus to replace Dionide. The family name DIONIDIDAE has been proposed and widely accepted. 5. In view of these facts, I ask that the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature should :— (a) use its Plenary Powers to suppress the generic name Polytomurus Hawle and Corda, 1847, for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy ; (b) place the name Dionide Barrande, 1847 (gender of generic name : ~ ~~ feminine) (type species, by monotypy : Dione formosa Barrande, 1846) on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology : (c) place the under-mentioned generic names on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology :— (i) Dione Barrande, 1846 (junior homonym of Dione Hubner, [1819]) ; (ii) Polytomurus Hawle and Corda, 1847, as proposed, under (a) above, to be suppressed under the Plenary Powers ; (d) place the trivial name formosa Barrande, 1846, as published in the binominal combination Dione formosa, on the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology. 6. A decision on the question dealt with in the present application is urgently required in connection with the preparation of the forth- coming Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology, and it is particularly 456 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS hoped therefore that it will be possible for the International Com- mission on Zoological Nomenclature to settle this question as quickly as possible. References Barrande, J., 1846. Notice Préliminaire sur le Systéme Silurien et les Trilobites de Bohéme. Leipzig : 1—97. ——, 1847. ‘‘ Uber das Hypostoma und Epistoma, zwei analoge, aber verscheidene Organe der Trilobiten ’”’, Neues Jahrb. 1847 : 385—399, pl. VIII. ——, 1852. Systéme Silurien du Centre de la Bohéme, vol. 1. Prague and Paris. Hawle, I., and Corda, A. J. C., 1847. ‘°* Prodrom einer Monographie der bdhmischen Trilobiten ’’, Abk. k. béhm. Gesell. d. Wiss. (5), 5 (1847) (dated 1848) : 119—292, pls. I—VII; issued separately, : 3—176, pls. I—VII, are identical. Hiibner, J., 1816—25. Verzeichniss bekannter Schmettlinge [sic]. Augsburg. Il.—THE SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF THE CASE 2. Registration of the present application : On the receipt of Dr. Whittington’s application, the question of the use of the Plenary Powers for the purpose of suppressing the name Polyto- murus Corda, 1847, and thus validating the name Dionide Barrande, 1847, was allotted the Registered Number Z.N.(S.) 605. 3. Publication of the present application : The present application was sent to the printer on 30th January 1952 and was published OPINION 350 457 on 15th April 1952 in Part 5 of volume 6 of the Bulletin of Zoo- logical Nomenclature (Whittington, 1952, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 6 : 157—158). 4. Issue of Public Notices: Under the revised procedure prescribed by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948 (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 51—56) Public Notice of the possible use by the International Commission on Zoo- logical Nomenclature of its Plenary Powers in the present case was given on 15th April 1952 (a) in Part 5 of volume 6 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (the Part in which Dr. Whittington’s application was published) and (b) to the other prescribed serial publications. In addition, Public Notice was given to certain other general zoological serial publications and to paleontological serials in Europe and America. The issue of these Notices elicited no objection to the action proposed. 5. Question of the authorship to be attributed to the paper entitled ‘‘ Prodrom einer Monographie der béhmischen Trilobiten ”’ published in 1847 and then attributed to Hawle & Corda: On 4th September 1952, Professor Dr. Rudolf Richter (Natur- Museum u. Forschungs-Institut Senckenberg, Frankfurt a.M., Germany) communicated the following statement to the Com- mission recalling that the paper entitled Prodrom einer Monographie der béhmischen Trilobiten published in 1847 (Abh. k. béhm. Ges. Wiss. (5) 1847 : 152—153) over the names of Hawle & Corda had been vigorously repudiated by Hawle and that new names in this paper were properly attributable to Corda alone :— Die Vorschlage sind gut begriindet und zweckmassig. Ihre Annahme wird einen Fortschritt im Sinne der Stabilitat der Nomenklatur bedeuten. Jedoch ist von grundsdtzlicher Bedeutung, als Autor von Polytomurus nicht ““ Hawle & Corda ” anzugeben, sondern lediglich ‘‘ Corda 1847 ”’. Andernfalls wiirde ein so verdienter Forscher wie J. Barrande zum Lugner gestempelt werden und es wiirde grundsdtzlich die Mystifikation in der Nomenklatur sanktioniert werden. 458 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS Begriindung : Corda hat neben seinem Namen unberechtigt den Namen Hawle als einen Mit-Autor auf den Titel seines “‘ Prodrom einer Monographie der bohmischen Trilobiten’’, Prag 1847, hinzu- gefitgt. Gegen diesen Missbrauch seines Namens hat Hawle protestiert. Kein Geringerer als J. Barrande, der Augenzeuge aller Vorgange im damaligen wissenschaftlichen Leben von Prag war, hat in seinem “* Systéme silurien”’?; 1:37 (Prag & Paris, 1852), den Protest von Hawle veroffentlicht und sich zum Biirgen fiir die Wahrheit gemacht : ““Mr. Hawle. . . repousse donc toute responsabilité relative aux assertions contenues le Prodréme, sous tous les rapports, soit historiques, soit géologiques, soit paléontologiques. Ainsi, cette responsabilité retombe toute entiere sur Mr. Corda, qui a seul concu et rédigé ’ ouvrage en question. Quels que soient les termes dans lesquels sa coopération a été indiqué dans le Prodréme, Mr. Hawle désire qu’on les interpréete dans ce seul sens, le seul véritable : quil a prété sa collection”. (Vgl. Senckenbergiana 29 : 107, 1948.) Wollte man diesen Protest ignorieren, so wiirde man ausser Hawle auch Barrande zum Liigner stempeln. Ohne Beweis darf man das nicht tun. Selbst wenn Barrande eine Liige hatte verdffentlichen wollen, so wiirde dem der Corda’sche Kreis mit Widerspruch entgegen- getreten sein. Der Fall hat eine allgemeinere Bedeutung fiir die Nomenklatur und fiir die wissenschaftliche Autorschaft iiberhaupt : Wollte man einem Vater, der (noch dazu unter der Biirgschaft einer Welt-Autoritat) gegen die Unterschiebung eines fremden Kindes protestiert, zur Hinnahme zwingen, so ware neimand mehr vor einer Suppositio puerorum sicher. Es gabe keinen Schutz vor Mystifikation, wenn man seinen Namen als Autor auf einer fremden Ver6ffentlichung finden wiirde. Darum wiirde es unerwiinschte Folgen haben, wenn man einen anderen als einzig und allein Corda als den Autor des “‘ Prodrom ”’ von 1847 gelten lassen wollte. 6. Decision as to the authorship to be attributed to the generic name ‘* Polytomurus ’’ as published in 1847: The information regarding the authorship of the generic name Polytomurus, as published in 1847, furnished by Professor Rudolf Richter in his OPINION 350 459 letter of 4th September 1952, was reviewed on 5th March 1954 by Mr. Hemming, as Secretary, who placed a Minute on the Commission’s File Z.N.(S.) 605, directing that in the Opinion to be rendered in the present case the name Polytomurus should, for the reasons advanced by Professor Richter be attributed not to Hawle & Corda but to Corda alone. Ill—THE DECISION OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 7. Issue of Voting Paper V.P.(54)18 : On 6th March 1954, a Voting Paper (V.P.(54)18) was issued in which the Members of the Commission were invited to vote either for, or against, the proposal “relating to the name Dionide Barrande, 1847, as set out in paragraph 5 on page 158 of volume 6 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature |i.e. in paragraph 5 of the application reproduced in the first paragraph of the present Opinion]. 8. The Prescribed Voting Period: As the foregoing Voting Paper was issued under the Three-Month Rule, the Prescribed Voting Period closed on 6th June 1954. 9. Particulars of the Voting on Voting Paper V.P.(54)18 : The state of the voting on Voting Paper V.P.(54)18 at the close of the Prescribed Voting Period was as follows :— (a) Affirmative Votes had been given by the following nineteen (19) Commissioners (arranged in the order in which Votes were received) : Holthuis; Hering; Riley; Lemche; Vokes; do Amaral ; Sylvester-Bradley ; Esaki ; Dymond ; Bonnet ; Boschma ; Hank6é; Mertens; Jaczewski; Hemming ; Pearson ; Bradley (J.C.) ; Stoll ; Cabrera ; 460 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS (b) Negative Votes : None ; (c) Voting Papers not returned : None. 10. Declaration of Result of Vote: On 6th June 1954, Mr. Hemming, Secretary to the International Commission, acting as Returning Officer for the Vote taken on Voting Paper V.P.(54)18, signed a Certificate that the Votes cast were as set out in paragraph 9 above and declaring that the proposal sub- mitted in the foregoing Voting Paper had been duly adopted and that the decision so taken was the decision of the International Commission in the matter aforesaid. 11. Preparation of the Ruling given in the present ‘* Opinion ”’ : On 30th November 1954, Mr. Hemming prepared the Ruling given in the present Opinion and at the same time signed a Certifi- cate that the terms of that Ruling were in complete accord with those of the proposal approved by the International Commission in its Vote on Voting Paper V.P.(54)18. 12. Original References: The original references for the names placed on Official Lists and Official Indexes by the Ruling given in the present Opinion :— | Dione Barrande, 1846, Notice prélim. Syst. silur. Trilobites Bohéme : 38 Dionide Barrande, 1847, N. Jahrb. f. Min. 1847 : 391 formosa, Dionide, Barrande, 1847, Notice prélim. Syst. silur. Trilobites Bohéme : 33 Polytomurus Corda, 1847, Abh. k. béhm. Ges. Wiss. (5) 1847 : 152—153. (This name is commonly cited as having been OPINION 350 461 published in “ Prodr. Monog. bohm. Trilobites : 36—37, but this is incorrect, this being a reference to the re-paged separate of Corda’s paper. This paper, when published, was attributed to Hawle & Corda, but Hawle repudiated any responsibility for it, and in the Ruling given in the present Opinion this name is attributed to Corda alone.) 13. The application dealt with in the present Opinion was published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature prior to the establishment of the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology by the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology, Copenhagen, 1953. It has not been possible since then to deal with this aspect of the present case. This question is, however, now being examined on a separate File to which the Registered Number Z.N.(G.) 122 has been allotted. 14. At the time of the submission of the application dealt with in the present Opinion, the expression prescribed for the second portion of the binomen which constitutes the scientific name of a species was the expression “ trivial name ” and the Official List reserved for recording such names was styled the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology, the word “ trivial” appearing also in the title of the Official Index reserved for recording rejected and invalid names of this category. Under a decision taken by the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology, Copenhagen, 1953, the expression “specific name” was substituted for the expression “trivial name’ and corresponding changes were made in the titles of the Official List and Official Index of such names (1953, Copenhagen Decisions zool. Nomencl. : 21). The changes in terminology so adopted have been incorporated in the Ruling given in the present Opinion. 15. The prescribed procedures were duly complied with by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature in dealing with the present case, and the present Opinion is accordingly hereby rendered in the name of the said International Com: mission by the under-signed Francis Hemming, Secretary to the 462 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, in virtue of all and every the powers conferred upon him in that behalf. 16. The present Opinion shall be known as Opinion Three Hundred and Fifty (350) of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Done in London, this Thirtieth day of November, Nineteen Hundred and Fifty-Four. Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature FRANCIS HEMMING Printed in England by MrtcaLtre & Cooper LimiTED, 10-24 Scrutton St., London EC 2 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTER- NATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Edited by FRANCIS HEMMING, CM.G., C.B.E. Secretary to the Commission VOLUME 10. Part 18. Pp. 463—480 DIRECTION 14 Addition to the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology or, as the case may be, to the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology of the family-group names involved in the applications relating to the names of ammonites published in volume 2 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. LONDON : Printed by Order of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature and Sold on behalf of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature by the International Trust at its Publications Office 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7 1955 Price Nine Shillings (All rights reserved) Issued 27th June, 1955 INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE COMPOSITION AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THE RULING GIVEN IN DIRECTION 14 A. The Officers of the Commission Honorary Life President: Dr. Karl Jordan (British Museum (Natural History), Zoological Museum, Tring, Herts, England) President: Professor James Chester Bradley (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) Vice-President : Senhor Dr. Afranio do Amaral (Sao Paulo, Brazil) (12th August 1953) Secretary : Mr. Francis Hemming (London, England) (27th July 1948) B. The Members of the Commission (Arranged in order of precedence by reference to date of election or of most recent re-election, as prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology) Professor H. Boschma (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) (Ist January 1947) Senor Dr. Angel Cabrera (Eva Peron, F.C.N.G.R., Argentina) (27th July 1948) Mr. Francis Hemming (London, England) (27th July 1948) (Secretary) Dr. Joseph Pearson (Tasmanian Museum, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia) (27th July, 1948) Dr. Henning Lemche (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark) (27th July 1948) Professor Teiso Esaki (Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan) (17th April 1950) Professor Pierre Bonnet (Université de Toulouse, France) (9th June 1950) Mr. Norman Denbigh Riley (British Museum (Natural History), London) (9th June 1950) Professor Tadeusz Jaczewski Unstitute of Zoology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland) (A5th June 1950) Professor Robert Mertens (Natur-Museum u. Forschungs-Institut Senckenberg, Frankfurt a. M., Germany) (Sth July 1950) Professor Erich Martin Hering (Zoologisches Museum der Humboldt-Universitat zu Berlin, Germany) (Sth July 1950) Senhor Dr. Afranio do Amaral (S. Paulo, Brazil) (12th August 1953) (Vice-President) Professor J. R. Dymond (University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada) (12th August 1953) eee J; aca Bradley (Cornell University, Ithaca, N. Y., U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) resident Professor Harold E. Vokes (Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) Professor Béla Hank6 (Mezégazdasdgi Muzeum, Budapest, Hungary) (12th August 1953) Dr. Norman R. Stoll (Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, New York, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) Mr. P. C. Sylvester-Bradley (Sheffield University, Sheffield, England) (12th August 1953) Dr. L. B. Holthuis (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. Miller (Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, University of California, Berkeley, California, U.S.A.) (29th October 1954) Doc. Dr. Ferdinand Prantl (Ndrodni Museum yv Praze, Prague, Czechoslovakia) (30th October 1954) Professor Dr. Wilhelm Kiihnelt (Zoologisches Institut, Der Universitat, Vienna, Austria) (6th November 1954) rane F. S. Bodenheimer (The Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Israel) (11th November Professor Ernst Mayr (Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard College, Cambridge, Massachusetts, U.S.A.) (4th December 1954) Professor Enrico Tortonese (Istituto e Museo di Zoologia della Universita di Torino, Torino, Italy) (16th December 1954) DIRECTION 14 ADDITION TO THE ° OFFICIAL LIST OF FAMILY-GROUP NAMES IN ZOOLOGY ” OR, AS THE CASE MAY BE, TO THE ‘* OFFICIAL INDEX OF REJECTED AND INVALID FAMILY-GROUP NAMES IN ZOOLOGY ”’ OF THE FAMILY-GROUP NAMES INVOLVED IN THE APPLICATIONS RELATING TO THE NAMES OF AMMONITES. PUBLISHED IN VOLUME 2 OF THE ‘** BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE ” RULING :—(1) The under-mentioned family-group names involved in the applications relating to the names of ammonites published in volume 2 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature are hereby placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology with the Name Nos. severally specified below :— (1) SPHAEROCERATIDAE Buckman (S.S.), 1920 (type genus : Sphaeroceras Bayle, 1878) (Name No. 13) ; '(2) MACROCEPHALITIDAE Buckman (S.S.), 1922 (type genus: Macrocephalites Zittel, 1884) (Name No. 14) ; (3) PICTONIIDAE (correction of PICTONIDAE) Spath (L.F.), 1924 (type genus: Pictonia Bayle, 1878) (Name No. 15) ; (4) RASENIINAE Schindewolf, 1925 (type genus : Rasenia ~ Salfeld, 1913) (Name No. 16) ; (5) AULACOSTEPHANIDAE Spath (L.F.), 1924 (type genus : Aulacostephanus Tornquist, 1896) (Name No. WD). (6) KOSMOCERATIDAE Haug, 1887 (type genus: Kos- moceras Waagen, 1869) (Name No. 18) ; (7) PERISPHINCTINAE Steinman, 1890 (type genus: Perisphinctes Waagen, 1869) (Name No. 19) ; (8) HARPOCERATINAE (correction of HARPOCERATINEN) Neumayr, 1875 (type genus : Harpoceras Waagen, 1869) (Name No. 20) ; gut 21 4955 466 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS (9) HILDOCERATIDAE Hyatt, 1867 (type genus: Hildoceras Hyatt, 1867) (Name No. 21) ; (10) PHYLLOCERATIDAE Zittel, 1884 (type genus : Phyl- loceras Suess, 1865) (Name No. 22) ; (11) ARIBTITIDAE (correction of ARIETIDAE) Hyatt, 1874 (type genus: Arietites Waagen, 1869) (Name INO) a (12) SCHLOTHEIMIIDAE (correction of SCHLOTHEIMIDAE) Spath (L.F.), 1923 (type genus: Schlotheimia Bayle, 1878) (Name No. 24) ; (13) ARNIOCERATIDAE Spath (L.F.), 1924 (type genus : Arnioceras Hyatt, 1867) (Name No. 25) ; (14) LIPAROCERATIDAE Hyatt, 1867 (type genus : Liparo- ceras Hyatt, 1867) (Name No. 26) ; (15) AGASSICERATIDAE Spath (L.F.), 1924 (type genus : Agassiceras Hyatt, 1875) (Name No. 27) ; (16) ASTEROCERATIDAE Spath (L.F.), 1946 (type genus : ; Asteroceras Hyatt, 1866) (Name No. 28) ; (17) CADOCERATIDAE Hyatt, 1900 (type genus: Cado- ceras Fischer, 1882) (Name No. 29) ; (18) ECHIOCERATIDAE Buckman (S.S.), 1913 (type genus : Echioceras Bayle, 1878) (Name No. 30) ; (19) OPPELNDAE Bonarelli, 1893 (type genus: Oppelia Waagen, 1869) (Name No. 31) ; (20) PSEUDOPERISPHINCTIDAE Schindewolf, 1925 (type genus Pseudoperisphinctes Schindewolf, 1923 (Name No. 32) ; (21) PSILOCERATIDAE Hyatt, 1867 (type genus : Psiloceras Hyatt, 1867) (Name No. 33) ; (22) STEPHANOCERATIDAE (correction of STEPHANOCERA- TINEN) Neumayr, 1875 (type genus: Stephano- ceras Waagen, 1869) (Name No. 34). _ (2) The under-mentioned family-group names involved in applications relating to the names of ammonites DIRECTION 14 467 published in volume 2 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology with the Name Nos. severally specified below :— (1) PICTONIDAE Spath (L.F.), 1924 (type genus: Pictonia Bayle, 1878) (an Invalid Original Spelling for PICTONIIDAE) (Name No. 32) ; (2) HARPOCERATINEN Neumayr, 1875 (type genus : Harpoceras Waagen, 1869) (an Invalid Original Spelling for HARPOCERATIDAE) (Name No. 33) ; (3) AMMONITEA De Haan, 1825 (type genus : Ammonites Bruguiére, 1789) (an Invalid Original Spelling for AMMONITIDAE, an invalid name because a name based upon a generic name suppressed by the Commission under its Plenary Powers) (Name No. 34) ; (4) AMMONITIDAE Owen (R.), 1836 (type genus: Ammonites Bruguiere, 1789) (invalid because based upon a generic name suppressed by the Commission under its Plenary Powers) aie INO: 35); (5) ARIETIDAE Hyatt, 1874 (type genus: Arietites Waagen, 1869) (an Invalid Original Spelling for ARIETITIDAE) (Name No. 36) ; (6) SCHLOTHEIMIINES Douvillé (H.), 1916 (type genus : Schlotheimia Bayle, 1878) (invalid because a vernacular (French) word and not a Latin or Latinised word) (Name No. 37) ; (7) SCHLOTHEIMIDAE Spath (L.F.), 1923 (type genus : Schlotheimia Bayle, 1878) (an Invalid Original Spelling for SCHLOTHEIMIIDAE) (Name No. 38) ; (8) ANGULATIDAE Hyatt, 1874 (type genus: Schlotheimia Bayle, 1878) (nvalid because based upon the specific name of the type species of the type genus instead of upon the name of that genus) (Name No. 39) ; 468 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS (9) STEPHANOCERATINEN Neumayr, 1875 (type genus : Stephanoceras Waagen, 1869) (an Invalid Original Spelling for STEPHANOCERATIDAE) (Name No. 40) ; (10) STEPHEOCERATIDAE Buckman (S.S.), 1898 (type genus: Stepheoceras Buckman (S.S.), 1898) (invalid because the name Stepheoceras Buckman, 1898, is a junior objective synonym of Stephano- ceras Waagen, 1869, the name of the type genus of STEPHANOCERATIDAE (correction of STEPHANOCERA- TINEN Neumayr, 1875, a name which has priority over STEPHEOCERATIDAE Buckman, 1898) (Name No. 41). I.—THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE PRESENT ** DIRECTION ” The present Direction! contains the first instalment of decisions relating to family-group names involved in applications published in volume 2 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature taken by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature in pursuance of the General Directive given to it by the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology, Copenhagen, 1953, that, when placing names on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology, it shall in suitable cases place either on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology or on the corresponding Official Index of such names, family-group names based upon the generic names in question. The present instalment of decisions is concerned with the family-group-name problems involved in the eighteen applications concerned with the names of ammonites which were published in 1951 in the volume of the Bulletin referred to above. The proposals upon which the decision in this case 1 The immediately preceding Direction (Direction 13), which was concerned with the addition to the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology of the generic name Manatus Briinnich, 1771, has been published as Part C.4 of Section C of volume 1 of the present work (1955, Ops. Decls. int. Comm. zool. Nomencl. 1 (C) : 51-66). DIRECTION 14 469 was taken were submitted to the Commission by the Secretary in the following paper on 11th February 1955 :— Proposed addition to the ‘° Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology ’’ and to the ‘‘ Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology ’”’ of the Family-group names of ammonites involved in the applications by Dr. W. J. Arkell published in Volume 2 of the ‘* Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature ”’ By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E., Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature The present paper is concerned with the family-group names involved in the applications relating to the names of ammonites submitted by Dr. W. J. Arkell (Sedgwick Museum, Cambridge University), which were published in volume 2 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. Decisions on these applications were taken by Postal Vote in 1952 and 1953. In most cases the decisions so taken have been embodied in Opinions which have either already been published or are now in the press. All these applications were prepared before the establishment by the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology, Copenhagen, 1953, of the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology and of the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology and the issue by that Congress to the Commission of a General Directive to deal with the family-group name position when placing generic names on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. The object of the present paper is to formulate for the consideration of the Commission proposals designed to comply, as regards the foregoing cases, with the General Directive referred to above. These proposals are set out in the annexe attached to the present note. 2. The information on which the present proposals are based has been kindly furnished by Dr. Arkell, to whom the Commission is much indebted for the care and trouble which he has been good enough to take. 3. It will be noted that in a few cases it is proposed to add a name to the Official List with a note to the effect that the name is so added for use by specialists who take the taxonomic view that genus “A” (the type genus of the family-group concerned) and genus “ B’”’ (the type genus of some other family-group, the name of which it is also proposed to add to the Official List) belong to different family-groups. This procedure follows a General Directive originally given to the 470 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS Commission by the International Congress of Zoology that, in order to avoid the appearance of taking a stand on taxonomic questions when placing names on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology, it is to put two or more names on the List in cases where specialists differ in opinion on the question of the number of separata taxa involved, the later published of such names to be endorsed on the lines indicated above (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl, 4 : 237, 268). This Directive, with other regulations governing the previously established Official Lists, was applied to the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology by the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology, Copenhagen, 1953. 4. The proposals now submitted are arranged in the order in which the applications to which they refer were published in volume 2 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, it being considered that this is the most convenient arrangement both for members of the Commission and also for purposes of record. ANNEXE Proposals for the addition to the ‘* Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology ’’ and to the ‘‘ Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology ’’ of the names of certain family-groups in the Class Ammonoidea (1) Sphaeroceras Bayle, 1878 (Bull. 2 : 164—166) (Opinion 300) The family-group name SPHAEROCERATIDAE Buckman (S.S.), 1920 (T}pe Ammonites 3:22) (type genus: Sphaeroceras Bayle, 1878) to be placed on the Official List. (2) Procerites Siemiradzki, 1898 (Bull. 2 : 167—169) (Opinion 301) No family-group name is involved in this case. (3) Macrocephalites Zittel, 1884 (Bull. 2 : 170—177) The family-group name MACROCEPHALITIDAE Buckman (S.S.), 1922 (Type Ammonites 4:24, 54) (type genus: Macrocephalites Zittel, 1884) to be placed on the Official List. (4) Pictonia Bayle, 1878, and Rasenia Salfeld, 1913 (Bull. 2 : 178— 187) The following family-group names to be placed on the Official List :— (a) PICTONIIDAE (correction of PICTONIDAE) Spath, 1924 (Pal. ind. (n.s.) 9 (Mem. 1): 13) (type genus: Pictonia Bayle, 1878) ; DIRECTION 14 471 (b) RASENIINAE Schindewolf, 1925 (Neue Jahrb. Min. Geol. 52 (B) : 333 (type genus: Rasenia Salfeld, 1913) (for use by specialists who take the taxonomic view that Rasenia Salfeld and Pictonia Bayle are referable to dif- ferent family-groups). The following family-group name to be placed on the Official Index :— PICTONIDAE Spath (L.F.), 1924 (an Invalid Original Spelling of PICTONIIDAE). (5) Aulacostephanus Tornquist, 1896 (Bull. 2 : 188—190) (Opinion 302) The following family-group name to be placed on the Official List :— AULACOSTEPHANIDAE Spath, 1924 (Pal. ind. (n.s.) 9 (Mem. | : 13 (type genus: Aulacostephanus Tornquist, 1896) (for use by specialists who take the taxonomic view that Aulacostephanus Yornquist and Pictonia Bayle are referable to different family-groups). (6) Kosmoceras, Perisphinctes and Harpoceras, all of Waagen, 1869 (Bull. 2 : 191—193) (Opinion 303) (a) The following family-group names to be placed on the Official List :— (i) KOSMOCERATIDAE Haug, 1887 (Neues Jahrb. Min. Geol. 1887: 156) (type genus: Kosmoceras Waagen, 1869) ; (i) PERISPHINCTINAE Steinman, 1890 (in Steinmann & Déderlein, Elemente der Paldontologie : 441) (type genus: Perisphinctes Waagen, 1869) ; (iii) HARPOCERATINAE (correction of HARPOCERATINEN) Neumayr, 1875 (Z. deutsch. geol. Ges. 27 : 905) (type genus: Harpoceras Waagen, 1869) (first published in correct form, as HARPOCERATIDAE, by Zittel, 1884 (Handbuch der Paldontologie (Abt. 1) 2 : 458) (for use by specialists who take the taxonomic view that Harpoceras Waagen and Hildoceras Hyatt, 1867, are referable to different family-groups). Notes :—(1) As shown above, this family- group name was first published by Neumayr in 1875 with the irregular ‘“-en’ (vernacular termination. 472 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS This name is, however, always attributed to Neumayr, and it is proposed here that it should be so treated under the special procedure prescribed by the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology, Copenhagen, 1953 (1953, Copenhagen Decisions zool. Nomencl. : 35—36, Decision 53). (2) For the proposal submitted regarding the family-group name based upon the generic name Hildoceras Hyatt, see Proposal (8)(a) below ; (b) The following name to be placed on the Official Index :— HARPOCERATINEN Neumayr, 1875 (Z. deutsch. geol. Ges. 27 : 905) (type genus: Harpoceras Waagen, 1869) (an Invalid Original Spelling for HARPOCERATINAE). (7) Planites de Haan, 1825 (Bull. 2 : 194197) No family-group name is involved in this case. (8) Certain names fallen into desuetude (Bull. 2 : 198—199) (Opinion 304) The following family-group names to be placed on the Official List :— (a) HILDOCERATIDAE Hyatt, 1867 (Bull. Mus. comp. Zool. 1 : 99) (type genus: Hildoceras Hyatt, 1867) ; (b) PHYLLOCERATIDAE Zittel, 1884 (Handb. der Paldontologie (Abt. 1) 2 : 434) (type genus : Phylloceras Suess, 1865). (9) Ammonites Bruguiére, 1789, and Arietites Waagen, 1869 (Bull. 2 : 200—203) (Opinion 305) (a) The following family-group name to be placed on the Official List :— ARIETITIDAE (correction of ARIETIDAE) Hyatt, 1874 (Proc. Boston Soc. nat. Hist. 17 : 225) (type genus: Arietites Waagen, 1869) (believed to have been first published in correct form as ARIETITIDAE by Haug, 1885, Neues Jahrb. Min. Geol., B.-B. 3 : 713 ; (b) The following family-group names to be placed on the Official Index :— (i) AMMONITEA de Haan, 1825 (Specimen phil. inaug. : 76) (type genus: Ammonites Bruguiére, 1789) (an Invalid Original Spelling for AMMONITIDAE) ; (ii) AMMONITIDAE Owen (R.), 1836 (in Todd (R.B.), Cyclopaedia of Anatomy & Physiology 1 : 520) DIRECTION 14 473 (type genus : Ammonites Bruguiére, 1789) (family- group name based upon a generic name suppressed under the Plenary Powers) ; (iii) ARIETIDAE Hyatt, 1874 (Proc. Boston nat. Hist. Soc. 17 : 225) (type genus: Arietites Waagen, 1869) (an Invalid Original Spelling for ARIETITIDAE). (10) Schlotheimia Bayle, 1878 (Bull. 2 : 204—207) (Opinion 323) (a) The following family-group name to be placed on the Official List :— SCHLOTHEIMIIDAE (correction of SCHLOTHEIMIDAE) Spath (L.F.), 1923 (Quart. J. geol. Soc. 89 : 79) (type genus : Schlotheimia Bayle, 1878) ; (b) The following family-group names to be placed on the Official Index :— (1) SCHLOTHEIMIINES Douvillé (H.), 1916 (Mém. Acad. Sci., Paris (2) 54:17) (type genus Schlotheimia Bayle, 1878) (invalid because a vernacular (French) word and not a Latin or Latinised word) ; (ii) ANGULATIDAE Hyatt, 1874 (Proc. Boston nat. Hist. Soc. 17:15) (a family-group name based not upon a type genus but upon a type species, Ammonites angulatus Schlotheim, 1820, the type species of the genus Schlotheimia Bayle, 1878, the type genus of the family-group SCHLOTHEIMIDAE Spath, 1923) ; (iii) SCHLOTHEIMIDAE Spath (L.F.), 1923 (an Invalid Original Spelling of SCHLOTHEIMIIDAE). (11) Seguenziceras Levi, 1896 (Bull. 2 : 208—213) (Opinion 337) The following family-group name to be placed on the . Official Index :— SEGUENZICERATIDAE Spath (L.F.), 1924 (Proc. geol. Ass. 35: 192) (type genus: Seguenziceras Levi, 1896) (invalid because name of type genus is a junior objective synonym of Arieticeras Seguenza, 1885). (12) Arisphinctes Buckman (S.S.), 1924 (Bull. 2 : 214—216) (Opinion 306) No family-group name is involved in this case. 474 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS (13) Arnioceras Hyatt, 1867 (Bull. 2 : 217—219) (Opinion 307) The following family-group name to be placed on the Official List :— ARNIOCERATIDAE Spath, 1924 (Proc. geol. Ass. 35 : 189) (type genus: Arnioceras Hyatt, 1867). (14) Liparoceras Hyatt, 1867 (Bull. 2 : 220—222) (Opinion 308) The following family-group name to be placed on the Official List :— LIPAROCERATIDAE Hyatt, 1867 (Bull. Mus. comp. Zool. 1 : 80) (type genus: Liparoceras Hyatt, 1867). (15) Normannites Munier-Chalmas, 1892 (Bull. 2 : 222—223) (Opinion 309) No family-group name is involved in this case. (16) Addition of the names of twenty-one genera of ammonites to the “* Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ” (Bull. 2 : 224— 233) (Opinion 324) Of the twenty-one genera involved, eight are the type genera of family-groups, the names of which should now be placed on the Official List. In addition, there are two names which should be placed on the Official Index. The names in question are the following :— (a) Names to be placed on the “ Official List’ :— (i) AGASSICERATIDAE Spath (L.F.), 1924 (Proc. geol. Ass. 35:189, 207 (type genus: Agassiceras Hyatt, 1875) (for use by specialists who take the taxonomic view that Agassiceras Hyatt and Arietites Waagen, 1869 are referable to different family-groups) ; (11) ASTEROCERATIDAE Spath (L.F.), 1946 (Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (11) 12 : 496) (type genus : Asteroceras Hyatt, 1866) ; (iii) CADOCERATIDAE Hyatt, 1900 (in Eastman’s Zittel’s Textbook of Palaeontology 1(2) : 580) (type genus : Cadoceras Fischer, 1882) ; (iv) ECHIOCERATIDAE Buckman (S.S.), 1913 (Type Ammonites 2 : v) (type genus : Echioceras Bayle, 1878) ; DIRECTION 14 475 (v) OPPELIDAE Bonarelli, 1893 (Boll. Soc. malac. ital. 18 : 81) (type genus: Oppelia Waagen, 1869) ; (vi) PSEUDOPERISPHINCTIDAE Schindewolf, 1925 (Neues Jahrb. Min. Geol. 52 (Abt. B) : 319) (type genus : Pseudoperisphinctes Schindewolf, 1923) ; (Vii) PSILOCERATIDAE Hyatt, 1867 (Bull. Mus. comp. Zool. 3 : 72) (type genus : Psiloceras Hyatt, 1867) ; (viii) STEPHANOCERATINAE (correction of STEPHANOCERA- TINEN), Neumayr, 1875 (Z. deutsch. geol. Ges. 27 :905) (type genus: Stephanoceras Waagen, 1869) (first published in the correct form STEPHANOCERA- TIDAE by Zittel, 1884, Grundziige Paldont. : 467). (b) Names to be placed on the “ Official Index”? :— (i) STEPHANOCERATINEN Neumayr, 1875 (Z. deutsch. geol. Ges. 27 : 905) (an Invalid Original Spelling for STEPHANOCERATIDAE) ; (ii) STEPHEOCERATIDAE Buckman (S.S.), 1898 (Quart. J. geol. Soc. Lond. 54 : 461) (type genus: Stepheo- ceras Buckman (S.S.), 1898) (invalid because Stepheoceras Buckman is a junior objective synonym of Stephanoceras Waagen, 1869, the type genus of STEPHANOCERATIDAE (correction of STEPHANOCERATINEN Neumayr, 1875, which has priority over STEPHEOCERATIDAE Buckman, 1898. (17) Specific name virgula Deshayes, 1831, as published in the combination Gryphaea virgula (Bull. 2 : 234—235) (Opinion 310) No family-group name is involved in this case. (18) Specific name asper Lamarck, 1819, as published in the combina- tion Pecten asper (Bull. 2 : 236—237) (Opinion 311) No family-group name is involved in this case. 2. Registration of the present application: On receipt, the foregoing application was allotted the Registered Number Z.N.(S.) 864. 476 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS II—THE DECISION TAKEN BY THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 3. Issue of Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(55)5 : Concurrently with the submission to the Commission of the application repro- duced in paragraph 1 of the present Direction, a Call for a Vote, numbered Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(55)5, was issued on 11th February 1955 under the One-Month Rule. In this Voting Paper each Member of the Commission was asked to state (1) whether he agreed that, “in conformity with the General Directive relating to the recording on the various Official Lists and Official Indexes of decisions in regard to particular names and particular books issued to the International Commission by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948, and with the General Directive supplementary thereto issued to the Commission by the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology, Copenhagen, 1953, the entries relating to the family- group names specified in the Annexe to the paper numbered Z.N.(S.) 864 submitted by the Secretary simultaneously with the present Voting Paper [i.e. in the annexe to the paper reproduced in the first paragraph of the present Direction], should be made in the Official List and Official Index for the names of taxa belonging to the family-group as there proposed ”’, and (2), if he did not so agree as regards any given item, to indicate the item concerned. 4. The Prescribed Voting Period: As the foregoing Voting Paper was issued under the One-Month Rule, the Prescribed Voting Period closed on 11th March 1955. 5. Withdrawal from the scope of Voting Paper V.P.(O.M)(55)5 of the proposal there submitted in relation to the family-group name ‘* SEGUENZICERATIDAE ” Spath (L.F.), 1924 :—On 11th March 1955 Mr. Hemming, as Secretary, placed the following Minute on the Commission’s File Z.N.(S.) 864, withdrawing from the scope of Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(55)5 the proposal DIRECTION 14 477 there submitted in relation to the family-group name SEGUENZI- CERATIDAE Spath (L.F.), 1924 :— The family-group name SEGUENZICERATIDAE Spath (L.F.), 1924 : withdrawal of proposals submitted with Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(55)5 MINUTE by FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E., Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature On re-examining the proposals relating to the stabilisation of certain family-group names of ammonites submitted with Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(55)5, I regret to find that one of these proposals was incorrect, by reason of not being in harmony with one of the decisions in regard to the naming of taxa of the family-group taken at Copen- hagen in 1953 by the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology. Particulars of this case are set out below. 2. The recommendation in question was that the family-group name SEGUENZICERATIDAE Spath (L.F.), 1924 (type genus: Seguen- ziceras Levi, 1896) should be placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology, having regard to the fact that by a Ruling given in the Commission’s Opinion 337 (now in the press)! the generic name Seguenziceras Levi, 1896, is a junior objective synonym of Arieticeras Seguenza, 1885. 3. In submitting the foregoing recommendation I unfortunately overlooked the decision by the Copenhagen Congress that a family- group name is to be retained in cases where, as here, the name of the type genus of the family-group taxon concerned is changed by reason of that name being a junior objective synonym of some older generic name (1953, Copenhagen Decisions zool. Nomencl. : 36, Decision 54(1)(a)). 4. The foregoing decision by the Copenhagen Congress has been severely criticised and notice has been received of a proposal that it should be reversed by the next (Fifteenth) International Congress of Zoology when it meets in London in 1958. Subject to the use in individual cases of the Commission’s Plenary Powers, the foregoing decision is, however, at present binding in all cases. Accordingly, as Secretary to the International Commission, I hereby withdraw the proposal submitted in this case from the scope of Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(55)5. 1 This Opinion has now been published in the present volume ( : 109-124). 478 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 6. Particulars of the Voting on Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(55)5 : At the close of the Prescribed Voting Period the state of the voting on Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(55)5, less the proposal relating to the family-group name SEGUENZICERATIDAE Spath (L.F.), 1924, removed from the purview of that vote by the Direction given in the Secretary’s Minute of 11th March 1955 reproduced in para- graph 5 of the present Direction, was as follows :— (a) Affirmative votes had been given by the following twenty (20) Commissioners (arranged in the order in which votes were received) : Vokes ; Hering ; Boschma ; Tortonese ; Stoll ; Miller ; Mayr; Bonnet; Bradley (J.C.); Riley; Sylvester- Bradley; Key; Esaki; Lemche; Bodenheimer ; Hemming ; Cabrera ; do Amaral; Dymond ; Hanko ; (b) Negative Votes : None ; (c) On Leave of Absence, two (2) : Holthuis ; Mertens ; (d) Voting Papers not returned, three (3) : Jaczewski? ; Kiihnelt® ; Prantl?. 7. Declaration of Result of Vote : On 12th March 1955, Mr. Hemming, Secretary to the International Commission, acting as Returning Officer for the Vote taken on Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(55)5, signed a Certificate that the Votes cast were as set out in paragraph 6 above and declaring that the proposal AN late affirmative vote was received from Commissioner Jaczewski on 12th April 1955. 3 A late affirmative vote was received from Commissioner Kihnelt on 23rd March 1955. é a late affirmative vote was received from Commissioner Prantl on 17th May Sip) DIRECTION 14 479 submitted in the foregoing Voting Paper, less the proposal withdrawn therefrom by the Direction issued by the Secretary on 11th March 1955 (paragraph 5 above), had been duly adopted and that the decision so taken was the decision of the International Commission in the matter aforesaid. 8. Preparation of the Ruling given in the present ‘‘ Direction ”’ : On 22nd March 1955 Mr. Hemming prepared the Ruling given in the present Direction and at the same time signed a Certificate that the terms of that Ruling were in complete accord with those of the proposal approved by the International Commission in its Vote on Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(55)5. 9. Original References : The original references for the family- group names placed on the Official List and Official Index of such names by the Ruling given in the present Direction are as set out in the Annexe to the paper by the Secretary, dated 11th February 1955, reproduced in paragraph 1 of the present Direction. 10. The names of the genera which are the type genera of the family-group taxa, the names of which have been placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology by the Ruling given in the present Direction have been placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology in the Opinions embodying the Commission’s decisions in regard to those names or, in the small number of cases where an Opinion has not yet been rendered, will be so placed when the Rulings giving effect to the decisions concerned are embodied in Opinions. 11. The prescribed procedures were duly complied with by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature in dealing with the present case, and the present Direction is accordingly hereby rendered in the name of the said International 480 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS Commission by the under-signed Francis Hemming, Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, in virtue of all and every the powers conferred upon him in that behalf. 12. The present Direction shall be known as Direction Fourteen (14) of the International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature. DonE in London, this Twenty-Second day of March, Nineteen Hundred and Fifty-Five. Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature FRANCIS HEMMING NOTICE TO SUBSCRIBERS (1) The present volume will be complete as soon as four further Parts (Parts 19 to 22) have been published. Part 19 will be devoted to *‘ Declaration ’’ 20, Parts 20 and 21 to ‘* Directions ’’ concerned with family-group names arising in connexion with generic names dealt with in the present volume, while Part 22 will contain the indexes and title page of the present volume. (2) The first two Parts of volume 11 are already in proof and it is likely therefore that the publication of volume 11 will begin before that of volume 10 has been completed. Printed in England by MetcaLtFe & Cooper LimitTep, 10-24 Scrutton St., London EC 2 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS {| RENDERED BY THE INTER- NATIONAL COMMISSION ON | ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Edited by FRANCIS HEMMING, cM.G., C.B.E. Secretary to the Commission VOLUME 10. Part 20. Pp. 48i1—492 DIRECTION 27 Addition to the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology of family-group names based upon the names of certain genera of non-marine Mollusca placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology by the Ruling given in Opinion 335 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 1955 Price Six Shillings (All rights reserved) Issued 5th August, 1955 INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE COMPOSITION AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THE RULING GIVEN IN DIRECTION 27 A. The Officers of the Commission Honorary Life President: Dr. Karl Jordan (British Museum (Natural History), Zoological Museum, Tring, Herts., England) President: Professor James Chester Bradley (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) Vice-President : Senhor Dr. Afranio do Amaral (Sao Paulo, Brazil) (12th August 1953) Secretary : Mr. Francis Hemming (London, England) (27th July 1948) B. The Members of the Commission (Arranged in order of precedence by reference to date of election or of most recent re-election, as prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology) Professor H. Boschma (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) (ist January 1947) Senor Dr. Angel Cabrera (Eva Peron, F.C.N.G.R., Argentina) (27th July 1948) Mr. Francis Hemming (London, England) (27th July 1948) (Secretary) Dr. Joseph Pearson (Tasmanian Museum, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia) (27th July 1948) Dr. Henning Lemche (Universitetets ’ Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark) (27th July 1948) Professor Teiso Esaki (Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan) (17th April 1950) Professor Pierre Bonnet (Université de Toulouse, France) (9th June 1950) Mr. Norman Denbigh Riley (British Museum (Natural History) London) (9th June 1950) Professor Tadeusz Jaczewski (Institute of Zoology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland) (15th June 1950) Professor Robert Mertens (Natur-Museum u. Forschungs-Institut Senckenberg, Frankfurt a. M., Germany) (Sth July 1950) Professor Erich Martin Hering (Zoologisches Museum der Humboldt-Universitat zu Berlin, Germany) (Sth July 1950) Senhor Dr. Afranio do Amaral (S. Paulo, Brazil) (12th August 1953) (Vice-President) Professor J. R. Dymond (University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada) (12th August 1953) ee iN. Chester Bradley (Cornell University, Ithaca, N. Y., U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) President Professor Harold E. Vokes (Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) Professor Béla Hank6 (Mezégazdasagi Muzeum, Budapest, Hungary) (12th August 1953) Dr. Norman R. Stoll (Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, New York, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) Mr. P. C. Sylvester-Bradley (Sheffield University, Sheffield, England) (12th August 1953) Dr. L. B. Holthuis (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. Miller (Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, University of California, Berkeley, California, U.S.A.) (29th October 1954) Doc. Dr. Ferdinand Prantl (Narodni Museum v Praze, Prague, Czechoslovakia) (30th October 1954) Professor Dr. Wilhelm Kuthnelt (Zoologisches Institut der Universitat, Vienna, Austria) (6th November 1954) Professor F. S. Bodenheimer (The Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Israel) (11th November Professor Ernst Mayr (Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard College, Cambridge, Massachusetts, U.S.A.) (4th December 1954) Professor Enrico Tortonese (Instituto e Museo di Zoologia della Universita di Torino, Torino, Italy) (146th December 1954) DIRECTION 27 ADDITION TO THE ‘° OFFICIAL LIST OF FAMILY-GROUP NAMES IN ZOOLOGY ” OF FAMILY-GROUP NAMES BASED UPON THE NAMES OF CERTAIN GENERA OF NON-MARINE MOLLUSCA PLACED ON THE ‘** OFFICIAL LIST OF GENERIC NAMES IN ZOOLOGY ”’ BY THE RULING GIVEN IN ‘* OPINION ” 335 RULING :—(1) The under-mentioned family-group names, each of which is the name of a family-group taxon, the type genus of which was placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology by the Ruling given in Opinion 335, are hereby placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology with the Name Nos. severally specified below :— (a) Name of a taxon belonging to the Class Pelecypoda : PISIDUDAE (correction of PISIDIADAE) Gray (J.E.), 1857 (type genus: FPisidium Pfeiffer, 1821) (for use by any worker who may consider that the genera Pisidium Pfeiffer and Sphaerium Scopoli, 1777, the type genus of the taxon SPHAERIIDAE, belong to a atec family-group taxa) (Name No. 36) ; (b) Names of taxa belonging to the Class Gastropoda : (1) ACANTHINULINAE Pilsbry (H.A.), 1926 (type genus: Acanthinula Beck, 1847) (Name INio:: 37). ; (ii) ARIONIDAE Gray (J.E.), 1840 (type genus: Arion Férussac, 1819) (Name No. 38) ; (iii) AZECIDAE Kennard (A.S.), & Woodward (B.B.), 1926 (type genus : Azeca Fleming, 1828) (Name No. 39) ; (iv) CARYCHIIDAE (correction of CARYCHIADAE) Jeffreys (J.G.), 1830 (type genus: Cary- chium Miiller (O.F.), 1774) (first published in correct form as CARYCHIIDAE by Jeffreys, 1862) (Name No. 40) ; AUG 29 4955 484 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS (v) DISCINAE Thiele (J.), 1931 (type genus: Discus Fitzinger, 1833) (Name No. 41) ; (vi) EUCONULINAE Baker (H.B.), 1928 (type genus : Euconulus Reinhardt, 1883) (Name No. 42); (vil) HYGROMIINAE Geyer (D.), 1909 (type genus : Hygromia Risso, 1826) (Name No. 43) ; (vill) LAURIEAE Thiele (J.), 1931 (type genus: Lauria Gray (J.E.), 1840) (name bestowed upon a Tribus) (Name No. 44) ; (ix) MILACIDAE Ellis (A.E.), 1926 (type genus : Milax Gray (J.E.), 1855) (Name No. 45) ; (x) OTINIDAE Chenu (J.C.), 1859 (type genus : Otina Gray (J.E.), 1847) (Name No. 46) ; (xi) PLANORBINAE Gray (J.E.), 1840 (type genus : Planorbis Miller (O.F.), 1774) (Name No. 47) ; _ (xii) PUNCTINAE Morse (E.S.), 1864 (type genus : Punctum Morse, 1864) (Name No. 48) ; (xiii) PUPILLIDAE (correction of PUPILLADAE) Tur- ton (W.), 1831 (type genus: Pupilla Fleming, 1828) (first published in correct form aS PUPILLIDAE by Kennard (A.S.) & Woodward (B.B.), 1914) (Name No. 49); (xiv) PYRAMIDULIDAE Kennard (A.S.) & Wood- ward (B.B.), 1914 (type genus : Pyramidula Fitzinger, 1833) (Name No. 50) ; (xV) RUMININAE Thiele (J.), 1931 (type genus : Rumina Risso, 1826) (Name No. 51) ; (XV1) SUBULINIDAE Thiele (J.), 1931 (type genus : Subulina Beck, 1837) (Name No. 52) ; (XVil) VALLONIIDAE Pilsbry (H.A.), 1900 (type genus: Vallonia Risso, 1826) (Name No: 53)"; (xvill) VALVATIDAE Gray (J.E.), 1840 (type genus : Valvata Miller (O.F.), 1774) (Name No. 54); DIRECTION 27 485 (xix) VERTIGINIDAE Stimpson, 1851 (type genus : Vertigo Miller (O.F.), 1774) (Name No. DI) (xX) VITREINAE Thiele (J.), 1931 (type genus: Vitrea Fitzinger, 1833) (Name No. 56). (2) The under-mentioned family-group names, each of which is an Invalid Original Spelling for a name placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology by the Ruling given in (1) above, are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology :— (i) PISIDIADAE Gray (J.E.), 1857 (type genus : Pisidium Pfeiffer, 1821) (an Invalid Original Spelling for PISIDIIDAE) (Name No. 43) ; (ii) CARYCHIADAE Jeffreys (J.G.), 1830 (type genus: Carychium Miller (O.F.), 1774) (an Invalid Original Spelling for CARy- CHIIDAE) (Name No. 44) ; (iii) PUPILLADAE Turton (W.), 1831 (type genus : Pupilla Fleming, 1828) (an Invalid Original Spelling for PUPILLIDAE) (Name No. 45). I.—THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE PRESENT * DIRECTION ” | The present Direction contains the decisions taken by the International Commission for the purpose of giving effect, so far as concerns the names of genera of Mollusca dealt with in Opinion 335, to the General Directive given to it by the Inter- national Congress of Zoology that, when generic names are dealt with in Opinions, the family-group-name implications are also to be considered. The proposals on which the decisions in the present case were based were submitted to the Commission on 18th April 1955 in the following paper prepared by the 486 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS Secretary in consultation with Mr. A. E. Ellis, the original applicant in the case dealt with in the Opinion referred to above :— Proposed addition to the ‘‘ Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology ”’ of family-group names based upon the names of certain genera of non-marine Mollusca placed on the ‘°° Official List of Generic Names in Zoology’? in ‘‘ Opinion’? 335 _ By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E., Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature . The object of the present paper is to examine the family-group- name problems involved in the Ruling given by the Commission in Opinion 335 in which the names of thirty-four (34) genera of non- marine Mollusca were placed on the. Official List of Generic Names in Zoology and to submit proposals to the Commission for the addition to the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology of family-group names based upon the generic names in question where such action appears to be called for under the General Directives on this subject issued to the Commission by the International Congress of Zoology. 2. The grateful thanks of the Commission are due to Mr. A. E. Ellis (Epsom College, Epsom, England), the original applicant in the case dealt with in Opinion 335, for the investigations which he has under- ‘taken for the purpose of placing the Commission in a position to reach decisions on the family-group-name aspects of the case dealt with in the foregoing Opinion. The Commission is much indebted also to Dr. L. R. Cox (British Museum (Natural History), London) for similar investigations which he has been so kind as to make. 3. The Reports referred to above show that twenty-two of the genera, the names of which are here concerned, have been taken as the type genera of family-group taxa. Twenty-one of the family-group names concerned are given in Annexe | to the present paper and it is recom- mended that these names should be placed on the Official List. For the reasons explained in paragraph 4 below it is recommended that no action should be taken at present in regard to the family-group — name based upon the twenty-second of the generic names referred to above (Corbicula Megerle von Muehlfeld, 1811). In Annexe 2 are given three Invalid Original Spellings which under the Directives referred to above should now be placed upon the Official Index of rejected and invalid names of the family-group category. Annexe 3 contains a list of the twelve generic names dealt with in Opinion 335 which have not been taken as the base for family-group names. 4. For many years the generic name Cyrena Lamarck, 1818 (Hist. nat. Anim. sans Vertébr. 5 : 551) was very familiar in the literature of the Lamellibranchs, the genus so named being the type genus of the DIRECTION 27 487 family CYRENIDAE. The discovery that the generic name Corbicula Megerle von Muehlfeld, 1811, was a senior synonym of Cyrena Lamarck led, however, to the disappearance of the name Cyrena in synonymy and to the substitution by most subsequent authors of the family name CORBICULIDAE for the family name CYRENIDAE. Under a decision taken by the International Congress of Zoology, Copenhagen (1953, Copenhagen Decisions zool. Nomencl. : 56, Decision 54(1)(a)) a family-group name is not, however, to be rejected when the name of its type genus is found to be either a junior objective synonym, or a junior subjective synonym, of some older generic name. Accordingly, the present position is that, although the generic name Cyrena Lamarck has long been sunk in synonymy and the name CORBICULIDAE has come into general use as the name of the family containing the genus (Corbicula), of which the name Cyrena is a junior synonym, the correct name for the family is once more CYRENIDAE and the name CORBICULIDAE becomes an invalid name, My recommendation is that at the present time the Commission take no action in regard to these names. This recommendation is based upon two grounds: (1) The decision by the Copenhagen Congress discussed above has been very severely criticised and there are grounds for expecting that a proposal (of which notice has already been received) that this decision be reversed will be strongly pressed at the next (Fifteenth) International Congress of Zoology when it meets in London in 1958. If such a proposal were to be accepted by that Congress, the name CORBICULIDAE would again become the oldest available name for the family concerned -and the name CYRENIDAE would for the second time become an invalid name. It is clearly desirable therefore that the Commission should avoid complicating the issue by placing the first of these names on the Official Index of rejected and invalid names. (2) The substitution of the name CORBICULIDAE for the name CYRENIDAE caused confusion and inconvenience at the time when it was made but these difficulties have in the course of the years been substantially overcome. The Copenhagen decision will, if applied in this case, usher in a new era of confusion and lack of uniformity in the nomenclature of this group. The change required by the Copenhagen decision has not yet, I under- stand, been made and I gather that there is a possibility that specialists in this group may ask the Commission to use its Plenary Powers to prevent it from happening!. For this reason it would be undesirable for the Commission to prejudice the issue by taking any action in this matter at the present time. ANNEXE 1 Names proposed to be placed on the ‘‘ Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology ”’ Class Pelecypoda PISIDIDAE (correction of PISIDIADAE) Gray (J.E.), 1857, Turton’s Manual Land Freshwater Shells Brit. Islands (3rd ed.) : xvi (type 1 This question is being further examined on the Commission’s File Z.N.(S.) 992. 488 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS genus: Pisidium Pfeiffer, 1821) (for use by any worker who may consider that Pisidium Pfeiffer and Sphaerium Scopoli, 1777, the type genus of the taxon SPHAERIIDAE, belong to different family- group taxa) Class Gastropoda ACANTHINULINAE Pilsbry (H.A.), 1926, Tryon’s Manual Conch. 27 : 186 (type genus: Acanthinula Beck, 1847) ARIONIDAE Gray (J.E.), 1840, Turton’s Manual Land Freshwater Shells Brit. Islands (new ed.) : 101 (type genus: Arion Férussac, 1819) AZECIDAE Kennard (A.S.) & Woodward (B.B.), 1926, Syn. Brit. non- mar. Moll. : xvi (type genus : Azeca Fleming, 1828) CARYCHIIDAE (correction of CARYCHIADAE) Jeffreys (J.G.), 1830, Trans. linn. Soc. Lond. 16 : 324 (type genus: Carychium Miller (O.F.), 1774) (first published in correct form, as CARYCHIIDAE, by Jeffreys, 1862, Brit. Conch. 1 : 299) DISCINAE Thiele (J.), 1931, Handb. syst. Weichtierk. 1 : 578 (type genus : Discus Fitzinger, 1833) EUCONULINAE Baker (H.B.), 1928, Proc. Acad. nat. Sci. Philad. 80 : 9 (type genus: Euconulus Reinhardt, 1883) HYGROMIINAE Geyer (D.), 1909, Unsere Land-u. Siisswasser-Moll. (ed. 2) : 11 (type genus : Hygromia Risso, 1826) LAURIEAE Thiele (J.), 1931, Handb. syst. Weichtierk. 1 :509 (type genus : Lauria Gray (J.E.), 1840) (name bestowed upon a Tribus) MILACIDAE Ellis (A.E.), 1926, Brit. Snails : 252 (type genus: Milax Gray (J.E.), 1855) OTINIDAE Chenu (J.C.), 1859, Manuel Conchyliol. 1 : 479 (type genus : Otina Gray (J.E.), 1847) PLANORBINAE Gray (J.E.), 1840, Turton’s Manual Land Freshwater Shells Brit. Islands (new ed.) : 256 (type genus: Planorbis Miller (O.F.), 1774) PUNCTINAE Morse (E.S.), 1864, J. Portland Soc. nat. Hist. 1 : 27 (type genus: Punctum Morse, 1864) PUPILLIDAE (correction of Pupilladae) Turton (W.), 1831, Manual Land Freshwater Shells Brit. Islands: 8 (type genus: Pupilla Fleming, 1828 (first published with corrected spelling as PUPILLIDAE by Kennard (A.S.) & Woodward (B.B.), 1914, List Brit. non-mar. Moll. : 2) PYRAMIDULIDAE Kennard (A.S.) & Woodward (B.B.), 1914, List Brit. non-mar. Moll. : 1 (type genus : Pyramidula Fitzinger, 1833) RUMININAE Thiele (J.), 1931, Handb. syst. Weichtierk. 1 : 554 (type genus: Rumina Risso, 1826) SUBULINIDAE Thiele (J.), 1931, Handb. syst. Weichtierk. 1 : 549 (type genus: Subulina Beck, 1837) DIRECTION 27 489 VALLONIIDAE Pilsbry (H.A.), 1900, Proc. Acad. nat. Sci. Philad. 1900 : 564 (type genus: Vallonia Risso, 1826) VALVATIDAE Gray (J.E.), 1840, Turton’s Manual Land Freshwater Shells Brit. Islands (new ed.) : 79 (type genus: Valvata Miiller (O.F.), 1774) VERTIGINIDAE Stimpson, 1851, Shells New Engl. : 53 (type genus: _ Vertigo Muller (O.F.), 1774) VITREINAE Thiele (J.), 1931, Handb. syst. Weichtierk. 1 : 587 (type genus: Vitrea Fitzinger, 1833) NOTE :—While it is believed that in each case the reference given is to the first place where the name in question was published, it must be understood in this as in similar cases already dealt with by the Commission that it cannot be certain that the earliest reference has been detected in every case. ANNEXE 2 Names proposed to be placed on the ‘* Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology ”’ PISIDIADAE Gray (J.E.), 1857 (an Invalid Original Spelling for PISIDIIDAE) CARYCHIADAE Jeffreys (J.G.), 1830 (an Invalid Original Spelling for CARYCHIIDAE) PUPILLADAE Turton (W.), 1831 (an Invalid Original Spelling for PUPILLIDAE) ANNEXE 3 Names placed on the ‘°‘ Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ”’ in *‘ Opinion’? 335, which are not the names of type genera of family-group taxa Abida Turton, 1831 Aplexa Fleming, 1820 Arianta Turton, 1831 Balea Gray (J.E.), 1824 Cecilioides Férussac, 1814 Cochlicella Férussac, 1821 Geomalacus Allman, 1843 Retinella Fischer, 1877 Segmentina Fleming, 1818 Theodoxus Montfort, 1810 Truncatellina Lowe, 1852 Zonitoides Lehmann, 1862 490 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 2. Registration of the present application: As explained in Opinion 3352, the examination of the problem of how to complete at the family-group-name level the action taken in that Opinion at the generic-name level was conducted on the Commission’s File Z.N.(G.) 78, which had been specially opened for that purpose. On the completion of that examination and the con- sequent submission of the present application, the foregoing problem was registered in the Commission’s Z.N.(S.) Series under the number Z.N.(S.) 917. Il.—THE DECISION TAKEN BY THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 3. Issue of Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(55)14: On 18th April 1955 a Voting Paper (V.P.(O.M.)(55)14) was issued in which each — Member of the Commission was asked (1) to state whether he agreed “that, in conformity with the General Directive relating to the recording on the various Official Lists and Official Indexes of decisions in regard to particular names and particular books — issued to the International Commission by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948, and with the General Directive supplementary thereto issued to the Commission © by the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology, Copen- | hagen, 1953, the entries as respects the family-group names | involved. in the cases relating to the generic names of non-marine Mollusca dealt with in Opinion 335, recommended in paragraph 3 of the paper numbered Z.N.(S.) 917 submitted by the Secretary simultaneously with the present Voting Paper [i.e. in paragraph 3 of the application reproduced in the first paragraph of the present Direction], should be made in the Official List and Official Index | for the names of taxa belonging to the family-group, as there : proposed ”’ and (2), if he did not so agree as regards any given item, to indicate that item. 4. The Prescribed Voting Period: As the foregoing Voting | Paper was issued under the One-Month Rule, the Prescribed Voting Period closed on 18th May 1955. | ee ge es pee 2 See page 75 of the present volume. DIRECTION 27 491 5. Particulars of the Voting on Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(55)14 : At the close of the Prescribed Voting Period, the state of the voting on Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(55)14 was as follows :— (a) Affirmative Votes had been given by the following twenty-four (24) Commissioners (arranged in the order in which Votes were received) : Sylvester-Bradley ; Lemche; Stoll; Hering; Tor- tonese; Vokes; Mayr; Boschma; Esaki; Miller ; Hanko ; Jaczewski; Prantl; Key ; Mertens ; Bonnet ; Hemming ; Dymond ; Kihnelt ; do Amaral ; Cabrera ; Riley ; Bodenheimer ; Bradley (J.C.) ; (b) Negative Votes : None ; (c) Leave of Absence, one (1): Holthuis ; (d) Voting Papers not returned : None. 6. Declaration of Result of Vote : On 19th May 1955, Mr. Hemming, Secretary to the International Commission, acting as Returning Officer for the Vote taken on Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.) (55)14, signed a Certificate that the Votes cast were as set out in paragraph 5 above and declaring that the proposal submitted in the foregoing Voting-Paper had been duly adopted and that the decision so taken was the decision of the International Commission in the matter aforesaid. 7. Preparation of the Ruling given in the present ‘‘ Direction ”’ : On 23rd May 1955 Mr. Hemming prepared the Ruling given in the present Direction and at the same time signed a Certificate that the terms of that Ruling were in complete accord with those of the proposal approved by the International Commission in its Vote on Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(55)14. 492 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 8. Original References: The original references for the family-group names placed upon the Official List and Official Index of names of that category by the Ruling given in the present Direction are as set out in Annexe 1 to the application reproduced in paragraph | thereof. 9. The names of the genera which are the type genera of the family-group taxa, the names of which have been placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology by the Ruling given in the present Direction, have been placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology by the Rulings given in Opinion 335, in which Opinion are given the references for each of the generic names concerned. 10. The prescribed procedures were duly complied with by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature in dealing with the present case, and the present Direction is accordingly hereby rendered in the name of the said International Commission by the under-signed Francis Hemming, Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, in virtue of all and every the powers conferred upon him in that behalf. 11. The present Direction shall be known as Direction Twenty- Seven (27) of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. DonE in London, this Twenty-Third day of May, Nineteen Hundred and Fifty-Five. Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature FRANCIS HEMMING Notice to Subscribers The present volume contains Directions 14 and 27 and 28. The Directions numbered 15 to 26 are concerned with matters arising on Opinions published in the period up to the end of 1936 (Opinions 1—133) and are being published in Section C of volume 1 of the present work. Printed in England by Mercatre & CoopEerR LimiTED, 10-24 Scrutton St., London EC 2 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTER- NATIONAL COMMISSION ON | ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Edited by FRANCIS HEMMING, c.M.G., C.B.E. secretary to the Commission VOLUME 10. Part 21. Pp. 493—510 DIRECTION 28 Addition to the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology or, as the case may be, to the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology of the family-group names involved in the cases dealt with in the Opinions included in volume 10 of the Opinions and Declarations rendered by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, other than family-group names already dealt with in those Opinions or in Directions included in that volume 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 7 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7 1955 Price Nine Shillings (All rights reserved) Issued 12th August, 1955 INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE COMPOSITION AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THE RULING GIVEN IN DIRECTION 28 A. The Officers of the Commission Honorary Life President: Dr. Karl Jordan (British Museum (Natural History), Zoological Museum, Tring, Herts., England) President : Professor James Chester Bradley (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) Vice-President : Senhor Dr. Afranio do Amaral (Sao Paulo, Brazil) (12th August 1953) Secretary : Mr. Francis Hemming (London, England) (27th July 1948) B. The Members of the Commission (Arranged in order of precedence by reference to date of election or a most recent re-election, as prescribed by the International Congress of Zoolog Professor H. Boschma (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) (ist January 1947) Senor Dr. Angel Cabrera (Eva Peron, F.C.N.G.R., Argentina) (27th July 1948) Mr. Francis Hemming (London, England) (27th July 1948) (Secretary) Dr. Henning Lemche (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark) (27th July 1948) Professor Teiso Esaki (Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan) (17th April 1950) Professor Pierre Bonnet (Université de Toulouse, France) (9th June 1950) Mr. Norman Denbigh Riley (British Museum (Natural History), London) (9th June 1950) Professor Tadeusz Jaczewski Unstitute of Zoology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland) (15th June 1950) Professor Robert Mertens (Natur-Museum u. Forschungs-Institut Senckenberg, Frankfurt a. M., Germany) (Sth July 1950) Professor Erich Martin Hering (Zoologisches Museum der Humboldt-Universitadt zu Berlin, Germany) (Sth July 1950) Senhor Dr. Afranio do Amaral (S. Paulo, Brazil) (12th August 1953) (Vice-President) Professor J. R. Dymond (University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada) (12th August 1953) ee J. yoo Bradley (Cornell University, Ithaca, N. Y., U.S.A.) (A2th August 1953) resident Professor Harold E. Vokes (Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) Professor Béla Hanko (Mezégazdasdgi Muzeum, Budapest, Hungary) (12th August 1953) Dr. Norman R. Stoll (Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, New York, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) Mr. P. C. Sylvester-Bradley (Sheffield: University, Sheffield, England) (12th August 1953) Dr. L. B. Holthuis (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. Miller (Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, University of California, Berkeley, California, U.S.A.) (29th October 1954) Doc. Dr. Ferninand Prantl (Ndrodni Museum v Praze, Prague, Czechoslovakia) (30th October 1954) Professor Dr. Wilhelm Kuhnelt (Zoologisches Institut der Universitat, Vienna, Austria) (6th November 1954 ee F. S. Bodenheimer (The Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Israel) (11th November Professor Ernst Mayr (Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard College, Cambridge, Massachusetts, U.S.A.) (4th December 1954) Professor Enrico Tortonese (Istituto e Museo di Zoologia della Universita di Torino, Torino, Italy) (16th December 1954) DIRECTION 28 ADDITION TO THE ‘“ OFFICIAL LIST OF FAMILY- GROUP NAMES IN ZOOLOGY” OR, AS THE CASE MAY BE, TO THE “ OFFICIAL INDEX OF REJECTED AND INVALID FAMILY-GROUP NAMES IN ZOOLOGY ”’ OF THE FAMILY-GROUP NAMES INVOLVED IN THE CASES DEALT WITH IN THE ‘ OPINIONS ” INCLUDED IN VOLUME 10 OF THE ‘° OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON _ ZOO- LOGICAL NOMENCLATURE ”, OTHER THAN FAMILY-GROUP NAMES ALREADY DEALT WITH IN THOSE ‘ OPINIONS ” OR IN ** DIRECTIONS ” INCLUDED IN THAT VOLUME RULING :—(1) The under-mentioned family-group names involved in the cases dealt with in the Opinions included in volume 10 of Opinions and Declarations rendered by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, other than family-group names already dealt with in those Opinions or in Directions included in that volume, are hereby placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology with the Name Nos. severally specified below :— (a) STEPHANURIDAE (correction of STEPHANURIDA) Molin, 1861 (type genus: Stephanurus Diesing, 1839) (published by Molin as a family name; first published in correct form as STEPHANURIDAE by Railliet, Henry & Bauche, 1919) (Class Nematoda) (Opinion 340) (Name No. 57) ; (b) OESOPHAGOSTOMINAE (correction of OESOPHAGO- STOMEAE) Railliet & Henry, 1909 (type genus : Oesophagostomum Molin, 1861) (published as the name of a taxon of below subfamily rank ; first published with a prescribed termination (as OESOPHAGOSTOMINAE) by Railliet, 1915) (Class Nematoda) (Opinion 340) (Name No. 58) ; SEP 7 496 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS (c) TYLENCHINAE Marcinowski, 1909 (type genus : Tylenchus Bastian, 1865) (Class Nematoda) (Opinion 341) (Name No. 59) ; (d) LIPEURIDAE Mjéberg, 1910 (type genus: Lipeurus Nitzsch, 1818 (Class Insecta, Order Mallophaga) (Opinion 342) (Name No. 60) ; (ec) GYROPIDAE Kellogg, 1896 (type genus: Gyropus Nitzsch, 1818) (Class Insecta, Order Mallophaga) (Opinion 342) (Name No. 61); .. ({) GLIRICOLINAE Ewing, 1924 (type genus: Gliricola Mjoberg, 1910) (Class Insecta, Order Mallo- phaga) (Opinion 342) (Name No. 62) ; (g) EUREINAE Eichler, 1941 (type genus: Hureum Nitzsch, 1818) for use by those specialists who consider that Eureum WNitzsch, 1818, requires separation at the subfamily level from the taxon of which the type genus is Menopon Nitzsch, 1818) (Class Insecta, Order Mallophaga) ( Opinion 343) (Name No. 63) ; (h) GEOTRUPINI Latreille, 1806 (type genus : Geotrupes Latreille, 1796) (Class Insecta, Order Coleoptera) (Opinion 346) (Name No. 64) ; (1) CHLOROPINAE Loew, 1862 (type genus: Chlorops Meigen, 1803) (Class Insecta, Order Diptera) (Opinion 348) (Name No. 65) ; : (j) ENARMONIINI Diakonoff, 1953 (type genus: Enar- monia Hubner, [1825]) (for use by those specialists who place the genus Enarmonia Hitibner in a tribe different from that in which they place the genus Laspeyresia Hubner, [1826], the type genus of the taxon LASPEYRESIINI Obraztsov, 1945) (Class aaa Order Lepidoptera) (Opinion 349) (Name oO. 66) ; (k) DIONIDIDAE (correction of DIONIDEAE) Gtirich, 1907 (type genus: Dionide Barrande, 1847) (Class Trilobita) (Opinion 350) (Name No. 67). DIRECTION 28 497 (2) The under-mentioned family-group names, each of which is either an Invalid Original Spelling of, an Invalid Emendation of, or a junior objective synonym of, a family-group name placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology by the Ruling given in (1) above, are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology with the Name Nos. severally specified below :— (a) STEPHANURIDA Molin, 1861 (type genus: Stfe- phanurus Diesing, 1839) (an Invalid Original Spelling for STEPHANURIDAE) (Class Nematoda) (Opinion 340) (Name No. 47) ; (b) OESOPHAGOSTOMEAE Railliet & Henry, 1909 (type genus: Oe¢esophagostomum Molin, 1861) (an Invalid Original Spelling for OESOPHAGOSTOMINAE) (Class Nematoda) (Opinion 340) (Name No. 48) ; (c) OESOPHAGOSTOMATINAE Lane (C.), 1923 (type genus : Oesophagostomum Molin, 1861) (an Invalid Emendation of OESOPHAGOSTOMINAE (correction of OESOPHAGOSTOMEAE) Railliet & Henry, 1909) (Class Nematoda) (Opinion 340) (Name No. 49) ; (d) DIONIDEAE Gurich, 1907 (type genus: Dionide Barrande, 1847) (an Invalid Original Spelling for DIONIDIDAE) (Class Trilobita) (Opinion 350) (Name No. 50) ; (€) DIONIDEIDAE Raymond, 1920 (type genus : Dionide Barrande, 1847) (an incorrectly formed junior objective synonym of DIONIDIDAE (correction of DIONIDEAE) Giirich, 1907) (Class Trilobita) (Opinion 350) (Name No. 51). I1.—THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE PRESENT * DIRECTION ” The present Direction contains Rulings given by the Com- mission on the family-group-name implications of all the cases involved in volume 10 of Opinions and Declarations rendered by 498 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, other than in those cases where those implications were dealt with in the Opinions concerned or have since been dealt with in Directions (Directions 14 and 26) included in that volume. The proposals on which the decisions given in the present Direction were based, which were drawn up in conjunction with specialists in the groups concerned, were submitted to the Commission in a paper by the Secretary on 18th April 1955. At the time when that paper was prepared, it was anticipated that volume 10 would contain Opinions 334 to 361. Later it was found, however, that some of the earlier of the foregoing Opinions were so long that it would be more convenient if Opinion 350 were to be the last of the Opinions to be included in the foregoing volume. Accordingly, action on the portion of Mr. Hemming’s paper relating to Opinions 351 to 361 has been held over, pending the publication of those Opinions in volume 11. Subject to this omission, the paper submitted to the Commission by Mr. Hemming on 18th April 1955 was as follows :— Proposed addition to the ‘‘ Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology ’’ or, as the case may be, to the ‘‘ Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology ”’ of family-group names involved in the cases dealt with in Volume 10 of the ‘‘ Opinions and Declarations ”’ Series (‘‘ Opinions *’ 334—350') By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E., Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature The purpose of the present paper is to lay before the Commission the family-group-names problems involved in the cases dealt with in Opinions 334 to 3501, which collectively will form volume 10 in the Opinions and Declarations Series, and to seek decisions from the Commission in those cases where, under the General Directives issued to the Commission by the International Congress of Zoology, names require to be placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology or on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Names of this category. 2. Of the Opinions covered by the present paper the first six (Opinions 334—339) have already been published and the remainder are in the press. In each of the latter cases the Commission approved the proposals submitted to it in the Voting Paper concerned. 1 As explained in the opening portion of paragraph 1 of the present Direction, this paper, as originaly prepared dealt with Opinions 334—361 and not only, as here shown, with Opinions 334—350. DIRECTION 28 499 3. In each case consultations have been held with specialists in the group concerned and the Commission is much indebted to these specialists for the assistance which they have given in supplying the necessary information and in co-operating in the preparation of the proposals now submitted. The names of the specialists who have assisted in this matter are given in the following list, together with an indication of the cases on which each has given advice :— Mr. J. Balfour-Browne (British Museum (Natural History), London) : Rhina Latreille (Opinion 345); Geotrupes, Ceratophyus (Opinion 346) ; Dr. A. Diakonoff (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) : Enarmonia (Opinion 349) ; Dr. Ellsworth C. Dougherty (University of California, Department of Physiology, School of Medicine, Berkeley, California, U.S.A.) ; Stephanurus, Oesophagostomum (Opinion 340); Anguina, Anguil- lulina, Tylenchus en 341) ; Derk.) W. era (Oriel Cue Oxford): O0¢esphagostomum (Opinion 340) ; Mr. G. H. E. Hopkins (British Museum (Natural History), Zoological Museum, Tring, Herts., England); Lipeurus, Gyropus, Gliricola, Actornithophilus ( Opinion cae Eureum, Hirundoecus (Opinion 343) ; Dr. Curtis W. ae (United Sie peste of Agriculture, Entomology Research Branch, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.) : Chlorops (Opinion 348) ; Mr. Denys W. Tucker (British Museum (Natural History), London) : Rhina Schneider (Opinion 345) ; Dr. H. B. Whittington (Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard College, Cambridge, Massachusetts, U.S.A.) : Dionide (Opinion 350). 4. In one case only did any doubt arise as to the correct form for the family-group name to be adopted. This was in connection with the generic name Oesophagostomum Molin, 1861, which was placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology by the Ruling given in Opinion 340. The doubts in this case have been satisfactorily dispelled with the assistance of Dr. Dougherty and Dr. Grensted. Extracts from the correspondence with these specialists are given in Annexe | to the present paper. 5. Attention must be drawn also to the unfortunate situation which arises in connection with Opinion 341 owing to the fact the generic name Anguillulina Gervais & van Beneden, 1859, has been taken as 500 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS the type genus of a family ANGUILLULINIDAE Baylis & Daubney, 1926. The foregoing generic name is a junior objective synonym of Anguina Scopoli, 1777, and in the above Opinion has been placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. Accordingly up to 1953 the above family-group name would automatically have become invalid. Under a decision taken in that year by the Copenhagen Congress a family-group name is not, however, to be rejected when the name of its type genus is found to be invalid by reason of being (as in this case) a junior objective synonym of an older name (1953, Copenhagen Decisions zool. Nomencl. : 36, Decision 54(1)(a)). This decision has been much criticised and notice has been received of a proposal that it should be reversed by the next (London) Congress in 1958. The present position is that, in the absence of action by the Commission under its Plenary Powers, the foregoing family-group name is an available name. Discussions are proceeding with interested specialists on the question whether it is desirable that a proposal for special action should be submitted to the Commission in this case.? It would clearly be wrong for any action to be taken which might prejudice the position in this case while the discussions referred to above are proceeding. It is accordingly recommended that the family- group name ANGUILLULINIDAE Baylis & Daubney should not be placed on the Official List at least for the present. 6. The family-group name position involved in each of the Opinions concerned is examined in turn in Annexe 2 to the present paper. Proposals are submitted in each case where action is called for under the General Directives referred to in paragraph | above but has not yet been taken. ANNEXE 1 On the question of the correct form for the family-group name based upon the generic name ‘‘ Oesophagostomum ”’ Molin, 1861 (Class Nematoda) By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E., Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature When I was considering the questions to be dealt with in the Voting Paper (V.P.(O.M.)(55)15) now submitted, I felt that special con- sideration ought to be given to the correct form for the family-group name based upon the generic name Oesophagostomum Molin, 1861 (Class Nematoda), having regard to the fact that by some authors the spelling used for this name was OFSOPHAGOSTOMIDAE but that by other authors the emendation OESOPHAGOSTOMATIDAE was preferred. I 2 Notice has now been received from Dr. Ellsworth C. Dougherty (University of California, Berkeley, California, U.S.A.) of his intention to submit an application ~ for relief in the present case, DIRECTION 28 501 accordingly applied in the first instance to Dr. Ellsworth C. Dougherty (University of California, Berkeley, California, U.S.A.), who had already given valuable assistance in regard to other aspects of this case. In his reply, dated 9th March 1955, an extract from which is given as Sub-Annexe A to the present Annexe, Dr. Dougherty, who in a previous letter (dated 16th December 1954) had already reported that the shorter of the foregoing spellings was in general use, gave his reasons for considering that that spelling was the correct spelling. On receipt of Dr. Dougherty’s letter, I consulted Dr. L. W. Grensted (Oriel College, Oxford), who on previous occasions had very kindly placed his rich knowledge of the Greek and Latin languages at the disposal of the Commission. Dr. Grensted’s reply, dated 22nd March 1955, an extract from which is given in Sub-Annexe B below, fully confirms Dr. Dougherty’s view and, indeed, adds further consideration in its support. 2. For the reasons explained above, the form OESOPHAGOSTOMIDAE has been adopted as the correct form for the name of this taxon (at the family level) in the recommendations in regard thereto submitted in Annexe 2. Sub-Annexe A to Annexe | Extract from a letter, dated 9th March 1955, from Dr. Ellsworth C. Dougherty, University of California, Berkeley, California, U.S.A. I have always considered (without any particular authority) that names deriving from Greek words (such as stoma), but with Latin endings (e.g., Oesophagostomum) should be treated as if they had ‘* surrendered ”’ their Greek heritage and should be declined like simple Latin nouns. (For example, the genitive derived from Oesophagostomum should be oesophagostomi, not oesophagostomatis.) For this reason | have considered that a family name based on Oe¢csophagostomum would correctly be OFSOPHAGOSTOMIDAE, not OESOPHAGOSTOMATIDAE. Sub-Annexe B to Annexe 1 Extract from a letter, dated 22nd March 1955, from Dr. L. R. Grensted, Oriel College, Oxford Oesophagostomum : form of family name based on I think that there is no doubt that Dr. Dougherty is right. His argument is perfectly sound, and can be considerably strengthened. The neuter noun Oesophagostomum is based on an adjectival form of a type common in Greek, ending in this case in “-crowov”. A parallel case is, e.g., the adjective edpvctopos (wide-mouthed). In declining this the -w«7 stem of ordua does not re-appear and the 502 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS genitive is edpvordpov. There is no reason at all for any different treatment of the Latinised form. The case actually comes under Copenhagen Decisions 50(1)(c) which, in effect, requires an inter- pretation of (1)(a) as to the correct mode of forming the genitive, and the proposed schedule should deal with the question of nouns formed in this way. The essential point is that when the final noun of a compound name has been transmuted into an adjectival form, or a form based (as in this case) upon an adjective, it loses its original character and its original stem, and behaves like any normal Latin or Greek noun of that form. Roughly speaking, the provisions of 50(1)(d) and 50(2) will apply in such cases, since there is usually a touch of the barbarous about these forms. But it is best to bring them under 50(1)(c) and to provide that forms like Oesophagostomum of Cyathostomum should be regarded as nouns of neuter gender based upon an adjectival combination and should therefore, with full classical precedent, lose the full stem of the final noun and take the simpler adjectival stem. There is no doubt at all that this is sound both for Latin and for Greek. ANNEXE 2 Proposals for the addition to the ‘‘ Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology ’’ or, as the case may be, to the ‘* Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology ”’ of the family-group names involved in the cases dealt with in the ‘* Opinions ’’ included in Volume 10 of the ‘* Opinions and Declarations ’’ Series (‘* Opinions ”’ 334—361) OPINION 334 (The Crangon/Crago/Alpheus problem) : The family-group names aspect of this case has been dealt with by the Commission in its vote on Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(54)21, and the decision so taken has since been embodied in Opinion 334 published on 23rd February 1955).° OPINION 335 (addition of names of genera of non-marine Mollusca to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology) : The number of family-group names involved in this case is con- siderable. Separate proposals on this subject, based upon recom- mendations received from Mr. A. E. Ellis (the original applicant) and from Dr. L. R. Cox, have been submitted in Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(55)14.4 OPINION 336 (addition of names of species of non-marine Mollusca to the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology) : No family-group-name problem arises in this case. 3 See pp. 1—44. 4 See Direction 27. DIRECTION 28 503 OPINION 337 (the ammonite names Arieticeras and Seguenziceras) : Proposals regarding the family-group-names aspect of this case have been submitted to the Commission with Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(55)5.° OPINION 338 (Gryphaea Lamarck, 1801) : The family-group-name aspect of this case has been dealt with by the Commission in its vote on Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(54)26, and the decision so taken has since been embodied in Opinion 356.8 OPINION 339 (specific name of the Yellow Rattlesnake of the Colorado River Basin) : No family-group-name problem arises in this case. OPINION 340 (Stephanurus Diesing) : The following names to be placed on the Official List : (a) STEPHANURIDAE (correction of STEPHANURIDA) Molin, 1861, Mem. r. Ist. veneto Sci. Lett. ed Arti 9 : 436, 578 (type genus : Stephanurus Diesing, 1839) (published as a family name; first published with a prescribed termination (as STEPHANURINAE) by Railliet, Henry & Bauche, 1919, Bull. Soc. Path. exot. 12(6) : 324) (b) OESOPHAGOSTOMINAE (correction of OESOPHAGOSTOMEAE) Railliet & Henry, 1909, C.R. Acad. Sci., Paris 66(4) : 169 (type genus: Ocesophagostomum Molin, 1861) (published as the name of a taxon of below subfamily rank) (first pub- lished with a prescribed termination (as OESOPHAGOSTOMINAE) by Railliet, 1915 (Rep. 10th Int. vet. Cong. London, 1914 3 : 734) The following names to be placed on the Official Index : (a) STEPHANURIDA Molin, 1861 (type genus : Stephanurus Diesing, 1839) (an Invalid Original Spelling for STEPHANURIDAE) ; (b) OESOPHAGOSTOMEAE Raillict & Henry, 1909 (type genus: Oesophagostomum Molin, 1861) (an Invalid Original Spelling for OESOPHAGOSTOMINAE) ; (Cc) OESOPHAGOSTOMATINAE Lane (C.), 1923, in Byam (W.) & Archibald (R. G.) (Eds.) [contributions by many authorities], The Practice of Medicine in the Tropics 3 : 1704 (type genus : - Oesophagostomum Molin, 1861) (an Invalid Emendation of OESOPHAGOSTOMINAE (correction of OESOPHAGOSTOMEAE) Railliet & Henry, 1909). 5 The proposal here referred to has since been withdrawn in favour of a revised Peas submitted by Dr. W. J. Arkell (Commission’s Reference : Z.NAS.) 931). § This Opinion, which is now in proof, will be published in Volume 11. 504 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS Note :—For the reasons for which it is proposed to accept the spelling OESOPHAGOSTOMINAE as the correct spelling for the name of this family- group taxon see Annexe |. OPINION 341 (Anguina, Tylenchus, Anguillulina) : The following name to be placed on the Official List : TYLENCHINAE Marcinowski, 1909, Arb. k. biol. Anstalt f. Land-u. Forstwirtsch. 7(1) : 57 (type genus: Tylenchus Bastian, 1865) Note 1 :—The generic name Anguina Scopoli, 1777, has never been taken as the base of a family-group name. Note 2 :—In this Opinion the Commission placed the generic name Anguillulina Gervais & van Beneden, 1859, on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology, that name being an invalid junior objective synonym of Anguina Scopoli, 1777. There is a family-group taxon ANGUILLULINIDAE Baylis & Daubney, 1926 (Syn. Fam. Gen. Nemat. : 36, 65) which prior to 1953 would thus have become an invalid name but which under Decision 54(1)(a) of the Copenhagen Congress is not now to be rejected. For the reasons why it is recommended that the foregoing family-group name should nevertheless not be placed on the Official List at the present time see paragraph 5 of the paper of which the present list forms Annexe 2. OPINION 342 (Lipeurus, etc.) : The following names to be placed on the Official List :— (a) LIPEURIDAE Myjdberg, 1910, Ark. Zool. 6 (No. 13) : 82 (type genus : Lipeurus Nitzsch, 1818) ; (b) GYROPIDAE Kellogg, 1896, Proc. Calif. Acad. Sci. (2) 6 : 68 (type genus : Gyropus Nitzsch, 1818) ; Note :—The reputed family-name GYROPIDAE Burmeister, 1838, is a cheironym. (c) GLIRICOLINAE Ewing, 1924, Proc. U.S. nat. Mus. 63 (No. 20) : 7 (type genus: Gliricola Mjoberg, 1910). Note :—The names Colpocephalum Nitzsch, 1818, and Actornithophilus Ferris, 1916, have not been taken as the base for family-group names. OPINION 343 (Eureum, etc.) : The following name to be placed on the Official List : EUREINAE Eichler, 1941, Arch. Naturgesch. (n.s.) 10 : 382 (type genus : Eureum Nitzsch, 1818) (for use by those specialists who consider that Eureum Nitzsch, requires separation at the sub- family level from the taxon of which the type genus is Menopon Nitzsch, 1818). Note :—The name Hirundoecus Ewing, 1930, has never been taken as the base for a family-group name. DIRECTION 28 505 OPINION 344 (Acmea/Acme/Acmaea) : The family-group-name aspect of this case has been dealt with by the Commission in its vote on Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(54)14, and the decision so taken has since been embodied in Opinion 344 (in the press).’ OPINION 345 (Rhina, etc.) : None of the generic names dealt with in this Opinion is currently taken as the base for the name of a family-group taxon. OPINION 346 (Geotrupes) : The following name to be placed on the Official List :— GEOTRUPINI Latreille, 1806, Gen. Crust. Ins. 2 : 91 (type genus : Geotrupes Latreille, 1796) Note :—The generic name Ceratophyus Fischer de Waldheim, 1824, has never been taken as the base for a family-group name. OPINION 347 (Lysippe) : No action is required in this case. OPINION 348 (Chlorops) : The following name to be placed on the Official List :— CHLOROPINAE Loew, 1862, in Peters’, Reise Mossambique : 34 (type genus : Chlorops Meigen, 1803) OPINION 349 (Enarmonia) : The following name to be placed on the Official List :— ENARMONIINI Diakonoff, 1953, Verh. K. Ned. Akad. Wtenach., Natuurk. (2) 49 (No. 3) : 89, 161 (type genus: Enarmonia Hiuibner, [1825]) (for use by those specialists who place the genus Enarmonia Hubner in a tribe different from that in which they place the genus Laspeyresia Hubner, [1826], the type genus of the taxon LASPEYRESIINI Obraztsov, 1945, Z. wien. ent. Ges. 30 : 23. OPINION 350 (Dionide) : The following name to be placed on the Official List :— DIONIDIDAE (correction of DIONIDEAE) Giirich, 1907, Cd/. f- Min. Geol. Pal. 1907 : 129—133 (type genus: Dionide Barrande, * This Opinion has now been published. See pp. 313—352 of the present volume. 506 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 1847) (first published in correct form, as DIONIDIDAE, by Whittard (W. F.), 1940, Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (11) 6 : 138) ; The following names to be placed on the Official Index :— (a) DIONIDEAE Giurich, 1907 (type genus: Dionide Barrande, 1847) (an Invalid Original Spelling for DIONIDIDAE). (b) DIONIDEIDAE Raymond, 1920, Bull. Mus. comp. Zool. 64 (No. 2) : 214 (type genus: Dionide Barrande, 1847) (an incorrectly formed junior objective synonym of DIONIDIDAE (correction of DIONIDEAE) Gurich, 1907). 2. Registration of the present application : When the problems raised in the present Direction were under preliminary examina- tion in conjunction with the specialists concerned, the questions at issue were, as explained in the Opinions concerned, dealt with in the Commission’s File Z.N.(G.) 122. On the completion of these investigations and the consequent submission of the present application, the foregoing problems were registered in the Commission’s Z.N.(S.) Series under the number Z.N.(S.) 916. Il—THE DECISION TAKEN BY THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 3. Issue of Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(55)15 : On 18th April 1955 a Voting Paper (V.P.(O.M.)(55)15) was issued in which each Member of the Commission was asked (1) to state whether he agreed “that, in conformity with the General Directive relating to the recording on the various Official Lists and Official Indexes of decisions in regard to particular names and particular books issued to the International Commission by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948, and with the General Directive supplementary thereto issued to the Com- mission by the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology, Copenhagen, 1953, the entries relating to the family-group names involved in the cases dealt with in the Opinions (Opinions 334— 361) included in volume 10 of the work Opinions and Declarations, as recommended in paragraph 6 of the paper numbered Z.N.(S). DIRECTION 28 507 916 and as specified in Annexe 2 to that paper, submitted by the Secretary simultaneously with the present Voting Paper [i.e., in paragraph 6 of the application reproduced in the first paragraph of the present Direction], should be made in the Official List and Official Index for the names of taxa belonging to the family- group, as there proposed” and (2), if he did not so agree as regards any given item, to indicate that item. 4. The Prescribed Voting Period: As the foregoing Voting Paper was issued under the One-Month Rule, the Prescribed Voting Period closed on 18th May 1955. 5. Particulars of the Voting on Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(55)15 : At the close of the Prescribed Voting Period, the state of the voting on Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(55)15 was as follows :— (a) Affirmative Votes had been given by the following twenty-four (24) Commissioners (arranged in the order in which Votes were received) : Sylvester-Bradley ; Lemche ; Stoll ; Hering ; Tortonese ; Vokes; Mayr; Boschma; Esaki; Miller; Hanko ; Prantl; Key; Bonnet; Jaczewski; Hemming ; Dymond ; Kuhnelt ; do Amaral; Cabrera ; Mertens ; Riley ; Bodenheimer; Bradley (J.C.) ; (b) Negative Votes : None ; (c) On Leave of Absence, one (1) : Holthuis ; (d) Voting Papers not returned : None. 508 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 6. Declaration of Result of Vote: On 19th May 1955, Mr. Hemming, Secretary to the International Commission, acting as Returning Officer for the Vote taken on Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.) (55)15, signed a Certificate that the Votes cast were as set out in paragraph 5 above and declaring that the proposal submitted in the foregoing Voting Paper had been duly adopted and that the decision so taken was the decision of the International Commission in the matter aforesaid. 7. Postponement to volume 11 of the publication of the decisions in regard to family-group-name problems arising on ‘‘ Opinions ”’ 351 to 361 taken by the Commission in its vote on Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(55)15 : On 20th May 1955 Mr. Hemming, as Secretary, placed on the Commission’s File Z.N.(S.) 916 the following Minute defining the scope of the decision to be pro- mulgated on the basis of the vote taken by the Commission on Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(55)15 for inclusion in volume 10 of the Opinions and Declarations Series :— Removal from the scope of the decisions immediately to be promulgated on the basis of the vote taken on Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(55)15 of the portion of the decisions so taken relating to matters connected with ‘‘ Opinions ’’ 351 to 361 MINUTE dated 20th May 1955 By FRANCIS HEMMING Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature At the time when the proposals submitted with Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(55)15 were prepared, it was expected that volume 10 of Opinions and Declarations rendered by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature would comprise Opinions 334 to 361. Since that date the bulk of the foregoing Opinions have been printed and it has become evident that, if the contents of volume 10 were to be as originally planned, the volume would be unduly large. It has accordingly been decided to postpone Opinions 351 to 361 for publication in volume 11. 2. In these circumstances it would clearly be inappropriate to include in the Direction to be prepared to give effect to the vote on the Voting Paper referred to above the portion of the decision so taken by the Commission which related to Opinions which are not now to be included in volume 10, the volume of which the above Direction will DIRECTION 28 509 form a part, for this would involve the publication of the decisions by the International Commission on the family-group-name aspects of cases on which decisions at the generic-name level had not yet been published. 3. Accordingly, as Secretary to the International Commission, I hereby direct (1) that the proposals relating to matters arising on Opinions 351 to 361 be withdrawn from the scope of the decision now to be promulgated on the basis of the vote taken on Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(55)15 in the Direction to be published in volume 10 of the Opinions and Declarations Series, and (2) that the decisions in regard to the foregoing Opinions taken by the Commission in its vote on the foregoing Voting Paper be included in the Direction relating to the Opinions to be included in volume 11 of the foregoing Series after the publication of the Opinions allocated to that volume. 8. Preparation of the Ruling given in the present ‘* Direction ”’ : On 24th May 1955 Mr. Hemming prepared the Ruling given in the present Direction and at the same time signed a Certificate that the terms of that Ruling were in complete accord with those of the proposal approved by the International Commission in its Vote on Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(55)15, subject to the exclusion from that Ruling of the portion of the decision taken by the Commission in relation to Opinions 351 to 361, the promulgation of which had been deferred for publication in volume 11 of the Opinions and Declarations Series by the Minute executed by the Secretary on 20th May 1955. For the text of the Minute here referred to see paragraph 7 of the present Direction. 9. Original References: The original references for the family-group names placed upon the Official List and Official Index of names of that category by the Ruling given in the present Direction are as set out in Annexe 2 to the application reproduced in paragraph 1 thereof. 10. The names of the genera which are the type genera of the family-group taxa, the names of which have been placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology by the Ruling given in the present Direction, have been placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology by the Rulings given in the Opinions severally concerned. The original references for the generic names in question have been given in those Opinions. 510 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 11. The prescribed procedures were duly complied with by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature in dealing with the present case, and the present Direction is accordingly hereby rendered in the name of the said International Commission by the under-signed Francis Hemming, Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, in virtue of all and every the powers conferred upon him im that behalf. 12. The present Direction shall be known as Direction Twenty- Eight (28) of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Done in London, this Twenty-Fourth day of May, Nineteen Hundred and Fifty-Five. Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature FRANCIS HEMMING Notice to Subscribers With the publication of the present Direction, volume 10 is — complete, except for the concluding Part (Part 22) containing the Title Page and indexes. ‘ Printed in England by Mrtcatrre & CooprerR Limirep, 10-24 Scrutton St. London EC? OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTER- || NATIONAL COMMISSION ON || ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Edited by . FRANCIS HEMMING, c.M.G., C.B.E. ‘ Secretary to the Commission VOLUME 10. Part 22. (Concluding Part) | . | \ | | | | | . | LONDON : | Printed by Order of the International Trust for | Zoological Nomenclature and. ii «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 | 1956 Price One Pound, Seventeen Shillings (All rights reserved) By OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTER- NATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Edited by FRANCIS HEMMING, c.M.G., C.B.E. Secretary to the Commission VOLUME 10. Part 22. Pp. 511—562 (also published with this Part : T.P.—XVI) CONTENTS Corrigenda ; Authors’ and Subject Indexes ; Particulars of the dates of publication of the several Parts in which the present volume was published; Instructions to Binders. Also published with this Part : Title Page ; Foreword ; Table of Contents 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 1956 Price One Pound, Seventeen Shillings (All rights reserved) Issued 3rd July, 1956 SEP 4 1956 INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE COMPOSITION AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THE OPINIONS, DECLARATIONS AND DIRECTIONS PUBLISHED IN THE PRESENT VOLUME A. The Officers of the Commission Honorary Life President : Dr. Karl Jordan (British Museum (Natural History), Zoological Museum, Tring, Herts, England) President : Professor James Chester Bradley (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) - (12th August 1953) Vice-President : Senhor Dr. Afranio do Amaral (Sao Paulo, Brazil) (12th August 1953) Secretary : Mr. Francis Hemming (London, England) (27th July 1948) B. The Members of the Commission (Arranged in order of precedence by reference to date of election or of most recent re-election, as prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology) Professor H. BOSCHMA (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) (ist January 1947) Senor Dr. Angel CABRERA (La Plata, Argentina) (27th July 1948) Mr. Francis HEMMING (London, England) (27th July 1948) (Secretary) Dr. ase LEMCHE (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark) (27th July 1 Professor Teiso Esaki (Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan) (17th April 1950) Professor Pierre BONNET (Université de Toulouse, France) (9th June 1950) Mr. Norman Denbigh RILEy (British Museum (Natural History), London) (9th June 1950) Professor Tadeusz JACZEWSKI CUnstitute of Zoology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland) (15th June 1950) Professor Robert MERTENS (Natur-Museum u. Forschungs-Institut Senckenberg, Frankfurt - a.M., Germany) (5th July 1950) Professor Erich Martin HERING (Zoologisches Museum der Humboldt- Universitat zu Berlin, Germany) (Sth July 1950) Senhor Dr. Afranio do AMARAL (S. Paulo, Brazil) (12th August 1953) (Vice President) Professor J. R. DYMOND (University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada) (12th August 1953) Professor J. Chester BRADLEY (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) (42th August 1953) (President) Professor Harold E. Voxes (Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) Professor Béla HANKO (Mezégazdasdgi Muzeum, Budapest, Hungary) (12th August 1953) Dr. Norman R. STOLL (Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, New York, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) Mr. P. C. SYLVESTER-BRADLEY (Sheffield University, Sheffield, England) (12th August 1953) Dr. L. B. HoLtuuis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) (12th August 1953) Dr. HK: L. Key (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Canberra, A.C.T., Australia) (15th October 1954) Dr. Alden H. MILLER (Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, University of California, U.S.A.) (29th October 1954) Doc. Dr. Ferdinand PRANTL (Narodni Museum v Praze, Prague, Czechoslovakia) (30th October 1954) Professor Dr. Wilhelm KUHNELT (Zoologisches Institut der Universitat, Vienna, Austria) (6th November 1954) nie F. S. BODENHEIMER (The Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Israel) (11th November 5) Professor Ernst MAYR (Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard College, Cambridge, Massachusetts, U.S.A.) (4th December 1954 Professor Enrico TORTONESE (Museo di Storia Naturale ‘“ G. Doria,’ Genova, Italy) (16th December 1954) s+ “3, THE FAMILY-GROUP NAME ‘** CRANGONIDAE ”’ Correction of authorship and date of publication attributed in ** Opinion *’ 334 MINUTE by FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E., Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature Subsequent to the publication of Opinion 334 relating to the generic name Crangon Fabricius, 1798, and associated problems, Dr. L. B. Holthuis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands), the specialist by whom the Crangon application was originally submitted and who had furnished to the Commission the bibliographical data relating to the family-group names involved in this case, notified the Office of the Commission (in a letter dated 22nd July 1955) that he had ascertained that, contrary to the belief which he had formerly held, the family-group name CRANGONIDAE was first published not by White in 1847 (List Crust. Brit. Mus. : 73) but by Haworth in 1825 (Phil. Mag. J. 65 : 184). It was thereupon agreed between myself, as Secretary to the Commission, and Dr. Holthuis, (a) that I should execute a Minute on the Commission’s File Z.N.(S.) 849 drawing attention to the foregoing discovery and directing that the Ruling in Opinion 334 be amended accordingly, and (b) that the text of the proposed Minute, when executed, should be reproduced at the end of the volume (volume 10) of the “Opinions and Declarations’ Series containing Opinion 334, so that the correction could be noted in the subject index of that volume. 2. In accordance with the foregoing agreement, I now, as Secretary, hereby direct as follows: (1) In the Ruling given in Opinion 334 the words “‘ Haworth, 1825” be substituted for the words ‘* White, 1847 ” in line 1 of Ruling (5)(b) on page 4 of the above Opinion as the name of the author and as the date of publication of the family-group name CRANGONIDAE and a like correction be made in paragraph 6(1)(b) in the paper reproduced (: 37) in paragraph 33 of the foregoing Opinion. (2) The following revised reference for the family-group name CRANGONIDAE be inserted in lines 2 and 3 of paragraph (1) in the annexe to the above paper ( : 39) :— CRANGONIDAE Haworth, 1825, Phil. Mag. J. 65 : 184. 24th August 1955. Corrigenda page 4. Line 13: substitute ‘“‘ CRANGONIDAE Haworth, 1825”’ for page 268. page 302. page 358. page 384. page 411. White, 1847’. Line 6: insert “‘ 126 > after *25,7@) ~;: Line 8 : insert square brackets round “‘ 1946’. Line 12: substitute ‘‘ Schaeffer ’’ for ‘‘ Schneider ”’. Line 19 : substitute ‘‘ Schaeffer ’ for ‘“‘ Schneider ”’. 6th line from bottom : insert square brackets round “ 1817”. “* CRANGONIDAE Abboit, R. I. Alexander, C. P. Volume 10 Sid INDEX TO AUTHORS OF APPLICATIONS DEALT WITH IN THE PRESENT VOLUME AND OF COMMENTS ON THOSE Allen, M. W. 259—260, 260—265 Arkell, W. J. Baily, J. L., Jr. Balss, H. Banner, A. H. Bequaert, J. .. Berry, S. S. Blake, C. HH. .. Boettger, C. R. Bradley, J. C. Buttiker, W. .. hace, FoA. Chavan, A. Chitwood, B. G. — APPLICATIONS Page Page 178—179 Clay, Theresa 282, 285, 288—289, 291, 309 432433 Cobban, W. A. 178—179 Cole, H. A. 161—162 112—115, 174 Colstazier, Ma Ll... os. we) 322——328, 442 Cox, L.R. 165—173, 339—341 22—23 be san LOS nA Desbrosses, M 781 Diakonoff, A. 440—441, 443—444 338 Dikmans, G. 239—240 =—23 628 Dollfus, R. Ph. 22, 238—239 Bd —17 94, 175 Donovan, D. T 173—174 2 egy Doran, D. J... 239—240 372—373 Doss, Mildred A... .. 239 282, 285, 309 = Dougherty, E. C. 204—214, 224—227., 260—265 14—18 Durbin, C. G. 239—240 158—159 Oey) Eichler, W. 282, 285, 309 Ellis, A. E. 54—62, 88—93 Chitwood, Maybelle B. .. 239 516 Emerson, K. C. Enzie, F. D. .. Fauvel, P. Foster, A. O. Gardiner vl. Gardner, Julia Gordon, Isobel Guimaraes, L. R. Grant, Avery R. Gunter, G. Gunther, K. Gurney, R. Hale, H. M. Havinga, B. .. Heegaard, P. Hemming, F. Opinions and Declarations Page 282, 285, 309 oo 413, 416 1239) 239—240 178—179 30 282, 285, 309 see Test, Avery R. 176—177, 178 ont 12—13 24—25 . 160 13—14 36—39, 66—71, Page Hennig, W. e432 Hill, C. H. s239 Holthuis, L. B. 6—10, 18—19, 39—40, 123—124, 412—415 Hopkins, G. H. E. 276—283, 302—307 Howden, H. 397—400 Humphrey, Judith M. mn Ise) S Imlay, R. W. 178— 179 Jaeckel, S. > 13g Jellison, W. L. Kates, K: Ci. Kéler, S. von 282, 285, 309 . 239—240 282, 285, 309 94, 96—102, 116—118, 119, 124, 136—138, 140—143, 144—147,- 193—195, 196, 198—199, 217—219, 243— 246, 255—258, 291—294, 330—332, 341—342, 344— 348, 375—384, 401—403, 430, 444446, 469—475, 477, 486—489, 498—506, 508—509, ii. Keen, Myra .. 174—175, 337 Klauber, L. M. 189—190 Korringa, P. .. 156—158 Lebour, Marie V. .. .. Lecointre, G. So) Feloup, E. 7.4 Fa ne: 163 Lotze, J. C. Lucas, C. E. ueker, J. T. McIntosh, A. McNeill, F. A. Manter, H. W. - Mayr, E. Meinertzhagen, R. Mermod, G. .. Mertens, R. .. Morrison, J. P. S. Mortensen, Th. Muller, S. W. Needler, A. B. Nicol, D. Nouvel, H. Oldroyd, H. .. O’Mahony, E. Volume 10 oly Page 239—240 . 164 227—228, 228—238 221—224 25—26 258 USS), ST) DS2e 2895 309 159—160 192—193 178—179 329 174—175, Sef DD, 178—179 21 . 430 287, 285, 309 Page Peters, B. G. .. 240—241 Potts, R. W. L. .. 392—395 Pricé.E:-W:.. a L239 Ramalho, A.M. .. .. 164 Ranson, G. 130—133, 152—155 Raski, D. J. 259—260, 260—265 Reeside, J. B., Jr. .. 178—179 Rehder, H. A. .. 178—179 Inicitery in. se 3s .. 457—458 Roger, J. ae ane 6 Sabrosky, C. W. .. 424—428 Schmitt, W. L. es em) Schwartz, B. .. a RSS) Segerstrale, S. .. 160—161 Shaya. Rao « oe 2 433 Sher, S.A. 259—260, 260—265 Shorb, D. A. Ls 32 239 Smart, J. ie Ra eal Smith, Hobart M. .. 184—186, 191—192 518 Opinions and Declarations Page Sollaud, E. ds: Spindler, L. A. pele, Stenzel, H. B. 176—177 Stephenson, L. W. 178—179 Stevens, Belle A. 28—29 Sylvester-Bradley, P.C. .. 176 Test, Avery R. plo oe 337—338 Thompson Townes, H. Tucker, D. W. 282, 285, 509 397—400 380—382 Page Turner, J. H. .. 239—240 Vokes, H. E. a .. 180 Webb: Jc. Ey i ay ee Wehr, E. E. .. et Ry Ai Werneck, F. L. 282, 285, 309 Whittington, H. B. .. 454—456 Winckworth, R. .. 334—335 Woodbury, A.M. .. 184—186, 191—192 Woodring, W.P. .. 178—179 Zariguiey,R. ... 23-04 Volume i0 SUBJECT INDEX Abida Turton, 1831 (Class Gastropoda), placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with Name No. 810, with eas secale Perna, Sage as type species gender of name Acanthinula Beck, 1847 (Class Gastropoda), placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with Name No. 811, with Helix aculeata Miller . F. I 1774, as type species gender of name ACANTHINULINAE Pilsbry (H.A.), 1926 (Class Gastropoda), placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zeus with Name No. 37, with Acanthinula Beck, 1847, as type genus Acicula Renier, [1807], suppression of, under the Plenary Powers, for the pupess: both of the Law of Priority and of the Law of Homonymy .. os Y ve placed on the Official Index a es and Invalid Generic Names in ROCs), with Name No. 246 .. . Acicula Oken, 1815, a nomen nudum, placed on the Official Index = pegs and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology with Name No. 247 .. Acicula Hartmann, 1821 (Class Gastropoda), validation of, under the Plenary Powers and addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with Name No. 859, with Bulimus lineatus Draparnaud, [1801], as type species gender of name acicula Miiller (O.F.), 1774, as published in the combination Buccinum acicula (Class Gastropoda), placed on the ee List a eis Names in eee, with Name No. 292 : , ACICULIDAE Woodward (S.P.), 1854 (Class Gastropoda), placed on the Official - List of Family-Group Names in ene with Name No. 6, with Acicula Hartmann, 1821, as type genus es is xa Sr Acmaea Eschscholtz, 1830, a nomen nudum, placed on the Official Index = cae and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology with Name No. 248 .. . Acmaea Eschscholtz, 1833 (Class Gastropoda), placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with Name No. 857, with Acmaea mitra Eschscholtz, 1833, as type species A sive 2 he ae ae sf : ae gender of name .. oe ay ry ee oa sid 519 Page 47 47 47 47 483 315 316 316 316 316 51 St 316 315 315 520 Opinions and Declarations ACMAEIDAE Carpenter (P. C.), 1857 (Class Gastropoda), placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in en ey with Name No. 7, with Acmaea Eschscholtz, 1833, as type genus ; : : thy : Acme Hartmann, 1821, suppression of, under the Plenary Powers, for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy bi placed on the Official Index a ha vi and Iran Generic Names in ee with Name No. 243 .. Acmea Hartmann, 1821 (in Steinmuller’s Neue Alpina 1), suppression of, under the Plenary Powers, for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy : wt te ee as - si : placed on the Official Index ae sclag ch and Invalid Generic Names in ges! with Name No. 241 Acmea Hartmann, 1821 (in Sturm’s Deutschlands Fauna 6), suppression of, under the Plenary Powers, for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy on Ee i es. us Me : placed on the Official Index of Be. and Invalid Generic Names in ee with Name No. 242 ACMEIDAE Pollonera (C.), 1905, a junior objective synonym of ACICULIDAE Woodward, 1854, placed on the Official Index of ee and Invalid Fan Names in Zoology with Name No. 25 f ACMIDAE Kobelt (W.), 1908, a junior objective synonym of ACICULIDAE Woodward, 1854, placed on the Official Index oe Hoes and Invalid bee Cea Names in Zoology with Name No. 26 .. Actornithophilus Ferris, 1916 (Class Insecta, Order Mallophaga), placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with Name No. 852, with Coles phalum uniseriatum Piaget, 1880, as type species gender of name aculeata Miller (O.F.), 1774, as published in the combination Helix aculeata (Class Gastropoda), pe on the Te List oS eae Names in prc with Name Nor 293% acuta Draparnaud, [1805], as published in the combination Physa acuta (Class Gastropoda), placed on the ica List a es Names in ", Zaatesy with Name No. 324 .. ; AGASSICERATIDAE Spath (L.F.), 1924 (Class Ammonoidea), placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in ey with Name No. 27, with AO aie 1875, as type genus : : Page 317 315 316 315 316 317 317 274 274 51 79 466 Volume 10 albus Miller (O.F.), 1774, as published in the combination Planorbis albus (Class Gastropoda), peed on the cas List jai ae ine Names in ea with Name INON'325.°°.. algovianus Oppel, 1862, as published in the combination Ammonites algovianus (Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea), oe on the ies List es Names in Zoology with Name No. 446 alliaria Miller, 1822, as published in the combination Helix alliaria (Class Gastro- poda), placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with Name No. 326 alpestris Alder, 1838, as published tn the combination Vertigo alpestris (Class Gastropoda), placed on the Coical MIST, nel Specie.) Names in Cia 4 with Name No. 327 ALPHAEIDAE Balss, 1915, an Erroneous Subsequent Spelling for ALPHEIDAE (correction of ALPHIDIA) Rafinesque, 1815, placed on the Official Index a eee and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology with Name No. 20 ; ALPHEENS Milne Edwards (H.), 1837, a vernacular (French) word and not a Latin or Latinized word, placed on the Official Index of pes and Invalid faa Group Names in Zoology with Name No. 19 . ALPHEIDAE (correction by Randall (1839) of ALPHIDIA) Rafinesque, 1815 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), placed on the Official List of Family- tans Names in Zoology with Name No. 4, with Alpheus Fabricius, 1798, as type genus. ALPHEUIDAE Yu, 1936, an Erroneous Subsequent Spelling for ALPHEIDAE (correction of ALPHIDIA) Rafinesque, 1815, placed on the Official Index w eG and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology with Name No. 21 .. Alpheus Fabricius, 1798 oe Crustacea, Order Percopens) validation of, under the Plenary Powers gender of name placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with Name No. 806, with Alpheus avarus Fabricius, 1798, as type species Alpheus Weber, 1795 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), suppression of, under the Plenary Powers, for the pane both of the Law of fore and of the Law of Homonymy ; addition of, to the Official Index cok Bosgereg and Invalid Generic Names in hae with Name No. 227 ALPHIDIA Rafinesque, 1815, an Invalid Original Spelling for ALPHEIDAE, placed on the Official Index na Rejected « and Invalid HORE N GMOS iF in Lies with Name No. 18 : 5 americanus Ewing, 1930, as published in the combination Hirundoecus americanus (Class Insecta, Order Mallophaga), places! on the Oca t List a SPOS Names in Zoology with Name No. 463 521 Page 79 111 79 79 301 522 Opinions and Declarations AMMONITEA De Haan, 1825, an Invalid Original Spelling for AMMONITIDAE, placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid sa alae Names in n Zoology with Name No. 34 oe AMMONITIDAE Owen (R.), 1836, placed on the Oe Index oe Rees and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology with Name No. 35 . amnica Miiller (O.F.), 1774, as published in the combination Tellina amnica (Class Pelecypoda), paces on the ime List a ies: Names in gn” with Name INo=290' =. Re Analithis Gistl, 1848, a junior objective synonym of Platyrhina Miller & Henle, 1838, placed on the Official Index oF ee and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology with Name No. 249 a anatinus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Mytilus anatinus (Class Pelecypoda), placed on the ae List ea Sere Names in 1 ee with Name No. 426 .. ancylostomus Schneider, 1801, as published in the combination Rhina ancylostomus (Class Elasmobranchii), placed ¢ on the es List of See Names in aes with Name No. 468 ste anglicus Wood, 1828, as published in the combination Turbo anglicus (Class Caos placed on the Ona List ne ae Names in n LOeiey with Name No. 328 Anguillulina Gervais & van Beneden, 1859, a junior objective synonym of Anguina Scopoli, 1777, placed on the Official I Index on Rode’ and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology with Name No. 235 Anguina Scopoli, 1777 San Sea Interim Rene rope in ge 160. cancellation of : placed on the Official List of Generic Names in ee with Name No. 847, with Vibrio tritici, Steinbuch, 1799, as type species gender of name .. ay Seger Be A he na ee Sih angulata Lamarck, 1801, Gryphaea, rejection of, as a nomen nudum, as type ee of Gryphaea Lamarck, 1801 A i a addition of, to the Official Index a cee: and Invalid meee” Names in Zoology with Name No. 115 angulata Lamarck, 1819, as published in the combination Gryphaea angulata (Class ne le placed on the ee List Ue Specne yd Names in a with Name fo) se ANGULATIDAE Hyatt, 1874, placed on the Official Index of Pe and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology with Name No. 39 . Ps Page 467 467 50 356 85. 35 1S 2538 253 253 252 127 129 128 467 Volume 10 angustior Jeffreys, 1830, as published in the combination Vertigo angustior (Class Gastropoda), PES on the mee List Leh SecCned Names in BAS with Name IN@s 329... antivertigo Draparnaud, [1801], as published in the combination Pupa antivertigo (Class Gastropoda), peed on the ee List ee Specs! Names in Bae with Name No. 330... Aplexa Fleming, 1820 (Class Gastropoda), placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with Name No. 812, with Bulla nee Linnaeus, 1758, as type species 5 gender of name arbustorum Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Helix arbustorum (Class Gastropoda), placed on the elas List uk ee pares in Boers) with Name No. 294... arcuata Lamarck, 1801, Gryphaea (Class ne nat to be determined by reference to lectotype selected by Cox (1951) : Oe aes we 55 designation of, as determined oy tO et to be the pide species of eBnaeG Lamarck, 1801 placed on the Official List sie Specific Names in ce with Name No. 447 arenaria Bouchard-Chantereaux, 1837, as published in the combination Succinea arenaria (Class Gastropoda), placed on the fs List ao) eae Names in Zoology with Name No. 331 . , Arianta Turton, 1831 (Class Gastropoda), placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with Name No. 813, with Helix arbustorum Linnaeus, 1758, as type species re Os 2, mn a die ee is ee gender of name Arieticeras Quenstedt, 1883, ruled to possess no status under either the Law of Priority or the Law of Homonymy f placed on the Official Index a ees and Invalid Generic Names in aolasy with Name No. 231 .. Arieticeras Seguenza, 1885 (Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea), placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with Name No. 842, with Ammonites algovianus Oppel, 1862, as type species gender of name ARIETIDAE Hyatt, 1874, an Invalid Original Spelling for ARIETITIDAE, placed on the Official Index of Rejected. and Invalid Fanny mee! Names in n Zoology with Name INO ASG.) ae ARIETITIDAE (correction of ARIETIDAE) Hyatt, 1874 (Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea), placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in lit with Name No. 23, with Arietites Waagen, 1869, as type genus 523 Page 79 79 47 47 51 127 127 128 80 47 47 111 111 111 111 467 466 524 Opinions and Declarations Arion Férussac, 1819 (Class Gastropoda), placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with Name No. 814, with Limax ater Linnaeus, 1758, as Be species c : gender of name ARIONIDAE Gray (J. E.), 1840 (Class Gastropoda), placed on the Official List of Family- Group Names in ee with Name No. 38, with Arion Férussac, 1819, as type genus a . : a Arndtiella Eichler, [1946] (Class Insecta, Order Mailophaga), a junior hae synonym of Eureum Nitzsch, 1818, placed on the Official Index ae pee and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology ‘with Name No. 239 ; Arndtiella Eichler, 1948 (Class Insecta, Order Mallophaga), a junior homonym of Arndtiella Eichler, [1946], and a junior objective synonym of Eureum Nitzsch, 1818, placed on the Official Index ot eae and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology with Name No. 240 Ge ARNIOCERATIDAE Spath (L.F.), 1924 (Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea), placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in ae with Name No. 25, with Arnioceras Hyatt, 1867, as type genus aspersa Miller (O.F.), 1774, as published in the combination Helix aspersa (Class Gastropoda), vee on the Ce List go ae Names in n eee with Name No.332. 33 ASTEROCERATIDAE Spath (L.F.), 1946 (Class Cephalopoda, ae Ammonoidea), placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in one, with Name No. 28, with Asteroceras Hyatt, 1866, as type genus .. : ater Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Limax ater (Class Gastropoda), placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with Name No. 295 : AULACOSTEPHANIDAE Spath (L.F.), 1924 (Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea), placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in fey with Name No. 17, with Aulacostephanus Tornquist, 1896, as type genus auricularia Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Helix auricularia (Class Gastropoda), placed on the one’ List ef ae Names in ee with ae INOs3333" 6: avarus Fabricius, 1798, as published in the combination Alpheus avarus (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), pcre on the Eg List fed Specitee Names in Zoology with Name No. 287 .. Azeca Fleming, 1828 (Class Gastropoda), placed _on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with Name No. 815, with Turbo tridens Po 1799, as type species ‘ : ER gender of name AZECIDAE Kennard (A.S.), & Woodward (B. B.), 1926 (Class Gastropoda), placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in oe ee with Name oN 39, a Azeca Fleming, 1828, as type genus 2 Page 48 48 483 302 302 466 80 466 51 465 80 48 48 483 Volume 10 Balea Gray (J.E.), 1824 (Class Gastropoda), placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with Name No. 816, with pve ae pe ett bro as type species gender of name barbicornis Fabricius, 1775, Curculio (Class Insecta, Order Coleoptera), suppression of, under the Plenary Powers, for the purpose of the Law of Homonymy, of a reference to, by Latreille ({1802—1803]) under Rhina Latreille, [1802—1803] placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with Name No. 469 barbicornis Latreille, [1803—1804}, as published in the combination Rhina barbicornis (Class Insecta, Order Coleoptera), validation of, under the Plenary Powers placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with Name No. 470 barbirostris Fabrictus, 1775, Curculio (Class Insecta, Order Coleoptera), designation of, under the Plenary Powers, to be the “as Speers of Rhinostomus Rafinesque, 1815 ; : ang ; We : apa a a placed on the Official List of aoe Names in Zoology with Name No. 471 biplicatus Montagu, 1803, as published in the combination Turbo biplicatus (Class Gastropoda), placed on the Pea List ag Specie Names in pee ese a Name No. 334 CADOCERATIDAE Hyatt, 1900 (Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammoncidea), placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Cees: with Name No. 29, with Cadoceras Fischer, 1882, as type genus ; 5 ; cantiana Montagu, 1803, as published in the combination Helix cantiana (Class Gastropoda), Sas on the ae List ae ha Names in iB Ante Ps with Name ING: 3352. caponis Linnaeus, 1758, Pediculus (Class Insecta, Order Mallophaga), designation of, under the Plenary Powers, to be the type species of Lipeurus Nitzsch, 1818 .. placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with Name No. 456 carinatus Miller (O.F.), 1774, as published in the combination Planorbis carinatus (Class Gastropoda), placed on the eat List a ele Names in a with Name No. 336 as : f CARYCHIADAE. Jeffreys (J.G.), 1830, an Invalid Original Speiling for CARYCHIIDAE, placed on the Official Index of Rees and Invalid qr TORE Names in Zoology with Name No. 44 ae CARYCHIIDAE (correction of CARYCHIADAE) Jeffreys (J. G.), 1830 (Class Gastropoda), placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in poe with Name No. 40, with Carychium Miller (O.F.), 1774, as type genus . 525 Page 48 48 356 35)! 356 35M, 356 357 80 466 80 OG 274 80 485 483 526 Opinions and Declarations Carychium Miiller (O.F.), 1774 (Class Gastropoda), placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with Name No. 817, with Carychium minimum Miller (O.F.), 1774, as type species Me Ss oe Ms a a a gender of name Cecilioides Férussac, 1814 (Class Gastropoda), placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with Name No. 818, with Buccinum acicula Miller “ FY), 1774, as type species : , : A gender of name d Coratophvuk Fischer de Waldheim, 1824 (Class Insecta, Order Coleoptera), placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with Name No. 865, with Scarabaeus dispar Fabricius, 1781, as type species ; gender of name CHLOROPINAE Loew, 1862 (Class Insecta, Order Diptera), placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Coe with Name No. 65, with ne bie 1803, as type genus - Chlorops Nicieen 1803 Ce Insecta, Order lagen validation of, under the Plenary Powers : designation, under the Plenary Powers, of Musca pumilionis Fs Bjerkande, 1778, to be the type species of ae : aes as ae : a gender of name placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with Name No. 868 cimicoides Burmeister, 1838, Eureum (Class Insecta, Order Mallophaga), designation of, under the Plenary Powers, to be the type species of Eureum Nitzsch, 1818 placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with Name No. 461 cincolor [sic] (an Invalid Original Spelling for concolor) Notestein, 1905, as published in the combination Crotalus durissus cincolor, placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology with Name No. 120 AA cinctella Draparnaud, [1801], as published in the combination Helix cinctella (Class Sere paces on the ee List eel pias Names in see with Name 012965. ee cinereoniger Wolf, 1803, as published in the combination Limax cinereo-niger (Class Raobode placed on the ie List oo pees Names in fore with Name Ono varies circumscriptus Johnston, 1828, as published in the combination Arion circum- scriptus (Class Gastropoda), Bleeds on the ie sini List neh SPECIE Names in Zoology with Name No. 338 Page 48 48 48 48 391 391 496 423 423 423 423 301 . 301 184 51 80 80 Volume 10 Cochlicella Férussac, 1821 (Class Gastropoda), placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with Name No. 819, with Helix conoidea ee ee nee as type species gender of name Colpocephalum Nitzsch, 1818 (Class Insecta, Order Mallophaga), all type selections for, set aside under ‘the eae Powers, and ee zebra Burmeister, 1838, designated as type species. é Be : an es os gender of name placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with Name No. 850 complanata Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Helix complanata (Class Gastropoda), placed on the ee List roe Sree Names in eee with Name No. 339... concolor Jan, 1859, as published in the combination Crotalus durissus var. concolor, a nomen nudum, placed on the voce Index oy Roenee and Invalid Shee Names in Zoology with Name No. 118.. concolor Garman, 1883, as published in the combination Crotalus durissus var. concolor, placed on the Official Index e pees and Invalid ee Names in Zoology with Name No. 119 .. concolor Woodbury, 1929, as published in the combination Crotalus concolor (Class Reptilia, Order Squamata), acceptance of, and addition of, to the Oe: List of Specific Names in Zoology with Name No. 451 concolor Gloyd, 1940, as published in the combination Crotalus durissus var. concolor, placed on ‘the Official Index -, Bee and Invalid das Names in Zoology ‘with Name No. 121 : conoidea Draparnaud, [1801], as published in the combination Helix conoidea (Class Gastropoda), aa on the ae List pe see Names in Age ey with Name No. 297... contorta Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Helix contorta (Class a heal placed on the oe List es Se Names in Sega with Name No. 340 Conulus Me, 1833, a junior homonym of Conulus Leske, 1778, placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology \ with Name No. 230 Corbicula Megerle von Muehlfeld, 1811 (Class Pelecypoda), placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with Name No. 808, with Tellina lbeoee Miller (O.F.), 1774, as type species a gender of name .. Bu ag a Me or 527 Page 48 48 273 DiS 23 80 183 183 183 184 51 80 50 47 AT 528 Opinions and Declarations cornea Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Helix cornea (Class Gastro- poda), placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with Name No. 341 cornea Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Tellina cornea (Class Pele- cypoda), placed « on the vader List ha Sue Names in ee oCeey with Name No. 42773: : costata Miiller (O.F.), 1774, as published in the combination Helix costata (Class cage iti c Rlaced on the One List Ra ame Names in One with Name No. 342° < Crago Lamarck, 1801, a junior objective synonym of Crangon Fabricius, 1798, placed on the Official Index aes sheen and Invalid Generic Names in n Zoology with Name INO: 2290" ee CRAGONIDAE Rathbun, 1904, placed on the Official Index o sepa and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology with Name No. 22 . cranchii Leach, [1817], as published in the combination Hippolyte cranchii (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), nae on the Pie List a Names in Zoology with Name No. 476... ‘ 4 ae Crangon Weber, 1795 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), suppression of, under the Plenary Powers, for the purposes both of the Law of Priority and of the Law of Homonymy Shs : to 5% ae Hi 2 ar addition of, to the Official Index Ae tee and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology with Name No. 228 . Crangen Fabricius, 1798 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda) validation of, under the Plenary Powers a a : Be ‘ as ey ea gender of name placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with Name No. 807, with Cancer crangon Linnaeus, 1758, as type species crangon Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Cancer crangon (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), Bede on the ne List ec Spe Names in Zoology with Name No. 288... CRANGONIDAE Haworth, 1825 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda) placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology with Name No. 5, with Crangon Fabricius, 1798, as ote genus mer connec attributed to “ White, 1847” on page 4) oe é CRANGONIDAE White, 1847, a junior synonym of CRANGONIDAE Haworth, 1825 CRANGONIDAE Rathbun, 1904, a junior homonym of CRANGONIDAE White, 1847, placed on the Official Index of Bore and Invalid eee Names in Zoology with Name No. 24 es Page 80 85 80 412 Volume 10 CRANGONIENS Milne Edwards (H.), 1837, a vernacular (French) word and not a Latin or Latinized word, placed on the Official Index a ROE and Invalid = a Names in Zoology with Name No. 23. 3 ; : Crassostrea, Sacco, 1897 (Class Pelecypoda), placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with Name No. 844, with Ostrea virginica Gmelin, [1790], as type species, for use by specialists who consider Ostrea virginica Gmelin, [1790], generically distinct from Ostrea edulis Linnaeus, 1758, the ype species of Ostrea Linnaeus, 1758 ae Be : i j gender of name crassus Philipsson, 1788, as published in the combination Unio crassus (Class Pelecypoda), ag on the ges List et ikon Names in ey with Name No. 428 .. crista Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Nautilus crista (Ciass ese); placed on the ae List igs ae Names in a ey with Name No. 343 cristata Miller (O.F.), 1774, as published in the combination Valvata cristata (Class Gastropoda), placed on the tea Etst er Plat Names in aca with Name No. 298 .. crystallina Miller (O.F.), 1774, as published in the combination Helix crystallina (Class Gastropoda), Hace on the ee List poh Sneed Names in eas, with Name No. 344... cygneus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Mytilus cygneus (Class Pelecypoda), placed on the Shh List — poe Names in Lae with Name No. 429... cylindraceus da Costa, 1778, as published in the combination Turbo cylindraceus (Class Gastropoda), placed on the Che List ao Spe! Names in Beer eU with Name No. 316... cylindrica Férussac, 1807, as published in the combination Vertigo cylindrica (Class Gastropoda), placed on the ee List oS lai Names in eee yes with Name No: 345... davainei (correction of davainii) Bastian, 1865, as published in the combination Tylenchus davainii (Class a ee placed ¢ on the ee List a Pes Names in Zoology with Name No. 455. : davainii Bastian, 1865, as published in the combination Tylenchus davainii, an Invalid Original Spelling of davainei, placed on the Se iy Index 2 ae ‘and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology with Name No. 122 : Declarations containing interpretations of provisions in the Reégles, see Reégles Internationales de la Nomenclature Zoologique. decollata Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Helix decollata (Class Gastropoda), placed on the a List nee oats Names in pees with Name No. 299... 529 Page 128 128 86 80 St 80 53 80 253 254 a2 530 Opinions and Declarations dentatus Rudolphi, 1803, as published in the combination Strongylus dentatus (Class Nematoda, Order Rhabditida), Peak on the is List ou Seecine s Names in Zoology with Name No. 453... dentatus Diesing, 1839, as published in the combination Stephanurus dentatus (Class Nematoda, Order Rhabditida), validation of, under the Plenary Powers .. ; placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with Name No. 452 detrita Miller (O.F.), 1774, as published in the combination Helix detrita (Class Gestiopoda): laced on the plies List ie Seeciiey Names in ein with Name No. 346 .. diaphana Studer, 1820, as published in the combination Helix diaphana (Class Gastropoda), placed on the Clic List ie RPE Names in ore with Name No. 300... dilatatus Gould, 1841, as published in the combination Planorbis dilatatus (Class Gastropoda), placed on the y lieics List oh Specie 4 Names in a Aonlaeyy with Name No. 347... ‘ Dione Barrande, 1846, a junior homonym of Dione Hubner, [1819], placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology with Name No. Dionide Barrande, 1847 (Class Trilobita), placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology v with Name No. 871, with Dione formosa Barrande, 1846, as type species : : ae an me gender of name DIONIDEAE Giurich, 1907, an Invalid Original Spelling for DIONIDIDAE, placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid ness oe Names in n Zoology with Name No. 50 : DIONIDEIDAE Raymond, 1920, an incorrectly formed junior objective synonym of DIONIDIDAE (correction of DIONIDEAE) Girich, 1907, placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology with Name No. 51 DIONIDIDAE (correction of DIONIDEAE) Gurich, 1907 (Class Trilobita), placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in 1 Zoology with Name No. 67, with Dionide Barrande, 1847, as type genus .. DISCINAE Thiele (J. ), 1931 (Class Gastropoda), placed on the Official List of Family- Group Names in Zoology with Name No. 41, with Discus Eee 1833, as ORS genus o Discobatus Garman, 1880, a junior objective synonym of Platyrhina Miller & Henle, 1838, placed on the Official Index a pages and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology with Name No. 250 .. Page 203 203 203 80 32 80 453 453 453 497 497 496 484 357 Volume 10 Discus Fitzinger, 1833 (Class Gastropoda), placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with Name No. 820, with Helix Pe Férussac, 1821, as type species : gender of name dispar Fabricius, 1781, as published in the combination Scarabaeus dispar (Class Insecta, Order Coleoptera), pce ds on the oe List oh Specie Names in Zoology with Name No. 475... draparnaldi Beck, 1837, as published in the combination Helicella draparnaldi, an Invalid Original Spelling for draparnaudi, placed on the eee Index oe Beis and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology with Name No. 111. draparnaudi (correction of draparnaldi) Beck, 1837, as published in the combination Helicella draparnaldi (Class easionods); placed on the oe List a Bees Names in Zoology with Name No. 348. dubia Draparnaud, [1805], as published in the combination Clausilia dubia (Class se eods), Bice on the oe List ay De ia Names in EC eey with Name (0) we ECHIOCERATIDAE Buckman (S.S.), 1913 (Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea), placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Pee with Name No. 30, with Echioceras Bayle, 1878, as type genus edentula Draparnaud, [1805], as published in the combination Pupa edentula (Class Gastropoda), ae on the us List or ee aes Names in AC RIORY, with Name No: 350° ... elegans Gmelin, [1791], as published in the combination Helix elegans (Class Gastro- poda), placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with Name No. 351 elegans Risso, 1826, as published in the combination Succinea elegans (Class Gastro- poda), placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with Name No. 352 Enarmonia (emend. of Ernarmonia) Hiibner, [1825] (Class Insecta, Order Lepidop- tera), placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with Name No. 870, with Phalaena (Tortrix) woeberiana [Denis & Schiffermuller], 1775, as type species gender of name ENARMONIINI Diakonoff, 1953 (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera), placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology with Name No. 66, with Enarmonia Hubner, [1825], as type genus, for use by specialists who place the genus Enarmonia Hubner in a tribe different from that in which they place the genus Laspeyresia Hubner, [1826], the type genus of the taxon LASPEYRESIINI Obraztsov, 1945 Ernamonia Diakonoff, 1952, an Erroneous Subsequent Spelling of Enarmonia Hiibner, [1825], placed on the Official Index as cae and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology with Name No. 265 Ernarmonia Hiibner, [1825], an Invalid Original Spelling for Enarmonia, placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology with Name No. 264 531 Page 48 48 39H 87 81 81 466 81 81 81 439 439 496 439 439 532 Opinions and Declarations EUCONULINAE Baker (H. B.), 1928 (Class Gastropoda), placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Focier with Name No. 42, with Euconulus Reinhardt, 1883, as type genus , Euconulus Reinhardt, 1883 (Class Gastropoda), placed on the Official List of Generic Names in dg with Name No. 821, with Helix sbpldeta Muller Se F. a 1774, as type species gender of name EUREINAE Eichler, 1941 (Class Insecta, Order Mallophaga), placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology with Name No. 63, with Eureum Nitzsch, 1818, as type genus, for use by specialists who consider that Eureum Nitzsch, 1818, requires separation at the subfamily level from the taxon of which the type pens is Menopon Nitzsch, 1818 aus ae a Eureum Nitzsch, 1818 (Class Insecta, Order Mallophaga), all type selections for, set aside under the Plenary Powers, and Eureum cimicoides Burmeister, 1838, designated as type species bia a Si : gender of name placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with Name No. 854 excavata Alder, 1830, as published in the combination Helix excavata (Class Gastro- poda), placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with Name No. 353 family-group name, based on the name of a genus which is the type genus of a taxon of the family-group and which is suppressed under the Plenary Powers, extension of suppression to An as ihe us of oe ae sf Fidela Risso, 1826, suppression of, under the Plenary Powers, for the Purp poses of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy placed on the Official Index 2 pela and Invalid Generic Names in Ale with Name No. 245 .. Fidelis Risso, 1826, suppression of, under the Plenary Powers, for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy placed on the Official Index of pees and Invalid Generic Names in we with Name No. 244 é th flavus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Limax flavus (Class Gastro- poda), placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with Name No. 354 fluminalis Muller (O.F.), 1774, as published in the combination Tellina fluminalis (Class Pelecypoda), Placed on the Cre IS hoe Speci ic Names in 1 Coe with Name No. 291 .. fluviatilis Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Nerita fluviatilis (Class Gastrepoda), placed on the Oneal List ae erected Names in deems: with Name Noosa Tia Page 484 48 48 496 301 301 301 81 ili 315 316 315 316 81 51 53 Volume 10 fontinalis Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Bulla fontinalis (Class Gastropoda), placed on the oe List ah Speen} Names in eda 2h with Name INOn'355.- 0. formosa Barrande, 1846, as published in the combination Dione formosa (Class Trilobita), placed on the sgtinaers List a Reccific Names in Fee ey with Name No. 483. : : formosana Scopoli, 1763, as published in the combination Phalaena formosana (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera), placed on the ee List as pees Names in Zoology with Name No. 482... : : fulva Miller (O.F.), 1774, as published in the combination Helix fulva (Class Gastropoda), ate on the es List oe ae Names in ee ey with Name MNO: 308... ; fuscus Montagu, 1803, as published in the combination Turbo fuscus (Class Gastro- poda), placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with Name No. 356 gagates Draparnaud, [1801], as published in the combination Limax gagates (Class Gastropoda), Pee on the fe EASE ae eed Names in a ZOBeey with Name INO: 302.2... Geomalacus Allman, 1843 (Class Gastropoda), placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with Name No. 822, with Geomalacus Allman, 1843, as es species : gender of name Geotrupes Latreille, 1796 (Class Insecta, Order Coleoptera), all type selections for, set aside under the Plenary Powers, and Scarabaeus stercorarius Linnaeus, 1758, designated as type species : gender of name .. placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with Name No. 864 GEOTRUPINI Latreille, 1806 (Class Insecta, Order Coleoptera), placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology with Name No. 64, with ieabiaks Latreille, 1796, as type genus gigaxii Pfeiffer (L.), 1850, as published in the combination Helix gigaxii (Class Gastropoda), pee on the Ass List eA ye ee Names in ee Oey with Name INO. 3ST 2% glabrum Miller (O.F.), 1774, as published in the combination Buccinum glabrum (Class Gastropoda), placed on the ree List Eh Pe Names in ae? with Name No. 358 rs Gliricola Mjoberg, January 1910 (Class Insecta, Order Mallophaga), placed on the Official List of Generic ‘Names in LIES. with Name No. 853, with oe oe gracilis Nitzsch, 1818, as type species .. i gender of name 533 Page 81 453 439 52 81 Sy 48 48 391 391 391 496 81 81 274 274 534 Opinions and Declarations Gliricola Mjoberg, June 1910 (Class Insecta, Order Mallophaga), a junior homonym of, and a junior objective synonym of, Gliricola Mjoberg, January 1910, placed on the ae Index Hee ae and Invalid Generic Names in eee with Name Ona i aak. ar Bi GLIRICOLINAE Ewing, 1924 (Class Insecta, Order Mallophaga), placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology v with Name No. 62, with Gliricola Mieba 1910, as type genus goodalli Férussac, 1821, as published in the combination Helix (Conchlodonta) goodalli (Class Gastropoda), placed on the cry List ot Specific Names in Zoology with Name No. 318 .. Lies granulata Alder, 1830, as published in the combination Helix granulata (Class Gastropoda), placed on the anne List ie See! Names in pie with Name No2359) 54 Gryphaea Lamarck, 1801 (Class Pelecypoda), proposed rel one of, under sae Plenary Powers, in favour of Gryphaea Lamarck, 1819, refusal of . determination of Gryphaea arcuata Lamarck, 1801, to be the type species of gender of name .. placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with Name No. 843 gryphus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Anomia gryphus, suppression of, under the Plenary Powers, for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy a an ae uae BE ve placed on the Official Index of oe and Invalid seen Names in ioe. Name No. 116 .. GYROPIDAE Kellogg, 1896 (Class Insecta, Order Mallophaga), placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology with Name No. 61, with CYC Nitzsch, 1818, as type genus Gyropus Nitzsch, 1818 (Class Insecta, Order Mallophaga), all type selections for, set aside under the Plenary Powers, and pes ovalis Burmeister, 1838, designated as type species ; : ne me ie a : ay gender of name te i ; ge i i ©. ‘ placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with Name No. 851 HARPOCERATINAE (correction of HARPOCERATINEN) Neumayr, 1875 (Class Cephalo- poda, Order Ammonoidea), placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology with Name No. 20, with Harpoceras Waagen, 1869, as type genus. . ‘ HARPOCERATINEN Neumayr, 1875, an Invalid Original Spelling for HARPOCERATIDAE, placed on the Official Index eo Rejected a and Invalid iad Gioey Names in Zoology with Name No. 33 5 ee Page 215 496 53 81 127 127 128 128 128 129 496 273 274 274 465 467 Volume 10 henslowana Sheppard, [1823], as published in the combination Tellina henslowana (Class Pelecypoda), eee on the ae LAist a peeGne t Names in maouteey) with Name No. 430 .. henslowensis Turton, 1831, as published in the combination Tellina henslowensis, an Invalid Emendation of henslowana Sheppard, 1825, as published in the com- bination Tellina henslowana ; placed on the Sea Index a sgt. and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology with Name No. 112 k 4 a henslowianum Jenyns, 1832, as published in the combination Pisidium henslowianum (Class Pelecypoda), an Invalid Emendation of henslowana Sheppard, 1825, as _ published in the combination Tellina henslowana, placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology with Name No. 113 - a HILDOCERATIDAE Hyatt, 1867 (Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea), placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zonteey) with Name No. 21, with Hildoceras Hyatt, 1867, as type genus : Hirundoecus Ewing, 1930 (Class Insecta, Order Mallophaga), placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with Name No. 855, with Hirundoecus americanus Ewing, 1930, as type species, for use by specialists who regard the type species of this genus as not being congeneric with Machaerilaemus latifrons Harrison, 1915, the type species of Machaerilaemus Harrison, 1915 .. ; as ar te gender of name hispida Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Helix hispida (Class Gastropoda), placed on the Chee List mee rei Names in Liga: with Name No. 360 .. hortensis Miller (O.F.), 1774, as published in the combination Helix hortensis (Class Gastropoda), placed on the Ne List ae Bcc Names in eae, with Name No. 362 ae hortensis Férussac, 1819, as published in the combination Arion hortensis (Class Gastropoda), placed on the iret List toh Specie! Names in Bee? with Name No. 361 :. Hygromia Risso, 1826 (Class Gastropoda), placed on the Official List of Generic Names in eC nee nies Name No. 823, with Helix cinctella Pas vebeley ee a as . type species gender of name HYGROMIINAE Geyer (D.), 1909 (Class Gastropoda), placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Pee with Name No. 43, with ee ae Risso, 1826, as type genus oye hypnorum Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Bulla hypnorum (Class Gastropoda), placed on the Cis List per pHee | Names in aalOey with Name INo#303.. 535 Page 86 87 87 466 301 301 81 81 8h 48 48 484 52 536 Opinions and Declarations incarnata Miiller (O.F.), 1774, as published in the combination Helix incarnata (Class Gastropoda), placed on the we List a tea ie Names in tee with Name No. 363 Me intermedius Normand, 1852, as published in the combination Arion intermedius (Class Gastropoda), placed on the eiicat List iat snecilie J Names in heey with Name No. 364 .. KOSMOCERATIDAE Haug, 1887 (Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea), placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in ee with Name No. 18, with Kosmoceras Waagen, 1869, as type genus labiata Malmgren, 1865, as published in the combination Lysippe labiata (Class Poly- chaeta), placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with Name No. 477 lactea Miller (O.F.), 1774, as published in the combination Helix lactea (Class nee Barc on the si List tel BBSCiiE 4 Names in pes! with Name No. 365. lacustris Miller, (O F.), 1774, as published in the combination Tellina fe (Class Pelecypoda), placed on the es: List ae neni Names in fe with Name No. 431. laevis Alder, 1838, as published in the combination Planorbis laevis (Class Gastro- poda), placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with Name No. 366 lamellata Jeffreys, 1830, as published in the combination Helix lamellata (Class Gastropoda), See on the ane List a ee Names in ae with Name No: 367." laminatus Montagu, 1803, as published in the combination Turbo laminatus (Class Gastropoda), pac’ on the oe List a Ponce Names in te with Name No. 368 .. lapicida Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Helix lapicida (Class Gastropoda), placed on the ae List er Sa Names in ee with Name No. se nt latifrons Harrison, 1915, as published in the combination Machaerilaemus latifrons (Class Insecta, Order Mallophaga), place on the eS List me Se Names in Zoology with Name No. 464. d Lauria Gary (J.E.), 1840 (Class Gastropoda), placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with Name No. 824, with ee umbilicata baw ea as type species gender of name LAURIEAE Thiele (J.), 1931 (Class Gastropoda), placed on the Official List of Family- Group Names in ace: with Name No. 44, with Lauria se o E. ey 1840, as type genus i: x Page 82 82 465 412 82 86 82 82 82 82 301 49 49 484 Volume 1\0 Zens Férussac, [1832], as published in the combination Helix lens (Class erie placed on the Official List of Specific Names in ee with Name No. 370 lilljeborgi Westerlund, 1871, as published in the combination Pupa (Vertigo) lillje- borgi (Class Gastropoda), Sa on the oe List ei nuh Names in oe with Name No. 371 : linearis Lowe, 1852, as published in the combination Pupa (Truncatellina) linearis (Class Gastropoda), ea on the ee List ae pela Names in BOR with Name No 30 us lineatus Draparnaud, [1801], as published in the combination Bulimus lineatus (Class Gastropoda), oe on the neat List of snes Names in satis with Name No. 467 : Liogryphaea Fischer (P.H.), 1885, a junior objective synonym of Gryphaea Lamarck, 1801, placed on the Official Index a ee and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology with "Name No. 233 te ase ae Liogryphea Douvillé, 1904, an Erroneous Subsequent Spelling of Liogryphaea Fischer (P.H.), 1885, placed on the Tier Index 2 eae and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology with Name No. 234.. LIPAROCERATIDAE Hyatt, 1867 (Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea), placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in me ae with Name No. 26, with Lipvaroceras Hyatt, 1867, as type genus Liperus Kellogg, 1902 (Class Insecta, Order Mallophaga), an Invalid Emendation of Lipeurus Nitzsch, 1818, placed on the Seed Index “ Reig and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology with Name No. 238 LIPEURIDAE Mjoberg, 1910 (Class Insecta, Order Mallophaga), placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in ese with Name No. 60, with poe Nitzsch, 1818, as type genus : : Lipeurus Nitzsch, 1818 (Class Insecta, Order Mallophaga), all type selections for, set aside under the Plenary Powers, and Pediculus caponis Linnaeus, 1758, designated as type species : “a oe : as atte BE gender of name 4 ie uae Rs a v8 ai : placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with Namé No. 849 littoralis Cuvier, 1797, as published in the combination Unio littoralis (Class Pele- pee placed on the ilies List a ea Names in p ogesy with Name No. 432 : : : lubrica Miller (O.F.), 1774, as published in the combination Helix lubrica (Class Gastropoda), aaa on the Skea List hed ice Names in Beare with Name No.372-... 537 Page 82 82 52 316 129 129 466 496 213 273 Das 86 82 538 Opinions and Declarations Page Lysippe Kinahan, 1858, suppression of, under the Plenary Powers, for the purposes both of the Law of Priority and of the Law of Homonymy.. ey pas 9B placed on the Official Index a as and Invalid Generic Names in ee with Name No. 257 .. j 411 Lysippe Malmgren, 1865 (Class Polychaeta), validation of, under the Plenary Powers 411 gender of name .. ae ae ane he ate ; ate se cient ea placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with Name No. 866, with Lysippe labiata Malmgren, 1865, as type species .. 411 Machaerilaemus Harrison, 1915 (Class Insecta, Order Mallophaga), placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with Name No. 856, with Machaerilaemus latifrons Harrison, 1915, as type species ve : 301 gender of name .. Be Ae bes 4 we us bd ae oa oOd MACROCEPHALITIDAE Buckman (S.S.), 1922 (Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea), placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zosieey, with Name No. 14, with Macrocephalites Zittel, 1884, as type genus... 465 maculosus Allman, 1843, as published in the combination Geomalacus maculosus (Class Gastropoda), placed on the Ones List as Seed Names in t Conteee with Name No. 305... 52 Magdalinus Germar, 1843, a junior objective synonym of Magdalis Germar, 1817, placed on the Official Index a ls and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology with Name No. 251 ae : 357 Magdalis Germar, 1817 (Class Insecta, Order Coleoptera), all previous type selections for, set aside under the Plenary Powers, and Curculio violaceus Linnaeus, 1758, designated as type species ie aie ae ate a ae 355, 356 gender of name .. ey ww ; 4 a ; 5 oF ES SO placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with Name No. 860 te S56 major Férussac, 1807, as published in the combination Helicolimax major (Class Gastropoda), placed on the Poe List fe ae Names in BAe) with Name ‘ No. 373 8 malabaricus Fabricius, 1775, as published in the combination Cancer malabaricus (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), eee on the was List a Spear Names in Zoology with Name No. 289.. 4 malleum Burmeister, 1838, as published in the combination Eureum malleum (Class Insecta, Order Mallophaga), ee on the pa List ae ee Names in Zoology with Name No. 462 .. 301 marginata Michaud, 1831, as published in the combination Paludina marginata (Class Gastropoda), placed on the bata List os ie ee Names in pee with Name No. 374 .. , a2 Volume 10 maximus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Limax maximus (Class ee placed on the EE List nee Specter Names in ge dy with Name OF ST ss MILACIDAE Ellis (A.E.), 1926 (Class Gastropoda), placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in eee with Name No. 45, with Milax Say (J.E. *) 1855, as type genus Milax Gray (J.E.), 1855 (Class Gastropoda), placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with Name No. 825, with Limax aan peebounaue: ace as type species : gender of name milium Held, 1836, as published in the combination Pisidium milium (Class Pele- cypoda), placed ¢ on the Maoat List uy Sas Names in a Hoclesy with Name No. 433... : minimum Miller (O.F.), 1774, as published in the combination Carychium minimum (Class Gastropoda), placed on the ee List ok Se! Names in Begieey with Name No. 306... minuscula Binney, 1840, as published in the combination Helix minuscula (Class Gastropoda), pire on the Oa List a eee Names in Ue eee. with Name No. 376 minutissima Lea, 1841, as published in the combination Helix minutissima (Class ee placed on the es sn fos ge Names in ey with Name (0) mitra Eschscholtz, 1833, as published in the combination Acmaea mitra (Class oeepe), placed on the esas List a de Names in ees es with Name 0.465... moitessierianum Paladilhe, 1866, as published in the combination Pisidium moitessierianum (Class Pelecypoda), Say on the Te List or See ciie Names in Zoology with Name No. 434 ; : moulinsiana Dupuy, 1849, as published in the combination Pupa moulinsiana (Class Re oueds) meet on the eeiaat List a Specifies! Names in Oe, with Name On SiMe s: muscorum Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Turbo muscorum (Class ened) placed on the oieia List Eo Sper Names in aa ey with Name Oo; S19. naticina Menke, 1845, as published in the combination Valvata naticina (Class eesnepeds),. placed on the are List We eo Names in ae, with Name O18)... neglecta Draparnaud, [1805], as published in the combination Helix neglecta (Class Gastropoda), Oo on the Cie List pat Sees Names in BeeeP ey with Name INO: 379... 539 Page 82 484 49 49 86 52 82 52 316 . 86 82 53 82 82 540 Opinions and Declarations nemoralis Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Helix nemoralis (Class Gastropoda), placed on the ee List cls pane Names in dpe with Name No. 380... nitida Miller (O.F.), 1774, as published in the combination Helix nitida (Class ag iat any on the Scan List oe sate: Names in a ee, with Name No. 308 nitidula Draparnaud, [1805], as published in the combination Helix nitidula (Class Gastropoda), Ses eg on the ee List a nee Names in ey with Name ING= Jal? 2. nitidum Jenyns, 1832, as published in the combination Pisidium nitidum (Class Pelecypoda), placed on the Ohga! List fol eee! Names in Peed with Name ING. “435¢0 5: nitidus Miller (O.F.), 1774, as published in the combination Planorbis nitidus (Class Rasopeda, placed on the flee ETS ca Specie 2 Names in ne OW eey with Name No. 320)... obliquata Sowerby(J.), 1815, as published in the combination Gyrphaea obliquata(Class Pelecypoda), pe on the go List ae tae ue Names in epg with Name No. 448... oblonga Draparnaud, [1801], as published in the combination Succinea oblonga (Class Gastropoda), laced on the re List he BEE Names in adie with Name ING. G82 88. obtusalis Lamarck, 1818, as published in the combination Cyclas obtusalis (Class Pelecypoda), placed on the oe BK ve Pheadetn Names in 9 BOCtEY with Name No. 436... ; obvoluta Miller (O.F.), 1774, as published in the combination Helix obvoluta (Class Gastropoda), wee on the Cs List ac eee Names in h A aatoa with Name INO 3383) cae octonus Bruguiére, 1789, as published in the combination Bulimus octonus (Class Gastropoda), placed on the ae List ee ee Names, in Zones with Name No: 3097. OESOPHAGOSTOMATINAE Lane (C.), 1923, an Invalid Emendation of OESOPHAGOS- TOMINAE (correction of OESOPHAGOSTOMEAE) Railliet & Henry, 1909, placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names with Name No. 49 OESOPHAGOSTOMEAE Railliet & Henry, 1909, an Invalid Original Spelling for OESOPHAGOSTOMINAE, placed on the Official Index ch Rejected and Invalid bisa Group Names in Zoology with Name No. 48 . ue in aa, ae : OESOPHAGOSTOMINAE (correction of OESOPHAGOSTOMEAE) Railliet & Henry, 1909 (Class Nematoda), placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in egg with Name No. 58, with Oesophagostomum Molin, 1861, as type genus .. Page 83 oye 83 86 53 128 83 86 83 52 497 497 495 Volume 10 541 Page Oesophagostomum Molin, 1861 (Class Nematoda, Order Rhabditida), placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with Name No. 846, with Pie tous dentatus Rudolphi, 1803, as type species fs 203 gender of name .. nt ae ad a 8 a a? Shs tat 203 Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology, names placed on: ACMEIDAE Polionera (C.), 1905 .. oi Ke pes ae aS ey ws 317 ACMIDAE Kobelt (W.), 1908 a as ny Hf Oe bee ». ae SU ALPHAEIDAE Balss, 1915 . sy be es os se his ae 4 ALPHEENS Milne Edwards (cel d 1837 se ih ae ye A ye me 4 ALPHEUIDAE Yu, 1936. ae su oe = at ay ” 4 ALPHIDIA Rafinesque, 1815 s £0, ee re ws ie ~ oe 4 AMMONITEA De Haan, 1825 — oe ne me =a be Es ke 467 AMMONITIDAE Owen (R.), 1836 oe ves ae ie = an EE CNS ANGULATIDAE Hyatt, 1874 a ee bs ae Be ys me aks 467 ARIETIDAE Hyatt, 1874 .. ie Be ae 3s ae of. Sie 467 CARYCHIADAE Jeffreys (J.G.), 1830 fe ae he ts es ae se & WEBS CRAGONIDAE Rathbun, 1904 __—. = ae ae ae ay Se af 4 CRANGONIDAE Rathbun, 1904 >... - A aie Mie a a B) CRANGONIENS Milne Edwards os i 1837 ate one si svi Ks a 5 DIONIDEAE Gurich, 1907 te a se sf te on sot 497 DIONIDEIDAE Raymond, 1920) 3. ov ame a A a2 A a Si 497 HARPOCERATINEN Neumayr, 1875 ia sid es ite of Bas 467 OESOPHAGOSTOMATINAE Lane (C.), 1923 at Lbs ire ae at fh 497 OESOPHAGOSTOMEAE Railliet & Henry, 1909 .. % as ie ae us 497 PICTONIDAE Spath (L.F.), 1924 .. ie a ahs a nis As. ve 467 PISIDIADAE Gray (J.E.), 1857... ae oe BS, ot be Eh M485 PUPILLADAE Turton (W.), 1831 A ah aa a Os a SASS SCHLOTHEIMIDAE Spath (L.F.), 1923... it Be, at a. aR Fi ONAG | SCHLOTHEIMIINES Douvillé (H.), 1916 ie br hs a a SAG] STEPHANOCERATINEN Neumayr, 1875 .. at Ae: A Ais fe. os 468 STEPHANURIDA Molin, 1861 ay Gs Ws A LA a PLS rAgy STEPHEOCERATIDAE Buckman (S.S.), 1898 au = MA 4, 30; e468 Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology, names placed on: Acicula Renier, [1807] .. BY et aid ts a2 au is we 316 Acicula Oken, 1815 ee $5 i be as om 2: Pe si 316 Acmaea Eschscholtz, 1830 ee “ae a A ee hans bee Des 316 Acme Hartmann, 1821 ie ive Me Re i 316 Acmea Hartmann, 1821 (in Steinmilller’s Neue Alpina 1 ae aa ee at 316 Acmea Hartmann, 1821 (in Sturm’s Deutschlands Fauna 6) of ae id 316 Alpheus Weber, 1795 ~ “ #3 a a Se ae bx Bi vs 3 Analithis Gistl, 1848 a bie Ay i ne = a 50 Anguillulina Gervais & Van Beneden, 1859 oF ae ae Bik Ne ae 253 Arieticeras Quenstedt, 1883 i oe ja za ne st an Oi Arndtiella Eichler, [1946] ps ae bee ee ote an =. si 302 Arndtiella Eichler, 1948 .. De Pe iP Ee M 3 hi SEG MES OD e 542 Opinions and Declarations Conulus Fitzinger, 1833 .. Crago Lamarck, 1801 Crangon Weber, 1795 Dione Barrande, 1846 Discobatus Garman, 1880 Ernamonia Diakonoff, 1952 Ernarmonia Hubner, [1825] Fidela Risso, 1826 : Fidelis Risso, 1826 : Gliricola Mjobere, June 1910 .. Liogryphaea Fischer (P.H.), 1885 Liogryphea Douvillé, 1904 aa Liperus Kellogg, 1902 Lysippe Kinahan, 1858 .. Magadalinus Germar, 1843 Polytomurus Corda, 1847 Rhina Schaeffer, 1760... Sas a a a ae ee, Ne be Rhina Walbaum, 1792 .. or Ee one Ess ee a vs ae Rhina Latreille, eee he ae Ps aa $3 i Rhina Rafinesque, 1810 . Seguenziceras Levi, 1896 Thamnophilus Schoenherr, 1823 Titania Meigen, 1800... Se Tylelenchus Bastian, 1865 Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology, names placed on : angulata Lamarck, 1801, Gryphaea cincolor [sic] Notestein, 1905, Crotalus durissus concolor Jan, 1859, Crotalus durissus var. concolor Garman, 1883, Crotalus durissus vat. concolor Gloyd, 1940, Crotalus durissus var. davainii Bastian, 1865, Tylenchus draparnaldi Beck, 1837, Helicella eryphus Linnaeus, 1758, Anomia henslowensis Turton, 1831, Tellina henslowianum Jenyns, 1832, Pisidium otis Turton, 1819, Helix porcelli Linnaeus, 1758, Pediculus sowerbii Férussac, 1823, Limax virginiana Roding, 1798, Ostrea Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Works in Zoological Nomenclature, titles of works placed on: Schaeffer (J.C.), 1760, Epistola ad Regio-Borussicam Societatem Litterariam Duisber- gensem de Studi ichthyologici faciliori ac tutiori Methodo .. ae us Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology, names placed on : ACANTHINULINAE Pilsbry (H.A.), 1926 .. ACICULIDAE Woodward (S.P.), 1854 ACMAEIDAE Carpenter (P.C.), 1857 AGASSICERATIDAE Spath (L.F.), 1924 ALPHEIDAE Rafinesque, 1815 .. 358 Volume 10 543 Page - ARIETITIDAE Hyatt, 1874 sé a Sc ae sie oe a se 406 ARIONIDAE Gray (J.E.), 1840 .. es ue ne ae us sf oe 483 ARNIOCERATIDAE Spath (L.F.), 1924 .. an a ay te A .- 466 ASTEROCERATIDAE Spath (L.F.), 1946 .. ae + Mee iS a von 466 AULACOSTEPHANIDAE Spath (L.F.), 1924 ae ee st ising tS AZECIDAE Kennard (A.S.), & Woodward nese B. ), 1926 fe a3 0 cs PAS CADOCERATIDAE Hyatt, 1900 bs ee its sin RAG CARYCHIIDAE Jeffreys (J.G.), 1830 ae oe es ba ss ZB .. 483 CHLOROPINAE Loew, 1862 ae Ae at ae oa 496 CRANGONIDAE Haworth, 1825 inec White, 1847] ey ae -— ye es D13 DIONIDIDAE Giirich, 1907 s aan Ee x. ie sends £496 DISCINAE Thiele (J. ys 1931 B Bie eit ne zee Ly .. 484 ECHIOCERATIDAE Buckman (S.S. ), 1913. es ae ae Be fel, .. 466 ENARMONIINI Diakonoff, 1953 aN ie ae nid ae ae steer a20 EUCONULINAE Baker (H. B. ), 1928 a ue oe Ses ays mn .. 484 EUREINAE Eichler, 1941 .. xe se ah a a fea =i whe OO GEOTRUPINI Latreille, 1806 ee Le is ss a ey at scsi (496 GLIRICOLINAE Ewing, 1924 ae Ae af bs ae oH ae SOG GYROPIDAE Kellogg, 1896 p 4 se ae be ca me ciiern 496 HARPOCERATINAE Neumayr, 1875 ay a i on ae a: a 465 HILDOCERATIDAE Hyatt, 1867 .. ae a a ts ae oye Se AOG HYGROMIINAE Geyer (D.), 1909 uh a i ee * ined .. 484 KOSMOCERATIDAE Haug, 1887 .. es ak as a a ae .. 465 LAURIEAE Thiele (J.), 1931 Sa ie ie ae ts ae af .. 484 LIPAROCERATIDAE Hyatt, 1867 me ne os a fe 4) ate 466 LIPEURIDAE Mjoberg, 1910 : a ale ae $5 a .. 496 MACROCEPHALITIDAE Buckman (S. S.), (920.0 oe ae 5 ae Axi GAGS MILACIDAE Ellis (A.E.), 1926 .. ae ae Se i a3 .. 484 OESOPHAGOSTOMINAE Railliet & Henry, 1909 oe At ee Be Bei tA4oS OPPELIIDAE Bonarelli, 1893 ce ae os ne a 34 =i .. 466 OTINIDAE Chenu (EC), USSD jh ues hs $3 ee ie ae a .. 484 PERISPHINCTINAE Steinman, 1890 S25 a are ate oy 2 weg 405 PHYLLOCERATIDAE Zittel, 1884 .. a ae x sei xs ne .. 466 PICTONUDAE Spath (L.F.), 1924 i ¥s = Ca be es .. 465 PISIDIIDAE Gray (J.E.), 1857... ar ae Bs A ae a: ite AOS PLANORBINAE Gray (J.E.), 1840 Se AeA i. me sd .. 484 PSEUDOPERISPHINCTIDAE Schindewolf, 1925.25... eee aD xe arg hae RAGES PSILOCERATIDAE Hyatt, 1867 _.... a Ai os re ae ate .. 466 PUNCTINAE Morse (E.S.), 1864 e: Ae oe “i ae re .. 484 PUPILLIDAE Turton (W.), 1831 .. ue Be Re 2. 484 PYRAMIDULIDAE Kennard (A.S.) & Woodward 1B. B. ds 1914 or ts .. 484 RASENIINAE Schindewolf, 1925 .. a8 cM whe 5 can A GS RUMININAE Thiele (J.), 1931 : As ae x Abs 3 “i .. 484 SCHLOTHEIMHDAE Spath (L.F.), 1923 A is i st au .. 466 SPHAEROCERATIDAE Buckman (S.S.), 1920 a ee ie bs des A ee 08) STEPHANOCERATIDAE Neumayr, 1875 .. Be ae 7 ais fs ayn OO STEPHANURIDAE Molin, 1861 _.... = ee a 8s ‘4 x ee 495 SUBULINIDAE Thiele (J.), 1931 .. a Fe be gh i dite oe 484 TRUNCATELLIDAE Gray (J.E.), 1840 ee eo a SY ae af we 317 TYLENCHINAE Marcinowski, 1909 ar a ee ee ae os Setie 496 YALLONIIDAE Pilsbry (H.A.), 1900 an ae tae Se: we a .. 484 -VALVATIDAE Gray (J.E.), 1840 .. ae wei a ae et ies .. 484 VERTIGINIDAE Stimpson, 1851 .. 5 ae te ae - Re es 485 VITREINAE Thiele (J.), 1931 aa ae ae Es 58 te 4. cytes FOO Official List of Generic Names in Zoology, names placed on: Abida Turton, 1831 oe are ie ty da eis in is ef, 47 Acanthinula Beck, 1847 ue us eo aa Le ea ate ing 47 544 Opinions and Declarations . Acicula Hartmann, 1821 Acmaea Eschscholtz, 1833 Actornithophilus Ferris, 1916 Alpheus Fabricius, 1798 Anguina Scopoli, 1777 Aplexa Fleming, 1820 Arianta Turton, 1831 .. Arieticeras Seguenza, 1885 Arion Férussac, 1819 Azeca Fleming, 1828 . Balea Gray (J.E.), 1824 . ‘ Carychium Miller (O.F. ‘i ‘1774 Cecilioides Férussac, 1814 Ceratophyus Fischer de Waldheim, 1824 Chlorops Meigen, 1803 .. Cochlicella Férussac, 1821 Le Colpocephalum Nitzsch, 1818 . Corbicula Megerle von "Muehlfeld, 1811 Crangon Fabricius, 1798 oy Crassostrea Sacco, 1897 Dionide Barrande, 1847 . Discus Fitzinger, 1883043 Enarmonia (emend. of Ernarmonia) Hiibner, (1825) . Euconulus Reinhardt, 1883 : é Eureum Nitzsch, 1818 ai Geomalacus Allman, 1843 Geotrupes Latreille, 1796 Gliricola Mjdberg, Jan. 1910 Gryphaea Lamarck, 1801 Gyropus Nitzsch, 1818 . Hirundoecus Ewing, 1930 Hygromia Risso, 1826 Lauria Gray (J.E.), 1840 Lipeurus Nitzsch, 1818 Lysippe Malmgren, 1865 Machaerilaemus Harrison, 1915. Magdalis Germar, 1817 Milax Gray (J. E), 1855 : Oesophagostomum Molin, - 1861 Otina Gray (J.E.), 1847 Pisidium Pfeiffer, 1821 .. Planorbis Miller (O.F.), 1774 Platyrhina Miller & Henle, 1838 Punctum Morse, 1864 _.. Pupilla Fleming, ES2 8.5 oe Pyramidula Fitzinger, 1833 Retinella Fischer, 1877 Rhina Schneider, 1801 .. ee Rhinostomus Rafinesque, 1815 Rumina Risso, 1826 a Segmentina Fleming, 1818 Stephanurus Diesing, 1839 Subulina Beck, 1837 ats Theodoxus Montfort, 1810 Thoralus Holthuis, 1947 Truncatella Risso, 1826 Truncatellina Lowe, 1852 Tylenchus Bastian, 1865 Valonia Risso, 1826 -! Valvata Miller (O.F.), 1774 Volume 10 Vertigo Miller (O.F.), 1774 Vitrea Fitzinger, 1833 .. Zonitoides Lehmann, 1862 Official List of Specific Names in Zoology, names placed on : acicula Miller (O.F.), 1774, Buccinum aculeata Miller (O.F.), 1774, Helix : acuta Draparnaud, [1805], Physa Sree Nps albus Miller (O.F.), 1774, Planorbis algovianus Oppel, 1862, Ammonites alliaria Miller, 1822, Helix alpestris Alder, 1838, Vertigo americanus Ewing, 1930, Hirundoecus . amnica Miller (O.F.), 1774, Tellina anatinus Linnaeus, 1758, Mytilus ancylostomus Schneider, 1801, Rhina anglicus Wood, 1828, Turbo .. angulata Lamarck, 1819, Gryphaea angustior Jeffreys, 1830, Vertigo sys antivertigo Draparnaud, [1801], Pupa arbustorum Linnaeus, 1758, Helix arcuata Lamarck, 1801, Gryphaea arenaria Bouchard- Chantereaux, 1837, Succinea aspersa Miller (O.F.), 1774, Helix 2 ater Linnaeus, 1758, Limax : auricularia Linnaeus, 1758, Helix avarus Fabricius, 1798, Alpheus barbicornis Fabricius, 1775, Curculio .. barbicornis Latreille, [1803—1804], Rhina barbirostris Fabricius, 1775, Curculio .. biplicatus Montagu, 1803, Turbo cantiana Montagu, 1803, Helix caponis Linnaeus, 1758, Pediculus : carinatus Miller (O.F.), 1774, Planorbis cimicoides Burmeister, 1838, Eureum cinctella Draparnaud, [1801], Helix cinereoniger Wolf, 1803, Limax at circumscriptus Johnston, 1828, Arion .. complanata Linnaeus, 1758, Helix concolor Woodbury, 1929, Crotalus conoidea Draparnaud, [1801], Helix contorta Linnaeus, 1758, Helix cornea Linneaus, 1758, Helix cornea Linnaeus, 1758, Tellina costata Miiller (O.F.), 1774, Helix cranchii Leach, [1817], Hippolyte crangon Linnaeus, 1758, Cancer crassus Philipsson, 1788, Unio . crista Linnaeus, 1758, Nautilus ne cristata Miller (O.F.), 1774, Valvata .. crystallina Miller (O.F.), 1774, Helix .. cygneus Linnaeus, 1758, Mytilus cylindrica Férussac, 1807, Vertigo cylindraceus da Costa, 1778, Turbo davainei (correction of davainii) Bastian, 1865, Tylenchus decollata Linnaeus, 1758, Helix dentatus Rudolphi, 1803, Strongylus 546 Opinions and Declarations Page dentatus Diesing, 1839, Stephanurus .. a _ as * ae Si 203 detrita Miller (O.F.), 1774, Helix ae ce oe ye ae as rte 80 diaphana Studer, 1820, Helix .. ate ae ae Bs tips Aa ts 52 dilatatus Gould, 1841, Planorbis ae aKa oa ae a wees ae 80 dispar Fabricius, 1781, Scarabaeus he ae aan | draparnaudi (correction of draparnaldi) Beck, 1837, Helicella is we hs 81 dubia Draparnaud, [1805], Clausilia .. ‘3 a oF 81 edentula Draparnaud, [1805], Pupa .. as ie as af see i 81 elegans Gmelin, [1791], Helix .. ay ee me hi aa tne ne 81 elegans Risso, 1826, Succinea .. Ave ae at ns ae ee 3 81 excavata Alder, 1830, Helix .. ee 3 Re ist ni sa a 81 flavus Linnaeus, 1758, Limax s. : ba ne aie a 2 ae 81 fluminalis Miiller (O. F.), 1774, Tellina ae ot ve ee ae ate 51 fluviatilis Linnaeus, 1758, Nerita i ni is ee Bc Me aise 53 fontinalis Linnaeus, 1758, Bulla e: e. aD — at PE zh 81 formosa Barrande, 1846, Dione =p ie a et as Be sie i, 433 formosana Scopoli, 1763, Phalaena a ches ws us ee Bs Ne 439 fulva Miller (O.F.), 1774, Helix ah 38 a ee Pi ts ae 52 fuscus Montagu, 1803, Turbo .. 13 is ot oe: es Se as 81 gagates Draparnaud, [1801], Limax se Le mA ae oe bs 52 gigaxii Pfeiffer (L.), 1850, Helix cn =e A ue pe ae =) 81 glabrum Miller (O.F.), 1774, Buccinum ie a ie a a 81 goodalli Férussac, 1821, Helix (Conchlodonta) et ne ba Se eyes 53 granulata Alder, 1830, Fel oe : ae a ae re sue 81 henslowana Sheppard, [1823], Tellina .. ae ae Bs ee “gs xi 86 hispida Linnaeus, 1758, Helix it ae ae sy Me oa a4 81 hortensis Miller (O.F.), 1774, Helix .. ne Ae As te a a 81 hortensis Férussac, 1819, Arion ee oa ae es es she e 81 hypnorum Linnaeus, 1758, Bulla BS ee ne aH bs ae ay 52 incarnata Miiller (O.F.), 1774, Helix “_ na ae es Ae oie 82 intermedius Normand, 1852, Arion es ws is vy Pe x ad. 82 labiata Malmgren, 1865, Lysippe ee ake ve As sy os ig. bie lactea Miiller (O.F.), 1774, Helix Me ue an ee ue ne a 82 lacustris Miller (O.F.), 1774, Tellina .. a < Nae vers a a a 86 laevis Alder, 1838, Planorbis .. io to) me Me ie we ae 82 lamellata Jeffreys, 1830, Helix .. os ar ie a s soa ve 82 laminatus Montagu, 1803, Turbo a rs sa OP as an ches 82 lapicida, Linnaeus, 1758, Helix 2 a ee ae ia -: ie 82 latifrons Harrison, 1915, Machaerilaemus ae oi ae ae se any SOM lens Férussac, [1832], Helix ae oe mA Se dig ite iG 82 lilljeborgi Westerlund, 1871, Pupa (Vertigo) whe ia ae ss at ey 82 linearis Lowe, 1852, Pupa (Truncatellina) ae ss an se a Se 52 lineatus Draparnaud, [1801], Bulimus be an ais a a ae: 316 littoralis Cuvier, 1797, Unio... ah 2 oe He a oe ae 86 lubrica Miller (O.F.), 1774, Helix Be Bie ae at is or “ 82 maculosus Allman, 1843, Geomalacus a ys ae ge ae we 52 major Férussac, 1807, Helicolimax salt a irs Es lee a ae 82 malabaricus Fabricius, 1775, Cancer .. Se sts Be ap. a at 4 malleum Burmeister, 1838, Eureum .. ts ah ae aA ie x. 301 marginata Michaud, 1831, Paludina .. 4G as, os i ays ahs 82 maximus Linnaeus, 1758, Limax 508 ite at es iy cd ais 82 milium Held, 1836, Pisidium Hee Ue is tee ws ae Be 86 minimum Miiller (O. F.), 1774, Caryehium a af a oF Be ce By minuscula Binney, 1840, Helix ; te ee Pe i Ha ae 82 minutissima Lea, 1841, Helix ry a ie Ae ue Ea 35 i 52 mitra Eschscholtz, 1833, Acmaea : se 2s is ae abs care) OG moitessierianum Paladilhe, 1866, Pisidium oe aS Ae ue se kis 86 moulinsiana Dupuy, 1849, Pupa ae Be cas ehh ia ss ais 82 muscorum Linnaeus, 1758, Turbo ge ah ate he a Pe io ae naticina Menke, 1845, Valvata ae Be ey ie us Sys sa 82 Volume 10 547 Page neglecta Draparnaud, [1805], Helix .. By: ae aa a + as 82 nemoralis Linnaeus, 1758, Helix a Bis Be sri thn es " ae 83 nitida Miller (O.F.), 1774, Helix a om 1 an #, Py a SPs nitidula Draparnaud, [1805], Helix .. es a ce = a eh 83 nitidum Jenyns, 1832, Pisidium .. es A AN a a ae sit 86 nitidus Miller (O.F.), 1774, Planorbis .. es a a a ier sa 53 obliquata Sowerby (J.), 1815, Gryphaea i a a ie ah Hi 128 oblonga Draparnaud, [1801], Succinea Sas on x ni be ate 83 obtusalis Lamarck, 1818, Cyclas ue me ste a5 ie He i: 86 obvoluta Miller (O.F.), 1774, Helix .. act ee ae a sa yi ate 53 octonus Bruguiére, 1789, Bulimus a a3 we sm ee & a 52 olivetorum Gmelin, [1791], Helix Ay a a ie a as am 53 ovalis Burmeister, 1838, Gyropus ee sit re re a oe ee RATE ovatum Brown, 1844, Galericulum Ey ~ ote Me ee as x 53 palustre Miiller (O. F. ), 1774, Buccinum ae he a a a: Me 83 parallelus Say, 1821, Planorbis ig si << ae a A 83 parvula Férussac, 1807, Clausilia hae ane a Ay Bh a 83 patulum Draparnaud, [1801], Cyclostoma ai fi ae ie 2 SAKA OS pellucida Miller (O.F.), 1774, Helix .. ss als a m3 ae ee 83 peregrum Miller (O.F.), 1774, Buccinum ah a net Hes a Ee 83 perversus Linnaeus, 1758, Turbo we ie a3 ee oy ee aa 54 petronella Pfeiffer (L.), 1853, Helix .. of we ia oa <. as 83 piscinalis Miller (O.F.), 1774, Nerita .. Pe a: ae iy ay ae 83 planorbis Linnaeus, 1758, Helix oe Ne Si ee oe ae ee 53 pomatia Linnaeus, 1758, Helix .. ae ae sh om i, Be ae 83 porcelli Schrank, 1781, Pediculus oe Ags By ae a Bs ae 274 pulchella Miller (O.F.), 1774, Helix .. me Ab aa ae we ws 54 pulchellum Jenyns, 1832, Pisidium a ae we ae sis pe ch 86 pumila Pfeiffer (C.), 1828, Clausilia .. ee ae ae ve oe A 83 pumilionis Bjerkander, 1778, Musca .. oe ibe i a a sin, “AS pura Alder, 1830, Helix . 5 oe fs Mo a se ay 83 - pusilla Miiller (O. F.), 1774, Vertigo as i oF Bite a ats ins 53 putris Linnaeus, 1758, Helix eke = ae ae tts ae ae 83 pygmaea Draparnaud, [1801], Helix .. an a Bh us ee a 83 Pygmaea Draparnaud, [1801], Pupa .. af he os Me is 84 pyramidata Draparnaud, [1805], Helix ba a ee iis es au 84 pyrenaica Férussac, 1821, Helicolimax A bi an ae cs Ms 84 quadridens Miller (O.F.), 1774, Helix ae ch igs ue at co 84 radigueli Bourguignat, 1869, Lartetia .. z Te a ne - oe 84 reticulatus Miller (O.F.), 1774, Limax cs be ke a z% Bi 84 rivicola Lamarck, 1818, Cyclas RS ss bys a x = ms 86 rolphii Turton, 1831, Clausilia .. me as ae mi a es me 84 rotundata Miller (O.F.), 1774, Helix .. we ae wy. Bs ae fc 84 ruderata Férussac, 1821, Helix . es cS Ke a as i 23) runtoniana Sandberger, 1880, Nematurella .. oe ae ne oe i 84 rupestris Draparnaud, [1801], Helix 3. Be te pee a ae Bs 8) scutulum Sowerby (G.B), 1821, Testacellus .. ot 8 wr ve x 84 secale Draparnaud, [1801], Pupa ee a Ab Lg sh as 53 septemspiralis Razoumowsky, 1789, Helix ae of a ay Ad ae 84 similis Bruguiéré, 1792, Bulimis we ue i ae oa he Be 84 sinensis Schneider, 1801, Rhina 2 is = wie ais ers a, i VoD8 solida Normand, 1844, Cyclas ‘ Pe wg Be ee 86 sowerbyi (correction of sowerbii) Férussac, 1823, Limax Es as oF a8 84 stagnalis Linnaeus, 1758, Helix : ke ne ee ae ig 84 stercorarius Linnaeus, 1758, Scarabaeus 3% Pe Et Ee Mis sve 391 striata Miller (O.F.), 1774, Helix si on aS i whe ae ae 84 striolata Pfeiffer (C.), 1828, Helix Be om se a oe sie 1% 84 subcylindrica Linnaeus, 1767, Helix .. BP ag at .s - pe 316 subfuscus Draparnaud, [1805], Limax .. ys a a Ey oe 85 subrubescenus Miller, 1822, Helix Ag a a me =i ans Si 85 548 Opinions and Declarations substriata Jeffreys, 1833, Alaea subtruncatum Malm, 1855, Pisidium subvirescens Bellamy, 1839, Helix a supinum Schmidt, [Feb. 1851], Pisidium tenellus Miller (O.F.), 1774, Limax i tenuilineatum Stelfox, 1918, Pisidium LH transversa Say, 1829, Cyclas tritici Steinbuch, 1799, Vibrio truncatulum Miiller (O. F.), 1774, Buccinum tumidus Philipsson, 1788, Unio : ulvae Pennant, 1777, Turbo é umbrosa Pfeiffer (C. ), 1828, Helix uniseriatum Piaget, 1880, Colpocephalum ventricosa Draparnaud, [1801], Pupa vermiculata Miller (O.F.), 1774, Helix vincentianum Woodward, 1913, Pisidium violaceus Linnaeus, 1758, Curculio virgata da Costa, 1778, Cochlea virginica Gmelin, [1790], Ostrea vortex Linnaeus, 1758, Helix vorticulus Troschel, 1834, Planorbis zebra Burmeister, 1838, Colpocephalum olivetorum Gmelin, [1791], as published in the combination Helix olivetorum (Class Gastropoda), placed on the Pinca List Ge Sneeiicd Names in pada. with Name No. 310... Opinion 160, Interim Ruling given in, regarding Anguina Scopoli, 1777, cancellation Of sy. Bie a be He Bs KA a, ie es . OPPELIIDAE Bonarelli, 1893 (Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammeonoidea), placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in eee with Name No. 31, with Oppelia Waagen, 1869, as type genus .. Otina Gray (J.E.), 1847 (Class Gastropoda), placed on the Official List of Generic Names in peas with Name No. 826, with Helix otis Turton, 1819, as WE species . eh gender of name OTINIDAE Chenu (J.C.), 1859 (Class Gastropoda), placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in eee with Name No. 46, with Ofina ge (J. ee 1847, as type genus otis Turton, 1819, as published in the combination Helix otis (Class Gastropoda), a junior primary homonym of ofis Solander, 1786, as published in the combination Helix otis, placed on the Official Index of Rejected a and Invalid Spe Names in Zoology as Name No. 110 .... ovalis Burmeister, 1838, Gyropus (Class Insecta, Order Mallophaga), designation of, under the Plenary Powers, to be the type species of Gyropus Nitzsch, 1818 ae placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with Name No. 457 53 259 466 49 49 484 54 273 274 Volume 10 ovatum Brown, 1844, as published in the combination Galericulum ovatum (Class Gastropoda), placed on the ee List ne nee Names in dean with Name fo) hie palustre Miller (O.F.), 1774, as published in the combination Buccinum palustre (Class Gastropoda), placed on the Cea List ee mS iatausie Names in ee with Name No. 384 _ .. parallelus Say, 1821, as published in the combination Planorbis parallelus (Class Gastropoda), placed on the OOF List oe See Names in beeen) with Name INO. 385... : parvula Férussac, 1807, as published in the combination Clausilia parvula (Class eee pee), we on the eee List se ae Names in eee. with Name No. 386 patulum Draparnaud, [1801], as published in the combination Cyclostoma patulum (Class Gastropoda), Bet on the ie List ot cd Names in tiga with Name No. 387... pellucida Miller (O.F.), 1774, as published in the combination Helix pellucida (Class San aa Bees on the ea List gel ee Names in Ane) with Name No. 388 peregrum Miller (O.F.), 1774, as published in the combination Buccinum peregrum (Ciass Gastropoda), placed on the EI List ee ppecibie Names in Ls with Name No. 389 = PERISPHINCTINAE Steinman, 1890 (Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammonocidea), placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in ZOEY, with Name No. 19, with moe Waagen, 1869, as type genus 3 perversus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Turbo perversus (Class Gastropoda), placed on the es List a pe ce! Names in pees with Name INO. 82275... petronella Pfeiffer (L.), 1853, as published in the combination Helix petronella (Class Gastropoda), ieee on the ne List aoe See Names in NAO NEY with Name No. 390... PHYLLOCERATIDAE Zittel, 1884 (Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea), placed on the Official List of Family-Group Naines in Bey with Name No. 22, with Phylloceras Suess, 1865, as type genus. PICTONIDAE Spath (L.F.), 1924, an Invalid Original Spelling for PICTONIIDAE, placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Ee Names in Zoology with Name No. 32 A PICTONIIDAE (correction of PICTONIDAE) Spath (L.F.), 1924 (Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea), placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Z ge with Name No. 15, with Pictonia Bayle, 1878, as type genus 549 Page 53 83 83 83 83 83 83 465 54 83 466 467 465 550 Opinions and Declarations piscinalis Miller (O.F.), 1774, as published in the combination Nerita piscinalis (Class Gastropoda), placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with Name No. 391 Ei cs We ae ee ae as an Bs PISIDIADAE Gray (J.E.), 1857, an Invalid Original Spelling for PIsIDIIDAE, placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology with Name No. 43 Me ats Ne me ne oe ie Bi a PISIDIIDAE (correction of PISIDIADAE) Gray (J.E.), 1857 (Class Pelecypoda), placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology with Name No. 36, with Pisidium Pfeiffer, 1821, as type genus, for use by specialists who may consider that the genera Pisidium Pfeiffer and Sphaerium Scopoli, 1777, the type genus of the taxon SPHAERIDAE, belong to different family-group taxa .. un sa ae Pisidium Pfeiffer, 1821 (Class Pelecypoda), placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with Name No. 809, with Tellina amnica Miller (O.F.), 1774, as type species... A a ye A a oe ce a ak gender of name PLANORBINAE Gray (J.E.), 1840 (Class Gastropoda), placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology with Name No. 47, with Planorbis Miller (O.F.), as type genus a Ae - ee ae bie si ae ie planorbis Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Helix planorbis (Class Gastropoda), placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with Name No? siiy-os: a te AG a se ae at 45 ‘fe “f Page 83 485 483 47 47 484 53 Planorbis Miiller (O.F.), 1774 (Class Gastropoda), placed on the Official List of ; Generic Names in Zoology with Name No. 827, with Helix planorbis Linnaeus, 1758, as type species... ie ahs ys Be a a Bs By a gender of name Platyrhina Miller & Henle, 1838 (Class Elasmobranchii), placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with Name No. 861, with Rhina sinensis Schneider, 1801, as type species i ie eh a Bs ih bt Polytomurus Corda, 1847 (Class Trilobita), suppression of, under the Plenary Powers, for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology with Name No. 267 .. ots re oe an a, ee a > pomatia Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Helix pomatia (Class easenods: placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with Name O. Be a ae ne 52 an is ce al ae ae porcelli Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Pediculus porcelli, a nomen nudum, placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology with Name No. 123 ae ae as at pa Hi ie 49 49 356 453 453 83 275 porcelli Schrank, 1781, as published in the combination Pediculus porcelli (Class | Insecta, Order Mallophaga), acceptance of neotype designation for ae ee placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with Name No. 458 274 274 Volume 10 PSEUDOPERISPHINCTIDAE Schindewolf, 1925 (Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea), placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology with Name No. 32, with Pseudoperisphinctes Schindewolf, 1923, as type genus .. PSILOCERATIDAE Hyatt, 1867 (Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea), placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in aimee with Name No. 33, with Psiloceras Hyatt, 1867, as type genus pulchella Miller (O.F.), 1774, as published in the combination Helix pulchella (Class Gastropoda), Seay on the oe List oe aia ae Names in A with NEOS INOL 322°... pulchellum Jenyns, 1832, as published in the combination Pisidium pulchellum (Class Ree pe). placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with Name O43)... ase ad? oe o ca e Me Me oe ae pumila Pfeiffer (C.), 1828, as published in the combination Clausilia pumila (Class Gastropoda), Eiseed on the aes List or PeeOnG Names in ae: with Name INO. 393. : pumilionis Bjerkander, 1778, Musca (Class Insecta, Order Diptera), designation of, under the Plenary Powers, to be the type species of Chlorops Meigen, 1803 ns placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with Name No. 478 PUNCTINAE Morse (E. S.), 1864 (Class Gastropoda), placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in RO CEy, with Name No. 48, with Punctum Morse, 1864, as type genus : : Punctum Morse, 1864 (Class Gastropoda), placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with Name No. 828, with Helix minutissima Lea, 1841, as type species : a es a es #3 gender of name Pupilla Fleming, 1828 (Class Gastropoda), placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with Name No. 829, with sees a tats eae Bene as type species Fe gender of name PUPILLADAE Turton (W.), 1831, an Invalid Original Spelling for PUPILLIDAE, placed on the Official Index of ae aid and Invalid at cepnehacd Names in Zoology with Name No. 45... PUPILLIDAE (correction of PUPILLADAE) Turton (W. ), 1831 (Class Gastropoda), placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in tee. with Name No. 49, with Pupilla Fleming, 1828, as type genus .. pura Alder, 1830, as published in the combination Helix pura (Class Gastropoda), placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with Name No. 394 .. pusilla Miller (O.F.), 1774, as published in the combination Vertigo pusilla (Class Bae ods), eee on the se List ie moeie! ‘Names in eee with Name No.. 312 F 551 Page 466 466 54 86 83 423 423 434 49 49 49 49 485 484 83 53 552 Opinions and Declarations putris Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Helix putris (Class Gastro- poda), placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with Name No. 395 pygmaea Draparnaud, [1801], as published in the combination Helix pygmaea (Class Gastropoda), Seay on the oan LAist a pes ye Names in Healy with Name No. 396 .. pygmaea Draparnaud, [1801], as published in the combination Pupa pygmaea (Class Gastropoda), pat on the On List ve Specine 2 Names in in ZOEY with Name INO. S97 <2. pyramidata Draparnaud, [1805], as published in the combination Helix pyramidata — (Class Gastropoda), pices on the ae List nee SPEC | Names in 8 ee with Name No. 398 .. Pyramidula Fitzinger, 1833 (Class Gastropoda), placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with Name No. 830, with Helix repesteas Drapeau Hee as type species gender of name PYRAMIDULIDAE Kennard (A.S.) & Woodward (B.B.), 1914 (Class Gastropoda), placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in pokes with Name No. 50, with Pyramidula Fitzinger, 1833, as type genue pyrenaica Férussac, 1821, as published in the combination Helicolimax pyrenaica (Class Gastropoda), placed on the ie List re ppeore Names in deta with Name No. 399... quadridens Milier (O.F.), 1774, as published in the combination Helix quadridens (Class Gastropoda), pla on the ee List cee Sees Names in | Oe with Name No. 400... radigueli Bourguignat, 1869, as published in the combination Lartetia radigueli Kees Gastropoda), placed on the ae List cof ieee: Names in 1 with ame No. 401... RASENIINAE Schindewolf, 1925 (Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea), placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in pe eey with Name No. 16, with Rasenia Salfeld, 1913, as type genus Régles Internationales de la Nomenclature Zoologique, interpretation of provisions in : Article relating to family-group names : a family-group name to be automatically suppressed under the Plenary Powers when name of type ee is SUPE Se under those Powers (Declaration 20) i ; xs reticulatus Miller (O.F.), 1774, as published in the combination Limax reticulatus eee Casio eee placed on the sibs List ei sacs Names in ee with ame No a Page 83 83 84 84 49 49 484 , 84 84 84 465 ill 84 & Volume 10 333 Page Retinella Fischer, 1877 (Class Gastropoda), placed on the Official List of Generic Names in ‘Zoology with Name No. 831, with Helix olivetorum Gmelin, vee as type species 49 gender of name 49 Rhina Schaeffer, 1760, a name published in a work rejected for nomenclatorial purposes, placed on the Official Index a ROleCtee¢ and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology with Name No. 252 : 3)5)// Rhina Walbaum, 1792, a name published in a work rejected for nomenclatorial purposes, placed on ‘the Official Index he Set and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology with Name No. 253 3 te as as ie St Rhina Schneider, 1801 (Class Elasmobranchii), placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with Name No. 862, with Rhina ILO Schnieder, 1801, as type species : 356 gender of name 356 Rhina Latreille, [1802—1803] (Class Insecta, Order Sine He of pro- _ posed use of ‘the Plenary Powers for the benefit Ola. 355) placed on the Official Index a ee and Invalid Generic Names in ago with Name No. 254 . : aa ee ST Rhina Rafinesque, 1810, a junior homonym of Rhina Schneider, 1801, placed on the Official Index os Rejected a and Invalid Generic Names in n Zoology with Name IN@s 225) 7 .; ae se a5 Rhinostomus Rafinesque, 1815 (Class Insecta, Order Coleoptera), all previous type selections for, set aside under the Plenary Powers, and Curculio barbirostris Fabricius, 1775, designated as type species .. tS igs a ie 355, 356 gender of name ae S #8 nts be xe hes Aid ‘ 356 placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with Name No. 863 .. 356 Aeacin luacande, 1818, as published in the combination Cyclas rivicola (Class Pelecypoda), placed on the ee List ye, ered Names in Oy with Name No. 438 .. 86 rolphii Turton, 1831, as published in the combination Clausilia rolphii (Class Gastropoda), placed on the ie List es rae Names in pee ey with Name No. 403 84 rotundata Miller (O.F.), 1774, as published in the combination Helix rotundata (Class Gastropoda), mee on the es List vis lie Names in td with Name No 404... 84 ruderata Férussac, 1821, as published in the combination Helix ruderata (Class Gastropoda), placed on the ge List ee pen Names in pe REEN with Name es No. 313°... 354 Opinions and Declarations Rumina Risso, 1826 (Class Gastropoda), placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with Name No. 832, with Helix decollata ee heey: as type species : : gender of name RUMININAE Thiele (J.), 1931 (Class Gastropoda), placed on the Official List of Family- Group Names in Zoology with Name No. 51, with Rumina Risso, 1826, as type genus runtoniana Sandberger, 1880, as published in the combination Nematurella runtoniana (Class Gastropoda), placed on the aH List el eee Names in iy with Name No. 405... rupestris Draparnaud, [1801], as published in the combination Helix rupestris (Class pee age Lee on the eae List er page Names in oie 2 with Name 314 Schaeffer (J.C.), 1760, Epistola ad Regio-Borussicam Societatem Litterariam Duis- bergensem de Studi ichthyologici faciliori ac tutiori Methodo, placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Works in Zoological Nomenclature with Name No. 29 ‘SCHLOTHEIMIDAE Spath (L.F.); 1923, an Invalid Original Spelling for SCHLOTHEI- MIIDAE, Placed on the Official Index a oe and Invalid 1 a Names in Zoology with Name No. 38 .. ae SCHLOTHEIMIIDAE (correction of SCHLOTHEIMIDAE) Spath (L.F.), 1923 (Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea), placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology with Name No. 24, with Schlotheimia Bayle, 1878, as type genus SCHLOTHEIMIINES Douvillé (H.), 1916, a vernacular (French) and not a Latin or Latinized word, placed on the Official Index a nighaecs and Invalid id Foe Names in Zoology with Name No. 37 .. scutulum Sowerby (G.B.), 1821, as published in the combination Testacellus scutulum (Class Gastropoda), placed ¢ on the are List et Speed Names in Zoology with Name No. 406 : : secale Draparnaud, [1801], as published in the combination Pupa secale (Class Gastropoda), pieced on the Ofc List ne ne Names in Aa with Name Neo: 3156-84 Segmentina Fleming, 1818 (Class Gastropoda), placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with Name No. 833, with Nautilus lacustris me 1786, as type species ay ue * é gender of name .. oe ur Seguenziceras Levi, 1896, a junior objective synonym of Arieticeras Seguenza, 1885, placed on the Official Index ye Sos and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology with Name No. 232 ee ; Page 49 49 484 84 53 358 467 466 467 84 ae) 49 49 111 Volume 10 septemspiralis Razoumowsky, 1789, as published in the combination Helix septemspiralis (Class Gastropoda), aoa on the ee List of ges Names in Zoology with Name No. 407 similis Bruguiére, 1792], as published in the combination Bulimus similis (Class =e peed on the en List os See ee Names in BegC as with Name re) _ sinensis Schneider, 1801, as published in the combination Rhina sinensis (Class Elasmobranchii), placed ¢ on the ee List a ts Names in eile with Name No. 472. : : solida Normand, 1844, as published in the combination Cyclas solida (Class Pelecypoda), placed on the ones List Lal see Names in se tiaey with Name No. 439... sowerbii Férussac, 1823, as published in the combination Limax sowerbii, an Invalid Original Spelling for sowerbyi, placed on the es Index 2 Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology with Name No. 114 4 sowerbyi (correction of sowerbii) Férussac, 1823, as published in the combination Limax sowerbyi (Class Gastropoda), placed 0 on the ae List ae ae Names in Zoology with Name No. 409 SPHAEROCERATIDAE Buckman (S.S.), 1920 (Class Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea), placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in age with Name No. 13, with Sphaeroceras Bayle, 1878, as type genus. stagnalis Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Helix stagnalis (Class yay eel placed on the oe List ee ae Names in ean with Name o. 410 STEPHANOCERATIDAE (correction of STEPHANOCERATINEN) Neumayr, 1875 (Class, Cephalopoda, Order Ammonoidea), placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in iy with Name No. 34, with Pes ae 1869, as type genus STEPHANOCERATINEN Neumayr, 1875, an Invalid Original Spelling for STEPHANO- CERATIDAE, placed on the Official Index oe ee and Invalid Pee eee eames in Zoology with Name No. 40. STEPHANURIDA Molin, 1861, an Invalid Original Spelling for sTEPHANURIDAE, placed on the Official Index of coal and Invalid Pe Names in Zoology with Name No. 47 : STEPHANURIDAE (correction of STEPHANURIDA) Molin, 1861 (Class Nematoda), placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology with Name No. 57, with Stephanurus Diesing, 1839, as type genus ‘ Sfephanurus Diesing, 1839 (Class Nematoda, Order Rhabditida), placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with Name No. 845, with ee dentatus Diesing, 1839, as type species gender of name .. wee ae aa ae ae rr ae 555 Page 84 84 358 86 87 84 465 84 466 468 497 495 203 203 556 Opinions and Declarations STEPHEOCERATIDAE Buckman (S.S.), 1898, placed on the Official Index oh Relais and Invalid Famiiy-Group Names in Zoology with Name No. 41 stercorarius Linnaeus, 1758, Scarabaeus (Class Insecta, Order Coleoptera), designa- tion of, under the Plenary Powers, to be the type species of f SECuE Late 1796 ; ; a : we : placed on the Official List of Ea: Names in Zoology with Name No. 474 striata Miller (O.F.), 1774, as published in the combination Helix striata (Class Gastropoda), athe on the ie List ro ee Names in ig Ee with Name No. 401 7732 ‘ striolata Pfeiffer (C.), 1828, as published in the combination Helix striolata (Class Gastropoda), ers on the peas List Sl ie Names in he with Name Nov4125 subcylindrica Linnaeus, 1767, as published in the combination Helix subcylindrica (Class Gastropoda), placed on the ee List neh ices Names in 1 Oe with. Name No. 466 .. : subfuscus Draparnaud, [1805], as published in the combination Limax subfuscus (Class Gastropoda), place’ on the es List cal ge Names in tes, with Name No. 413... subrufescens Miller, 1822, as published in the combination Helix subrufescens (Class ees placed on the ee List Le eree Names in goagee with Name No. 414 ~ substriata Jeffreys, 1833, as published in the combination A/aea substriata (Class Gastropoda), Bae on the oe List ae es Names in feel with Name No. 4155: : subtruncatum Malm, 1855, as published in the combination Pisidium subtruncatum (Class Pelecypoda), placed on the eis List Hes ee Names in ees ge with Name No. 440 _ . Subulina Beck, 1837 (Class Gastropoda), placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with Name No. 834, with Bulimus octonus Broguire 1789, as tye, species” F oe a Ke Se 5% : gender of name SUBULINIDAE Thiele (J.), 1931 (Class Gastropoda), placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in eee with Name No. 52, with Subulina Beck, 1837, as type genus } subvirescens Bellamy, 1839, as published in the combination Helix subvirescens (Class Gastropoda), pid on the Oe List oe Sprain Names in a eoclees with Name No. 416 2. supinum Schmidt, [Feb. 1851], as published in the combination Pisidium supinum (Class Pelecypoda), Pees on the idan List ot Sven Names in 1 0 with Name No. 441 Page 468 391 391 84 84 316 85 85 85 86 49 49 484 85 86 Volume 10 tenellus Miller (O.F.), 1774, as published in the combination Limax tenellus (Class peeled), ea on the ee List ae peas: Names in eee with Name fe) oy tenuilineatum Stelfox, 1918, as published in the combination Pisidium tenuilineatum (Class Bepoda), placed on the ee List te epee! Names in a with Name No. 442... : Thamnophilus Schoenherr, 1823, a junior homonym of Thamnophilus Vieillot, 1816, and a junior objective synonym of Magdalis Germar, 1817, placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology with Name No. 256 Theodoxus Montfort, 1810 (Class Gastropoda), placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with Name No. 835, with Theodoxus lutetianus Montfort, 1810, as type species ; ; ~ gender of name Thoralus Holthuis, 1947 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda), placed on the Official “List of Generic "Names in Zoology with Name No. 867, with FPP One cranchii Leach, 1817, as type species ; ‘ - gender of name Titania Meigen, 1800, suppression of, under the Plenary Powers, for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy .. : placed on the Official Index of CO and Invalid Generic Names in bee with Name No. 258 transversa Say, 1829, as published in the combination Cyclas transversa (Class Pelecypoda), placed on the Ailey List ao eae Names in Faia with Name No. 443... : ‘tritici Steinbuch, 1799, as published in the combination Vibrio tritici (Class Nematoda), placed on the eee List Gs pas Names in A: with Name No. 454... Truncatella Risso, 1826 (Class Gastropoda), validation of, under the Plenary Powers . gender of name addition of, to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with Name No. 858, with Truncatella laevigata Risso, 1826, as type species TRUNCATELLIDAE Gray (J. E.), 1840 (Class Gastropoda), placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in ey with Name No. 8, with Truncatella ae 1826, as type genus Truncatellina Lowe, 1852 (Class Gastropoda), placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with Name No. 836, with ee rukeny) linearis Lowe, 1852, as type species ae 5 : gender of name S57 Page 85 86 35) 50 50 411 411 423 423 86 253 315 316 315 317 50 50 558 Opinions and Declaratiuns truncatulum Miller (O.F.), 1774, as published in the combination Buccinum trun- catulum (Class Gastropoda), placed on the mnctal List Fah Specie N Names in Cas with Name No. 418 ri tumidus Philipsson, 1788, as published in the combination Unio tumidus (Class Pelecypoda), Placed on the Ounciat List phan Sage 2 Names in Loy with Name No. 444... : Tylelenchus Bastian, 1865, an Invalid Original Spelling of Tylenchus Bastian, 1865, placed on the Official ‘Index ef ice a and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology with Name No. 236 TYLENCHINAE Marcinowski, 1909 (Class Nematoda), placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in POO with Name No. 59, with T Mie Bastian, 1865, as type genus Tylenchus Bastian, 1865 (Class Nematoda), placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with Name No. 848, with Tylenchus davainei (correction of davainii) Bastian, 1865, as type species ape bee a ap wel ne gender of name ulvae Pennant, 1777, as published in the combination Turbo ulvae (Class Gastropoda), placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with Name No. 419 5 umbrosa Pfeiffer (C.), 1828, as published in the combination Helix umbrosa (Class Gastropoda), ples on the Ofieia List en ge Names in n Zeer with Name No. 420... uniseriatum Piaget, 1880, as published in the combination Colpocephalum uniseriatum (Class Insecta, Order Mallophaga), pieced on the pial e List a Specipie Names in Zoology with Name No. 459 Vallonia Risso, 1826 (Class Gastropoda), placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with Name No. 837, with Vallonia rosalia Risso, 1826, as tyPS species gender of name VALLONIIDAE Pilsbry (H. A.), 1900 (Class Gastropoda), placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in COON with Name No. 53, with Vallonia Risso, 1826, as type genus 4 Valvata Miller (O.F.), 1774 (Class Gastropoda), placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with Name No. 838, with Valvata cristata Muller (O.F.), 1774, as type species bi ae Ci ae ae a ie a gender of name Page 85 86 253 496 253 253 85 85 274 50 50: 484 50. 50 Velume 10 VALVATIDAE Gray (J.E.), 1840 (Class Gastropoda), placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in ROBEY, with Name No. 54, with Valvata Miller ae F. ) 1774, as type genus ; ventricosa Draparnaud, [1801], as published in the combination Pupa ventricosa Stee Ow) aie on the Suiecia! List ae Specie Names in n Aootaay, with ame No [bs Sees vermiculata Miller (O.F.), 1774, as published in the combination Helix vermiculata (Class Gastropoda), arte on the ees List ee noes ai Names in a HOQtORY with Name No. 422... VERTIGINIDAE Stimpson, 1851 (Class Gastropoda), placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Be with Name No. 55, with Bee. Muller ae F. ), 1774, as type genus % Vertigo Muller (O.F.), 1774 (Class Gastropoda), placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with Name No. 839, with Cree, ae Muller ie F. e 1774, as type species gender of name vincentianum Woodward, 1913, as published in the combination Pisidium vincen- tianum (Class Pelecypoda), placed on the ae List fee ey Names in eee with Name No. 445 ats violaceus Linnaeus, 1758, Curculio (Class Insecta, Order Coleoptera), designation of, under the Plenary Powers, to be the type species of Magdalis Germar, 1817 placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with Name No. 473 virgata da Costa, 1778, as published in the combination Cochlea virgata (Class Gastropoda), placed on the OS List wes pee Names in Wee with Name ‘No. 423... virginiana Roding, 1798, as published in the combination Ostrea virginiana, an Erroneous Subsequent Spelling of virginica Gmelin, [1790], placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology with Name No. 117 virginica Gmelin, [1790], as published in the combination Ostrea virginica (Class Pelecypoda), placed on the i List ee ee Names in oe ey with Name No. 450... é Vitrea Fitzinger, 1833 (Class Gastropoda), placed on the Official List of Generic Names in oe with Name No. 840, with Helix pis ois Studer, 1820, as ORE species gender of name VITREINAE Thiele GC. ), 1931 (Class Gastropoda), placed on the Official List of Family- Group Names in Ae with Name No. 56, with Vitrea oe 1833, as ype genus Say Page 484 85 85 485 50 50 87 356 358 85 129 128 50: 50 485. 560 Opinions and Declarations vortex Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Helix vortex (Class Gastropoda), placed on the dea List a ee Names in te ay with Name No. 424 .. vorticulus Troschel, 1834, as published in the combination Planorbis vorticulus (Class Gastropoda), placed on the hes List noe Bpeeitien Names in ARS, with Name No. 425. zebra Burmeister, 1838, Colpocephalum (Class Insecta, Order Mallophaga), designa- tion of, under the Plenary Powers, to be the type species of COlROCeR aS Nitzsch, 1818 baa : ‘ ; : placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with Name No. 460 Zonitoides Lehmann, 1862 (Class Gastropoda), placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with Name No. 841, with Helix nitida Miller Re F), 1774, as type species gender of name Page 85 85 23 215 50 50 PARTICULARS OF DATES OF PUBLICATION OF THE SEVERAL PARTS IN WHICH THE PRESENT VOLUME WAS PUBLISHED Contents of Part Part No. —— Page Nos. 1—44 45—76 77—108 109—124 125—180 181—200 201—250 251—270 271—298 299—312 313—352 353—388 389—408 409—420 421—436 437—450 451—462 463—480 i—Vill 481—492 493—510 511—562 ) ie XVI | Volume 10 Opinion 334 Opinion 335 Opinion 336 Opinion 337 Opinion 338 Opinion 339 Opinion 340 Opinion 341 Opinion 342 Opinion 343 Opinion 344 Opinion 345 Opinion 346 Opinion 347 _ Opinion 348 Opinion 349 Opinion 350 Direction 14 Declaraticn 20 Direction 27 Direction 28 Corrigenda and Indexes, Foreword, Table of Contents S61 Date of Publication 23rd February 1955 17th March 1955 17th March 1955 17th March 1955 17th March 1955 17th March 1955 19th May 1955 19th May 1955 17th June 1955 17th June 1955 17th June 1955 17th June 1955 17th June 1955 27th June 1955 27th June 1955 27th June 1955 27th June 1955 27th June 1955 14th July 1955 5th August 1955 12th August 1955 ) > 3rd July 1956 562 Opinions and Declarations INSTRUCTIONS TO BINDERS The present volume should be bound up as follows :—T.P.—XVI, — i—viii, 1—362, coloured wrapper (cover) to Part 22. {a Note :—The wrappers (covers) to the Parts of which this volume is — composed form, with the exception of the coloured wrapper (cover) ~ issued with Part 22, an integral part of those Parts, being included for — purposes of pagination. These wrappers should therefore be bound — up in the position in which they were issued. The brown wrapper (cover) — to part 22 should be bound in at the end of the volume. | Printed in England by MetcaLtre & Cooper Limitrep, 10-24 Scrutton St., London EC 2 Fd > am PAY Tr ? ’ j i i j y bY de ra Y Pid ‘ \ vy +4 ‘ i ‘ é ai ' ) i - ny mu 3 9088 015710