ee eae ads Nt Hobe Hit i fight tat at apt ty ae hut wt tn 0 a * - Gam se eee See SSeS eS ee Snot are BHT 1h } et inh i pit a i ta ed a Hy We bbe “oat — Ao et, is ue sche} nibsdad . NEE i * oe 6 aS = ee ee hates af ry ay oman tame, “ ee a = ic Ss Seoectens SSS ESSE ¥ <=é ates ao SPEsSpeet sie Sears otek Jat Maye?) we Ai a wie ih 6) ideal Hd CHEB pi Sea Se = ier Fer ie a Rot a ee ee sntitars tk tials 4 nt t2 Hh High {| ; ae th Sos 3 Sate toe aoe 2 Fw ey Se ee = oi eee at hall no: Sere as a han ie 1 uD at yi in A) i ht dt dilated aii! bs ue ‘aly Gan aoe es Re a ey pu NA xe Ps yin le i itt te? ot \ 4 he antl iat Ae [Gad at W a i v Taibo tae Aye ame —— a Ses seer we a4 = == <3 Passe 3 ay ike ES rete See ee Se ses Soe a a Es ee eee ee ee yt aay uae 4 4 aE : aed p) i PARAL HOLY ny ny he ate ny a " Ke ‘ Pret yea “if ‘di yu fi + +4 ial i Py Bn a ele eat at ak iis rat y A REC ATT Mae MAC Ty sgl Paty ae yet ; nay y GUAT see. i Hid yaaa FG) hd beget POW ty i Peale a is We ibe th LS ag a he - ‘ i AR a - i at H i Hf ‘i aoe a it a BS Pe a ee ; 4 irish este qiraitt Fe H a! ¢ ie 21a fas ohh bei ie sib in ‘hi ist i ih ah bark ptt hed ein 0 Ne sate } j aged sede! } Ly i eh th My wie) 1 ge hen he i Mine a Tea at, ; My on ave hel Liye pagal j 4 Yoo ae Me ite) j i yet i a ie ph ed iia Mit im i nt rae os iyrad es len 2Si2stEs ‘ond eta anes stan fh i Heide Le a i XG Wino ayaa A hea 7 hast fst oh Carin is aa or) el An te Wale east gata Ne a ‘ tahoe AH ie ; 3 Hh feat aor, Rees Esty ms = i iad ih ve ite, vei + aS! ‘ b * itt iby sath iuih tg a Hen sh hanks a itaahy 4p it At) inet ee i sa “f i ft \ f hea ". ) vi \ iu CW) WRN ay! aah \ 4 im) fs a Ri t OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS rendered by the INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON " ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE | Bead by FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E. Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature VOLUME 2, SECTION A (comprising Declarations 10-12 and Opinions 134-160) LONDON: Printed by Order of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature Sold at the Publications Office of the Commission 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W. 7 1939-1945 All Rights Reserved e Printed in Great Britain BY RICHARD CLAY AND CO., LTD., BUNGAY, SUFFOLK JAN 31 1946 “aTiona ust FOREWORD The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature have great pleasure in presenting to the zoological public Section A of Volume 2 of their “ Opinions and Declarations,’ the first completed unit of the series of volumes, to the publication of which they committed themselves when in 1939 they adopted their present publications programme. Prior to 1939, the Opinions of the Commission (then their only class of publication) were published on their behalf by the Smith- sonian Institution, Washington, free of all charge to the Com- mission which at that time possessed no funds of their own. The decision taken in 1939 that the International Commission should thenceforward act as their own publishers was the in- evitable outcome of the transfer of the Secretariat of the Com- mission from Washington to London, consequent upon the election of the present Secretary to the Commission. Nevertheless, that decision was not lightly taken, for it involved the assumption of heavy responsibilities at a time when the Commission had at their disposal only the most slender financial resources. The International Commission are deeply conscious of the debt of gratitude which they owe to the Smithsonian Institution for the help freely and continuously accorded during the period of 27 years during which the first 133 of the Commission’s Opinions were in process of publication. Further, the Commission owe much to the interest shown in their work throughout that period both by the Smithsonian Institution as a great national scientific institution and also by the many members of its scientific staff who contributed to the work of the Commission. The Interna- tional Commission are happy to take this opportunity of bearing witness to their obligations to the Smithsonian Institution and of recording their grateful thanks for the invaluable aid rendered by it for so many years. It is a matter of particular satisfaction to the Commission that, although their headquarters are now in Europe, the relations between the Commission and the Smithson- ian Institution and the members of its scientific staff remain of the closest and most cordial character. At the present important turning-point in the development of their work, the International Commission desire also to pay a tribute to the great services rendered to them by the late Dr. III IV OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL Charles Wardell Stiles during the period of 37 years in which he held the Office of Secretary to the Commission. Dr. Stiles was appointed Secretary to the Commission on the establishment of that Office in 1898 and held it continuously until 1935, when ill- health and advancing age made it necessary for him to relinquish that post. Dr. Stiles brought to the service of the Commission a unique combination of gifts, prominent among which was a deep- seated conviction of the need for co-operation on the international plane in regard to those matters of common concern to all zoolo- gists which by their nature were incapable of settlement upon a purely national basis. These gifts, coupled with great energy and a remarkable capacity for perseverance, enabled Dr. Stiles to play an invaluable part in guiding the fortunes of the Com- mission amid the difficulties and dangers which inevitably beset the path of any international body during the early years of its existence. It is a particular source of regret to the International Commission that Dr. Stiles should have died during the war and thus has not lived to see the completion of the present volume. If it had not been for his long and devoted labours on their behalf, the Commission might never have acquired the strength necessary to carry this task to a successful issue. | FRANCIS HEMMING Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. 29th October 1945. COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTORY NOTE I. The decision of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to publish the present work II. The decision to publish volume 2 before volume 1 III. The decision to include Oe laaaions as well as Opinions in the present work IV. The lay-out of the present work V. The decision to publish the present volume in two Sections VI. The importance of Corrigenda VII. Retrospect and Prospect Page IX IX Sal UL OL: XV XV OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS INCLUDED IN SECTION A OF VOLUME 2 Declarations 10-12 DECLARATION 10.—On the importance of forming specialist groups for the study of the nomenclature of particular divisions of the Animal Kingdom DECLARATION I1.—On the need for a clear indication in the description of new genera and species of the Order and. Family involved DECLARATION 12.—On the question of breaches of the Code of Ethics (Declaration supplementary to Declaration 1) Opinions 134-160 OPINION 134.—On the method to be adopted in interpreting the generic names assigned by Freyer to species described in his Neuere Bewtrdge zur Schmetterlingskunde, 1833-1858 OPINION 135.—The suppression of the so-called “ Erlangen List ’’ of 1801 1X XVII VI OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL Page OPINION 136.—Ofinion supplementary to Opinion 11 on the interpretation of Latreille’s Considévations générales sur lordre naturel des Animaux composant les classes des Crustacés, des Avachnides et des Insectes avec un tableau méthodique de leurs genres disposés en famulles, Paris, 18Io b : ; : 3 ; Mee ppc) OPINION 137.—On the relative precedence to be accorded to certain generic names published in 1807 by Fabricius and Hiibner respectively for identical genera in the Lepido- ptera Rhopalocera . : . é ; ; he OPINION 138.—On the method by which the amendment to Article 25 of the International Code adopted at the Buda- pest Meeting of the International Zoological Congress, relating to the replacement of invalid names, should be interpreted : : ; : : : 2 26 OPINION I Ag. ihe names Cephus Latreille, [1802-1803] and Astata Latreille, 1796, in the Hymenoptera added to the Official List of Generic Names 1n Zoology : : SBS OPINION 140.—On the method of forming the family names for Merops Linnaeus, 1758 (Class Aves) and for M pis Newman, 1838 (Class Insecta) . A7 OPINION 141.—On the principles to be observed in interpret- ing Article 4 of the International Code relating to the naming of families and subfamilies ’ : 55 OPINION 142.—Suspension of the rules for Satyrus Latreille, 1810 (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera) : se OZ. OPINION 143.—On the method of forming the family name for Tingis Fabricius, 1803 (Class Insecta, Order Hemi- ptera) ; : ee aOr OPINION 144.—On the status of the names Crabro Geoffroy, 1762, Crabro Fabricius, 1775, and Cimbex Olivier, 1790 (Class Insecta, Order Hymenoptera) . 89 OPINION 145.—On the status of names first published in works rejected for nomenclatorial purposes and subse- quently published in other works OS) COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 146.—Suspension of the rules for Colias Fabricius, 1807 (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera) OPINION 147.—On the principles to be observed in inter- preting Article 34 of the International Code in relation to the rejection, as homonyms, of generic and subgeneric names of the same origin and meaning as names previously published . OPINION 148.—On the principles to be observed in interpret- ing Articles 25 and 34 of the International Code in relation to the availability of generic names proposed as emenda- tions of, or as substitutes for, earlier generic names of the same origin and meaning OPINION 149.—Twenty-one names in the Orthoptera (Insecta) added to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology OPINION 150.—On the dates of publication of the several portions of Htibner (J.), Verzerchniss bekannter Schmett- linge [sic], 1816-[ 1826] OPINION I151.—On the status of the names Lasius Panzer, [1801-1802], Podalirius Latreille, 1802, Lasizus Fabricius, [1804-1805], and Anthophora Latreille, 1803 (Class Insecta, Order Hymenoptera) : OPINION 152.—On the status of the generic names in the Order Diptera (Class Insecta) first published in 1800 by J. W. Meigen in his Nouvelle mene ane des Mouches a deux atles . : OPINION 153.—On the status of the names ee Latreille, [1802-1803], and Dryinus Latreille, ade ee Insecta, Order Hymenoptera) . OPINION 154.—On the status of the names lee iiien Serville, 1831, and pee Fieber, eee ee Insecta, Order Orthoptera) OPINION 155.—On the status of the names Callimome Spinola, 1811, Misocampe Latreille, 1818, and Torymus Dalman, 1820 (Class Insecta, Order Hymenoptera) OPINION 156.—Suspension of the rules for Vanessa Fabricius, 1807 (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera) VII Page 109 eZ 133 145 I61 169 181 197 209 227 239 VIII OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL Page OPINION 157.—Three names in the Order Hymenoptera (Class Insecta) added to the i List ah Generic Names. in Zoology . ; 251 OPINION 158.—On the status of the name Locusta Lie 1758 (Class Insecta, Order Orthoptera) . : 263 OPINION 159.—On the status of the names Ephialtes seine 1802, Ichneumon Linnaeus, 1758, Pimpla Fabricius, [| 1804- 1805], and Ephialtes Gravenhorst, ne ees Insecta, Order Hymenoptera) . ' : ; 2a OPINION 160.—On the status of the names Moin Scopoli, 1777, Anguillulina Gervais & van Beneden, ee and Tylenchus Bastian, 1865 (Class Nematoda) . 291 SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES ON OPINIONS 137, 148, AND 149 Opinion 137: Addition to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology of Morpho Fabricius, 1807, Helicopis Fabricius, 1807, and Pontia Fabricius, 1807 (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera) . : ; : at =| Opinion 148: On the status of a generic name proposed as an emendation of a previously published generic name, where the earlier published of the two generic names is later found to be invalid a. reason of ee a homonym or otherwise . ‘ «iE) Coe 149: On the cee whether “ Sphingonothus ”’ “ Sphingonotus’’ is the correct spelling of the name Keay published as Sphingonothus Fieber, 1852 (Class Insecta, Order Orthoptera) . ; : su SN) ADDENDA ET CORRIGENDA .. (19) ALPHABETICAL LIST OF THE NAMES OF AUTHORS WHO HAVE EITHER CONTRIBUTED, OR HAVE FURNISHED COMMENTS ON, PROPOSALS DEALT WITH IN THE DECLARATIONS AND OPINIONS INCLUDED IN SECTION A OF VOLUME 2 5 (2a) INDEX TO SECTION A OF VOLUME 2 ae (27) DATES OF PUBLICATION OF THE SEVERAL PORTIONS OF SECTION A OF THE PRESENT VOLUME ._. (43) INSTRUCTIONS TO BINDER os he COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. IX INTRODUCTORY NOTE By Francis HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E. Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. I. The decision of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to publish the present work. The decision that the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature should assume direct responsibility for the publica- tion of its Opinions by becoming its own publisher was taken at a meeting of the Plenary Conference between the President of the Commission and the Secretary to the Commission convened in London on roth June 1939 (Plenary Conference, 1st Meeting, Conclusion 61+) under the authority of a Resolution adopted by the International Commission at their Session held at Lisbon in September 1935 (Lisbon Session, 5th Meeting, Conclusion Io 2). Previous to 1939, the Opimions rendered by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature had been published on their behalf by the Smithsonian Institution, Washington. This arrangement had been of the greatest value to the International Commission for many years but its continuance was manifestly impracticable after the transfer of the headquarters of the Com- mission from Washington to London consequent upon the election of the present Secretary to the Commission in succession to Dr. C. W. Stiles. II. The decision to publish volume 2 before volume 1. 2. It would have been possible in 1939 to treat the Opinions (Opinions I-133) published by the Smithsonian Institution between 1910 and 1936 as constituting, as it were, a first series and therefore to treat the present volume (commencing with Opinion 134) as volume I of the new work Opinions rendered by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, but such a course would have entailed many inconveniences and would have been pre- judicial to the orderly development of the work of the International Commission. | 3. [he Opinions published in the period ended 1936 contained 1 See 1943, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 1: 74. 2 See 1943, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 1 : 48. X OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL many important decisions by the International Commission and it yas clearly desirable that these decisions should be readily available to all students of zoological nomenclature. Unfor- tunately, by 1939 these Ofimions were no longer available in this way, since in the majority of cases the original issue had by that time become exhausted and in consequence copies were no longer obtainable. | 4. Quite apart from the foregoing considerations, there were cogent reasons which made it desirable that a revised and anno- tated edition of the earlier Opinions should be issued as soon as possible. In the first place, the Régles Internationales de la Nomenclature Zoologique® (International Code of Zoological Nomenclature) had been amended in a number of important particulars in the period which had elapsed since 1907, the year in which the International Commission adopted the first of its Opinions. In particular, the amendment of Article 25 of the Régles Internationales adopted by the Tenth International Con- gress of Zoology at its meeting held at Budapest in 1927 had auto- matically restricted the scope of all Opinions previously rendered by the International Commission in regard to the interpretation of Article 25. Those Opimions remained valid and binding as respects names published prior to midnight 31st December 1930/1st January 1931, the hour at which the Budapest amend- ment became operative, but they were no longer applicable to names published after that date.4 No note had ever been pub- lished drawing attention to the restrictions so imposed upon certain of the older of the Opinions rendered by the International Commission, nor, even if such a note had been published, would it have been fully effective, for there existed no means of ensuring that it was brought to the attention of every reader of the older Opinions. Clearly the only way by which the desired result could be obtained would be by the issue of a revised edition of the Opinions concerned, which would contain notes giving full particulars of any modifications which had been made in the * The English, German and Italian versions of the International Code are no more than translations of the French text, which is the sole sub- stantive text. Accordingly, the official title of the International Code is the title given to it in the French text, namely ‘‘ Régles Internationales de la Nomenclature Zoologique.”’ _* For the English version of the text of Article 25 of the Régles Interna- tionales as amended by the Tenth International Congress of Zoology at Budapest in 1927, together with notes thereon, see NoTE 3 to Opinion 1 (1944, Opinions and Declarations rendered by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 1 : 76-78). COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. XI decisions recorded in those Opinions consequent upon amendments made in the Régles Internationales. 5. In addition, a great deal of bibliographical work had been done by numerous workers in the period which had elapsed since the publication of the earlier of the Commission’s Opinions. In consequence, it was now known that some of the bibliographical references cited in those Opinions required amendment. For this -and similar reasons, it had become evident also that some of the entries in Opinions relating to the placing of names on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology contained errors which it was desirable should be corrected at the earliest possible moment. It was felt also that the value of the earlier Opinions would be greatly enhanced if an edition was available in which full biblio- graphical references were given for all the names discussed. Finally, there was clearly an urgent need for a full subject index of the older Opinions, since, through the lack of such an index, it had in the course of years become increasingly difficult for readers to trace particular decisions taken by the Commission in those Opinions. No really satisfactory index could, however, be con- structed until there was in existence an edition of those Opzmions continuously paged throughout. 6. It was for these reasons that it was decided in 1939 that the first volume of the proposed work Opinions rendered by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature should be reserved for an annotated re-issue of Opinions 1-133 and therefore that the Ofimions recording the decisions taken at Lisbon in 1935 should be published in volume 2 of that work. III. The decision to include Declarations as well aS Opinions in the present work. 7. At the meeting of the Ninth International Congress of Zoology held at Monaco in 1913, the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature adopted a number of important resolutions on general questions relating to zoological nomencla- ture. Similar resolutions were adopted at later meetings of the International Congress of Zoology, including three at the Twelfth International Congress held at Lisbon in 1935. Owing to the general character of the subjects dealt with in these resolutions, they were never formally rendered and published as Opinions. In consequence, the only place in which it was possible to find these resolutions was in the Comptes Rendus of the Congresses at XII OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL which they had been adopted by the International Commission. This method of publication had the unfortunate result that the texts of these resolutions were inaccessible to most zoologists. It was only natural, therefore, that these resolutions had not secured the amount of attention which their importance demanded. When, therefore, the whole position as regards the publications of the Commission was reviewed in 1942 consequent upon the re- opening of the Secretariat (which owing to the state of war it had been necessary to close in 1939), it was decided to remedy the position described above by collecting the resolutions in question and rendering them as formal documents under the title “ De- clarations.”’ ° 8. At the time when this decision was taken, it was contem- plated that. the Commission’s Declarations would be issued in a separate work entitled “ Declarations rendered by. the Interna- tional Commission on Zoological Nomenclature.’ On further consideration, it was felt that this course was open to objection, partly because the relatively small number of Declarations so far rendered made it inevitable that a considerable time would necessarily need to elapse before the first volume of the projected work could be completed and partly because it was considered that it would be more appropriate that the Commission’s Declarations should be published jointly with their Opinions. It was accord- ingly decided in the summer of 1943 that the title of the work already in course of publication should be expanded to “ Opinions and Declarations rendered by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature,’ that Declarations 1-9, which embodied resolutions adopted by the Commission at various dates during the period in which Dr. Stiles was Secretary to the Commission, should be published in volume 1, together with Opinions 1-133, which had been adopted by the Commission during the same period, and that Declarations 10-12, which had been adopted by the Commission in 1935 at their Lisbon Session, should be published in volume 2, in which the Opimions adopted at the same Session were then in process of being published. IV. The lay-out of the present work. g. When in 1939 it was decided to bring the present work into existence, the International Commission were confronted with a large mass of arrears of work, for at that time Opinions had not 5 See 1943, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 1 : xxxvi. COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. XIII been published in regard to any of the forty-eight nomenclatorial problems on which decisions had been reached at the Session of the Commission held at Lisbon in 1935. In order, therefore, to render possible the publication of each Opinion immediately it was completed, it was decided that each Opinion should be pub- lished as a separate Part. Successive Parts were paged con- tinuously (in Arabic numerals), in order to render possible the construction of a subject index on the completion of the volume. 10. In view of the fact that, as originally contemplated, the present volume would contain only Opinions,® it was not thought necessary at the outset to allot a Part No. to the Part containing each Opinion, for it was considered that the fact that the Opinions were themselves numbered in consecutive sequence would provide a sufficient indication of the order in which successive Parts should be arranged for binding when the volume was completed. In order, however, to serve as a further safeguard, the numbers of the pages comprised in each Part were noted in a prominent place on the front page of each Opinion. tr. When, however, it was decided in the summer of 1943 to include Declarations as well as Opinions in this and other volumes of the present work, it became necessary to review this matter, since, unless special action was taken, each Declaration would inevitably be allotted page numbers immediately following those of the preceding Part containing an Ofimion. The result would be that, when the volume was bound, the Declarations would be intermingled with the Opinions in the order in which they had been published. It was felt that this would be inconvenient and that it would be much more satisfactory if arrangements could be made to secure that in the completed volume the Declarations were grouped together and placed before the Opinions. It was accordingly decided that the Declarations should. be given a different pagination from that allotted to the Opmmions. Since the latter had already been allotted pagination in Arabic numerals, it was decided that the pages of the Declarations should be numbered in small Roman numerals. 12. The decision to publish Declarations and Opinions in the same volume made it necessary also to allot a Part No. to each Declaration and Opinion so published, since otherwise it would not have been possible for subscribers to be sure that their sets were complete. The eleven unnumbered Parts (containing Opimions 134-144) already published were accordingly treated 6 See paragraphs 7 and 8 above. XIV OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL as though they had been issued as Parts 1 to 11 and the next Part to be issued (containing Opinion 145) was given the Part No. 12. The three Declarations adopted by the International Commission at their Lisbon Session (Declarations 10-12) were later published asePakis fo, ro and: 22. V. The decision to publish the present volume in two Sections. 13. One of the objects which the International Commission have set themselves is so to arrange their work as to eliminate all unnecessary delays both in reaching decisions on questions sub- mitted to them and also in publishing Ofimions on such questions as soon as they have been settled. It was with this object in view that at the outset 7 each Opinion was published as a separate Part, thereby avoiding the sometimes considerable delays which were inevitable when six or more Opinions were published as a single number. When the present volume was started, there were 48 Opinions and 3 Declarations relating to matters on which decisions had been taken at Lisbon and it was obvious therefore that a considerable period would necessarily elapse before it -would be possible to make a start with the publication of the Opinions adopted by the Commission subsequent to their Lisbon Session. After careful consideration, it was decided in the autumn of 1944 that the best course would be to allot the whole of volume 2 of the present work to the Opinions and Declarations adopted at Lisbon and at the same time to make an immediate start with the publication of the post-Lisbon Opinions as Parts of volume 3 of the present work. This decision involved an increased delay in the publication of the last instalment of the Lisbon Opinions, but this disadvantage was far outweighed by the great gain secured through enabling the Commission at once to publish their most recent Opinions and thus get into a position in which in future they could publish any Opinion or Declaration immediately it was adopted. 14. One of the effects of the foregoing decision was to commit the Commission to publishing in volume 2 of the present work Opinions 134-181 and Declarations 10-12, making a total of 51 Parts, exclusive of a concluding Part containing the title page and index to the volume. In the year which has elapsed since the above decision was taken considerable progress has been made with the publication of Parts belonging to the present volume and * See paragraph 9. COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. XV it is now clear that, when it is completed, the volume will contain some 600 pages. This is too large a volume for convenient reference and it has accordingly been decided to divide the volume into two Sections (Sections A and B), each provided with a title page and indexes, thereby making it possible to bind the volume in two portions, each of a convenient size, for purposes of reference. As the three Declarations and the earlier Ofimions included in the volume were, on the average, shorter than the later Opinions, it was decided that the most convenient arrangement would be to include in Section A Declarations 10-12 and Opinions 134-160, leaving Opinions 161-181 for publication in Section B. my As the earlier of the Parts allotted to Section B had already been published by the time that this decision was taken, it was necessary to adopt a different method of pagination for the indexes to Section A. It was accordingly decided that these should be given page numbers in Arabic type enclosed in round brackets. At the same time it was decided that the Table of Contents and Introductory Note to be published in the same sheet as the title page of Section A should be given page numbers in capital Roman numerals. VI. The importance of Corrigenda. mothe late Wr. C. Davies Sherborn at the end of the first volume of his monumental Index Animalium wrote the following J wise words regarding the importance of “ Corrigenda ’’ :— In a book of reference, the first pages which should be studied are those containing the “‘ corrigenda,’’ as they represent the sum of the compiler’s labours after the main work has passed the press. 17. Dr. Sherborn’s words apply to the publications of an institution such as the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature just as much as to compilations by individual specialists. Zoologists are therefore particularly invited im- mediately to study the supplementary notes on Opinions 137, 148 and 149 which appear on pages (5) to (18) of the present volume and the minor corrections and additions listed on pages (19) to (20). VII. Retrospect and Prospect. 18. The first three Ofimions included in the present volume were published on 28th August 1939, only four days before the XVI INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. outbreak of war in Europe. Then followed a period of thirty- three months in which owing to war conditions it was impossible to continue the work of the Commission. A fresh start was, however, made in June 1942 and thereafter the publication of Opinions proceeded steadily. Today, the present Part, the last of Section A of the present volume, is completed almost exactly six years after publication began. 19. After the innumerable difficulties enGatnkenel during the war years, it is a matter both of relief and satisfaction to the International Commission that now within a fortnight of the end of the war they are able to offer the present volume to thé zoolo- gists of the world. That this has been possible has been due in large part to the unstinted support which in spite of their many urgent pre-occupations zoologists have throughout the war con- sistently accorded to the International Commission in its deter- mination to maintain intact the fabric of international co- operation until upon the return of peace it became possible actively to resume work on zoological nomenclature. That the efforts of the Commission in this regard have been successful affords a striking testimony to the devotion of zoologists to their special studies, and offers the brightest hopes for a rapid and fruitful extension of work in this field now that the war at last is over. 20. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature desire to take this opportunity of expressing their grateful thanks to all the Scientific Institutions, Learned Societies and individual zoologists who during the last six years have contributed to the work of the Commission, either by making gifts to the funds of the Commission or by subscribing to its publications or by placing at the disposal of the Commission their special knowledge on ques- tions on which the Commission have sought their aid. FRANCIS HEMMING Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. 2nd September 1945. OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTER- NATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE VOLUME 2 Edited by FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E. Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature LONDON : Printed by Order of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature and Sold on behalf of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature by the International Trust at its Publications Office 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7 1939—1955 (All rights reserved) INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE COMPOSITION AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION AT LISBON IN 1935 OF THE ‘‘ OPINIONS ”? AND *‘ DECLARATIONS ”’ ~ PUBLISHED IN THE PRESENT VOLUME A. The Officers of the Commission President: Dr. Karl Jordan, Ph.D. (The Zoological Museum, Tring, Herts, England). Secretary (absent from Lisbon Session on account of illhealth) : Dr. Charles Wardell Stiles (Smithsonian Institution, U.S. National Museum, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.). Acting Secretary (Lisbon Session) : Mr. Francis Hemming, C.B.E. (London). B. The Members of the Commission Class 1937 Professor H. B. FANTHAM (McGill University, Montreal, Canada). Dr. James L. PETERS (Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard College, Cambridge, Massachusetts, U.S.A.). Professor Filippon SILVEsTRI (Istituto Superiore Agraria, Portici, Napoli, Italy). Dr. Leonard STEJNEGER (Smithsonian Institution, U.S. National Museum, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.). Dr. ae STONE (Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, U.S.A.). Class 1940 Professor Karl APSTEIN (Zoologisches Institut der Universitat, Berlin). Professor Candido BOLIVAR y PIELTAIN (Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales, Madrid, Spain). Dr. William Thomas CALMAN (British Museum (Natural History), London). Professor Teiso ESAkI (Kyushu Imperial University, Fukuoka City, Japan). Dr. Charles Wardell STILEs (Smithsonian Institution, U.S. National Museum, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.). Class 1943 | Senor Dr. Angel CABRERA (Museo de la Plata, La Plata, F.C.S., Argentina). Mr. Frederick CHAPMAN (National Museum, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia). Mr. Francis HEMMING (London). Dr. Karl JORDAN (The Zoological Museum, Tring, Herts, England). Professor Jacques PELLEGRIN (Muséum National d’ Histoire Naturelle, Paris). Professor Rudolf RIcHTER (Natur-Museum Senckenberg, Frankfurt a. Main Germany). C. Alternate Members of the Commission at the Session held at Lisbon in 1935 Senhor Dr. Afranio do AMARAL CUnstituto Butantan, Sao Paulo, Brazil). Professor Walter ARNDT (Zoologisches Museum der Universitat, Berlin). Dr. Max BEIER (Zoologisches Abteilung, Naturhistorisches Museum, Vienna). Professor J. Chester BRADLEY (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.). Dr. Th. MorTENSEN (Zoologiske Universitetets Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark). Professor Hiroshi OHSHIMA (Amakusa Marine Biological Laboratory, Kyushu Imperial University, Fukuoka City, Japan). INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE COMPOSITION AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THE ‘‘ 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.) (2th 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. ae 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 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-Universitdat zu Berlin, Germany) (5th July 1950). Senhor Dr. Afranio do Amaral (S. Paulo, Brazil) (12th August 1953) (Vice- President). ae TR 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 Hank6é (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. Holthuis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Heider The Nether- lands) (12th August 1953). (V) 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. Administrative Officer: Mrs. S. C. Watkins, M.A. “Official Lists” Section: Miss D. N. Noakes, B.Sc. Ss Pad: Mrs. J. H. Newman ecrelarial : \ Ntiss D. G. Williams Indexer : Miss Joan Kelley, B.Sc. Translator : Mrs. R. H. R. Hopkin INTERNATIONAL TRUST FOR ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Chairman: The Right Hon. Walter Elliot, C.H., M.C., F.R.S.., M.P. Managing Director and Secretary: Mr. Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. Publications Officer: Mrs. C. Rosner ADDRESSES OF THE COMMISSION AND THE TRUST Secretariat of the Commission: 28 Park Village East, Regent’s Park, London, N.W.1. Offices of the Trust : 41 Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7. (V1) FOREWORD The present volume is devoted to the Opinions and Declarations in which are embodied the Rulings adopted by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature at its Session held at Lisbon in September 1935. This volume was the first to be started after the transfer of the Secretariat of the Commission from Washington, D.C., to London and was in consequence the first volume for the publication of which direct responsibility was assumed by the Commission itself. The first three Parts of this volume (containing Opinions 134 to 136) were published on 28th August 1939. The outbreak of war in Europe a few days later inevitably caused great delays, first, because from September 1939 to the summer of 1942 the records of the Commission were evacuated from London to the country as an insurance against the risk of destruction by air-raids, second, because of the handi- caps imposed by paper-rationing, shortages of labour at the printing works and similar causes. Nevertheless, by June 1945 it had been found possible to publish thirty-one further Parts (containing Opinions 137 to 164 and Declarations 10 to 12). At this stage it was decided to split the volume into two continuously- paged Sections (Sections A and B) and to issue at once the title page and indexes for Section A. This decision was prompted partly by the fact that, as was already evident, the volume when completed would be of considerable size and partly by the consideration that, having regard to the difficulties of the hour, it would inevitably be a considerable time before the entire volume could be completed. Further Parts were published in the summer and autumn of 1945 and in 1946. The last of the Opinions allotted to this volume (Opinion 181) was published in February 1947. 2. Owing to the need for concentrating the whole of the resources of the Commission upon preparations for the Session of the Commission to be held in Paris in July 1948 it had not been found possible before the opening of that Session to arrange for the completion of the present volume by the preparation of the necessary concluding Part containing the requisite indexes. At that Session the Commission received three General Directives affecting the form of its Opinions, each of which affected the Opinions published in the present volume. Under these Direct- ives, which were retrospective in effect, the Commission was (VIID) required :—(1) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology every name accepted by it in any of its Opinions as the oldest available name for the genus concerned ; (2) to insert in each entry on that Official List a statement of the gender attribut- able to the generic name concerned ; (3) to place on the then newly-established Official List of Specific Names in Zoology (then styled the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology) the specific name (then styled the “trivial name ’”’) of the type species of every genus, the name of which was placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology, if the oldest available name for the species concerned, and, if that name was not con- sidered the oldest such name, to place on this Official List whatever that name may be. No progress was made in the required review of the Opinions included in the present volume during the period between the Paris (1948) and Copenhagen (1953) International Congresses of Zoology, for the whole of that period was taken up with the preparation and publication of the Official Records of the Paris Congress, with the publication of applica- tions on individual problems in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomen- clature, with the issue of Voting Papers on the applications so published, and, during the last eighteen months before the opening of the Copenhagen Congress, with preparations for the discussions on nomenclature arranged to take place during, and immediately before, that Congress both at Meetings of the International Commission and of the Colloquium on Zoological Nomen- clature which had been summoned by the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature. Further General Directives were imposed upon the Commission by the Copenhagen Congress in relation to the placing on the Official Lists and Official Indexes then established the names of taxa belonging to the family-group and higher categories. The same Congress established an Official List of Works Approved as Available for Zoological Nomenclature and a corresponding Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Works in Zoological Nomenclature, and instructed the Commission to place on this List and Index the title of every book or paper which it might either validate or declare to be available for zoological nomenclature or, as the case might be, suppress or otherwise reject for nomenclatorial purposes. As in the case of the Directives issued by the Paris Congress, these Directives were retrospective in effect. Each of these Directives necessitated therefore a further review of the Rulings given in the Opinions comprised in (IX) the present volume in order to bring the Rulings given in them fully into line with the Directives issued by the Congress. 3. In the early part of 1954 two decisions were taken affecting the procedure to be adopted for giving effect to the instructions received from the Congress in regard to the review of Opinions published prior to the Paris Session of the Commission. First, it was decided to take decisions forthwith on all the matters covered by the foregoing instructions with the exception of questions relating to family-group names based upon the names of genera placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology by Rulings given in Opinions adopted prior to the Copenhagen Congress, this exception being made because the paucity of information regarding the literature relating to family-group names made it likely that the preparation of proposals on this subject for submission to the Commission would require a much longer period than would the preparation of proposals needed to secure compliance with the other Directives issued to the Commission by the Congress. Second, it was decided (a) that from that time onwards no Opinion should be issued until, subject to the qualification noted above, all the Directives issued by the Congress had been duly complied with, and (b) that as regards subjects dealt with in Opinions already published the decisions taken should be incorporated in the volume concerned. At the Same time it was decided to press on as rapidly as possible with the taking of decisions in relation to family-group-name problems involved and to promulgate decisions in regard thereto in whatever might at the date in question be the current volume in the present series. 4. In conformity with the decisions described in the preceding paragraph the Commission has now adopted Rulings on all the matters there discussed and in consequence the decisions recorded in the present volume in relation to individual nomenclatorial problems have been brought up to the same level of completeness as that attained in the later volumes. The Rulings so adopted by the Commission have been embodied in ihe form of Directions. The Directions in relation to Rulings adopted by the Commission at its Lisbon Session form the concluding Parts of the present volume. The inconvenience attaching to the fact that inevitably part of the Ruling in any given case is embodied in an Opinion (X) and part in one of the much later Directions has been mitigated, so far as possible, by the very full nature of the subject index now published for the present volume. 5. At the time of the publication of the Opinions comprised in the present volume it was the practice of the Commission to render as Opinions not only Rulings adopted in relation to particular names and particular books but also Rulings containing authoritative interpretations of the provisions of the Régles, though, following a decision taken by the Commission at its Session held in Lisbon in 1935, Rulings of this latter type were no longer included (as had formerly been the practice) in Opinions dealing also with individual nomenclatorial problems. By a Directive given to the Commission by the Paris Congress no Ruling interpreting a provision in the Rég/es has since been rendered in an Opinion, all such Rulings having been promulgated in the ** Declarations’ Series, which that Congress directed should in future be reserved for that purpose. Thus, if the foregoing procedure had been in force at the time of the preparation of the present volume, the eight Rulings relating to the interpretation of the Régles there rendered as Opinions would have appeared in the form of Declarations. 6. Since the adoption at Lisbon in 1935 of the Rulings relating to the interpretation of the Régles given in the Opinions included in the present volume, the Rég/es themselves have been the subject of extensive reforms carried out by the Paris (1948) and Copen- hagen (1953) International Congresses of Zoology. In most cases the foregoing Rulings were incorporated in the Régles by the first of these Congresses, but in certain instances reforms carried through by that Congress or by the Copenhagen Congress have led to the repeal, in whole or in part, of the Rulings given in those Opinions. In these circumstances, it would, it is considered, be undesirable to conclude the present volume without giving an account of the present provisions in the Régiles in relation to the questions dealt with in the foregoing Opinions. A summary of the post-Lisbon development of the Rég/es in regard to these matters is accordingly given in Appendix | to the present volume. Similar information regarding the contents of the three Declarations included in the present volume is given in Appendix 2. (XI) 7. In four of the Opinions included in the present volume the Rulings given by the Commission were of a provisional character only. Particulars of subsequent developments in these cases are given in Appendix 3. 8. Miss Joan Kelley, B.Sc., by whom the indexes for volumes 2 to 6 of this series have been prepared, has recently intimated that pressure of other work will make it impossible for her to continue to act as Indexer for the Commission. The Trust has received this notification with great regret and desires to express its grateful thanks to her for the valuable work which she has performed in this field. The first draft of the index to the present volume was prepared by Miss Kelley before she relinquished her appointment. For the revision and completion of this index the Trust has to thank Mrs. J. H. Newman, one of the senior members of the Secretariat of the Commission. FRANCIS HEMMING Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 28 Park Village East, Regent’s Park, LONDON, N.W.1. 25th January 1955 " q Sop als i 9. . ‘ ‘ neat hai 4 i c a 7. 4 te i P f ‘ e ne, \ am | 4 { d mt ies i i i, . > _ Cc 7 A vk ¥. Hy ror ‘ Sed He t if i, ' 7 . ¥ Ab & 7 i 7 a 3 es : ws " \ 4 ; - _ hei Ay ky 2 4 i hus Hea ie i 4 ST TABLE OF CONTENTS VOLUME 2, SECTION A Sectional Title Page Foreword Table of Contents Introductory Note he ** Declarations ’’ 1¢—12 DECLARATION 10 On the importance of forming specialist groups for the study of the Nomenclature of particular divisions of the Animal Kingdom DECLARATION 11 On the need for a clear indication in the description of new genera and species of the Order and Family involved DECLARATION 12 On the question of breaches of the Code of Ethics (Declaration supplementary to Declara- tion 1) ot te i ‘* Opinions *? 134—160 OPINION 134 On the method to be adopted in inter- preting the Generic Names assigned by Freyer to species described in his Neuere Beitrdge zur Schmetter- lingskunde, 1833—1858 .. OPINION 135 The suppression of the so-called “ Er- langen List” of 1801... ve es i as (XII) 1X XVII (XIV) OPINION 136 Opinion supplementary to Opinion 11 on the interpretation of Latreille’s Considérations générales sur lordre naturel des animaux composant les classes des Crustacés, des Arachnides et des Insectes avec un tableau méthodique de leurs genres disposés en familles, Paris, 1810 ; OPINION 137 On the relative precedence to be accorded to certain generic names published in 1807 by Fabricius and Hiibner respectively for identical genera in the Lepidoptera Rhopalocera at OPINION 138 On the Method by which the Amend- ment to Article 25 of the International Code adopted at the Budapest Meeting of the International Zoo- logical Congress, relating to the Replacement of Invalid Names, should be Interpreted OPINION 139 The names Cephus Latreille, [1802—1803] and. Astata Latreille, 1796, in the ee added to the Official List of Generic Names .. OPINION 140 On the method of forming the family names for Merops Linnaeus, 1758 ~— and for Merope Newman, 1838 (Insecta) OPINION 141 On the principles to be observed in interpreting Article 4 of the International Code relating to the naming of families and subfamilies OPINION 142 Suspension of the Rules for Satyrus Latreille, 1810 (Insecta, Lepidoptera) .. se OPINION 143 On the method of forming the family name for Tingis Fabricius, 1803 (Insecta, Hemiptera). . OPINION 144 On the status of the names Crabro Geoffroy, 1762, Crabro Fabricius, 1775, and Cimbex Olivier, 1790 (Insecta, Hymenoptera) ae Page 13 21 29 35) 47 55 67 Sl 89 OPINION 145 On the status of names first published in works rejected for nomenclatorial purposes and subsequently published in other works OPINION 146 Suspension of the rules for Colias Fabricius, 1807 (Insecta, Lepidoptera). . OPINION 147 On the principles to be observed in interpreting Article 34 of the International Code in relation to the rejection, as homonyms, of generic and subgeneric names of the same origin and meaning as names previously published .. OPINION 148 On the principles to be observed in inter- preting Articles 25 and 34 of the International Code in relation to the availability of generic names proposed as emendations of, or as substitutes for, earlier generic names of the same origin and meaning ue OPINION 149 Twenty-one names in the Orthoptera (Insecta) added to the is List a Generic Names in Zoology. . OPINION 150 On the dates of publication of the asvetial portions of MHiibner (J.), Verzeichniss bekannter Schmettlinge [sic], 1816—[1826] OPINION 151 On the status of the names Lasius Panzer, [1801—1802], Podalirius Latreille, 1802, Lasius Fabricius, [1804—1805], and Anthophora Latreille, 1803 (Class Insecta, Order Hymenoptera) OPINION 152 On the status of the generic names in the Order Diptera (Class Insecta) first published in 1800 by J. W. Meigen in his Nouvelle Classification des Mouches a deux ailes ee. a a OPINION 153 On the status of the names Bethylus Latreille, [1802—1803], and Dryinus Latreille, tiie (Class Insecta, Order Hymenoptera) . (XV) Page 991. 109 123 133 145 161 169 181 197 (XVI) OPINION 154 On the status of the names Phaneroptera Serville, 1831, and Ty/opsis Fieber, 1853 ae Insecta, Order Orthoptera) OPINION 155 On the status of the names Callimome Spinola, 1811, Misocampe Latreille, 1818, and Torymus Dalman, 1820 (Class Insecta, Order Hymenoptera) .. OPINION 156 Suspension of the rules for Vanessa Fabricius, 1807 (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera) .. OPINION 157 Three names in the Order Hymenoptera (Class Insecta) added to the Rees List Be Generic Names in Zoology OPINION 158 On the status of the name Locusta Linnaeus, 1758 (Class Insecta, Order Orthoptera) OPINION 159 On the status of the names Ephialtes Schrank, 1802, Ichneumon Linnaeus, 1758, Pimpla Fabricius, [1804—1805], and Ephialtes Gravenhorst, 1829 (Class Insecta, Order Hymenoptera) ye OPINION 160 On the status of the names Anguina Scopoli, 1777, Anguillulina Gervais van Beneden, 1859, and Tylenchus Bastian, 1865 (Class Nematoda) SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES ON OPINIONS 137, 148 AND 149: Opinion 137 Addition to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology of Morpho Fabricius, 1807, Helicopis Fabricius, 1807, and Pontia Fabricius, 1807 (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera) . . Opinion 148 On the status of a generic name pro- posed as an emendation of a previously published generic name, where the earlier published of the two generic names is later found to be invalid by reason of being a homonym or otherwise Page 209 i, 239, 251 263 ZIS wg (3) (11) Opinion 149 On the question whether “ Sphingono- thus’ or “* Sphingonotus’’ is the correct spelling of the name originally published as Sphingono- thus Fieber, 1852 Coats Insecta, Order Ortho- ptera).. iis ip VOLUME 2, SECTION B Sectional Title Page Foreword ‘** Opinions ’’ 161—181 OPINION 161 Suspension of the rules for Argynnis Fabricius, 1807 (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera) . OPINION 162 Suspension of the rules for Bracon Fabricius, Lek ated Vas Insecta, Order ee optera) OPINION 163 Suspension of the rules fon Euploea Fabricius, 1807 (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera) .. OPINION 164 On the principles to be observed in inter- preting Article 30 of the International Code in relation to the types of genera when two or more genera are united on taxonomic grounds .. OPINION 165 Need for the suspension of the rules for Strymon Hubner, 1818 (Class Insecta, Order wis doptera) not established OPINION 166 On the status of the names Pompilus Fabricius, 1798, and Psammochares Latreille, 1796 (Class Insecta, Order Hymenoptera) and of the alleged generic name Pompilus Schneider, 1784 (Class Cephalopoda, Order Nautiloidea) (XVII) Page (15) [B.1] B.I 307 319 347 352) 3)//5) (XVIII) OPINION 167 Suspension of the rules for Euthalia Hiibner, [1819] (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera) .. OPINION 168 On the principles to be observed in inter- preting Article 30 of the International Code in relation to the names of genera based upon erroneously deter- mined species (Opinion supplementary to Opinion 65) OPINION 169 On the type of the genus Lycaeides Hiibner, [1819] (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera), a genus based upon an erroneously determined species OPINION 170 Need for the suspension of the rules for Prosopis Jurine, 1807 (Class Insecta, Order ae ptera) not at present established ; OPINION 171 Suspension of the rules for Nymphidium Fabricius, 1807 (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera) . OPINION 172 On the interpretation of Article 30 of the International Code in relation to the designation, in abstracts and similar publications, of the types of genera, the names of which were published on, or before, 31st December 1930 OPINION 173 On the type of the genus Agriades Hubner, [1819], and its synonym Latiorina Tutt, 1909 (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera), genera based upon an erroneously determined species As OPINION 174 On the status of the names Ceraphron Panzer, [1805], and Ceraphron Jurine, 1807 (Class Insecta, Order Hymenoptera) a OPINION 175 On the type of the genus Polyommatus Latreille, 1804 (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera), a genus based upon an erroneously determined species Page 399 Ail 43] 443 459 A471 483 495 509 OPINION 176 On the type of Conulinus von Martens, 1895 (Class Gastropoda, Order Stylommatophora) (Opinion supplementary to Opinion 86) OPINION 177 On the type of the genus Euchloé Hubner, [1819] (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera), a genus based upon an erroneously determined species OPINION 178 On the status of the names Serphus Schrank, 1780, and Proctotrupes Latreille, 1796 ss Insecta, Order Hymenoptera) OPINION 179 On the type of the genus Princeps Hubner, [1807], and its synonym Orpheides Hubner, [1819] (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera), genera based upon an erroneously determined species a, OPINION 180 On the status of the name Sphex Lin- naeus, 1758, and Ammophila apy 1798 aces Insecta, Order Hymenoptera) OPINION 181 On the type of the genus Carcharodus Hubner, [1819], and its synonym Spilothyrus Dupon- chel, 1835 (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera), genera based upon an erroneously determined species ** Directions ’? 2, 4—9 DIRECTION 2 Addition to the Official Lists and Official Indexes of certain scientific names dealt with in Opinions 161 to 181 DIRECTION 4 Addition to the Official Lists and Official Indexes of certain scientific names and of the titles of certain books dealt with in oe 134 to 160, exclusive of Opinion 149 is a MF DIRECTION 5 Addition to the Official Lists and. Official Indexes of certain scientific names dealt with in Opinion 149 (XIX) Page 521 538 545 30) 569 613 629 653 (XX) Page DIRECTION 6 Addition to the Official List of Family- Group Names in Zoology of the names MEROPIDAE (Class Aves) and MEROPEIDAE and TINGIDAE (Class Insecta) =. be a a 2 iy oc MAGGS DIRECTION 7 Determination of the gender to be attributed to certain generic names placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology by the Rulings given in Opinions 134 to 181 se 68 DIRECTION 8 Co-ordination of two entries on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology made in Directions 4 and 5 respectively with corresponding entries previously made by a Ruling given in Opinion 299 ms a i oe an as Bene iON) DIRECTION 9 Determination of the gender to be attributed to six generic names placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology me ae given in Opinions 137, 149 and 154 _ .. see UE APPENDICES Appendix 1—Subsequent history of the interpretations of the Régles given by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature in eight Opinions published in the present volume ee are Ge) Opinion 138 .. ae a ig ae en Opinion 141.0 2 er Opinion 145 .. es es ai a Ra ee) Opinion 147 .. bg ve ae Ms Sal) hoe Opinion 148 .. ue at nai ei 2 24 Opinion 164 .. ae ee oe A sad es Opinion 168... Opinion 172 .. = a a oe Lt DOM (XXT) Page Appendix 2—Subsequent history of the questions dealt with in the Declarations published in the present volume ae ae it. ue a ee PA Declaration 10 ae a . oh eel Declaration 11 am ae ae We ae I2T Declaration 12 ae as He eon mile Appendix 3—Notes on four individual cases of nomen- clature on which interim decisions only were given in Opinions published in the present volume - oe 9. Opinion 152 .. ve Nhe i ee Ae eS, Corot oe | 730 Opinion 165 .. ce a Hy i, ee ok Opinion 170 .. ae ue ae a Pen Sie Corrigenda (Sections A and B) a ae a ee Index to authors of applications dealt with in the present volume and comments on those applications. . Hae one Subject index shee a ae ‘ Ms on a Particulars of dates of publication of the several parts in which the present volume was published o gi LOD Instructions to Binders a ve 7 i a 767 oe 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 2. Part 18. Pp. i—viii. DECLARATION 10 On the importance of forming specialist groups for the study of the nomenclature of particular divisions of the Animal Kingdom . LONDON : Printed by Order of the International: Commission on ~ =:Zeological Nomenclature - Sold at the Publications Office of the ommssion” 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S:W.7-: ; 1944 Price one shilling-and sixpence | (All rights-reserved) Issued 24th May, 1944 Spee INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE COMPOSITION OF THE COMMISSION The Officers of the Commission President : Dr. Karl Jordan, Ph.D., F.R.S. (United Kingdom). Secretary : Mr. Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. (United Kingdom). Assistant Secretary : Dr. James L. Peters (U.S.A.). The Members of the Commission Class 1946 Herr Professor Dr. Walter ARNDT (Germany). Dr. William Thomas CALMAN (United Kingdom). Professor Teiso ESAKI (Japan). Professor Béla von HANKO (Hungary). Dr. Tadeusz JACZEWSKI (Poland). (vacant) .* Class 1949 Senor Dr. Angel CABRERA (Argentina). Dr. Frederick CHAPMAN (Australia). Mr. Francis HEMMING (United Kingdom) (Secretary to the Commission). Dr. Karl JORDAN (United Kingdom) (President of the Commission). Monsieur le Docteur Jacques PELLEGRIN (France). Herr Professor Dr. Rudolf RICHTER (Germany). Class 1952 Senor Dr. Afranio do AMARAL (Brazil). Professor James Chester BRADLEY (U.5S.A.). Professor Lodovico di CAPORIACCO (Italy). Professor J. R. DYMOND (Canada). Dr. James L. PETERS (U.S.A.) (Assistant Secretary to the Commission). Dr. Harold E. VOKES (U.5.A.). Secretariat of the Commission : British Museum (Natural History), Cromyell Road, London, S.W. 7. Publications Office of the Commission : 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W. 7. Personal address of the Secretary : 83, Fellows Road (Garden Flat), London, N.W. 3. * This vacancy was caused by.the death on 24th January, 1941, of Dr. Charles Wardell STILES (U.S.A.), Vice-President of the Commission and former Secretary to the Commission (1897-1935). “ DECLARATION 10. ON THE IMPORTANCE OF FORMING SPECIALIST GROUPS FOR THE STUDY OF THE NOMENCLATURE OF PARTICULAR DIVISIONS OF THE ANIMAL KINGDOM. DECLARATION.—The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature earnestly hope that specialists in particular groups of the Animal Kingdom will organise themselves for the study of nomenclature in the same way as has been done in the case of entomology and more recently in the ease of ornithology. The International Commission attach great weight to recommendations submitted by groups of specialists so formed ; but they feel bound to reserve to themselves the right in all eases of deciding whether recommendations so submitted are in conformity with the spirit of the Code and are within the powers granted to the Commission at successive meetings of the International Congress of Zoology. At their meeting held at Lisbon on Monday, 16th September 1935 (Lisbon Session, 2nd Meeting, Conclusion 7), Commissioner Karl Jordan (President of the Commission) made a report on the work done by the International Committee on Entomological “Nomenclature (of which he was the Secretary) at their Session held at Madrid during the Sixth International Congress of En- tomology that had just closed. Arising out of the discussion on the President’s report, the Commission (Lisbon Session, 2nd Meeting, Conclusion 8) :— : (a) recorded their earnest hope that specialists in particular groups of the Animal Kingdom would organise themselves for the study of nomenclature in the same way as had been done in the case of en- tomology and more recently in the case of ornithology ; (b) agreed to attach great weight to recommendations submitted ey groups of specialists so formed; but (c) felt bound to reserve to themselves the right in all cases of deciding whether recommendations so submitted were in conformity with the spirit of the Code and were within the powers granted to the Com- mission at successive meetings of the International Congress of Zoology. 2. The foregoing decision was embodied in paragraph 13 of the report which at their meeting held on the morning of Wednes- day, 18th September 1935, the Commission (Lisbon Session, 5th Meeting, Conclusion 6) unanimously agreed to submit to the iv. OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL Twelfth International Congress of Zoology. This report was unanimously approved by the Section on Nomenclature at its joint meeting with the International Commission held on the afternoon of the same day. It was thereupon submitted to the Twelfth International Congress of Zoology by which it was unanimously approved and adopted at the Concilium Plenum held en the afternoon of Saturday, 21st September 1935, the last day of the Congress. 3. The present Declaration was concurred in by the twelve (12) Commissioners and Alternates present at the Lisbon Session of the. International Commission, namely :— Commissioners :—-Calman; Hemming; Jordan; Pellegrin; Peters; and Stejneger. so Alternates :—do Amaral vice Cabrera; Ohshima wice Esaki; Bradley vice Stone; Beier vice Handlirsch; Arndt vice Richter; and Mortensen vice Apstein. 4. The present Declaration was dissented from by no Commis- sioner or Alternate present at the Lisbon Session. Nor since that Session has any Commissioner who was neither present on that occasion nor represented thereat by an Alternate indicated dis- agreement with the conclusions then reached by the Commission in this matter. The following five (5) Commissioners who were neither present at Lisbon nor represented thereat by Alternates did not vote on the present Declaration :— Bolivar y Pieltain; Chapman; Fantham; Silvestri; and Stiles. “AUTHORITY FOR THE ISSUE OF, 78 PRESENT DECLARATION. WHEREAS the By-Laws of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature provide that, except in cases involving | the suspension of the rules, an Opinion is to be deemed to have been adopted by the International Commission as soon.as a majority of the Members of the said Commission, that is to say ten (10) Members of the said Commission have recorded their votes in favour thereof, provided that, where any proposed Opinion involves a reversal of any former Opinion rendered by the Com- mission, such proposed Opinion shall obtain the concurrence of at least fourteen (14) Members of the Commission voting on the same before such Opznion is to be deemed to have been adopted ey the Commission ; and COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. DECLARATION I0. Vv WHEREAS it has been decided that Op:mions dealing with certain classes of subject are to be rendered under the title “‘ Declaration ”’ in lieu of the title “ Opzmon-’’ and that the rules:in the By-Laws relating to the rendering of Opinions shall apply in like manner to the rendering of Declarations ; WHEREAS the present Declaration neither requires, to be valid, the suspension of the rules, nor involes a reversal of any previous Declaration or other Opinion rendered by the Commission ; and WHEREAS twelve (12) Members of the Commission have signi- fied their concurrence in the present Declaration either personally or through Alternates at the Session of the Commission held in Lisbon in September 1935; Now, THEREFORE, I, Francis HEMMING, Secretary to the International Com- mission on Zoological Nomenclature, acting in virtue of all and every the powers conferred upon me in that behalf by reason of holding the said Office of Secretary to the International Com- mission, hereby announce the said Declaration on behalf of the International Commission, acting for the International Congress of Zoology, and direct that it be rendered and printed as Declara- tion Number Ten (Declaration 10) of the said Commission. In faith whereof, I, the undersigned FRANCIS HEMMING, Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature, have signed the present Declaration. DonE in London, this eighteenth day of June, Nineteen Hun- dred and Forty Three, in a single copy, which shall remain deposited in the archives of the International pon on a Nomenclature. ° ; De, _ Secretary to the I nternational C ommission ee on Zoological Nomenclature. FRANCIS HEMMING Vi OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL THE PUBLICATIONS OF THE COMMISSION. (obtainable at the Publications Office of the Commission at 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7.) Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. This journal has been established by the International Com- mission as their Official Organ in order to provide a medium for the publication of :— (a) proposals on zoological nomenclature submitted to the Commission for deliberation and decision ; (b) comments received from, and correspondence by the Secre- tary with, zoologists on proposals published in the Bulletin under (a) above: and (c) papers on nomenclatorial implications of developments in taxonomic theory and practice. Three Parts have so far been published: Part 1 (introductory, including an account of the functions and powers of the Com- mission and a summary of the work so far achieved); Part 2 (relating to the financial position of the Commission); Part 3 (containing the official records of the decisions taken by the Commission at their meeting at Lisbon in 1935). Opinions and Declarations Rendered by the International Com- mission on Zoological Nomenclature. Volume 1 will contain Declarations 1-g (which have never previously been published) and Opinions 1-133 (the original issue of which is now out of print). Parts 1-9 (containing Declarations I-g) have now been published. Volume 2 commences with Declaration 10 and Opinion 134. Parts 1-21 (containing Declarations 10 and 11 and Opimions 134— 152) have so far been published. The titles of these Opinions are given on the wrappers to Parts 1 and 2 of the Bulletin. Other Parts will be published shortly. COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. DECLARATION I0. vil AN URGENT APPEAL FOR A FUND OF £1800 TO ENABLE THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION TO CONTINUE ITS WORK The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature urgently appeal for grants to the above Fund to Museums, Research Institutes and other Institutions concerned with any branch of zoology ; to Learned Societies and Associations concerned with any aspect of zoology ; to Institutions and Learned Societies in the fields of Agriculture, Horticulture, Medicine and Veterinary Science, all of whom have a direct interest in that portion of the work of the Commission which is concerned with the stabilisa- tion of Zoological Nomenclature ; to University and other Depart- ments engaged in the teaching of zoology as being directly interested to secure stability in the scientific nomenclature used in biological text-books ; and to every individual zoologist who may be in a position to contribute to the funds of the Commission. Full particulars of the purpose for which the above Fund is required are given in Part 2 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. Contributions of any amount, however small, will be most gratefully received. They should be addressed to the Commission at their Publications Office, 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7. Bankers’ drafts, cheques, and Postal Orders, should be made payable to the ‘* International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature ’’ and crossed ‘** Account payee. Coutts & Co.’’. 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 2. Part 19. Pp. ix—xvi. — DECLARATION 11 On the need for a clear indication in the description of new genera and species of the Order and Family involved LONDON :; Printed by Order of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature Sold at the Publications Office of the Commission 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7 1944 3 Price one shilling and sixpence (All rights reserved) Issued 24th May, 1944 INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE COMPOSITION OF THE COMMISSION The Officers of the Commission President: Dr. Karl Jordan, Ph.D., F.R.S. (United Kingdom). Secretary : Mr. Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. (United Kingdom). Assistant Secretary : Dr. James L. Peters (U.S.A.). The Members of the Commission _ Class 1946 Herr Professor Dr. Walter ARNDT (Germany). Dr. William Thomas CALMAN (United Kingdom). Professor Teiso ESAKI (Japan). Professor Béla von HANKO (Hungary). Dr. Tadeusz JACZEWSKI (Poland). (vacant).* Class 1949 Senor Dr. Angel CABRERA (Argentina). Dr. Frederick CHAPMAN (Australia). Mr. Francis HEMMING (United Kingdom) (Secretary to the Commission). Dr. Karl JORDAN (United Kingdom) (President of the Commission). Monsieur le Docteur Jacques PELLEGRIN (France). Herr Professor Dr. Rudolf RICHTER (Germany). Class 1952 Senor Dr. Afranio do AMARAL (Brazil). hi Professor James Chester BRADLEY (U:S.A.). - Professor Lodovico di CAPORIACCO (Italy). Professor J. R. DYMOND (Canada). Dr. James L. PETERS (U.S.A.) (Assistant Secretary to the Commission). Dr. Harold E. VOKES (U.S.A.). | Secretariat of the Commission : British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London, 5.W. 7. Publications Office of the Commission : 41, Queen’s Gate, London, $.W. 7. Personal addvess of the Secretary : 83, Fellows Road (Garden Flat), London, N.W. 3. * This vacancy was caused by the death on 24th January, 1941, of Dr. Charles Wardell STILES (U.S.A.), Vice-President of the Commission and © former Secretary to the Commission (1897-1935). DECLARATION 11. ON THE NEED FOR A CLEAR INDICATION IN THE DE- SCRIPTION OF NEW GENERA OR SPECIES OF THE ORDER AND FAMILY INVOLVED. DECLARATION.—It is highly desirable that every author when publishing a new description should indicate clearly to what Order and Family the genus or species so described belongs. Editors of zoological journals and authors of zoological papers are particularly invited to comply with this requirement. At their meeting held at Lisbon on Monday, 16th September 1935, the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature had under consideration the following resolution adopted by the International Committee on Entomological Nomenclature at their meeting held in Paris in 1932 and later confirmed by Section VIII (Section on Nomenclature) of the Fifth International Con- gress of Entomology and by the said Congress in Concilium Plenum on the presentation of the report of the Secretary of the Executive Committee :— Descriptions isolées Les auteurs de descriptions sont priés d’indiquer dans chaque travail Vordre et la famille des insectes décrits. 2. The International Commission found themselves in complete’ agreement with the object sought by the International Congress of Entomology, but considered that the scope of the decision desired should be extended to cover descriptions of new genera and species throughout the Animal Kingdom. The International Commission accordingly agreed (Lisbon Session, 2nd Meeting, Conclusion 16) :— | that it was highly desirable that every author when publishing a new description should indicate clearly to what Order and Family the genus or species so described belonged and that this matter should be brought to the attention of editors’ of zoological journals and of authors of zoological papers. 3. At their meeting held on Tuesday, 17th September 1935 (Lisbon Session, 4th Meeting, Conclusion 17) Commissioner _ Francis Hemming who, in the absence through ill-health of Dr. C, W. Stiles, Secretary to the Commission, had been charged with xii OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL the duty of preparing the report to be submitted by the Commis- sion to the Twelfth International Congress of Zoology, reported that, in accordance with the request made by the Commission on the previous day (Lisbon Session, 3rd Meeting, Conclusion 3(b)), he had made a start with the drafting of the Commission’s report ; that he had made considerable progress in spite of being hampered by the lack of standard works of reference; and that he did not doubt that he would be in a position to lay a draft report before the Commission at their next meeting, though in the time avail- able it would be quite impracticable to prepare the drafts of paragraphs relating to all the matters on which decisions had been reached during the Lisbon Session of the Commission. As agreed upon at the meeting referred to above (Lisbon Session, 3rd Meeting, Conclusion 3(a)(ili)), he was therefore concentrating upon those matters that appeared to be the more important. Commissioner Hemming proposed that those matters which it was found impossible to include in the report, owing to the short- ness of the time available, should be dealt with after the Congress on the basis of the records in the Official Record of Proceedings of the Commission during their Lisbon Session. For this purpose, Commissioner Hemming proposed that all matters unanimously agreed upon during the Lisbon Session should be treated in the Same manner, whether or not it was found possible to include references to them in the report to be submitted to the Congress, and therefore that every such decision should be treated as having been participated in by all the Commissioners and Alternates present at Lisbon. The Commission took note of, and approved, the statement by Commissioner Hemming and adopted the pro- posals submitted by him, as recorded above, in-regard both to the selection of items to be included in their report to the Twelfth International Congress of Zoology and to the procedure to be adopted after the Congress in regard to those matters with which, for the reasons explained, it was found impossible to deal in the : report. ~4..The question dealt with in the present Declaration was one oe the matters to which it was found impossible, in the time available, to include a reference in the report submitted by the Commission to the Twelfth International Congress of Zoology at Lisbon. It is therefore one of the matters which falls to be dealt with under the procedure agreed upon by the Commission as set out in paragraph 3 above. | a. ie piesa Declaration was concurred i in by the twelve (12) COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. DECLARATION II. Xiil Commissioners and Alternates present at the Lisbon Session of the International Commission, namely :— : Commissioners :—Calman; Hemming; Jordan; Pellegrin; Peters; and Stejneger. Alternates :—do Amaral vice Cabrera; Ohshima vice Esaki; Bradley vice Stone; Beier vice Handlirsch; Arndt vwice Richter; and Mortensen vice Apstein. 6. The present Declaration was dissented from by no Com- missioner or Alternate present at the Lisbon Session. The following five (5) Commissioners who were neither present at Lisbon nor represented thereat by Alternates did not vote on the present Declaration :— Bolivar y Pieltain; Chapman; Fantham; Silvestri; and Stiles. AUTHORITY FOR PEP Ssswh vOr Tah PRESENT DECLARATION. WHEREAS the By-Laws of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature provide that, except in cases involving the suspension of the rules, an Opinion is to be deemed to have been adopted by the International Commission as soon as a majority of the Members of the said Commission, that is to say ten (10) Members of the said Commission, have recorded their votes in favour thereof, provided that, where any proposed Opinion involves a reversal of any former Opimion rendered by the Com- mission, such proposed Opinion shall obtain the concurrence of at least fourteen (14) Members of the Commission voting on the same before such Opinion is to be deemed to have been adopted by the Commission; and WHEREAS it has been decided that Opinions dealing with certain classes of subject are to be rendered under the title “‘ Declaration ”’ in lieu of the title “‘ Opinion’ and that the rules in the By-Laws relating to the rendering of Opinions shall apply in like manner to the rendering of Declarations; and WHEREAS the present Declaration neither requires, to be valid, the suspension of the rules nor involves a reversal of any previous Declaration or other Opinion rendered by the Commission; and WHEREAS twelve (12) Members of the Commission have signified their concurrence in the present Declaration either in person or XiV OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL through Alternates at the Session of the Commission held in Lisbon in September 1935; Now, THEREFORE, I, FRANCIS HEMMING, Secretary to the International Com- mission on Zoological Nomenclature, acting in virtue of all and every the powers conferred upon me in that behalf by reason of holding the said Office of Secretary to the International Com- mission, hereby announce the said Declaration on behalf of the International Commission, acting for the International Congress of Zoology, and direct that it be rendered and printed as Declara- tion Number Eleven (Declaration 11) of the said Commission. | In faith whereof, I, the undersigned FRANCIS HEMMING, Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature, have signed the present Declaration. Done in London, this nineteenth day of June, Nineteen Hundred and Forty Three, in a single copy, which shall remain deposited in the archives of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. FRANCIS HEMMING COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. DECLARATION II. XV THE PUBLICATIONS OF THE COMMISSION. (obtainable at the Publications Office of the Commission at 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7.) Bulletin of Zoological N omenclature. This journal has been established by the International Com- mission as their Official Organ in order to provide a medium for the publication of :— , (a) proposals on zoological: nomenclature submitted to ‘the Commission for deliberation and decision ; (b) comments received from, and correspondence by the Secre- tary with, zoologists on proposals published in the Bulletin under (a) above: and (c) papers on nomenclatorial implications of developments in taxonomic theory and practice. Three Parts have so far been published: Part 1 (introductory, including an account of the functions and powers of the Com- mission and a summary of the work so far achieved); Part 2 (relating to the financial position of the Commission); Part 3 (containing the official records of the decisions taken by the Commission at their meeting at Lisbon in 1935). Opinions and Declarations Rendered by the International Com- mission on Zoological Nomenclature. Volume 1 will contain Declarations 1-g (which have never previously been published) and Opinions 1-133 (the original issue of which is now out of print). Parts 1-9 (containing Declarations 1-9) have now been published. Volume 2 commences with Declaration 10 and Opinion 134. Parts 1-21 (containing Declarations 10 and 11 and Opinions 134- 152) have so far been published. The titles of these Opinions are given on the wrappers to Parts I and 2 of the Bulletin. Other Parts will be published shortly. XV1 \INTERNATIONAL- COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. AN URGENT APPEAL FOR A FUND OF £1800 TO ENABLE THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION TO CONTINUE ITS WORK The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature urgently appeal for grants to the above Fund to Museums, Researeh Institutes and other Institutions concerned with any braneh of zoology ; to Learned Societies and Associations concerned with any aspect of zoology ; to Institutions and Learned Societies in the fields of Agriculture, Horticulture, Medicine and Veterinary Seience, all of whom have a direct interest in that portion of the work of the Commission which is concerned with the stabilisa- tion of Zoological Nomenclature ; to University and other Depart- ments engaged in the teaching of zoology as being directly interested to secure stability in the scientific nomenclature used in biological — text-books ; and to every individual zoologist who. may be ina position to contribute to the funds of the Commission. Full | particulars of the purpose for which the above Fund is required are | given in Part 2 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. | Contributions of any amount, however small, will be most | gratefully received. They should be addressed to the Commission | at their Publications Office, 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7. | Bankers’ drafts, cheques, and Postal Orders, should be made | payable to the ** International Commission on Zoological Nomen- | clature ’’ and crossed ‘* Account payee. Coutts & Co.’’. PRINTED IN GREAT BRITAIN BY RICHARD CLAY AND COMPANY, LTD., BUNGAY, SUFFOLK. 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 2. Part 22. Pp. xvii—xxiv. DECLARATION 12 On the question of breaches of the Code of Ethics (Declaration supplementary to Declaration 1) LONDON: Printed by Order of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature Sold at the Publications Office of the Commission 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7 1944 Price one shilling and sixpence (All rights reserved) : + Issued 12th July, 1944 INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE COMPOSITION OF THE COMMISSION The Officers of the Commission | President : Dr. Karl Jordan, Ph.D., F.R.S. (United Kingdom). Secretary : Mr. Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. (United Kingdom). Assistant Secretary : Dr. James L. Peters (U.S.A.). The Members of the Commission Class 1946 Herr Professor Dr. Walter ARNDT (Germany). Dr. William Thomas CALMAN (United Kingdom). Professor Teiso ESAKI (Japan). Professor Béla von HANKO (Hungary). Dr. Tadeusz JACZEWSKI (Poland). (vacant) .* Class 1949 Senor Dr. Angel CABRERA (Argentina). _ Dr. Frederick CHAPMAN (Australia). | Mr. Francis HEMMING (United Kingdom) (Secretary to the Commission). Dr. Karl JORDAN (United Kingdom) (President of the Commission). Monsieur le Docteur Jacques PELLEGRIN (France). Herr Professor Dr. Rudolf RICHTER (Germany). Class 1952 Senor Dr. Afranio do AMARAL (Brazil). Professor James Chester BRADLEY (U.S.A.). Professor Lodovico di CAPORIACCO (Italy). Professor J. R. DYMOND (Canada). Dr. James L. PETERS (U.S.A.) (Assistant Secretary to the Commission). — Dr. Harold E. VOKES (U.3.A.). Secretariat of the Commission : British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London, 5.W. 7. ome Publications Office of the Commission : 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W. 7. Personal address of the Secretary : 83, Fellows Road (Garden Flat), London, N.W. 3. * This vacancy was caused by the death on 24th January, 1941, of Dr. Charles Wardell STILES (U.S.A.), Vice-President of the Commission and former Secretary to the Commission (1897-1935). DECLARATION 12. ON THE QUESTION OF BREACHES OF THE CODE OF ETHICS (DECLARATION SUPPLEMENTARY TO DECLARATION 1). DECLARATION.— While re-affirming their fullest support of the Resolution adopted on their recommendation by the Ninth Inter- - national Congress of Zoology at its meeting held at Monaco in 1913, laying down a Code of Ethies to be observed by zoologists before publishing substitutes for generic or specific names that are unavailable under Articles 34 and 36 of the Code, in those cases where the author of the name to be so replaced is still alive, the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature are of the considered opinion that the question whether the Code of Ethies has been duly complied with in any given case is not a matter on _ which they are authorised to enter. On 4th June 1935 Professor Dr. Eduard Handschin, President of the Schweizerische entomologische Gesellschaft addressed a letter to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature _ containing proposals for certain action to be taken where it could be shown that a given author had repeatedly and deliberately violated the Code of Ethics (Declaration 1). The discussion of this question had originated with the Verein Entomologia Ziirich which at their meeting held on 24th April 1935 had adopted a resolution in which the Society had drawn attention to a case where, in the judgment of the Society, a particular author had violated the Code of Ethics in this way. At the same time Verein Entomologia Ziirich had formulated certain proposals for action to be taken by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to meet the situation so created. In the same resolution the Society agreed that the resolutions which they had adopted in regard to this matter should be transmitted to the Schweizerische entomologische Gesellschaft with a request that that body should forward it to the International Commission. The proposals of the Verein Entomologia Ztirich were embodied in an explanatory memorandum which on the following day (25th April 1935) was signed by Professor Dr. .J. G. Lautner, President of the Society. This memorandum was duly forwarded to the Schweizerische entomologische Gesellschaft which, at its XX OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL annual meeting held on 19th May 1935, decided to support the action proposed by the Verein Entomologia Ztirich and to forward the resolutions adopted by that body to the International Com- mission on its own behalf as well as on that of the Verein En- tomologia Ziirich. With his letter to the Commission of 4th June 1935 Professor Handschin enclosed a copy of the document prepared by the Verein Entomologia Zurich duly endorsed by himself on behalf of the Schweizerische entomologische Gesellschaft. 2. Copies of the documents referred to above were transmitted by Dr. C. W. Stiles, Secretary to the Commission, to each Member of the Commission in July 1935. Dr. Stiles suggested that this question should be discussed by the Commission at their meeting due to be held at Lisbon in September of that year. 3. This question was considered by the Commission at their meeting held at Lisbon on the morning of Monday, 16th September 1935 (Lisbon Session, 2nd Meeting, Conclusion 24). In the dis- cussion which ensued it was clear that no member of the Com- mission had any sympathy for persons who disregarded the Code of Ethics. It was generally felt, however, that the International Commission was not in a position to hold inquiries into alleged breaches of the Code even if they possessed (which they did not at present) the power to act in a judicial capacity in such cases. The Commission accordingly agreed :— to re-affirm their fullest support of the Resolution adopted on their recommendation by the Ninth International Congress of Zoology at its meeting held at Monaco in 1913, laying down a Code of Ethics to be observed by zoologists before publishing substitutes for generic or specific names that are unavailable under Articles 34 and 36 of the Code, in those cases where the author of the name to be so replaced is still alive; but at the same time to record their considered opinion that the question whether the Code of Ethics had been duly complied with in any given case was not a matter on which they were authorised to enter. 4. At their meeting held on Tuesday, 17th September 1935 (Lisbon Session, 4th Meeting, Conclusion 17), Commissioner Francis Hemming who, in the absence through ill-health of Dr. C. W. Stiles, Secretary to the Commission, had been charged with the duty of preparing the report to be submitted to the Twelfth — International Congress of Zoology, reported that, in accordance with the request made by the Commission on the previous day (Lisbon Session, 3rd Meeting, Conclusion 3(b)), he had made a start with the drafting of the Commission’s report; that he had made considerable progress in spite of being hampered by the lack of standard works of reference; and that he did not doubt that | COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. DECLARATION I2. XXi he would be in a position to lay a draft report before the Com- mission at their next meeting, though in the time available it would be quite impracticable to prepare the drafts of paragraphs relating to all the matters on which decisions had been reached during the Lisbon Session of the Commission. As agreed upon at the meeting referred to above (Lisbon Session, 3rd Meeting, Conclusion 3(a)(iii)), he was therefore concentrating upon those matters that appeared to be the more important. Commissioner Hemming proposed that those matters which it was found im- possible to include in the report, owing to the shortness of the time available, should be dealt with after the Congress on the basis of the records in the Official Record of Proceedings of the Com- mission during their Lisbon Session. For this purpose, Com- missioner Hemming proposed that all matters unanimously agreed upon during the Lisbon Session should be treated in the Same manner, whether or not it was found possible to include _references to them in the report to be submitted to the Congress, and therefore that every such decision should be treated as having been participated in by all the Commissioners and Alternates present at Lisbon. The Commission took note of, and approved, the statement by Commissioner Hemming and adopted the proposals submitted by him, as recorded above, in regard to the selection of items to be included in their report to the Twelfth International Congress of Zoology and to the procedure to be adopted after the Congress in regard to those matters with which, for the reasons explained, it was found impossible to deal in that report. 5. Ihe question dealt with in the present Declaration was one of the matters to which it was found impossible, in the time available, to include a reference in the report submitted by the Commission to the Twelfth International Congress of Zoology at Lisbon. It is therefore one of the matters which falls to be dealt with under the procedure agreed upon by the Commission as set out in paragraph 4 above. 6. The present Declaration was concurred in by the twelve (12) Commissioners and Alternates present at the Lisbon Session of the International Commission, namely :— Commissioners :—Calman; Hemming; Jordan; Pellegrin; Peters; and Stejneger. Alternates :—do Amaral vice Cabrera: Ohshima vice Esaki: Bradley wice Stone; Beier vice Handlirsch; Arndt vice Richter; and Mortensen vice Apstein. Xxii OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL 7. The present Declaration was dissented from by no Com- missioner or Alternate present at the Lisbon Session. The follow- ing five (5) Commissioners who were neither present at Lisbon nor represented thereat by Alternates did not vote on the present Declaration :— Bolivar y Pieltain; Chapman; Fantham; Silvestri; and Stiles. AUTHORITY FOR THE ISSUE OF THE PRESENT DECLARATION. WueEREAS the By-Laws of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature provide that, except in cases involving the suspension of the rules, an Opimion is to be deemed to have been adopted by the International Commission aS soon as a _ majority of the Members of the said Commission, that is to say ten (10) Members of the said Commission, have recorded their votes in favour thereof, provided that, where any proposed Opinion involves a reversal of any former Opinion rendered by the Com- mission, such proposed Opinion shall obtain the concurrence of at least fourteen (14) Members of the Commission voting on the same before such Opinion is to be deemed to have been adopted by the Commission ; and WHEREAS it has been decided that Opinions dealing with certain classes of subject are to be rendered under the title ‘‘ Declaration ” in lieu of the title ‘‘ Opinion’ and that the rules in the By-Laws relating to the rendering of Opinions shall apply in like manner to the rendering of Declarations ; and WHEREAS the present Declaration neither requires, to be valid, the suspension of the rules nor involves a reversal of any previous Declaration or other Opinion rendered by the Commission; and WHEREAS twelve (12) Members of the Commission have signified their concurrence in the present Declaration either in person or through Alternates at the Session of the Commission held in Lisbon in September 1935; Now, THEREFORE, I, Francis HemMInG, Secretary to the International Com- mission on Zoological Nomenclature, acting in virtue of all and every the powers conferred upon me in that behalf by virtue of holding the said Office of the Secretary to the International Commission, hereby announce the said Declaration on behalf of the International Commission, acting for the International Con- gress of Zoology, and direct that it be rendered and printed as COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. DECLARATION I2. XXili Declaration Number Twelve (Declaration 12) of the said Com- _ mission. In faith whereof, I, the undersigned FRANCIS HEMMING, Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature, have signed the present Declaration. Done in London, this twentieth day of June, Nineteen Hundred and Forty Three, in a single copy, which shall remain deposited in the archives of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. FRANCIS HEMMING XXivV INTERNATIONAL’ COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. THE PUBLICATIONS OF THE COMMISSION. (obtainable at the Publications Office of the Commission at 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7.) ; Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature This journal has been established by the International Commission as their Official Organ in order to provide a medium for the publication of :— (a) proposals on zoological nomenclature submitted to the Commission for deliberation and decision ; (b) comments received from, and correspondence by the Secretary with, zoologists on proposals published in the Bulletin under (a) above : and (c) papers on nomenclatorial implications of developments in taxonomic theory and practice. Parts 1-3 of Volume 1 have so far been published. Opinions and Declarations Rendered by the International Com- mission on Zoological Nomenclature. Parts 1-12 of Volume 1 (containing Declarations 1-9 and Opinions 1-3) have so far been published. | Parts 1-25 of Volume 2 (containing Declavations 10-12 and Opinions 134-155) have so far been published. Additional Parts of both Volumes will be published shortly. AN URGENT APPEAL FOR A FUND OF £1800 TO ENABLE THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION TO CONTINUE ITS WORK The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature urgently appeal for grants to the above Fund to Museums, Researeh Institutes and other Institutions concerned with any branch of zoology ; to Learned Societies and Associations concerned with any aspect of zoology ; to Institutions and Learned Societies in the fields of Agriculture, Horticulture, Medicine and Veterinary Science, all of whom have a direct interest in that portion of the work of the Commission which is concerned with the stabilisa- tion of Zoological Nomenclature ; to University and other Depart- ments engaged in the teaching of zoology as being directly interested to secure stability in the scientific nomenclature used in biological text-books ; and to every individual zoologist who may be in a position to contribute to the funds of the Commission. Full particulars of the purposes for which the above Fund is required are given in Part 2 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. | Contributions of any amount, however small, will be most, gratefully received. They should be addressed to the Commission) at their Publications Office, 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7.| Bankers’ drafts, cheques, and Postal Orders, should be made! payable to the ‘‘ International Commission on Zoological Nomen-| elature ’? and crossed ‘“‘ Account payee. Coutts & Co.”’. Printed by Richard Clay and Company, Lid., Bungay, Suffolk. OPINIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Edited by FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E. Secretary to the Commission VOLUME 2 (pp. 1-6) OPINION 134 On the method to be adopted in interpreting the Generic Names assigned by Freyer to species described in his Neuere Beitrdge zur Schmetterlingskunde, 1833-1858 - LONDON: Printed by Order of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature Sold at the Secretariat of the Commission British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London, S.W.7 1939 Price eight pence (All rights reserved) an ‘ Issued August 28th, 1939 sy > ee o: " Note :—Opinions One to One Hundred and Thirty-Three (Opinions 1-133) rendered by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature were not published by the Commission itself, owing to lack of funds. Through the intermediary of Dr. ©. W. Stiles, at that time Secretary to the Imtenmarional Commission, the Smithsonian Institution very kindly came to the aid of the Commission and agreed to publish the Opinions of the Commission in the Smithsoman Miscellaneous Collections. Unfortunately, all except a few of the most recent of the above Opinions are now out of print, and are therefore no longer obtainable by working zoologists. In order to remedy the serious position so created, it is proposed, as soon as funds are available, to reprint Opinions 1 to 133 as Volume 1 of Opinions Rendered by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. APR 2~ 1943 \, Printed by Richard Clay and Company, Ltd., Bungay, Suffolk. OPINION 134. ON THE METHOD TO BE ADOPTED IN INTERPRETING THE GENERIC NAMES ASSIGNED BY FREYER TO SPECIES DESCRIBED IN HIS NEUERE BEITRAGE ZUR SCHMET- TERLINGSKUNDE, 1833-1858. SUMMARY.—In interpreting the generic names assigned by Freyer in his Neuere Beitrége zur Schmetterlingskunde to the species there described, each species is to be regarded as having been described by Freyer as belonging to the genus cited by him at the head of the deseription and not to the genus with which he actually associated the specific name. } thE STATEMENT OF THE CASE. At the Fifth International Congress of Entomology held in Paris in July, 1932, Section VIII of the Congress (the Section on Nomenclature) appointed a special Committee for the duration of ' the Congress to consider questions of nomenclature of special interest to entomologists. Prior to the close of the Congress this Committee submitted to Section VIII a series of Draft Resolutions, one of which read as follows :— ~ Les noms specifiques de Freyer doivent étre regardés comme liés aux noms des genres énumérés par lui et non pas aux noms des grandes divisions de Linné; par exemple, il faut citer Hipparchia ertphyle Freyer, non Papilio eviphyle Freyer.”’ ie bee SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF THE CASE. 2. The foregoing Resolution was unanimously adopted by Section VIII of the Congress, which agreed to submit it and certain other Resolutions to the Plenary Session of the Congress, for transmission to the International Committee on Entomological Nomenclature. At the Plenary Session of the Congress, this Resolution was adopted in the manner proposed, and it was accordingly thereby referred to the International Committee. 3. This question was carefully considered by the International Committee on Entomological Nomenclature in September, 1935, at their Meeting held in Madrid during the Meeting of the Sixth 3 4 OPINIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL International Congress of Entomology; and the Committee agreed to submit to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature a recommendation supporting the Resolution set out in paragraph 1 above, and expressing the hope that the Commission at their next Meeting would agree to render an Opinion in the sense of the said Resolution. Ni—THE CONCLUSION REACHED BY 1HE inte NATIONAL COMMISSION. 4. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature gave consideration to this question later in September, 1935, at their Meeting held in Lisbon during the Meeting of the Twelfth International Zoological Congress. At this Meeting the Inter- national Commission unanimously adopted the following Resolution which was incorporated in their Report to the Inter- national Zoological Congress as paragraph 16 thereof :— c6é 16. On the method to be adopted in interpreting the generic names assigned by Freyer to species described in his Neuere Beitrage zur Schmetterlings- kunde, 1833—1858.—In interpreting the generic names assigned by Freyer in his Neueve Beitvage zuyv Schmetterlingskunde to the species there described, each species is to be regarded as having been described by Freyer as belonging to the genus cited by him at the head of each description and not to the genus with which he actually associated the specific name. For example, Freyer described, under the genus Hipparchia Fabricius, a Species to which he gave the specific name eviphyle, and which he proceeded to name Papilio eriphyle Freyer. Freyer is to be deemed to have described this species under the name Hipparchia eriphyle and not under the name Papilio eviphyle.”’ 5. The Report of the International Commission containing the foregoing paragraph was unanimously adopted at the Meeting of the Commission held on the morning of Wednesday, 18th September, 1935; and by the Section on Nomenclature at their Meeting held on the afternoon of the same day. The Report was accordingly submitted to the International Zoological Congress by which it was unanimously adopted at the Concilium Plenum of the Congress held on the afternoon of Saturday, 21st September, 1935, the last day of the Congress. 6. In view of the possibility that it might be held that the Opinion as set out in the extract from the Commission’s Report quoted in paragraph 4 above might require, im order to be valid, the Suspension of the Rules, the intention of the Commission to render an Opinion in the said terms was duly advertised in 1936 in two or more of the zoological journals named in the Resolution adopted by the Ninth International Zoological Congress held at Monaco in March, 1913, by “wihielheilie COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 134. 5 International Congress conferred upon the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature Plenary Power to suspend the Rules as applied to any given case where in the opinion of the Commission the strict application of the Rules would clearly result in greater confusion than uniformity. 7. In the period which has elapsed since the announcement in the said zoological journals of the proposed Suspension of the Rules in the manner indicated, no communication of any kind has been addressed to the International Commission objecting to the issue of an Opinion in the terms proposed. 8. The Opinion as set out in the extract from the Commission’s Report quoted in paragraph 4 above was concurred in by the twelve (12) Commissioners and Alternates present at the Lisbon Meeting of the International Commission, namely :— Commissioners :—Calman; Hemming; Jordan; Pellegrin; eters» and Stejneger. Alternates :—do Amaral vice Cabrera; Oshima vice Esaki; Bradley vice Stone; Beier vice Handlirsch; Arndt wice Richter ; and Mortensen vice Apstein. g. Ihe Opinion referred to above was dissented from by no Commissioner or Alternate. 10. The following five (5) Commissioners who were neither present at the Lisbon Meeting of the International Commission nor were represented thereat by Alternates did not vote on the above Opinion :—Bolivar ve Eteltaim-) Chapman.) antnaimn, Silvestri; and Stiles. i UTHORITY FOR THE ISSUE OF THE PRESENT OPINION. _ WHEREAS the Sixth International Zoological Congress at its Meeting held in Monaco in March, 1913, adopted a Resolution conferring upon the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, acting for the International Zoological Congress, Plenary Power to suspend the Rules as applied to any given case, where, in the judgment of the Commission, the strict application of the said Rules would clearly result in greater confusion than uniformity, provided that not less than one year’s notice of the possible Suspension of the Rules as applied to the Said case should be given in two or more of five journals named in the said Resolution, and provided that the vote in the 6 INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. Commission was unanimously in favour of the proposed Suspension of the Rules; and WHEREAS it might be held that the present Opinion might require, in order to be valid, the Suspension of the Rules; and WHEREAS, in order to provide for the said contingency, not less than one year’s notice of the possible Suspension of the Rules as applied to the present case has been given in two or more of the journals referred to in the said Resolution adopted by the Sixth International Congress at its Meeting held in Monaco in March, 1913; and WHEREAS the vote in the Commission at their Lisbon Meeting was unanimously in favour of the issue of an Opinion in the terms of the present Opinion ; Now, THEREFORE, I, FRANCIS HEMMING, Secretary to the International Com- mission on Zoological Nomenclature, acting in virtue of all and every the powers conferred upon me by reason of holding the said Office of Secretary to the International Commission, hereby announce the said Opinion on behalf of the International Commission, acting for the International Zoological Congress, and direct that it be rendered and printed as Opinion Number One Hundred and Thirty-Four (Opinion 134) of the said Commission. In faith whereof, I, the undersigned FRANCIS HEMMING, Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature, have signed the present Opinion. DoneE in London, this thirtieth day of June, Nineteen Hundred | and Thirty-Nine, in a single copy, which shall remain deposited in the archives of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. FRANCIS HEMMING Gp A f a AY sy sie a | q ' ; : P i Y : Q ! ; \¢ ve A : i 2 4 o : P ‘ : } , 4 a - ® i b 43 aa ee : ‘ : = 7 ie Co ; AL af = ne : as vt =. ry id? a - 3 = / ir es } ® a = ?. 4 < { ; i ry « 4 ; i : i 7 r. Z a ' g 3 < « ri E J —s * * » —_ z , x 2 ~ “ c = 4 J 1 = : é _ 2 ‘ ee See OPINIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Edited by FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E. Secretary to the Commission VOLUME 2 (pp. 7—12) OPINION 135 The suppression of the so-called “Erlangen List ” of 1801 LONDON : Printed by Order of the International, Commission on Zoological Nomenclature Sold at the Secretariat of the Commission | British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London, S.W.7 | 1939 Price eight pence | (All rights reserved) Issued August 28th, 1939 Note :—Opinions One to One Hundred and Thirty-Three (Opinions I-133) rendered by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature were not published by the Commission itself, owing to lack of funds. Through the intermediary of Dr. C. W. Stiles, at that time Secretary to the International Commission, the Smithsonian Institution very kindly came to the aid of the Commission and agreed to publish the Opinions of the Commission in the Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections. Unfortunately, all except a few of the most recent of the above Opinions are now out of print, and are therefore no longer obtainable by working zoologists. In order to remedy the serious position so created, it is proposed, as soon as funds are available, to reprint Opinions r to 133 as Volume 1 of Opinions Rendered by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. C APR 2~ 1943 Printed by Richard Clay and Company, Ltd., Bungay, Suffolk. OPINION 135. THE SUPPRESSION OF THE SO-CALLED “ ERLANGEN LIST ’’ OF 1801. SUMMARY.—The so-called “ Erlangen List ’’ of 1801 is to be treated as though it had never been published. ih SAGE MEN DP Oh RE CASE: At the Fifth International Congress of Entomology held in Paris in July, 1932, Section VIII of the Congress (the Section on Nomenclature) appointed a special Committee for the duration of the Congress to consider questions of nomenclature of special interest to entomologists. Prior to the close of the Congress this Committee submitted to Section VIII a series of Draft Resolutions, one of which read as follows :— “Le Congrés propose a la Commission pour la Nomenclature zoologique de supprimer les noms génériques de la soi-disant Liste d’Erlangen de 1801, parce que l’acceptation de ces noms bouleverserait la nomenclature des Hyménopteéres.”’ eal SUBSEOUERENT HISTORY OF THE CASE. 2. The foregoing Resolution was unanimously adopted by Sec- tion VIII of the Congress, which agreed to submit it and certain other Resolutions to the Plenary Session of the Congress, for transmission to the International Committee on Entomological Nomenclature. At the Plenary Session of the Congress, this Resolution was adopted in the manner proposed, and it was accordingly thereby referred to the International Committee. 3. This question was carefully considered by the International Committee on Entomological Nomenclature in September, 1935, at their Meeting held in Madrid during the Meeting of the Sixth International Congress of Entomology ; and the Committee agreed to submit to the International Commission on Zoological No- menclature a recommendation supporting the Resolution set out in paragraph r above, and expressing the hope that the Commis- sion at their next Meeting would agree to render an Opinion in the sense of the said Resolution. 9 IO OPINIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL III—_THE CONCLUSION REACHED BY THE INTER- NATIONAL COMMISSION. 4. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature gave consideration to this question later in September, 1935, at their Meeting held in Lisbon during the Meeting of the Twelfth International Zoological Congress. At this Meeting the Inter- national Commission unanimously adopted the following Reso- lution which was incorporated in their Report to the International Zoological Congress as paragraph 17 thereof :— “17. Suppression of the so-called‘ Eviangen List’ of 1801.—The International Commission have had under consideration the anonymous pamphlet dealing with the generic classification of the Hymenoptera, which was published in 1801 under the title Nachricht von Einen neuen entomolischen (sic) Werke des Hyn. Prof. JURINE im Geneve, and which is commonly known as the ‘ Erlangen List’. The International Commission are con- vinced that the adoption of the names contained in this pamphlet in ac- cordance with the strict application of the rules would clearly result in greater confusion than uniformity. Acting, therefore, in virtue of the plenary powers conferred upon them at the Monaco session of the Inter- national Zoological Congress, the International Commission hereby declare that the so-called ‘ Erlangen List’ is to be treated as though it had never been published. Consequential on the above, it should be understood that where subsequently any author published a genus having the same name as one of the genera proposed in the ‘ Erlangen List’, the later published name is not to be regarded as a homonym by reason of the earlier publication of that name in the ‘ Erlangen List ’.”’ 5. The Report of the International Commission containing the foregoing paragraph was adopted unanimously at the Meeting of the Commission held on the morning of Wednesday, 18th September, 1935; and by the Section on Nomenclature at the Meeting held on the afternoon of the same day. The Report was accordingly submitted to the International Zoological Congress by which it was unanimously adopted at the Concilium Plenum of the Congress held on the afternoon of Saturday, 21st Septem- ber, 1935, the last day of the Congress. 6. In view of the possibility that it might be held that the Opinion as set out in the extract from the Commission’s Report quoted in paragraph 4 above might require, in order to be valid, the Suspension of the Rules, the intention of the Commission to render an Opinion in the said terms was duly advertised in 1936 in two or more of the zoological journals named in the Resolution adopted by the Ninth International Zoological Congress held at Monaco in March, 1913, by which the International Congress conferred upon the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature Plenary Power to suspend the Rules as applied COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 135. II to any given case where in the opinion of the Commission the strict application of the Rules would clearly result in greater confusion than uniformity. 7. In the period which has elapsed since the announcement in the said zoological journals of the proposed Suspension of the Rules in the manner indicated, no communication of any kind has been addressed to the International Commission objecting to the issue of an Opinion in the terms proposed. 8. The Opinion as set out in the extract from the Commission’s Report quoted in paragraph 4 above was concurred in by the twelve (12) Commissioners and Alternates present at the Lisbon Meeting of the International Commission, namely :— Wommissioners:—Calman; Hemming; Jordan; Pellegrin; Pevers, and Stejneger. Alternates :—do Amaral vice Cabrera; Oshima wice Esaki; Bradley vice Stone; Beier vice Handlirsch; Arndt vwice Richter; and Mortensen vice Apstein. g. The Opinion referred to above was dissented from by no Commissioner or Alternate. 10. The following five (5) Commissioners who were neither present at the Lisbon Meeting of the International Commission nor were represented thereat by Alternates did not vote on the above Opinion :—Bolivar y Pieltain; Chapman; Fantham; Silvestri; and Stiles. oO UMORITY FOR THE ISSUE OF THE PRESENT OPINION. WHEREAS the Sixth International Zoological Congress at its Meeting held in Monaco in March, 1913, adopted a Resolution conferring upon the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, acting for the International Zoological Congress, Plenary Power to suspend the Rules as applied to any given case, where, in the judgment of the Commission, the strict application of the said Rules would clearly result in greater confusion than uniformity, provided that not less than one year’s notice of the possible Suspension of the Rules as applied to the said case should be given in two or more of five journals named in the said Resolution, and provided that the vote in the Commis- sion was unanimously in favour of the proposed peop ucien of the Rules; and L2 INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. WHEREAS it might be held that the present Opinion might require, in order to be valid, the Suspension of the Rules; and WHEREAS, in order to provide for the said contingency, not less than one year’s notice of the possible Suspension of the Rules as applied to the present case has been given in two or more of the journals referred to in the said Resolution adopted by the Sixth International Congress at its Meeting held in Monaco in March, 1913; and WHEREAS the vote in the Commission at their Lisbon Meeting was unanimously in favour of the issue of an Opinion in the terms of the present Opinion ; Now, THEREFORE, I, FRANcIS HEMMING, Secretary to the International Commis- sion on Zoological Nomenclature, acting in virtue of all and every the powers conferred upon me by reason of holding the said Office of Secretary to the International Commission, hereby announce the said Opinion on behalf of the International Com- mission, acting for the International Zoological Congress, and direct that it be rendered and printed as Opinion Number One Hundred and Thirty-Five (Opinion 135) of the said Commission. In faith whereof, I, the undersigned FRANCIS HEMMING, Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature, have signed the present Opinion. DonE in London, this thirtieth day of June, Nineteen Hundred and Thirty-Nine, in a single copy, which shall remain deposited in the archives of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. FRANCIS HEMMING OPINIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Edited by FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E. Secretary to the Commission VOLUME 2 (pp. 13—20) OPINION 136 Opinion supplementary to Opinion 11 on the interpretation of Latreille’s Considérations générales sur lordre naturel des animaux composant les classes des Crustacés, des Arachnides et des Insectes avec un tableau méthodique de leurs genres disposés en familles, Paris, 1810 LONDON: » | Printed by Order of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature Sold at the Secretariat of the Commission British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London, S.W.7 1939 Price one shiliing (All rights reserved) sued August 28th, 1939 NotE :—Opinions One to One Hundred and Thirty-Three (Opinions 1-133) rendered by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature were not published by the Commission itself, owing to lack of funds. Through the intermediary of Dr. C. W. Stiles, at that time Secretary to the International Commission, the Smithsonian Institution very kindly came to the aid of the Commission and agreed to publish the Opinions of the Commission in the Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections. Unfortunately, all except a few of the most recent of the above Opinions are now out of print, and are therefore no longer obtainable by working zoologists. In order to remedy the serious position so created, it is proposed, as soon as funds are available, to reprint Opinions 1 to 133 as Volume 1 of Opimions Rendered by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. A enh : Las a APR 2- 1943 MUTiona, wuse™ Printed by Richard Clay and Company, Ltd., Bungay, Suffolk. OPINION 136. OPINION SUPPLEMENTARY TO OPINION 11 ON THE INTERPRETATION OF LATREILLE’S CONSIDERATIONS GENERALES SUR L’ORDRE NATUREL DES ANIMAUX COMPOSANT LES CLASSES DES CRUSTACES,. DES ARACHNIDES ET DES INSECTES AVEC UN TABLEAU METHODIQUE DE LEURS GENRES DISPOSES EN FAMILLES, PARIS, 1810. SUMMARY.—Opinion 11 of the International Commission, Which directs that the “table des genres avec )’indication de Vespéce qui leur sert de type’’, which is attached to Latreille’s Considerations genérales of 1810, should be accepted as con- stituting a designation, under Article 30 of the Code, of the types of the genera in question, applies only to those genera there cited by Latreille in which he placed one only of the species included in the genus by the original author thereof. i=in ohAnhbMPNG OF THE. CASE. This question was first brought forward by Commissioner Francis Hemming who, in 1935, submitted the following statement to the International Committee on Entomological Nomenclature at their Meeting held in Madrid during the Meeting of the Sixth International Congress of Entomology :— “I found considerable difficulty in interpreting Opinion 11 rendered by the International Commission when I came to consider Latreille’s Considévations génévales in the course of preparing the first volume of my Generic Names of the Holarctic Butterflies (published in July, 1934). In Part I of that volume I pointed out (on page 14) that without further explanation it was not possible strictly to apply the provision in that Opinion that the ‘table des genres avec l’indication de l’espéce qui leur sert de Type’ appended by Latreille at the end of his Considérations générales sur Vordve naturel des animaux composant les classes des Crustacés, des Avachnides et des Insectes avec un tableau méthodique de leurs genres disposés en familles, Paris 1810, are to be accepted as ‘designation of types of the genera in question,’ Of the seventeen butterfly genera given by Latreille on page 440 of his work a single species is given for six genera, two or more species are given for eight genera, while a special form of notation (referred to below) was employed by Latreille for the three remaining genera. Opinion 11 of the International Commission is clearly applicable to the seven genera for which a single species only is given, except in such cases as the type may have already been fixed by some previous author (e.g. Thais Fabricius, 1807, where the type was fixed ‘from the date of first publication through the action of Fabricius in placing a5) 16 OPINIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL a single species only in the said genus). The three genera for which Latreille adopted the special notation referred to above are Cethosia Fabricius, 1807, Arvgynnis Fabricius, 1807, and Papilio Linnaeus, 1758. In these cases Latreille, after indicating the type species, added a second species preceded by the word ‘ ejusd.’ by which he appears to have intended to indicate that the said second species also belonged to the genus but was not the type. ‘The eight genera for which Latreille specified no one species as type but to which he allotted two or more species are in an entirely different position. Opinion 11 of the Commission (published in July, 1910) is not applicable to such names and, indeed, in relation to them has no meaning, since obviously it is impossible for both of two (often only distantly related) species to be the type of any given genus. “TI feel sure that the present ambiguity in the wording of Opinion 11 is the result of inadvertence only, but clearly the position must be clarified. I consider that this could best be done by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature rendering an Opinion supplementary to Opinion 11 directing that the provisions of Opinion 11 apply only to those genera there cited by Latreille in which he placed one only of the species included in the genus by the original author thereof. An Opinion so worded would have the great advantage that it would provide a clear-cut decision in every type of case which could arise in the interpretation of Latreille’s Table des genres, namely :— ““(i) Cases where Latreille placed in a genus in his Table one species only, and that species is one of the species included in the said genus by the original author thereof. ‘““Tn the above case the species placed in the genus by Latreille would, under the Opinion proposed, become the type of the said genus. ‘““ (ii) Cases where Latreille placed in a genus in his Table (a) one only of the species included in the genus by the original author thereof, together with (b) one or more species not included in the said genus by the original author thereof. ‘““In the above case the species which was included in the genus by the original author thereof and which alone of those species was placed in the said genus by Latreille in his Table would, under the Opinion proposed, become the type of the said genus. “* (iii) Cases where Latreille placed in a genus in his Table two or more of the species included in the said genus by the original author thereof, either accompanied or not by one or more species not placed in the said genus by the original author thereof. ‘““In the above case no type determination would, under the Opinion proposed, have been made by Latreille in his Table, since in that Table he included more than one of the species included in the genus by the original author thereof. ‘““(iv) Cases where Latreille placed in a genus in his Table none of the species included in the said genus by the original author thereof, the only species (either one or more in number) placed in the said genus by Latreille being species not included in the said genus by the original author thereof. ‘““In the above case no type determination would, under the Opinion proposed, have been made by Latreille in his Table, since none of the species included in the genus by the original author thereof was included also by Latreille in the said genus. ‘Finally it is of course to be understood that the provisions of the proposed Opinion would apply only to those genera in respect of which no valid type determination had been effected prior to the publication of Latreille’s Considévations générales of 1810.” COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 136. I7 I.—THE SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF THE CASE. 2. The International Committee on Entomological Nomen- clature at their Madrid Meeting endorsed the views which Commissioner Hemming had laid before them on the subject, and agreed to submit to the International Commission on Zoo- logical Nomenclature a recommendation supporting the proposals set out in the statement prepared by Commissioner Hemming set out in paragraph I above, and expressing the hope that the Commission at their next Meeting would agree to render an Opinion in the sense indicated above. MiiL—THE CONCLUSION REACHED BY THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION. 3. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature gave consideration to this question later in September, 1935, at their Meeting held in Lisbon during the Meeting of the Twelfth International Zoological Congress. At this Meeting the Inter- national Commission approved the proposal submitted and unanimously adopted the following Resolution which was incor- porated in their Report to the International Zoological Congress as paragraph 18 thereof :— 18. Supplementary opinion on the interpretation of Latreille’s ‘ Con- sidévations Générales’ of 1810.—Opinion 11 of the International Com- mission, which directs that the ‘table des genres avec l’indication de lespéce qui leur sert de Type’, which is attached to Latreille’s Considévations générales of 1810, should be accepted as constituting a designation, under Article 30 of the Code, of the types of the genera in question, applies only to those genera there cited by Latreille in which he placed one only of the species included in the genus by the original author thereof.” 4. The Report of the International Commission containing the foregoing paragraph was unanimously adopted at the Meeting of the Commission held on the morning of Wednesday, 18th Sep- tember, 1935; and by the Section on Nomenclature at their Meeting held on the afternoon of the same day. The Report was accordingly submitted to the International Zoological Con- gress by which it was unanimously adopted at the Concilium Plenum of the Congress held on the afternoon of Saturday, 2Ist September, 1935, the last day of the Congress. 5. Ihe Opinion as set out in the extract from the Commission’s Report quoted in paragraph 3 above was concurred in by the twelve (12) Commissioners and Alternates present at the Lisbon Meeting of the International Commission, namely :— 18 OPINIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL Commissioners :—Calman ; Hemming Jordan; Pellegrin; Peters; cand Stejneger. Oshima vice Esaki; Bradley, vice Stones) Beier svice Handlirsch. Arndt vice Richter; and Mortensen vice Apstein. 6. The Opinion referred to above was dissented from by no Commissioner or Alternate. 7. Subsequent to the Lisbon Meeting the following four (4) Commissioners who were neither present at that Meeting nor were represented thereat by Alternates indicated that they desired their names to be added to the list of Commissioners supporting the Opinion adopted at that Meeting :—Chapman; Fantham; Silvestri; and Stiles. Commissioner Bolivar y Pieltain was neither present at the Lisbon Meeting nor represented thereat by an Alternate; nor did he subsequently address any communication to the Secretary to the Commission in regard to this subject. IV.—AUTHORITY FOR THE ISSUE OF THE PRESENT OPINION: WHEREAS the By-Laws of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature provide that, except in cases involving the suspension of the Rules, an Opinion is to be deemed to have been adopted by the said International Commission as soon as a majority of the Members of the Commission, that is to say ten (10) Members of the said Commission, have recorded their votes in favour thereof, provided that where any proposed Opinion involves a reversal of any former Opinion rendered by the Com- mission, such proposed Opinion should require the concurrence of at least fourteen (14) Members of the Commission voting on the same before such Opinion is to be deemed to have been rendered by the Commission; and WHEREAS it might be held that the proviso set forth above might apply to the present Opinion since the said Opinion is | supplementary to an Opinion (Opinion 11) already rendered by then Commission andi) | WHEREAS sixteen (16) Members of the Commission have signified | their concurrence in the present Opinion, twelve (12) either in person or through Alternates at the Meeting of the Commission | held in Lisbon in September, 1935, and four (4) by subsequent _ adherence to the Resolution agoDied in this matter at the said Meeting ; i) COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 136. I9 Now, THEREFORE, I, FRANcIS HEMMING, Secretary to the International Com- mission on Zoological Nomenclature, acting in virtue of all and every the powers conferred upon me by reason of holding the said Office of Secretary to the International Commission, hereby announce the said Opinion on behalf of the International Com- mission, acting for the International Zoological Congress, and direct that it be rendered and printed as Opinion Number One Hundred and Thirty-Six (136) of the said Commission. In faith whereof, I, the undersigned FRANCIS HEMMING, Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, have signed the present Opinion. Done in London, this thirtieth day of June, Nineteen Hundred and Thirty-Nine, in a single copy, which shall remain deposited in the archives of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. FRANCIS HEMMING OPINIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Edited by FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E. Secretary to the Commission VOLUME 2 (pp. SUSE) OPINION 137 On the relative precedence to be accorded to certain generic names published in 1807 by Fabricius and Hiibner respectively for identical genera in the Lepidoptera Rhopalocera LONDON: ne Printed by Order of the International Commission on out i Zoological Nomenclature _ Sold at the Secretariat of the Commission British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London. S.W.7 1939 Price one shilling and sixpence (All rights reserved) eeepc LE OS Sea Sa at eR a ee Se ued 30th October, 1942 Note :—Opinions One to One Hundred and Thirty-Three (Opinions 1-133) rendered by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature were not published by the Commission itself owing to lack of funds. Through the intermediary of Dr. C. W. Stiles, at that time Secretary to theminrenmamenal Commission, the Smithsonian Institution very kindly came to the aid of the Commission and agreed to publish the Opinions of the Commission in the Smithsoman Muscellaneous Collections. Unfortunately, all except a few of the most recent of the above Opinions are now out of print, and are therefore no longer obtainable by working zoologists. In order to remedy the serious position so created, it is proposed, as soon as funds are available, to reprint Opinions 1 to 133 as Volume 1 of Opimions Rendered by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. APR 2- 1943 Printed by Richard Clay and Company, Ltd., Bungay, Suffolk. OPINION 137. ON THE RELATIVE PRECEDENCE TO BE ACCORDED TO CERTAIN GENERIC NAMES PUBLISHED IN 1807 BY FABRI- CIUS AND HUBNER RESPECTIVELY FOR IDENTICAL GENERA IN THE LEPIDOPTERA RHOPALOCERA. SUMMARY.—Unless and until further evidence is forthcoming regarding the precise dates in 1807 on which were published (a) Fabricius’s paper on generic names of Lepidoptera in the sixth volume of Illiger’s Magazin fur Insektenkunde and (b) certain plates of Hiibner’s Sammlung exotischer Schmetterlinge, the names proposed by Fabricius shall have precedence over those proposed by Hiibner. In the event of evidence later being found to show that Hiibner’s plates were published before Fabricius’s paper, three generic names (as shown in the body of the present Opinion) proposed by Hiibner on the said plates are, under Suspen- sion of the Rules, to be suppressed in favour of the names (also given in the body of the present Opinion) proposed by Fabricius for the same genera. Prt SPATEMENT OF THE Cask. This question was first brought forward by Commissioner Francis Hemming who, in 1935, submitted the following state- ment to the International Committee on Entomological Nomen- clature at their Meeting held in Madrid during the Meeting of the Sixth International Congress of Entomology :— “In the course of preparing volume 1 of my Generic Names of the Holarctic Butterflies I encountered a difficulty in dealing with certain generic names proposed for identical genera by Fabricius in the sixth volume of Illiger’s Magazin fiir Insektenkunde and by Hiibner on certain plates of his Sammlung exotischer Schmetterlinge issued in 1807. ‘There are three pairs of generic names concerned, namely :— “ (a) Morpho Fabricius and Potamis Hiibner. “The type of Morpho Fabricius is Papilio achilles Linnaeus, 1758, that species having been so specified by Westwood in 1851 (in Doubleday, Gen. diurn. Lep. (2) : 341). The type of Potamis Hubner is Potamis leonte Hubner, [1807], which is a synonym of Papilio achilles Linnaeus (see Hemming, 1934, Gen. Names hol. Buit. 1:50). The genera Morpho Fabricius and Potamis Hiibner are thus identical with one another, the type species being the same in each case. 24 OPINIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL “This case arises through the decision of the International Com- mission embodied in Opinion 97 that Hiibner’s Tentamen is invalid. If that work had been valid, the name Potamis would have ranked from the Tentamen and its type would have been Papilio iis Linnaeus, 1758, with the result that it would have replaced the very well-known name Apatura Fabricius, 1807. “ (b) Helicopis Fabricius and Rusticus Hiibner. “The type of Helicopis Fabricius is Papilio cupido Linnaeus, 1758, that species having been so specified by Scudder in 1875 (Proc. amey. Acad. Aris Sci., Boston 10: 186). The type of Rusticus Hiibner is Papilio gnidus Fabricius, 1787 (see Hemming, 1934, Gen. Names hol. Butt. 1: 98), a species which is congeneric with Papilio cupido Linnaeus, the type of Helicopis Fabricius. “This case arises through the decision of the International Commission, embodied in Opinion 97, that Hibner’s Tentamen is invalid. If that work had been valid, the name Rusticus would have ranked from the Tentamen and its type would have been Papilio arvgus Linnaeus (1.e. a species of LyCAENIDAE and not a species of RIODINIDAE to which Papilio gnidus Fabricius belongs). The name Rusticus Hiibner would in that event have been a synonym of Plebejzus Kluk, 1802. “(c) Pontia Fabricius and Mancipium Hibner. “ The type of Pontia Fabricius is Papilio daplidice Linnaeus, 1758, that species having been so specified by Curtis in 1824 (Brit. Entom. 1, pl. 48). The type of Mancipium Hibner is Papilio helica Linnaeus, 1767 (= Papilio helice Linnaeus, 1764) (see Hemming, 1934, Gen. Names hol. Butt. 1: 130), a species which is congeneric with Papilio daplidice Linnaeus, the type of Pontia Fabricius. ‘““ This case arises through the decision of the International Com- mission, embodied in Opinion 97, that Hiibner’s Tentamen is invalid. If that work had been valid, the name Mancipium would have ranked from the Tentamen and its type would have been Papilio brassicae Linnaeus. In that event Mancipium Huibner would therefore have been a synonym of Pievis Schrank, 1801. _ “ There is no evidence to show which of the sets of three names were the first to be published, whether the three names published by Hiibner or the three names published by Fabricius. What is, however, self-evident is the need for an authoritative declaration as to which set of names is to be treated as having priority over the other. ‘’ If preference were to be given to the three names proposed by Hiibner, the name Potamis Hiibner would replace the very well-known name Morpho Fabricius which provides the name for the Family MoRPHIDAE; the name fusticus Hiibner (hitherto always employed for a genus of LYCAENIDAE) would be transferred to the RiopINIDAE and would replace the very well-known name Helicopis Fabricius; and the name Mancipium Hiibner would replace the very well-known name Pontia Fabricius, thus causing a very confusing transfer of names in the Family PIERIDAE. If, on the other hand, preference were to be given to the three names proposed by Fabricius, the very well-known generic names Morpho Fabricius, Helicopis Fabricius, and Pontia Fabricius would all be retained in their accustomed sense, while the three Hiibnerian names would all disappear as synonyms, a result which would prevent their being used in a sense quite different from that in which (owing to the Tentamen) they have hitherto been used by such authors as have employed them at all. . To sum up, the Fabrician names are well known and in common use, while those proposed by Hiibner are not now in use, and, when used in the past, have been employed in a different sense from that which, in view of COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 137. 25 Opinion 97, would now be necessary. In these circumstances, the sub- stitution of the three Hiibnerian names for the three Fabrician names, if, under the strict application of the Rules, such a course could be shown to be called for by reason of the prior publication of the Hiibnerian names, would clearly result in greater confusion than uniformity. “In order to secure a binding ruling on this question, my colleague Mr. N. D. Riley and I, in accordance with our already announced intention (Hemming, 1934, Gen. Names hol. Butt. 1: 13), now ask the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to issue an Opinion declaring that the paper in the sixth volume of Illiger’s Magazin in which the names pro- posed by Fabricius were published is to be given precedence over the plates of Hiibner’s Sammlung exotischer Schmetterlinge published in 1807. The effect of the adoption by the International Commission of an Opinion in the foregoing sense would afford full protection to the names Morpho Fabricius, Helicopis Fabricius, and Pontia Fabricius. A _ conditional suspension of the rules would be involved in order to provide against the contingency (which, though highly unlikely, is nevertheless conceivable) that evidence might some day be forthcoming to show that some or all of the particular plates of Hiibner’s Sammlung exotischer Schmetterlinge now under consideration were published before the appearance of the paper in volume 6 of Illiger’s Magazin containing the new names proposed by Fabricius.” ae OU bOHOURNT BIStORY OF THE CASE. 2. The International Committee on Entomological Nomen- clature at their Madrid Meeting endorsed the views which Com- missioner Hemming had laid before them on the subject, and agreed to submit to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature a recommendation supporting the proposals set out in the statement prepared by Commissioner Hemming quoted in paragraph I above, and expressing the hope that the Commission at their next Meeting would agree to render an Opinion in the sense indicated above, oe CONCLUSION REACHED BY THE INTER- NATIONAL COMMISSION. 3. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature gave consideration to this question later in September, 1935, at their Meeting held in Lisbon during the Meeting of the Twelfth International Zoological Congress. At this Meeting the Inter- national Commission approved the proposal submitted and unanimously adopted the following Resolution which was incor- porated in their Report to the International Zoological Congress as paragraph 19 thereof :— oe 19. On the relative precedence to be accorded to certain generic names in the Lepidoptera published in 1807 by Fabricius and Hiibner vespectively.— Unless and until further evidence is forthcoming regarding the precise dates in 1807 on which were published (a) FaBricius’s paper on generic names in 26 OPINIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL the sixth volume of ILLIGER’s Magazin fiiy Insektenkunde and (b) certain plates of HUBNER’s Sammlung exotischer Schmetterlinge, the names pro- posed by Fapricius shall have precedence over those proposed by HUBNER. The Commission are further of the Opinion that, if evidence were found to show that HUBNER’s plates were published before FABRICIUS’s paper, the strict application of the rules would clearly result in greater con- fusion than uniformity. Acting, therefore, in virtue of the Plenary Power conferred upon them at the Monaco Meeting of the International Zoological Congress, the International Commission hereby declare that in that event the generic names Potamis Hibner, Rusticus Hubner, and Mancipium Hiibner are to be suppressed in favour of Morpho Fabricius, Helicopis Fabricius, and Pontia Fabricius respectively.” 4. The Report of the International Commission containing the foregoing paragraph was unanimously adopted at the Meeting of the Commission held on the morning of Wednesday, 18th Septem- ber, 1935, and by the Section on Nomenclature at their Meeting held on the afternoon of the same day. The Report was accord- ingly submitted to the International Zoological Congress by which it was unanimously adopted at the Concilium Plenum of the Congress held on the afternoon of Saturday, 21st September, 1935, the last day of the Congress. 5. In view of the fact that the concluding portion of the Opinion quoted in paragraph 4 above requires, to be valid, the Suspension of the Rules, the intention of the Commission to render an Opinion in the said terms was duly advertised in 1936 in two or more of the zoological journals named in the Resolution adopted by the Ninth International Zoological Congress held at Monaco in March, 1913, by which the International Congress conferred upon the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature Plenary Power to suspend the Rules as applied to any given case where in the opinion of the Commission the strict application of the Rules would clearly result in greater confusion than uniformity. : 6. In the period which has elapsed since the announcement in the said zoological journals of the proposed Suspension of the Rules in the manner indicated, no communication of any kind has been addressed to the International Commission objecting to the issue of an Opinion giving priority to the names introduced by Fabricius over those introduced by Hiibner, though one group of lepidopterists interested in Hiibner’s Tentamen submitted certain observations in regard to the application to be given to the Hiibnerian names in question. 7. The Opinion as set out in the extract from the Commission’s _ Report quoted in paragraph 3 above was concurred in by the COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 137. 27 twelve (12) Commissioners and Alternates present at the Lisbon * Meeting of the International Commission, namely :— Sommiscsioners Calman; Hemming; Jordan; Pellegrin; Peters; and Stejneger. Pitermates:—cdo Amiral vice Cabrera; Oshima wece Esaki: Bradley vice Stone; Beier vice Handlirsch; Arndt vice Richter; and Mortensen wice Apstein. 8. The Opinion referred to above was dissented from by no Commissioner or Alternate. g. The following five (5) Commissioners who were neither present at the Lisbon Meeting of the International Commission nor represented thereat by Alternates did not vote on the above Opinion :—Bolivar y Pieltain; Chapman; Fantham; Silvestri; and Stiles. ce SOinORIDY FOR THE ISSUE OF THE PRESENT OPINION. WHEREAS the Ninth International Zoological Congress at its Meeting held in Monaco in March, 1913, adopted a Resolution conferring upon the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, acting for the International Zoological Congress, Plenary Power to suspend the Rules as applied to any given case, where, in the judgment of the Commission, the strict application of the said Rules would clearly result in greater confusion than uniformity, provided that not less than one year’s notice of the possible Suspension of the Rules as applied to the said case should be given in two or more of five journals named in the said Resolution, and provided that the vote in the Commission was unanimously in favour of the proposed Suspension of the Rules; and WHEREAS the Suspension of the Rules is required in certain circumstances to give valid force to certain of the provisions of the present Opinion; and WHEREAS not less than one year’s notice of the possible Suspension of the Rules as applied to the present case has been given in two or more of the journals referred to in the said Resolu- tion adopted by the Ninth International Zoological Congress at its Meeting held in Monaco in March, 1913; and WHEREAS the vote in the Commission at their Lisbon Meeting was unanimously in favour of the issue of an Opinion in the terms of the present Opinion ; 28 INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. Now, THEREFORE, I, FrRANcIs HEMMING, Secretary to the International Com- » mission on Zoological Nomenclature, acting in virtue of all and every the powers conferred upon me by reason of holding the said Office of Secretary to the International Commission, hereby announce the said Opinion on behalf of the International Com- mission, acting for the International Zoological Congress, and direct that it be rendered and printed as Opinion One Hundred and Thirty-Seven (Opinion 137) of the said Commission. In faith whereof, I, the undersigned FRANCIS HEMMING, Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature, have signed the present Opinion. Done in London, this twelfth day of August, Nineteen Hundred and Thirty-Nine, in a single copy, which shall remain deposited in the archives of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. FRANCIS HEMMING ah OPINIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Edited by FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E. Secretary to the Commission VOLUME 2 (pp. 29—34) OPINION 138 On the Method by which the Amendment to Article 25 of the International Code adopted at the Budapest Meeting of the International Zoological Congress, relating to the Replace- ment of Invalid Names, should be Interpreted a as sy Se # ait . eg” \ LONDON : Printed by Order of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature Sold at the Secretariat of the Commission British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London, S.W.7 1939 Price one shilling and sixpence (All rights reserved) SS aE Gaee SSR e ey SOE ETS ee sued 30th October, 1942 Note :—Opinions One to One Hundred and Thirty-Three (Opinions 1-133) rendered by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature were not published by the Commission itself owing to lack of funds. Through the intermediary of Dr. C. W. Stiles, at that time Secretary to the@intermarenal Commission, the Smithsonian Institution very kindly came to the aid of the Commission and agreed to publish the Opinions of the Commission in the Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections. Unfortunately, all except a few of the most recent of the above Opinions are now out of print, and are therefore not obtainable by working zoologists. In order to remedy the serious position so created, it is proposed, as soon as funds are available, to reprint Opinions I to 133 as Volume 1 of Opinions Rendered by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. \ s G APR 2- 1943 “4Tiona, wustd™ Printed by Richard Clay and Company, Ltd., Bungay, Suffolk. OPINION 138. ON THE METHOD BY WHICH THE AMENDMENT TO ARTICLE 25 OF THE INTERNATIONAL CODE ADOPTED AT THE BUDAPEST MEETING OF THE INTERNATIONAL ZOO- LOGICAL CONGRESS, RELATING TO THE REPLACEMENT OF INVALID NAMES, SHOULD BE INTERPRETED. SUMMARY.—In order to comply with Article 25 of the Inter- national Code as amended at the Meeting of the International Zoological Congress held in Budapest in 1927, it is necessary for an author publishing a new name in substitution for an invalid name, after giving the name to be replaced and its author, to cite also the year in which that name was published and to indicate the title of - the work or journal in which the name fo be replaced was first published, and, in all cases where the pages of the work concerned are numbered, to cite the number of the page on which the name to be replaced was printed. T—TRE SEATEMENT OF THE CASE. This question was first raised by Dr. C. B. Ticehurst, Editor of the /bis, in the following letter dated 5th August, 1935 :— ‘I should like to bring the following case before the International Com- mission on Zoological Nomenclature. ‘In the Bulletin of the British Ornithologists’ Club, vol. 55 : 24, 1934, Mr. Mathews proposes (inter alia) :— ‘ Tvochalopteron touchena for T. yunnanensis La Touche, 1922, not Rippon, 1906.’ “ According to the amended Rule 25, a definite bibliographical reference must be given. The question for the Commission to decide is whether ‘La Touche, 1922 ’ can be said to be a‘ definite bibliographical reference ’.”’ ithe CONCLUSION REACHED BY THE INTER- NATIONAL COMMISSION. 2. [he International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature gave consideration to this question in September, 1935, at their _ Meeting held in Lisbon during the Meeting of the Twelfth Inter- national Zoological Congress. At this Meeting the International 32 OPINIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL Commission unanimously adopted the following Resolution which was incorporated in their Report to the International Zoological Congress as paragraph 20 thereof :— “20. On the method by which the amendment to Article 25 of the Inter- national Code adopted at the Budapest Meeting of the International Zoological Congress, velating to the veplacement of invalid names, should be interpreted.— The International Commission have had under consideration the question of the interpretation of the amendment to Article 25 of the International Code adopted at the Budapest Meeting of the International Zoological Congress, which became operative on the 1st January 1931, and which lays it down that, when for any reason it is necessary to replace an existing name, either because it is a synonym or a homonym, the author proposing the new name must give ‘a definite bibliographic reference’ to the name to be replaced. An author giving such a new name would not comply with the above amendment to Article 25, if, after giving the name to be replaced, he were only to add such an expression as ‘La Touche, 1922’. In order to comply with the Article as amended at Budapest, it is necessary for the author proposing the new name, after giving the name to be replaced and its author, to cite also the year in which that name was published and to indicate the title of the work or journal in which the name to be replaced was first published, and, in all cases where the pages of the work concerned ‘are numbered, to cite the number of the page on which the name to be replaced was printed.” 3. The Report of the International Commission containing the foregoing paragraph was unanimously adopted at the Meeting of the Commission held on the morning of Wednesday, 18th September, 1935, and by the Section on Nomenclature at their Meeting held on the afternoon of the same day. The Report was accordingly submitted to the International Zoological Congress by which it was unanimously adopted at the Concilium Plenum of the Congress held on the afternoon of Saturday, 21st September, 1935, the last day of the Congress. ; 7 4. The Opinion as set out in the extract from the Commission’s Report quoted in paragraph 2 above was concurred in by the twelve (12) Commissioners and Alternates present at the Lisbon Meeting of the International Commission, namely :— Commissioners :—Calman; Hemming; Jordan; Pellegrin; Peters; and Stejneger. Alternates :—do Amiral vice Cabrera; Oshima vice Esaki; Bradley vice Stone; Beier vice Handlirsch; Arndt vice Richter; and Mortensen vice Apstein. 5. The Opinion referred to above was dissented from by no Commissioner or Alternate. 6. Subsequent to the Lisbon Meeting, the following four (4) Commissioners who were neither present at that Meeting nor were represented thereat by Alternates indicated that they desired their names to be added to the list of Commissioners COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 136. BS supporting the Opinion adopted at that Meeting :—Chapman ; Fantham; Silvestri; and Stiles. In addition, the following four (4) Commissioners who were not present in person at the Lisbon Meeting of the Commission but were represented thereat by Alternates similarly indicated that they desired their names to be added to the list of Commissioners supporting the Opinion adopted at that Meeting :—Cabrera; Esaki; Richter; and Stone. Commissioner Bolivar y Pieltain was neither present at the Lisbon Meeting nor represented thereat by an Alternate; nor did he subsequently address any communication to the Secretary to the Commission in regard to this subject. elil—THE DATE AS FROM WHICH THE PROVISIONS OF ieee k SENT OPINION ARE OPERATIVE. faikiewamendment to Article 25 of the International Code containing the phrase “ definite bibliographic reference’’, the meaning of which is defined in the present Opinion, was adopted by the International Zoological Congress at its Meeting held in Budapest in 1927. In order, however, to give zoologists ample warning of the change in the Code effected by the said amendment, the International Zoological Congress expressly laid it down that the said amendment was not to become operative until after the 31st December, 1930, 7.e. that its provisions were to apply only to names published on or after the 1st January, 1931. Since the present Opinion does no more than clear up an ambiguity in the text of an amendment to the International Code, which became operative as from the Ist January, 1931 (inclusive), the explana- tion given in the present Opinion applies automatically as from the same date. The criteria laid down in the present Opinion apply, therefore, to every name published on or after the Ist January, 1931. mye AUTHORITY FOR THE ISSUE OF THE PRESENT OPINION. WHEREAS the By-Laws of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature provide that, except in cases involving | the Suspension of the Rules, an Opinion is to be deemed to have been adopted by the said International Commission as soon as a majority of the Members of the Commission, that is to say ten (10) Members of the said Commission, have recorded their votes in favour thereof, provided that, where any proposed Opinion 34 INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. involves a reversal of any former Opinion rendered by the Com- mission, such proposed Opinion should require the concurrence of at least fourteen (14) Members of the Commission voting on the same before such Opinion is to be deemed to have been rendered by the Commission; and WHEREAS the present Opinion neither requires, to be valid, the Suspension of the Rules, nor involves a reversal of any former Opinion rendered by the Commission; and WHEREAS sixteen (16) Members of the Commission have signified their concurrence in the present Opinion, twelve (12) either in person or through Alternates at the Meetme vor smn Commission held in Lisbon in September, 1935, and four (4) by subsequent adherence to the Resolution adopted in this matter at the said Meeting : Now, THEREFORE, I, FRANCIS HEMMING, Secretary to the International Com- mission on Zoological Nomenclature, acting in virtue of all and every the powers conferred upon me by reason of holding the said Office of Secretary to the International Commission, hereby announce the said Opinion on behalf of the International Com- mission, acting for the International Zoological Congress, and direct that it be rendered and printed as Opinion Number One Hundred and Thirty-Fight (Opinion 138) of the said Commission. In faith whereof, I, the undersigned FRANCIS HEMMING, Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature, have signed the present Opinion. Done in London, this fourteenth day of August, Nineteen Hundred and Thirty-Nine, in a single copy, which shall remain deposited in the archives of the International Commission on | Zoological Nomenclature. Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. FRANCIS HEMMING OPINIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Edited by FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E. Secretary to the Commission VOLUME 2 (pp. 35-46) OPINION 139 The names Cephus Latreille, [1802-1803] and Astata Latreille, 1796, in the Hymenoptera added to the Official List of Generic Names LONDON : Printed by Order of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature Sold at the Publications Office of the Commission 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7 1943 Price two shillings and sixpence (All rights reserved) sued 30th January, 1943 © INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE COMPOSITION OF THE COMMISSION The Officers of the Commission President: Dr. Karl Jordan, Ph.D., F.R.S. (United Kingdom). Secretary : Mr. Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. (United Kingdom). _ Assistant Secretary: Dr. James L. Peters (U.5.A.). The Members of the Commission Class 1943 Senor Dr. Afranio do AMARAL (Brazil). Professor Lodovico di CAPORIACCO (Italy). Professor J. R. DYMOND (Canada). Dr. James L. PETERS (U.S.A.) (Assistant Secretary to the Commission). Dr. Leonhard STEJNEGER (U.5.A.). (vacant) .* Class 1946 Herr Professor Dr. Walter ARNDT (Germany). Dr. William Thomas CALMAN (United Kingdom). Professor Teiso ESAKI (Japan). Professor Béla von HANKO (Hungary). Dr. Tadeusz JACZEWSKI (Poland). (vacant).f Class 1949 Senor Dr. Angel CABRERA (Argentina). Dr. Frederick CHAPMAN (Australia). Mr. Francis HEMMING (United Kingdom) (Secretary to the Commission). Dr. Karl JORDAN (United Kingdom) (President of the Commission). Monsieur le Docteur Jacques PELLEGRIN (France). Herr Professor Dr. Rudolf RICHTER (Germany). Secretariat of the Commission : British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London, S.W. 7. Publications Office of the Commission : 41, Queen’s Gate, London, 5.W. 7. Personal address of the Secretary : 83, Fellows Road (Garden Flat), London, N.W. 3. * This vacancy was caused by the death on 23rd May, 1939, of Dr. Witmer STONE (U.S.A.). + This vacancy was caused by the death on 24th January, 1941, of Dr. Charles Wardell STILES (U.S.A.), Vice-President of the Commission and former Secretary to the Commission (1897-1935). MATiOnAL wus OPINION 139. THE NAMES CEPHUS LATREILLE, [1802-1803], AND ASTATA LATREILLE, 1796, IN THE HYMENOPTERA ADDED TO THE OFFICIAL LIST OF GENERIC NAMES. SUMMARY.—The suppression of the Erlangen List (Opinion 135) invalidates the name Astatus Jurine, 1801 (type: Sireax pygmaeus Linnaeus, 1758) and in consequence the name Cephus Latreille, [1802—1803],* of which the same species is the type, becomes available nomenclatorially. The name Cephus Latreille, with type as indicated, is hereby added to the Official List of Generic Names, together with Astata Latreille, 1796 (type: Tiphia abdominalis Panzer, |1798]). I.—THE STATEMENT OF THE CASE. The problem presented by the names CepfAus Latreille, [1802- 1803] and Astatus Jurine, 1801, arose from the action of Morice and Durrant (1915, Tvans. ent. Soc. Lond. 1914: 339-436) in publishing a facsimile of the so-called Erlangen List and drawing attention to the large number of names for which fresh type designations were required if (as those authors considered should be the case) those names were to be treated as having been validly published for the first time in that work. 2. No. 9 of the 48 genera enumerated in the Erlangen List was A status Jurine. Two species were cited for this genus as follows :— “ Sivex pygmaeus. Banchus spinipes Panzer (Banchus viridator Fabric. medit.’’ Morice and Durrant pointed out (zb7d. 1914: 383) that the above names both apply to a single species, Sivex pygmaeus Eimnaeus, 1767 (Sysi. Nat. (ed. 12) 1 (2) : 920) and therefore that * At the time of the meeting of the International Commission at Lisbon in 1935, it was believed that the date of publication of volume 3 of Latreille, mm Sonnini’s Buffon, Hist. nat. gén. partic. Crust. Ins., in which the name Cephus Latreille was first published, was 1802, but Griffin has since shown (1938, J. Soc. Bibl. nat. Hist. 1: 157) that, notwithstanding the fact that this volume is dated “‘ An X’’, it was almost certainly not published until “ An XI” and therefore that this volume must have been published on same date in the period 22.1x.1802—21.1ix.1803. For particulars showing how to convert dates from the French Republican calendar into the Christian calendar, see Griffin, 1939, ibid. 1: 249. 38 OPINIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL | that species was automatically the type of Astatus Jurine, that genus being in effect monotypical. 3. The conclusions reached by Morice and Durrant were dis- cussed by Professor James Chester Bradley in a paper published in 1919 (Trans. ent. Soc. Lond. 1919 : 56-57). The following is an extract from that paper of the passage dealing with the names Astatus Jurine and Astata Latreille, 1796 :— ASTATA Latr., 1796 = [Astatus Latr., 1796, evvatum] = [Dimorpha ir. Loon: TYPE: [Tiphia abdominalis Panz.|] = [Sphex] boops Schrank = Astata boops (Schrank) Spinola. The genus was described without species, and abdominalis was the first subsequently included. The genus Astata of Latreille is valid and dates from 1796. Latreille printed the name Astatus (1796: 114), but in the same work (1796 : xill) states: ‘‘ Page 114, au lieu d’Astatus lisez Astata.” We can therefore hardly hold that he has preoccupied Astatus Jurine, 1801, a group of saw- flies. Nor can the latter be considered as establishing species for A stata Latr., since the species therein contained do not come under the generic definition of Astata. : ASTATUS Jur., May 1801, nec Panzer, July, 1801, Konow, etc. = Cephus Latr., 1802 = Trachelus Jur., 1807. TYPE: Sivex pygmaeus L. = Astatus pygmaeus (L.) Jur. = Cephus pygmaeus (L.) Latr. The two species originally included in Astatus are identical. 4. The revolutionary changes in the nomenclature of the Hymenoptera that would be involved in the acceptance of the Erlangen List led Professor Chester Bradley to consult the leading systematic workers in all countries on the course of action to be pursued. This action, which was initiated in 1928, led in due course to the submission to the International Commission of petitions relating to this and certain other cases signed by Pro- fessor Chester Bradley and 59 other Hymenopterists. The text of the petition relating to the present case reads as follows :— THE CASE OF CEPHUS VERSUS ASiAa “In 1834 Norman established the group Cephites for Cephus Latr., 1802, and allies, and in 1840 Haliday gave the group the family name of CEPHIDAE, by which name it has been known to most subsequent authors. “The contained genus Hartigia Schioedte, 1838 (Nat. Tidsskr. 2: 332) and its synonym Macrocephus Schlechtendal, 1878 (Ent. Nachr. 4: 1 53)> have been made types of the group called Macrocephides by Konow, 1896, and HaRTIGIINAE by Enslin, 1914. “ The type of Cephus Latr., 1802, is Sivex pygmaeus L., a sawfly which is also the type of Astatus Jurine, May 1801, mec Panzer, July, 1801. Cephus Latr., 1802, is therefore a synonym of Astatus Jurine, 1801. “ One would conclude that therefore the family name CEPHIDAE must be replaced by AsTATIDAE (Art. 5 of the International Code), were it not for the following facts: Astata Latr., 1796, is an entirely different genus, having for its type Tiphia abdominals Panzer = Astata boops (Schrank) COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 139. 39 Spinola, an aculeate wasp. The genus was described without species, and abdominalis was the one first subsequently included. The genus Asitata of Latreille is valid and dates from 1796 (Opinion 46, Intern. Comm. on Nomenclature). Latreille printed the name A status (1796 : 114) but in the same work (1796: xiii) states: ‘Page 114, au lieu d’Astatus lisez Asitata.’ We can therefore hardly hold that he has preoccupied Astatus Jurine, 1801, a group of sawflies. Nor can the latter be considered as establishing species for Astata Latr., since the species therein contained do not come under the generic definition of Astata. “In 1845 Lepeletier established a group of aculeate wasps, Astatites, based on Astata Latr., 1796. This was treated by Thomson, 1870, as a family, ASTATIDAE, by Ashmead, 1899, and Rohwer, 1916, as a subfamily ASTATINAE and must at present be recognised as a group of at least tribal value. “From the foregoing it is evident that there then exists within the order Hymenoptera a family of sawflies, ordinarily known as CEPHIDAE, to which the regulations of the International Code require that we now apply the name ASTATIDAE (with Astatinifor the typical tribe or subfamily if the group is further divided, as is done by Konow), and a group of aculeate wasps which also bear the tribal, subfamily or family name ASTATINI, ASTATINAE or ASTATIDAE according to the rank which they are given. “The International Code does not specifically provide against identical names for pleural groups, higher than genus, but it would seem to be obvious common sense and in accordance with the entire spirit of the International Code to refuse to recognise as valid two such group names, and particularly within a single order. To have a tribe of SPHEGIDAE called ASTATINI, and a family of sawflies called ASTATIDAE with its tribe ASTATINI, would be so confusing and so obviously contrary to the spirit of all laws on nomenclature as to need the specific provision of the Code to prevent its occurrence. “Since Astata Latr., 1796 (the wasp) is an older genus than Astatus Jurine, 1801, (the sawfly) shall we recognise ASTATINI as a tribe of wasps, based on the type genus Aszata Latreille, 1796, and consider ASTATIDAE based on Astatus Jurine, 1801, as an invalid name for the group of sawflies ordinarily known as CEPHIDAE? “ Trachelus Jurine, 1807 (N. Meth. class. Hymenopt.: 72) is a second synonym of A status, and is therefore equally unavailable with Cephus as type of the family to replace Astatus. “ The Code is silent 1 in regard to the method of determining the type genera of families. The practice of some authors is to recognise only the oldest contained genus within the family as type. If this principle were applied to the sawflies in question, A status (with its synonyms Cephus and Tvachelus) being unavailable for the reasons above stated, the next oldest name Cepha Billberg, 1820 (Enum. Ins. Mus. Billberg : 98) (of which the type is Sivex tabidus Fabricius (1775, Syst. Ent.: 326); see Rohwer: Ent. News 22: 218) would become type genus of the family and by a rare circumstance the established name of the group, CEPHIDAE, would again become available. “It is the practice of other authors, applying the principle of priority to designation of the type genera of families, to recognise as the type genus of any family (or group intermediate between genus and family) the contained genus that was first established as the basis of a plural name of higher than generic rank. Of these sawfly genera the first used in this way was Cephus (Latr., 1802) by Newman in 1834 to form a group he called Cephites. Ruling it out as a synonym of Astatus, and Astatus as _ ~ This question has since been settled by the International Commission In Opinion 141. See pp. 57—65 of the present volume of Opinions. 40 OPINIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL unavailable for reasons above stated, we find that the genus next used for the basis of a group name was Hartigia Schioedte used by Enslin in 1914 as a basis for the subfamily HARTIGIINAE.* ‘“ Whatever the decision of the Commission in this case may be, it is apparent that an attempt to proceed under the Code must result in con- fusion. We therefore request the Commission to : (1) suspend the rules in the case of the genera of sawflies Cephus Latreille, 1802, and Astatus Jurine, 1801. (2) permanently reject Astatus Jurine, 1801, because of its similarity to Astata Latreille, 1796, and the resulting confusion that would ensue if subfamily and family names, necessarily of identical form, were built on each, and because Cephus has been in universal use since 1802 for the genus of sawflies which under the Code should be called Astatus, (3) validate Cephus Latreille, 1802, type Sivex pygmaeus L., and with it the family name CEPHIDAE, because these names have been in _ universal use, and a change from them would cause needless confusion, (4) place Cephus Latreille, 1802, type Sivex pygmaeus on the Official List of Generic Names, for the genus of sawflies ordinarily known by that name. ««* This case is discussed, but with a different conclusion by Bradley; Trans. ent. Soc. Lond. 1919 : 56-58, and the list of references therein given will also serve for the references made above.” ! 5. The following is a copy of the list of signatures attached to the above petition at the time of its submission to the Interna- tional Commission :— C. T. Brues R. Benoist * H. Haupt Jos. Bequaert Dy Altiken! H. Brauns tf G. Grandi A. Krausse L. Berland A. B. Gahan * H. Wolff A. A. Oglobin i risen J. G. Betrem O. W. Richards fs Ibe, deena R. Fouts P. Ee Baliv, Tal, lel, JORIS G. Arnold VS. EeiRatte J. M. Dusmet A. Handlirsch J. C. Bradley W. M. Wheeler * I. Micha G. Enderlein Galelivle H. Hacker T. Uchida + R. A. Cushman * aX, (Co IsGuaseny O. Vogt + E. A. Elliott H. de W. Marriott H. Habermehl f A. Crevecoeur F. Maidl R. Kruger + W. M. Mann P. Roth W. Hellen + R. Friese E. Enslin F. X. Williams + H. von Ihering t A. C. W. Wagner A. von Schulthess R. B. Benson * O. Schmiedeknecht + N. N. Kuznezev- H. Hedicke H. F. Schwarz Ugamtsky t+ H. Bischoff W 7 Ve Balout = la, Ja, Ibn L. Masi D. S. Wilkinson * L. H. Weld * * In accord with results sought by the petition without having studied the points involved in the particular case. + Evidently intended to subscribe to this petition, but sheet bearing his signature was not included in his reply. t Deceased. 1 The passage here referred to by Professor Chester Bradley is quoted in full in paragraph 3 of the present Opinion. COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 139. 41 6. This case was circulated to the members of the International Commission in January 1935, when it was arranged that it and the other Hymenoptera cases submitted at the same time should be dealt with at the meeting of the Commission due to be held at Lisbon in September of that year, by which time the recom- mendations of the International Committee on Entomological Nomenclature would be available. we rib SUBSBOUENT HISTORY OF THE CASE. 7. This case was considered by the International Committee on Entomological Nomenclature at its meeting held at Madrid in the second week of September 1935 during the Sixth International Congress of Entomology. After careful consideration the Com- mittee decided to frame its recommendations to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, first on the assumption that the Commission would agree to use its plenary powers to suppress the “ Erlangen List ’’, in which the name Astatus Jurine, 1801, was published, and second on the assumption that the Commission would not be able to see its way to deal with the problem in this radical fashion. If the first of these courses were taken by the International Commission, there would be no necessity to suspend the rules in order to secure the desired object in this case, since Astatus Jurine, 1801, would cease to be available nomenclatorially immediately the Erlangen List was suppressed and in consequence the name Cephus Latreille, 1802-1803, would at once become the oldest available name for the genus of sawflies in question. The International Committee recommended that in this event the International Commission should dispose of this case by placing the name Cephus Latreille, type Sirex pygmaeus Linnaeus, 1767, on the Official List of Generic Names. If, how- ever, the International Commission did not suppress the Erlangen List, it would be necessary for the Commission to act in the way recommended in the petition submitted in this case. The Inter- national Committee accordingly recommended that in that event the International Commission should proceed in that manner. 8. These and other resolutions adopted by the International Committee at its meeting held at Madrid were subsequently confirmed by the Sixth International Congress of Entomology at the Concilium Plenum held at Madrid on 12th September 1935. 42 OPINIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL III.—_ THE CONCLUSION REACHED BY THE INTERNA- TIONAL COMMISSION. g. At their meeting held at Lisbon on the morning of 16th September 1935 (Lisbon Session, 2nd Meeting, Conclusion 13), the International Commission unanimously agreed to use the plenary powers conferred upon them by the Ninth International Congress of Zoology at Monaco in 1913 in order to suppress the Erlangen List.* When therefore at their meeting held on the afternoon of the same day (Lisbon Session, 3rd Meeting, Conclusion 2) the Commission came to consider the present case, they found that there was no need to make use of the plenary powers in order to secure the desired object, since, owing to the suppression of the Erlangen List and, with it, of the name Astatus Jurine, 1801, the name Cefhus Latreille, [1802-1803]+ had become available nomenclatorially. It followed also that the name CEPHIDAE replaced the name ASTATIDAE as the name of the family of Chalastogastra containing the wheat-stem sawfly, long-accepted usage thereby being preserved. 10. The Commission accordingly decided to dispose of this case by rendering an Opinion placing on the Official List of Generic Names the undermentioned nomenclatorially available generic names, with types as shown each of which had been duly desig- nated in accordance with the provisions of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature :— Name of genus Type of genus (1) Cephus Latreille, [1802-1803],t Sivex pygmaeus Linnaeus, 1767, (im Sonnini’s Buffon) Hist. nat. Syst. Nat. (ed. 12) 1-(2) : 929 ¢ gén. partic. Crust. Ins. 3: 303 (monotypical) (2) Astata Latreille, 1796, Pvrécis Tiphia abdominalis Panzer, [1798], Caract. lisa >) xiii Faun. Ins. germ. (53) tab. 5 (type designated by Latreille, [1802-1803 |f (2w Sonnini’s Buffon) Hist. nat. gén. partic. Crust. Ins. 3: 336; no species were included by Latreille in 1796; the above was the sole species included in [1802-1803] and is therefore the type.) * See Opinion 135. + The corrected date [1802-1803] is here given and not the date 1802, which at Lisbon was believed to be the date of this name. See footnote to the Summary of the present Opinion. { This generic name was misspelt Syvev in the version of the Com- mission’s report published in the Compte Rendu of the Twelfth International Congress of Zoology (1936: 190). On the same occasion the date of this name was erroneously given as 1758. COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 139. 43 ir. The foregoing decisions were embodied in paragraph 25 of the Report which at their meeting held on the morning of Wednes- day, 18th September 1935, the Commission (Lisbon Session, 5th Meeting, Conclusion 6) unanimously agreed to submit to the Twelfth International Congress of Zoology. This Report was unanimously approved by the Section on Nomenclature at its joint meeting with the International Commission held on the afternoon of the same day. It was thereupon submitted to the Twelfth International Congress of Zoology by which it was unanimously adopted at the Concilium Plenum of the Congress held on the afternoon of Saturday, 21st September 1935, the last day of the Congress. 12. The Opinion as set out in paragraph 10 above was concurred in by the twelve (12) Commissioners and Alternates present at the Lisbon Meeting of the International Commission, namely :— Commissioners :—Calman; Hemming; Jordan; Pellegrin ; Peters; and Stejneger. Alternates :—do Amaral vice Cabrera; Ohshima vice Esaki; Imvaleyevece stone, Beier vce Handlirsch: Amdt vice Richter; and Mortensen vice Apstein. 13. The present Opinion was dissented from by no Commissioner or Alternate present at the Lisbon Meeting. Nor since that Meet- ing has any Commissioner who was not present on that occasion indicated disagreement with the conclusions then reached by the Commission in this matter. 14. The following five (5) Commissioners who were neither present at the Lisbon Meeting of the International Commission nor were represented thereat by Alternates did not vote on the present Opinion :— Bolivar y Pieltain; Chapman; Fantham; Silvestri; and Stiles. IV.—AUTHORITY FOR THE ISSUE OF THE PRESENT OPINION. WHEREAS the By-Laws of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature provide that, except in cases involving the Suspension of the Rules, an Opinion is to be deemed to have been adopted by the said International Commission as soon as a majority of the Members of the Commission, that is to say ten (10) 44 OPINIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL Members of the said Commission, have recorded their votes in favour thereof, provided that, where any proposed Opinion involves a reversal of any former Opinion rendered by the Commission, such proposed Opinion shall obtain the concurrence of at least fourteen (14) Members of the Commission voting on the same before such Opinion is to be deemed to have been adopted by the Commission; and WHEREAS the present Opinion neither requires, to be valid, the Suspension of the Rules, nor involves a reversal of any former Opinion rendered by the Commission; and WHEREAS twelve (12) Members of the Commission have signi- fied their concurrence in the present Opinion either in person or through Alternates at the Meeting of the Commission held in Lisbon in September 1935 : Now, THEREFORE, I, FRANcIS HEMMING, Secretary to the International Com- mission on Zoological Nomenclature, acting in virtue of all and every the powers conferred upon me by reason of holding the said Office of Secretary to the International Commission, hereby announce the said Opinion on behalf of the International Com- mission, acting for the International Congress of Zoology, and direct that it be rendered and printed as Opinion Number One Hundred and Thirty-Nine (Opinion 139) of the said Commission. In faith whereof, I, the undersigned FRANCIS HEMMING, Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature, have signed the present Opinion. Done in London, this twentieth day of December, Nineteen Hundred and Forty Two, in a single copy, which shall remain deposited in the archives of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. FRANCIS HEMMING COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. NOTICES. OPINION 139. 45 The undermentioned publications of the International Com- mission on Zoological Nomenclature are obtainable at the Publi- cations Office of the Commission, 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W. 7 :— OPINION 134. On the method to be adopted in in- OPINION OPINION OPINION OPINION OPINION a5) 136. 137. 136. 139. terpreting the generic names as- signed by Freyer to species de- scribed in his Neuere Bettrage zur Schmetterlings kunde, 1833-1858 . The suppression of the so-called “ Erlangen List ” of 1801 Opinion supplementary to Opinion Ir on the interpretation of Lat- reille’s Considévations sur l’ordre naturel des animaux composant les classes des Crustacés, des Arach- mides et des Insectes avec un tableau méthodique de leurs genres disposés en familles, Paris, 1810 . On the relative precedence to be accorded to certain generic names published in 1807 by Fabricius and Hubner respectively for identical genera in the Lepido- ptera Rhopalocera . On the method by which theamend- ment to Article 25 of the Inter- national Code adopted by the Budapest Meeting of the Inter- national Zoological Congress, re- lating to the replacement of in- valid names, should be inter- preted The name Cephus Latreille, [1802- 1803] and Astata Latreille, 1796, in the Hymenoptera added to the Official List of Generic Names . price 8d. price 8d. price Is. od. Ice Sao: price Is. 6d. price 2s. 6d. 40 INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 140. On the method of forming the family names for Merops Lin- naeus, 1758 (Aves) and _ for Merope Newman, 1838 (Insecta) price 2s. od. OPINION 141. On the principles to be observed in interpreting Article 4 of the In- ternational Code relating to the naming of families and sub- families . . ‘price’ 2s 6d: Note :—Opinions One to One Hundred and Thirty-Three (Opinions 1-133) rendered by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature were not published by the Commission itself owing to lack of funds. Through the intermediary of the late Dr. C. W. Stiles, at that time Secretary to the International Commission, the Smithsonian Institution very kindly came to the aid of the Commission and agreed to publish the Opinions in the Smithsoman Miscellaneous Collections. Unfortunately, all except a few of the later of the above Opinions are now out of print, and are therefore not obtainable by working zoologists. In order to remedy the serious position so created, it is proposed, as soon as funds are available, to reprint Opinions I to 133 as Volume 1 of Opinions Rendered by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. PRINTED IN GREAT BRITAIN BY RICHARD CLAY AND COMPANY, LTD., BuNGAY, SUFFOLK. REF OPINIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Edited by FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E. Secretary to the Commission VOLUME 2 (pp. 47-53) OPINION 140 On the method of forming the family names for Merops Linnaeus, 1758 (Aves) and for Merope Newman, 1838 (Insecta) LONDON : Printed by Order of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature Sold at the Publications Office of the Commission 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7 1943 Price two shillings (All rights reséréed) Phere. sued 30th January, 1948 INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE COMPOSITION OF THE COMMISSION The Officers of the Commission President : Dr. Karl Jordan, Ph.D., F.R.S. (United Kingdom). Secretary : Mr. Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. (United Kingdom). Assistant Secretary : Dr. James L. Peters (U.S.A.). The Members of the Commission Class 1943 Senor Dr. Afranio do AMARAL (Brazil). Professor Lodovico di CAPORIACCO (Italy). Professor J. R. DYMOND (Canada). Dr. James L. PETERS (U.S.A.) (Assistant Secretary to the Commission). Dr. Leonhard STEJNEGER (U.5S.A.). (vacant) .* Class 1946 Herr Professor Dr. Walter ARNDT (Germany). Dr. William Thomas CALMAN (United Kingdom). Professor Teiso ESAKI (Japan). Professor Béla von HANKO (Hungary). Dr. Tadeusz JACZEWSKI (Poland). (vacant).} Class 1949 Senor Dr. Angel CABRERA (Argentina). Dr. Frederick CHAPMAN (Australia). Mr. Francis HEMMING (United Kingdom) (Secretary to the Commission). Dr. Karl JORDAN (United Kingdom) (President of the Commission). Monsieur le Docteur Jacques PELLEGRIN (France). Herr Professor Dr. Rudolf RICHTER (Germany). Secretariat of the Commission : British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London, 5.W. 7. Publications Office of the Commission : Al Oueen:s) Gare, suondon,S.\Vene Personal address of the Secretary : 83, Fellows Road (Garden Flat), London, N.W. 3. * This vacancy was caused by the death on 23rd May, 1939, of Dr. Witmer SLONE (Us 2A8): + This vacancy was caused by the death on 24th January, 1941, of Dr. Charles Wardell STILES (U.S.A.), Vice-President of the Commission and former Secretary to the Commission (1897-1935). | N“ATiona wws©°\F7 OPINION 140. ON THE METHOD OF FORMING THE FAMILY NAMES FOR MEROPS LINNAEUS, 1758 (AVES) AND FOR MEROPE NEWMAN 1838 (INSECTA). SUMMARY.—The family name for Merops Linnaeus, 1758 (Syst. Nat. (ed. 10):117) in Aves is MrEropmpaAE; the family name for Merope Newman, 1838 (Ent. Mag. 5 (2) : 180) in Insecta is MEROPEIDAE. I.—THE STATEMENT OF THE CASE. This question was first raised by the International Committee on Entomological Nomenclature at its meeting held in Paris in 1932. At this meeting the International Committee adopted the following resolution :— Le nom grec peporm du genre d’insecte se terminant en Eta, le nom de la famille de ces insectes sera MEROPEIDAE, nom différant suffisaamment de MEROPIDAE (derivé de Mevops, opis) 2. This resolution was submitted by the International Com- mittee on Entomological Nomenclature to Section VIII (Section on Nomenclature) of the Fifth International Congress of Ento- mology, by whom it was unanimously approved. Finally, this resolution was adopted by the Fifth International Congress of Entomology in Concilium Plenum on the presentation of the Report of the Secretary of the Executive Committee of the Congress. Il—THE CONCLUSION REACHED BY THE INTERNA- TIONAL COMMISSION. 3. This subject was considered by the International Com- mission on Zoological Nomenclature at the second meeting of the Session held in Lisbon in September 1935 during the meeting of the Twelfth International Congress of Zoology. At this meeting, which was held on the morning of 16th September 1935, the International Commission agreed (Lisbon Session, 2nd Meeting, Conclusion 14) :— 50 OPINIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL to render an Opinion declaring :— (i) that the family name for the genus Merops Linnaeus, 1758 (Syst. Nat. (ed. 10): 117) in the Aves is MERO- PIDAE; and (11) that the family name for the genus Mevope Newman, 1838 (Ent. Mag. 5 (2): 180) in the Insecta is MERO- PEIDAE. 4. The foregoing decision was embodied in paragraph 22 of the Report which at their meeting held on the morning of Wednesday, 18th September 1935, the Commission (Lisbon Session, 5th Meeting, Conclusion 6) unanimously agreed to submit to the Twelfth International Congress of Zoology. This Report was unanimously approved by the Section on Nomenclature at its joint meeting with the International Commission held on the afternoon of the same day. It was thereupon submitted to the Twelfth International Congress of Zoology by which it was unanimously adopted at the Concilium Plenum of the Congress held on the afternoon of Saturday, 21st September 1935, the last day of the Congress. 5. The Opinion set out in paragraph 3 above was concurred in by the twelve (12) Commissioners and Alternates present at the Lisbon Meeting of the International Commission, namely :— Commissioners :—Calman; Hemming; Jordan; Pellegrin; Peters; and Stejneger. Alternates:—do Amaral vice Cabrera; Ohshima vice Esaki; Bradley wice Stone; Beier vice Handlirsch; Arndt vice Richter; and Mortensen vice Apstein. 6. The present Opinion was dissented from by no Commissioner or Alternate at the Lisbon Meeting. Nor since that Meeting has any Commissioner who was not present on that occasion indicated disagreement with the conclusions then reached by the Com- mission in this matter. 7. The following five (5) Commissioners who were neither present at the Lisbon Meeting of the International Commission nor were represented thereat by Alternates did not vote on the present Opinion :— Bolivar y Pieltain; Chapman; Fantham; Silvestri; and Stiles. COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 140. 51 III.—AUTHORITY FOR THE ISSUE OF THE PRESENT OPINION. WHEREAS the By-Laws of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature provide that, except in cases involving the Suspension of the Rules, an Opinion is to be deemed to have been adopted by the said International Commission as soon as a majority of the Members of the Commission, that is to say ten (10) Members of the said Commission, have recorded their votes in favour thereof, provided that, where any proposed Opinion involves a reversal of any former Opinion rendered by the Commission, such proposed Opinion shall obtain the concurrence of at least fourteen (14) Members of the Commission voting on the same before such Opinion is to be deemed to have been adopted by the Commission; and WHEREAS the present Opinion neither requires, to be valid, the Suspension of the Rules, nor involves a reversal of any former Opinion rendered by the Commission; and WHEREAS twelve (12) Members of the Commission have signi- fied their concurrence in the present Opinion either in person or through Alternates at the Meeting of the Commission held in Lisbon in September 1935 : Now, THEREFORE, I, FrRANcISs HEMMING, Secretary to the International Com- mission on Zoological Nomenclature, acting in virtue of all and every the powers conferred upon me by reason of holding the said Office of Secretary to the International Commission, hereby announce the said Opinion on behalf of the International Com- mission, acting for the International Congress of Zoology, and direct that it be rendered and printed as Opinion Number One Hundred and Forty (Opinion 140) of the said Commission. In faith whereof, I, the undersigned FRANcIS HEMMING, Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature, have signed the present Opinion. Done in London, this twenty-fourth day of December, Nineteen Hundred and Forty Two, in a single copy, which shall remain deposited in the archives of the International Com- mission on Zoological Nomenclature. Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. FRANCIS HEMMING 52 OPINIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL NOTICES. The undermentioned publications of the International Com- mission on Zoological Nomenclature are obtainable at the Publi- cations Office of the Commission, 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W. 7 :— OPINION 134. OPINION 135. OPINION 136. OPINION 137. OPINION 138. OPINION 139. On the method to be adopted in in- terpreting the generic names as- signed by Freyer to species de- scribed in his Neuere Bettrage zur Schmetterlingskunde, 1833-1858 . The suppression of the so-called ) Exlangens ist. of ncom Opinion supplementary to Opinion 1r on the interpretation of Lat- reille’s Considévations sur lV ordre naturel des animaux composant les classes des Crustacés, des Arach- mides et des Insectes avec un tableau méthodique de leurs genres disposés en familles, Paris, 1810 . On the relative precedence to be accorded to certain generic names published in 1807 by Fabricius and | hiivbner respectively, ior identical genera in the Lepido- ptera Rhopalocera On the method by which the amend- ment to Article 25 of the Inter- national Code adopted by the Budapest Meeting of the Inter- national Zoological Congress, re- lating to the replacement of in- valid names, should be inter- preted The name Cephus Latreille, [1802- 1803] and Astata Latreille, 1796, in the Hymenoptera added to the Official List of Generic Names . price 8d. price 8d. price Is. od. price 1s. 0d: price Is. 6d. price 2s. 6d. COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 140. 53 OPINION 140. On the method of forming the family names for Mevops Lin- MACHSHEE 75 O0 (eves) sand) 10r Merope Newman, 1838 (Insecta) price 2s. od. OPINION 141. On the principles to be observed in interpreting Article 4 of the In- ternational Code relating to the naming of families and_ sub- families . price 2s. 6d. Note :—Opinions One to One Hundred and Thirty-Three (Opinions 1-133) rendered by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature were not published by the Commission itself owing to lack of funds. Through the intermediary of the late Dr. C. W. Stiles, at that time Secretary to the International Commission, the Smithsonian Institution very kindly came to the aid of the Commission and agreed to publish the Opinions in the Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections. Unfortunately, all except a few of the later of the above Opinions are now out of print, and are therefore not obtainable by working zoologists. In order to remedy the serious position so created, it is proposed, as soon as funds are available, to reprint Opinions I to 133 as Volume I of Opinions Rendered by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. eet af oe Set PANE al a el PRINTED IN GREAT BRITAIN BY RICHARD CLAY AND COMPANY, LTD., BuNGAY, SUFFOLK. Sn ~ re ! ‘ ( ‘ iy y H 9 ee Lag on " re ya r yh te ere } un ni P b . Al ye ae | K eam Se yt 4 oul hk a P a eo \ . f ‘ * . “y z & » - > 1 . - } t ‘ oa - ‘ " rm ‘ < * A 4 / ‘ ‘ ‘ * . . 4 * 5. J \ ie 0 ‘ Cher ah iy ce ie eo . ity ae i . \ 2 TP , - d ' a . : P = OPINIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Edited by FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E. Secretary to the Commission VOLUME 2 (pp. 55-66) OPINION 141 On the principles to be observed in interpreting Article 4 of the International Code relating to - the naming of families and subfamilies LONDON : Printed by Order of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature ‘Sold at the Publications Office of the Commission 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7 1943 Price two shillings and sixpence (All rights reserved) ssued 30th January, 1948 ga. INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE COMPOSITION OF THE COMMISSION The Officers of the Commission President: Dr. Karl Jordan, Ph.D., F.R.S. (United Kingdom). Secretary : Mr. Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. (United Kingdom). Assistant Secretary: Dr. James L. Peters (U.S.A.). The Members of the Commission Class 1943 Senor Dr. Afranio do AMARAL (Brazil). Professor Lodovico di CAPORIACCO (Italy). Professor J. R. DYMOND (Canada). Dr. James L. PETERS (U.S.A.) (Assistant Secretary to the Commission). Dr. Leonhard STEJNEGER (U.5.A,). (vacant) .* Class 1946 Herr Professor Dr. Walter ARNDT (Germany). Dr. William Thomas CALMAN (United Kingdom). Professor Teiso ESAKI (Japan). Professor Béla von HANKO (Hungary). Dr. Tadeusz JACZEWSKI (Poland). (vacant). Class 1949 Senor Dr. Angel CABRERA (Argentina). Dr. Frederick CHAPMAN (Australia). Mr. Francis HEMMING (United Kingdom) (Secretary to the Commission). Dr. Karl JORDAN (United Kingdom) (President of the Commission). Monsieur le Docteur Jacques PELLEGRIN (France). Herr Professor Dr. Rudolf RICHTER (Germany). Secretariat of the Commission : British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London, S.W. 7. Publications Office of the Commission : 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W. 7. Personal address of the Secretary : 83, Fellows Road (Garden Flat), London, N.W. 3. * This vacancy was caused by the death on 23rd May, 1930, of Dr. Witmer STONE (U.S.A.). + This vacancy was caused by the death on 24th January, 1941, of Dr. Charles Wardell STILES (U.S.A.), Vice-President of the Commission and former Secretary to the Commission (1897-1935) bi MATIONAL nyse 7 OPINION 141. ON THE PRINCIPLES TO BE OBSERVED IN INTERPRETING ARTICLE 4 OF THE INTERNATIONAL CODE RELATING TO THE NAMING OF FAMILIES AND SUBFAMILIES. _SUMMARY.—The following principles are to be observed in interpreting Article 4 of the International Code relating to the naming of families and subfamilies :— (1) The oldest available generic name in the family need not be taken as the type genus of the family. } (2) An author establishing a new family is free to select as the type genus of that family whatever generic unit he considers the most appropriate. NoTE :—So far as possible, the genus selected should be the best known and commonest of the taxonomic units concerned, z.e., it should be the most central of the genera proposed to be included in the family so estab- lished. (3) The name of a family is based upon the name of its type genus. The fact that a given generic name is selected to form the name of a family constitutes ipso facto a definite designation of that genus as the type genus of that family. Example :—The genus Musca Linnaeus, 1758, is de- finitely and unambiguously designated as the type genus of the family Muscipak by reason of the stem of the word Musca being used in the formation of the family name. Note :—There are a few well-established family names proposed by early authors where the foregoing principle has not been observed. Such names should be treated as exceptions. Any ease of doubt should be referred to the Commission for decision. The principles set out in (1) to (8) above in regard to family names apply equally to the names of subfamilies. I.—THE STATEMENT OF THE CASE. In March 1932 Dr. Jean M. Pirlot of the Institut van Beneden, University of Liege, submitted to the Commission a request for an Opinion on a case which involved two problems, the first of interest to students of a particular group of Crustacea, the second of interest to workers in all zoological groups, since it was con- cerned with the interpretation of Article 4 of the International Code relating to the naming of families and subfamilies. & 58 OPINIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL 2. The following is the case submitted by Dr. Pirlot as later summarised by the Commission in Opinion 133 :— 1. Type of Uvothoe. Dana (1852, p. 311) in an extensive key summary, down to and including genera, describes Uvothoe Dana, with generic diag- nosis but without mention of any species. This appears to be the original publication of the name. The following year, Dana (1853, p. 921) discusses Uvothoe and cites two species, U. vostvatus [which is given unconditionally] and U. irrostvatus [which is clearly sub judice]. This is apparently the first allocation of any species to this genus. Under Article 30e8 of the Rules, U. ivrostvatus is excluded as type, and U. vostvatus automatically becomes type regardless of the fact whether one dates the genus from 1852 or 1853. Compare Opinions 35 and 46. For determination of this point it is not necessary to follow the literature further and the fact that U. ivrostvatus has been used as type by some authors is irrelevant as the case now stands. 2. Family name. A complication has arisen because of the fact that U. ivvostvatus has been used as the type of Uvothoe. Stebbing (1906, Das Tierreich 21 : 131) retains U. ivrostvatus in Urothoe, family HavusTortIpAE, and classifies (1dem:146) U. rostvatus in Pont- harpinia Stebbing, 1897, mt. pinguis, family PHOXOCEPHALIDAE. II.—THE SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF THE CASE. 3. Dr. Pirlot’s chief object was to obtain from the Commission a decision on the question of the type of the genus Uvothoe Dana, and it was therefore primarily to this part of Dr. Pirlot’s inquiry that the Commission first directed their attention. Dr. Stiles accordingly prepared for the consideration of the Commission a draft Opinion that was chiefly concerned with the case of Uvothoe Dana, the discussion on the more general—and much more important—question being directed mainly to its relation to the particular case of Urothoe Dana. 4. In the circular letter (€.L: 274)) under cover tomar imcimnie communicated the draft Opinion to the members of the Com- mission for consideration, Dr. Stiles drew attention (February 1935) to the fact that the second part of the case submitted by Dr. Pirlot raised issues of interpretation in regard to Article 4 of the Code, which were already being considered by the Commission in a different connexion. Dr. Stiles accordingly suggested that any preliminary views that might be formed by Commissioners on the draft Opinion should be subject to the further discussion at the meeting of the Commission due to be held at Lisbon later in the course of that year. III—_THE CONCLUSION REACHED BY THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION. 5. The two questions raised by Dr. Pirlot, together with the draft Opinion prepared by Dr. Stiles, were considered by the COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION T4I. 59 International Commission at the fourth meeting of the Session held in Lisbon in September 1935 during the Meeting of the Twelfth International Congress of Zoology. At this meeting, which was held on the morning of Tuesday, 17th September 1935, the Commission decided to consider separately the two questions involved in this case. 6. The Commission considered first the question of the type of the genus Uvothoe Dana. On this matter the Commission agreed (Lisbon Session, 4th Meeting, Conclusion 6) :— that, as a draft Opinion on the type of the genus Uvothoe Dana, 1852, prepared by Commissioner Stiles, had already been circulated for a postal vote, the question should be left to be settled by the Commission by that method. 7. The Commission then turned to the second of the problems raised in the case submitted by Dr. Pirlot, namely that in regard to the interpretation of Article 4 of the Code, which relates to the naming of families. On this question, the Commission agreed (Lisbon Session, 4th Meeting, Conclusion 7) :— to render an Opinion :— (i) laying it down that Article 4 of the Code does not require that the oldest generic name in the family or subfamily concerned must be taken as the type genus of the family or subfamily ; (ii) incorporating also the general propositions relating to the interpretation of Article 4 of the Code embodied in the draft Opinion on the case of the genus Uvothoe Dana as soon as that Opinion had been approved in the manner agreed upon in Conclusion 6 above.* 8. The decision of the Commission set out in the first part of the Conclusion quoted above was incorporated as paragraph 21 in the Report which at their meeting held on the morning of Wednes- day, 18th September 1935, the Commission unanimously agreed (Lisbon Session, 5th Meeting, Conclusion 6) to submit to the Twelfth International Congress of Zoology. This Report was unanimously approved by the Section on Nomenclature at its joint meeting with the International Commission held on the afternoon of the same day. It was thereupon submitted to the Twelfth International Congress of Zoology by which it was unanimously adopted at the Concilium Plenum of the Congress held on the afternoon of Saturday, 21st September 1935, the last day of the Congress. * The text of Conclusion 6 is quoted in full in the preceding paragraph (paragraph 6) of the present Opinion. 60 OPINIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL 9g. The decisions set out in paragraphs 7 and 8 above were concurred in by the twelve (12) Commissioners and Alternates present at the Lisbon Meeting of the International Commission, namely :— Commissioners :—Calman ; Hemming; Jordan; > Pellecnme Berets.) stejmecer Alternates :—do Amaral vice Cabrera; Ohshima wice Esaki; Bradley wice Stone; Beier vice Handlirsch; Arndt wee Richter; Mortensen vice Apstein. 10. The decisions recorded above were dissented from by no Commissioner or Alternate at the Lisbon Meeting. Nor since that Meeting has any Commissioner who was not present on that occasion indicated disagreement with the conclusions then reached by the Commission in this matter. rr. At the conclusion of the Lisbon Meeting, Dr. Stiles resigned the office of Secretary to the Commission but at the request of the Commissioners and Alternates present at Lisbon agreed to officiate as Acting Secretary to the Commission, pending the election of his successor which did not take place until October 1936. In the intervening period Dr. Stiles, acting in virtue of the authority conferred by Article 7 of the By-Laws of the Com- mission, announced on behalf of the Commission ten Opinions (Opinions 124-133), all of which had been under consideration before the meeting of the Commission in Lisbon in September 1935. One of these Opinions (Opinion 133) was that relating to © the type of the genus Uvothoe Dana (see paragraph 6 above), which in the period that had elapsed since the Lisbon Meeting had secured the number of votes required for its adoption by the Commission. IZ. [he issue of Opinion 133 thus made it possible to proceed with the preparation of the present Opinion embodying the decision of the Commission set out in paragraph 7 in regard to the interpretation of Article 4 of the Code. 13. The text relating to this subject as finally approved in Opinion 133 reads as follows :— (1) Pirlot raises an important question in regard to PHOXOCEPHALIDAE, namely : (2) Must the oldest included generic name be taken as type for the family name? To this, the answer is in the negative. (3) Article 4 of the Rules reads: ‘‘ The name of a family is formed by adding the ending idae, the name of a subfamily by adding inae, to the stem of the name of its type genus.”’ (4) This rule does not prescribe how the type genus is to be selected ; and in the absence of restrictions covering this point it is to be assumed COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION I4TI. 61 that, in accordance with custom, the original author is free to select as type genus any generic unit that he prefers. This is in harmony with the spirit of Article 30, which obviously leaves an original author of a genus entirely free to select as type species any species he wishes thus to designate. If the original author of a family (or of a genus) were compelled to select as type the oldest genus (or the oldest species) in the proposed family (or genus), this might confine his choice to a little known and very rare taxonomic unit—a restriction which would obviously be contrary to the interest both of taxonomy and of nomenclature. In this connection it is to be recalled that the “‘ type’’ selected is the nomenclatorial type as distinguished from the assumed anatomical norm. (5) Since (with the exception of isolated instances by early authors) family names are based upon the name of the respective type genus, such family name constitutes, 1pso facto, a definite designation of the type genus. For instance, Musca is definitely and unambiguously designated generic type by the use of the family MusciDAE, Homo of HoMINIDAE, Ascaris of ASCARIDAE, etc. It would be a nomenclatorial veductio ad absurdum to consider any other genus as type of any of these families. The concepts of a given family are not identical as adopted by different authors and if the rule obtained that the oldest genus must be the type genus of the family, the family name would be constantly subject to possible change according to the subjective ideas of authors from year to year; accordingly, even relatively stable nomenclature for family names would be hopeless, and synonymy in family names would be potentially indefinite and chaotic. In the Opinion as published the paragraphs quoted above were unnumbered but numbering has been inserted on the present occasion in order to facilitate reference to particular passages in the analysis given in paragraph 17 below. 14. The following thirteen (13) Commissioners concurred in the whole of Opinion 133 from which the above passage is an extract :— Cabrera; Calman; Chapman; Esaki; Fantham; Hem- mimes jordan; Peters; Richter; Silvestri; Stejneger; Stiles; Stone. Commissioner Hemming’s vote was received before the issue of the Opinion but too late for his name to be included in the Opinion among the Commissioners who voted for the whole of that document. 15. In signifying his concurrence in Opinion 133, Commissioner Stone added the following note :— I concur in the Opinion that the first author to fix a type genus for a family is free to select any contained genus as the type, but in case the _ hame then used for that genus is found to be untenable the family name changes in accordance with the change in the generic name. For example, the American Wood Warblers were named SyLVICOLIDAE by Gray, based on the genus Sylvicola (type Parus americanus Linn.), but Sylvicola was found to be preoccupied in mollusks and as a substitute Compsothlypis was proposed, and the family name changes to Compso- THLYPIDAE. If this were not done we might have Sylvicola for mollusks and SYLVICOLIDAE for Birds ! Commissioner Silvestri, who recorded his vote for Opinion 133 aiter Commissioner Stone’s note had been circulated to the 62 OPINIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL members of the Commission, stated: “ I agree perfectly with the opinion of Commissioner Stone’’. It will be observed that the note added by Commissioners Stone and Silvestri is not concerned with Article 4 of the Code (which relates to the naming of families and subfamilies) but is an amplification of Article 5 (which relates to the circumstances in which it is necessary to change the name of a family or subfamily). 16. One (1) Commissioner (Apstein) dissented from the portion of Opinion 133 relating to the naming of families and subfamilies. 17. The principles to be observed in interpreting Article 4 of the Code that are enunciated in the passage in Opinion 133 quoted in paragraph 13 above are the following :— (a) In paragraph (2) the Commission lay it down that it is not necessary that the oldest included generic name should be taken as the type genus of a family and therefore used in forming the name of the family. This is the proposi- tion on which, as shown in paragraphs 7 and 8 above, the Commission adopted a resolution at their Lisbon Meeting. In the first sentence of paragraph (4) the Commission state that the original author of a family “‘is free to select as type genus any generic unit that he prefers ”’. In the third sentence of the same paragraph the Com- mission point out that, if the original author of a family were compelled to select as type the oldest genus, the _ result might be that the type genus of the family would be a little known and very rare taxonomic unit—a result that would be contrary to the interest both of taxonomy and of nomenclature. (c) In the first sentence of paragraph (5) the Commission state that, with the exception of isolated instances by early authors, family names “‘ are based upon the name of the respective type genus ’’ and that a family name so established “ constitutes, 7pso facto, a definite designation of the type genus ’’. In the second sentence of the same paragraph, the Commission illustrate this principle by giving three examples, of which the first is provided by the names Musca and MuscipAE. The Commission _ point out that by the use of the name MuscIDAE the genus Musca is definitely and unambiguously designated as the type genus of that family. -_™—~ Sy cea As drafted Opinion 133 refers in terms only to family names but, as it is a statement of the principles to be observed in interpreting COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION I4T. 63 Article 4 of the Code, which refers to subfamily names equally with family names, it follows that the principles enunciated in Opinion 133 apply also to subfamily names. That this was so as regards the first of the three principles in question was moreover expressly stated in the resolution adopted by the Commission at Lisbon (see paragraph 7 above). 18. Thus the principles to be observed in interpreting Article 4 of the Code (i) as set out in the resolution adopted by the Com- mission at their Lisbon Meeting in September 1935 (paragraph 7 above) and (ii) as amplified in the second part of Opinion 133 issued in October 1936 (paragraphs 13 and 17 above) may be summarised as follows :— Summary :—The following principles are to be observed in interpreting Article 4 of the International Code :— (1) The oldest available generic name in the family need not be taken as the type genus of the family. (2) An author establishing a new family is free to select as the type genus of that family whatever generic unit he considers the most appropriate. NOTE :—So far as possible, the genus selected should be the best known and commonest of the taxonomic units concerned, 7.¢. it should be the most central of the genera proposed to be included in the family so established. (3) The name of a family is based upon the name of its type genus. The fact that a given generic name is selected to form the name of a family constitutes z7pso facto a definite designation of that genus as the type genus of that family. Example :—The genus Musca Linnaeus, 1758, is definitely and unambiguously designated as the type genus of the family MUScIDAE by reason of the stem of the word Musca being used in the formation of the family name. Note :—There are a few well-established family names proposed by early authors where the foregoing principle has not been observed. Such names should be treated as exceptions. Any case of doubt should be referred to the Commission for decision. (4) The principles set out in (1) to (3) above in regard to family names apply equally to the names of subfamilies. 19. [he propositions. set out in paragraph 18 above have been concurred in by nineteen (19) Commissioners either when con- curring in Opinion 133 or at Lisbon (either personally or through 64 OPINIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL Alternates) when adopting the resolution set out in paragraph 7 above :— Commissioners :—Cabrera; Calman; Chapman; Esaki; Fant- ham; Hemming; Jordan; Pellegrin: Peters. siemens Steimeser.s Stles: souome: Alternates :—do Amaral vice Cabrera; Ohshima vice Esaki; Bradley wice Stone; Beier vice Handlirsch tending vec Richter; Mortensen vice Apstein. 20. One (1) Commissioner (Apstein), whose Alternate at Lisbon had voted in favour of these propositions, subsequently voted against the portion of Opinion 133 relating to the interpretation of Article 4 of the Code. Two Commissioners (Bolivar and Horvath) who were neither present at Lisbon nor represented there by Alternates did not vote on Opinion 133; im consequence neither voted on the matters dealt with in the present Opinion. IV.—AUTHORITY FOR THE ISSUE OF THE PRESENT OPINION. WHEREAS the By-Laws of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature provide that, except in cases involving the Suspension of the Rules, an Opinion is to be deemed to have been adopted by the said International Commission as soon as a majority of the Members of the Commission, that is to say ten (10) Members of the said Commission, have recorded their votes in favour thereof, provided that, where any proposed Opinion involves a reversal of any former Opinion rendered by the Commission, such proposed Opinion shall obtain the concurrence of at least fourteen (14) Members of the Commission voting on the same before such Opinion is to be deemed to have been adopted by the Commission; and WHEREAS the present Opinion neither requires, to be valid, the Suspension of the Rules, nor involves a reversal of any former Opinion rendered by the Commission; and WHEREAS nineteen (19) Members of the Commission have signified their concurrence in the propositions set out in the present Opinion either personally or through Alternates at the Meeting of the Commission. held in Lisbon in September 1935 : Now, THEREFORE, I, Francis HEMMING, Secretary to the International Com- mission on Zoological Nomenclature, acting in virtue of all and COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION I4I. 65 every the powers conferred upon me by reason of holding the said Office of Secretary to the International Commission, hereby announce the said Opinion on behalf of the International Com- mission, acting for the International Congress of Zoology, and direct that it be rendered and printed as Opinion Number One Hundred and Forty One of the said Commission. In faith whereof, I, the undersigned FRANCIS HEMMING, Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature, have signed the present Opinion. DonE in London, this twenty-sixth day of December, Nineteen Hundred and Forty Two, in a single copy, which shall remain deposited in the archives of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. FRANCIS HEMMING NOTICES. The undermentioned publications of the International Com- mission on Zoological Nomenclature are obtainable at the Publi- cations Office of the Commission, 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W. 7 :— OPINION 134. On the method to be adopted in in- terpreting the generic names as- signed by Freyer to species de- scribed in his Neuere Bewtraége zur Schmetterlingskunde, 1833-1858 . price 8d. OPINION 135. The suppression of the so-called “ Erlangen List ” of 1801 price 8d. OPINION 136. Opinion supplementary to Opinion II on the interpretation of Lat- reille’s Considévations sur lV ordre naturel des animaux composant les classes des Crustacés, des Avrach- mdes et des Insectes avec un tableau méthodique de leurs genres disposés en familles, Paris, 1810 . price Is. Od. 66 INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE OPINION 137. On the relative precedence to be accorded to certain generic names published in 1807 by Fabricius and Hiibner respectively for identical genera in the mes ptera Rhopalocera . price Is. 6d. OPINION 138. On the method by which the A aienel ment to Article 25 of the Inter- national Code adopted by the Budapest Meeting of the Inter- national Zoological Congress, re- lating to the replacement of in- valid names, should be inter- pretedame price 1s. 6d. OPINION 139. The name Cephus Latreille, ree 1803] and Astata Latreille, 1796, in the Hymenoptera added to the Official List of Generic Names . price 2s. 6d. OPINION 140. On the method of forming the family names for Merops Lin- naeus, 1758 (Aves) and for Merope Newman, 1838 (Insecta) price 2s. od. OPINION 141. On the principles to be observed in interpreting Article 4 of the In- ternational Code relating to the naming of families and sub- families : : ' . Mpricersziod, Note :—Opinions One to One Hundred and Thirty-Three (Opinions 1-133) rendered by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature were not published by the Commission itself owing to lack of funds. Through the intermediary of the late Dr. C. W. Stiles, at that time Secretary to the International Commission, the Smithsonian Institution very kindly came to the aid of the Commission and agreed to publish the Opinions in the Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections. Unfortunately, all except a few of the later of the above Opinions are now out of print, and are therefore not obtainable by working zoologists. In order to remedy the serious position so created, it is proposed, as soon as funds are available, to reprint Opinions 1 to 133 as Volume I of Opimions Rendered by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. PRINTED IN GREAT BRITAIN BY RICHARD CLAY AND COMPANY, LTD., BUNGAY, SUFFOLK. OPINIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Edited by FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E. Secretary to the Commission VOLUME 2 (pp. 67-80) OPINION 142 Suspension of the Rules for Satyrus Latreille, 1810 (Insecta, Lepidoptera) LONDON : Printed by Order of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature Sold at the Publications Office of the Commission 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7 1943 Price two shillings and sixpence (All rights reserved) Issued 25th March, 1943 INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE COMPOSITION OF THE COMMISSION The Officers of the Commission President: Dr. Karl Jordan, Ph.D., F.R.S. (United Kingdom). Secretary : Mr. Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. (United Kingdom). Assistant Secretary : Dr. James L. Peters (U.S.A.). The Members of the Commission Class 1943 Senor Dr. Afranio do AMARAL (Brazil). Professor Lodovico di CAPORIACCO (Italy). Professor J. R. DYMOND (Canada). Dr. James L. PETERS (U.5S.A.) (Assistant Secretary to the Commission). Dr. Leonhard STEJNEGER (U.S.A.). ; (vacant).* Class 1946 Herr Professor Dr. Walter ARNDT (Germany). Dr. William Thomas CALMAN (United Kingdom). Professor Teiso ESAKI (Japan). Professor Béla von HANKO (Hungary). Dr. Tadeusz JACZEWSKI (Poland). (vacant). Class 1949 Senor Dr. Angel CABRERA (Argentina). Dr. Frederick CHAPMAN (Australia). Mr. Francis HEMMING (United Kingdom) (Secretary to the Commission). Dr. Karl JORDAN (United Kingdom) (President of the Commission). Monsieur le Docteur Jacques PELLEGRIN (France). Herr Professor Dr. Rudolf RICHTER (Germany). Secretariat of the Commission : British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London, S.W. 7. Publications Office of the Commission : 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W. 7. Personal address of the Secretary : 83, Fellows Road (Garden Flat), London, N.W. 3. * This vacancy was caused by the death on 23rd May, 1939, of Dr. Witmer STONE (U.S.A.). + This vacancy was caused by the deal on 24th January, ro41, of Dr. Charles Wardell STILES (U.S.A.), Vice-President of the Commission and former Secretary to the Commission (1897-1935). TEA MONA INSP y PE QAR NS TIES pr Leer Gg eS ES “Cd ? ; 4 4 \ OPINION 142. SUSPENSION OF THE RULES FOR SATYRUS LATREILLE, 1810 (INSECTA, LEPIDOPTERA). SUMMARY.—Under Suspension of the Rules Papilio actaea Esper, [1780], is hereby designated as the type of Satyrus Latreille, 1810 (Insecta, Lepidoptera) and that genus, so defined, is hereby added to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. 1TH STATEMENT OF THE CASE. This case was submitted to the International Commission in a letter dated 24th October 1934, in which Commissioner Francis Hemming and Mr. N. D. Riley, Keeper of the Department of Entomology, British Museum (Natural History), acting on behalf also of Mr. W. H. T. Tams, Assistant Keeper, Department of Entomology,. British Museum (Natural History), jointly invited the Commission to render Opinions in regard to this, and certain other, generic names in the Lepidoptera. The passage in that letter relating to the name Satyrus Latreille reads as follows :— (c) Finally, jointly with our colleague Mr. Tams, who is concerned from the point of view of the Heterocera, we ask the International Com- mission to issue an Opinion declaring against the validity of Retzius, Gen. Spec. Ins. Geer published in 1783. In this connection we ask also for a complementary Opinion to add the name Satyrus Latreille, 1810, to the Official List of Generic Names. For a statement of reasons for making these recommendations, see Hemming, 1934, Gen. Names hol. Butt. 1: 35-40. 2. In a further letter dated 1st December 1934, Commissioner Hemming explained that he had prepared for the consideration of the Commission a condensed statement of the grounds on which the proposed action was sought, partly because the state- ment so prepared was in a much more convenient form than the note on the genus Satyrus contained in the work referred to above and partly because he was anxious that the consideration of the case of that genus should not become involved in the controversy relating to the meaning of the term “ binary nomenclature ”’, a risk which he thought might otherwise arise. The condensed statement so submitted by Commissioner Hemming reads as follows :— 70 OPINIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL Case of the generic name Satyvus Latreille, 1810. The following is a condensed statement of the grounds on which I request the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to render an Opinion on the case of the name Satyrus Latreille, 1810, and the nature of the Opinion desired :— (a) From the five species given by Latreille in 1810 (Consid. gén. Anim. Crust. Avach. Ins. : 355, 440) for the then new genus Satyrus Latreille, the first to be selected as the type of that genus under Article 30 (II) (g) of the International Code was Papilio galathea Linnaeus, 1758, that species having been so designated by Scudder in 1875 (Proc. Amer. Acad. Avis Sc1., Boston 10: 265, 266). (b) There are two common palaearctic species of SATYRIDAE, nameiy Papilio megeva Linnaeus, 1767, and Papilio maeva Linnaeus, 1758, to which has been applied the French vernacular name “‘ le Satyre”’. Both these species have been referred almost invariably for over 100 years to the genus Pavarge Hubner, [1819], of which the congeneric species Papilio aegeria Linnaeus, 1758, is the type. (c) Crotch claimed (1872, Cistula ent. 1: 62) that Papilio megeva Lin- naeus, 1767, was the type of the genus Satyvus Latreille on the ground that “‘ this is the species commonly called ‘le Satyre’ and hence evidently the true type of the genus ”’. (d) Crotch’s conclusion was not adopted by lepidopterists either then or subsequently. Similarly Scudder’s selection of Papilio galathea Linnaeus as the type of this genus was completely ignored, that species continuing for many years to be referred to the genus Melan- avgia Meigen, 1828, of which it is the type. (e) Both in the time of Crotch and Scudder and almost universally ever since, Lepidopterists have treated Satyvus Latreille as though its type were one of the large palaearctic ‘“‘ Browns’’, of which the British ‘‘ Grayling’”’ (Papilio semele Linnaeus, 1758) is a familiar example. (f) Quite recently Higgins (1934, Ent. Rec. 46: 44) has claimed that Papilio maeva Linnaeus is the type of Satyvus Latreille by absolute tautonymy under Article 30 (I) (d) of the International Code, the argument brought forward in support of this contention being that one of the synonyms of Papilio maeva Linnaeus is Papilio satyrus Retzius, 1783. (g) The argument in (f) above is valid only :— (i) if it can properly be accepted that Papilio maeva Linnaeus is one of the species originally included by Latreille in the genus Satyrus ; and (ii) if Retzius, 1783, Gen. Spec. Ins. Geer, isa work that can properly be accepted for nomenclatorial purposes. (h) Until the issue of Opinion 11 by the International Commission ‘on Zoological Nomenclature it would have been possible to argue that the species cited by Latreille in 1810 for the genera there indicated were no more than examples of the species that belonged to the respective genera, notwithstanding the fact that he spoke of them in relation to those genera as “‘ ’espéce qui leur sert de type’”’. On this basis it would have been possible to argue that Papilio maeva Lin- naeus was one of the species covered by Latreille’s diagnosis for the genus Satyvus and was one of the species included by him in that genus although he did not cite it by name. Since the issue of Opinion 11, which lays it down that the species cited by Latreille in 1810 are to be taken as the types of the genera in question and not as mere examples of typical species referable to those genera, this view (whatever its former merits) seems no longer tenable. COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 142. 71 (i) Whatever may be the correct interpretation of the term “ binary nomenclature ’’ and therefore the status of genera first published in Retzius, 1783, Gen. Spec. Ins. Geey, it cannot possibly be claimed that this work of Retzius’s is a binominal work, in spite of the fact that in the case of his Papilio satyrus (as contrasted with many other names used in the same work) Retzius used a binominal combination. If therefore—as seems to me clearly to be the case—new specific names (even when apparently binominal) published by Retzius in 1783 must be rejected under Article 25 (b) of the Code, no argument regarding the type of Satyrus Latreille can be validly based upon the use by Retzius on this occasion of the words Papilio satyrus to describe the species previously named Papilio maeva by Linnaeus. (j) For the reasons given in (h) and (i) above it appears to me to be perfectly clear that there is no substance in the claim that the type of Satyrus Latreille is Papilio maera Linnaeus by absolute tautonymy. It follows from this that Scudder’s selection of Papilio galathea Linnaeus as the type (see (a) above) is perfectly valid under the Code. (k) It is extremely important, however, that in the case of an important genus such as the present which is the type genus of a very well- known family (SATYRIDAE) there should be no room of any kind for argument as to the type of the genus. In order therefore to settle this matter once and for all, I consider that it is very desirable that the International Commission should render an Opinion definitely fixing the type of this genus. (1) The proposal which, jointly with Mr. N. D. Riley and Mr. W. H. T. Tams, I have submitted to the International Commission is that they should render Opinions, if necessary under Suspension of the Rules, (a) declaring that Papilio galathea Linnaeus, 1758, is the type of Satyrus Latreille, 1810, and putting that genus, so defined, on the Official List of Generic Names, and (b) declaring that specific names first published by Retzius in 1783 (Gen. Spec. Ins. Geer) have no status in nomenclature, since in that work Retzius did not use the binominal system of nomenclature. i ith SUBSKOUENT HISTORY OF THE CASE. 3. This case, as presented to the Commission, involved two entirely distinct problems, namely (a) what is the type of the genus Satyrus Latreille, 1810, under the Code, and (b) should Retzius, 1783, Gen. Spec. Ins. Geer, be accepted for the purposes of Article 25 (b) of the Code as the work of an author who had applied the principles of binary nomenclature. The first of these prob- lems was of interest only to specialists in the Lepidoptera; the second raised much wider issues since it involved not only the status of Retzius, 1783, but also the meaning to be attached to the term “ binary nomenclature ’’ as used in the International Code. At the time that the present case was submitted to the Commission, this latter problem was one of especial difficulty since at their meeting held at Padua in 1930 the Eleventh International Congress of Zoology had passed a resolution on this subject which was awaiting consideration by the Permanent Committee of the International Zoological Congresses when that body should next 72 OPINIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL meet at the Twelfth International Congress of Zoology at Lisbon in the following year (1935). In these circumstances the Inter- national Commission decided as a first step to invite the Inter- national Committee on Entomological Nomenclature to consider and report upon the purely entomological aspects of the present application, while reserving for later consideration the portion of the application which involved the interpretation of the term “binary nomenclature ’’. 4. This case was accordingly considered by the International Committee on Entomological Nomenclature at their meeting held at Madrid in the second week of September 1935 during the Sixth International Congress of Entomology. In the course of the preliminary discussion of this case it became apparent that there was a strong feeling not only among Lepidopterists on both sides of the Atlantic but also generally among the members of the International Committee that in the case of an extremely well- known name (such as Satyrus Latreille) that had been the type genus of a family for over a hundred years it was essential that the type of that genus should be a species belonging to the group which for so many years had universally been referred to that genus. Any other course, it was felt, would clearly result in greater confusion than uniformity. At this point, Commissioner Hemming, who was present at the discussion as a member of the International Committee, indicated that the proposal which Messrs. Riley, Tams and he had submitted to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature in the case of Satyrus Latreille had been designed solely with the object of securing a binding decision on the disputed question of the species which underthe Code should beaccepted as having been validly designated as the type of that genus. He and his colleagues had always recognised that, unless the rules were suspended, there would be no possibility of securing as the type of this important genus a species belonging to the group that had for so long universally been accepted as belonging to the genus Satyrus Latreille. In view of the feeling that had been expressed in the International Committee in favour of a more radical solution, he would very gladly prepare an amended petition in substitution for that submitted to the International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature in 1934. Before doing so, he would wish to consult with Messrs. Riley and Tams (who had acted jointly with him in sub- mitting the original proposal to the International Commission) and with other lepidopterists then present in Madrid for the COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 142. 73 meeting of the Sixth International Congress of Entomology. The International Committee approved this proposal and invited Commissioner Hemming to prepare a_ revised statement accordingly. 5. The following is the text of the revised proposals for dealing with this case prepared by Commissioner Hemming during the Madrid meeting for the consideration of the International Com- mittee on Entomological Nomenclature :— Is0s, CASI2, Ol? SAI ROS ICAI RIL y oak), Revised proposals submitted by Mr. Francis Hemming to the International Committee on Entomological Nomenclature at their meeting held at Madrid in September 1935. (z) In accordance with the request of the International Committee on Entomological Nomenclature, I submit herewith for their consideration the following revised proposals for dealing with the case of Satyvus Latreille, 1810. These proposals are in substitution for the more limited proposals on this subject submitted to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature by Mr. N. D. Riley, Mr. W. H. T. Tams and myself in 1934. (2) The relevant considerations in this case are the following :— (a) When founding the genus Satyrus (1810, Consid. gén. Anim. Crust. Ins. : 355, 440), Latreille included five species in the genus but specified no type. (b) Of Latreille’s originally included species, three are not today regarded as belonging to the SATYRIDAE. These species are :— (i) Papilio teucey Linnaeus, 1758, is referred to the genus Caligo Fabricius, 1807, in the BRASSOLIDAE. (il) Papilio phidippus Linnaeus, 1763, is the type of Amathusia __ Fabricius, 1807, the type genus of the family AMATHUSIIDAE. (ili) Papilio sophovae Linnaeus, 1758, is the type of Brassolis Fabricius, 1807, the type genus of the family BRASSOLIDAE. (c) Of the two remaining species originally placed in the genus Satyrus by Latreille, Papilio preva Linnaeus, 1758, is the type of the Neo- tropical genus Haeteva Fabricius, 1807, and Papilio galathea Linnaeus, 1758, is the type of the Palaearctic genus Agapetes Billberg, 1820 (and of the more commonly used Melanargia Meigen, 1828). (d) The two first type designations for Satyrus Latreille are invalid under the Code, since in each case the species so designated is not one of the ‘species originally included in the genus by Latreille. The species in question are :— (i) Papilio constantia Cramer, [1777], designated by Butler, 1867 _ (Entomologist 3: 279); and (il) Papilio actaea Esper, [1780], designated by Butler in 1868 (Ent. mon. Mag. 4: 194). (e) In 1872 (Cistula ent. 1: 62) Crotch designated Papilio megera Linnaeus, 1767, as the type of this genus on the ground that “ this is the species commonly called ‘ le Satyre’ and hence evidently the true type of the genus’’. This designation is invalid, since Papilio megeva Linnaeus is not one of Latreille’s originally included species. (f) The first of Latreille’s originally included species to be designated as the type of this genus was Papilio galathea Linnaeus, 1758, which was so designated by Scudder in 1875 (Proc. Amer. Acad. Arts Sct., Boston 10: 265, 266). 74 OPINIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL (3) No well-known generic name would be displaced by accepting Papilio galathea Linnaeus as the type of Satyrus Latreille, but that course is open to very strong objection, since the transfer so involved would disturb the universally accepted practice of over I00 years by removing Satyrus Latreille from the great group of species of which Papilio semele Linnaeus, 1758 (the British “ Grayling’) is a representative example. or distsyor the species normally placed in the genus Satyvus Latreille, see Staudinger (1901, im Staudinger & Rebel, Cat. Lepid. pal. Faunengeb. 1: 53-59) and Seitz ([1908], Grossschmett. Evde 1: 121-132). (4) The only other species now accepted as belonging to the SATYRIDAE that was placed in the genus Satyrus by Latreille is (as shown in paragraph (2) (c) above) Papilio piera Linnaeus, 1758. Quite apart from the fact that this species is the type of the well-known genus Haeteva Fabricius, 1807, an older name than Satyrus Latreille, the selection of that species as the type of Satyrus Latreille would be far more objectionable than the selection of Papilio galathea Linnaeus, since it would involve a still greater change in the meaning to be applied to that genus. (5) If therefore Satyrus Latreille is to be preserved in its commonly accepted sense, it will be necessary for the International Commission by using its plenary powers to fix as the type of this genus under suspension of the rules a species that was not included init by Latreille. I recognise that this is a drastic step but nevertheless it is the one which I recommend should be adopted, since any other course would clearly result in greater confusion than uniformity. As regards the species so to be designated as the type of Satyvus Latreille, I recommend that this should be Papilio actaea Esper, [1780], since (a) that species is a good example of the group of species that have for so long been placed in this genus and (b) it was selected (though erroneously under the present Code) as the type of this genus by Butler as long ago as 1868. (6) I have discussed this problem with Mr. Riley, Mr. Tams and other lepidopterists now present in Madrid and with Professor James Chester Bradley who is in possession of the views on this subject of representative lepidopterists in the United States. All whom I have consulted are in agreement with the recommendation set out above. 6. On further consideration of this case, the International Committee on Entomological Nomenclature agreed to recommend the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature under suspension of the rules to fix Papilio actaea Esper as the type of Satyrus Latreille for the reasons set out in the statement given in the preceding paragraph. At the same time, the International Committee agreed that the need for a final settlement of the type of this genus was so great that, if the International Commission were to take the view that this was too drastic a course to adopt, it was desirable that they should give further consideration to the more limited proposals already before them on this subject. This, and other, recommendations adopted by the International Committee on Entomological Nomenclature at their Madrid meeting were confirmed by the Sixth International Congress of Entomology at the Concilium Plenum held on 12th September 1935. ree COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 142. 75 Hi.—lHE CONCLUSION REACHED BY THE INTER- NATIONAL COMMISSION. 7. When the International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature met at Lisbon immediately after the close of the Sixth International Congress of Entomology in September 1935, they found themselves confronted with a large number of cases involv- ing proposals for the suspension of the rules, in respect of some of which advertisements had not been published or, if published, had not been published for the prescribed period, owing to the illness of Dr. Stiles, Secretary to the Commission, or for other causes. In these circumstances the Commission decided at their meeting held on the morning of Monday, 16th September 1935 (Lisbon Session, 2nd Meeting, Conclusion 9) that immediate consideration should be given to all cases submitted to the Com- mission that, in their judgment, had reached the stage at which a decision could properly be taken and that, in so far as this in- volved taking decisions “‘ under suspension of the rules ’’ in cases where the prescribed advertisement procedure had not been complied with, the cases in question should be duly advertised as soon as might be practicable after the conclusion of the Lisbon Congress and that no Opinion should be rendered and published thereon until after the expiry of a period of one year from the date on which the said advertisement was despatched to the prescribed journals for publication. The case of the genus Satyrus Latreille was one of the cases in question and was accordingly dealt with by the Commission at Lisbon under the above procedure. 8. This case was considered by the International Commission at their meeting held on Monday, 16th September 1935 (Lisbon Session, 2nd Meeting, Conclusion 22), when the Commission agreed * :— (a) to suspend the rules in the case of the following generic names :— (ii) Satyrus Latreille, 1810, Consid. gén. Anim. Crust. Arach. Ins. : 355, 440; (c) to declare that the type of Satyrus Latreille, 1810, is Papilio actaea Esper, [1780], Die Schmett. 1 (Bd. 2) Forts. Tag- SONMEetL.2 27: ey (eh 8. (0, er fe * Only those portions of Conclusion 22 which relate to the present case are here quoted. 76 OPINIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL (i) to add the zeneric names). Saiyyus LatreilleyuS10 yee to the Official List of Generic Names, with the typels| indicated above ; ee e¢ @ @© @ to take note that in view of the decision set out in (a), (c), and (i) above, the request for an Opinion rejecting specific names first published in Retzius, 1783, Carol Degeer genera et species Insectorum et generalissimt auctoris scriptis extvaxit, digessit, latine quoad partem reddidit, et termino- logiam Insectorum Linneanum addidit A. I. Retzvus sub- mitted to the Commission in 1934 had been withdrawn by the petitioners ; e (1) to render Opinions in the sense of (a) to (k) above. g. The foregoing decisions in regard to the name Satyrus Latreille were embodied in paragraph 28 of the Report which at their meeting held on the morning of Wednesday, 18th September 1935, the Commission (Lisbon Session, 5th Meeting, Conclusion 6) unanimously agreed to submit to the Twelfth International Congress of Zoology. This report was unanimously approved by the Section on Nomenclature at its joint meeting with the Inter- national Commission held on the afternoon of the same day. It was thereupon submitted to the Twelfth International Congress of Zoology by which it was unanimously adopted at the Concilium Plenum of the Congress held on the afternoon of Saturday, 21st September 1935, the last day of the Congress. 10. In accordance with the decision taken by the Commission at Lisbon in regard to their procedure at that Session (paragraph 7 above), this case was duly advertised in 1936 in two or more of the journals named in the Resolution adopted by the Ninth International Congress of Zoology held at Monaco in March 10913, by which the said International Congress conferred upon the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature plenary power to suspend the rules as applied to any given case where in the judgment of the Commission the strict application of the rules would clearly result in greater confusion than uniformity. In the period that has elapsed since the advertisement in the said journals of the proposed suspension of the rules in the present case, no communication of any kind has been addressed to the International Commission objecting to the issue of an Opinion in the terms proposed. COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 142. 77 11. The Opinion as set out in paragraph 8 above was concurred in by the twelve (12) Commissioners and Alternates present at the Lisbon meeting of the International Commission, namely :— Commissioners :—Calman; Hemming; Jordan; Pellegrin; meters, and Sveimeger. Alternates :—do Amaral vice Cabrera; Ohshima vwice Esaki; Innadley vice stone, "Beier wee Handlirsch; Arndt vce Richter; and Mortensen vice Apstein. 12. The present Opinion was dissented from by no Commissioner or Altermate present at the Lisbon Meeting. Nor since that Meeting has any Commissioner who was neither present on that occasion nor represented thereat by an Alternate indicated dis- agreement with the conclusions then reached by the Commission in this matter. The following five (5) Commissioners who were not present at Lisbon nor represented thereat by Alternates did not vote on the above Opinion :— Bolivar y Pieltain; Chapman; Fantham; Silvestri; and Stiles. Pe OMIOKITY FOK THE ISSUE OF THE PRESENT OPINION. WHEREAS the Ninth International Congress of Zoology at its Meeting held at Monaco in March 1913, adopted a Resolution conferring upon the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, acting for the International Congress of Zoology, Plenary Power to suspend the Rules as applied to any given case, where, in the judgment of the Commission, the strict application of the said Rules would clearly result in greater confusion than uniformity, provided that not less than one year’s notice of the possible Suspension of the Rules as applied to the said case should be given in two or more of five journals named in the said Resolu- tion, and provided that the vote in the Commission was unanim- ously in favour of the proposed Suspension of the Rules; and WHEREAS the Suspension of the Rules is required to give valid force to the provisions of the present Opinion; and WHEREAS not less than one year’s notice of the possible Sus- pension of the Rules as applied to the present case has been given to two or more of the journals referred to in the Resolution adopted by the Ninth International Congress of Zoology at its Meeting held in Monaco in March 1913; and 78 OPINIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL WHEREAS the vote in the Commission at their Lisbon Meeting was unanimously in favour of the issue of an Opinion in the terms of the present Opinion ; Now, THEREFORE, I, FRANcISs HEMMING, Secretary to the International Com- mission on Zoological Nomenclature, acting in virtue of all and every the powers conferred upon me by reason of holding the said Office of Secretary to the International Commission, hereby announce the said Opinion on behalf of the International Com- mission, acting for the International Congress of Zoology, and direct that it be rendered and printed as Opinion One Hundred and Forty Two (Opinion 142) of the said Commission. In faith whereof, I, FRaNcis HEMMING, Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, have signed the present Opinion. DonE in London, this twelfth day of January, Nineteen Hundred and Forty Three, in a single copy, which shall remain deposited in the archives of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. FRANCIS HEMMING COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. NOTICES. The undermentioned publications of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature are obtainable at the Publications Office of the Commission, 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W. 7 :— OPINION 142. 79 OPINION 134. On the method to be adopted in interpreting the generic names assigned by Freyer to species described in his Neuere Beitrage zur Schmetterlingskunde, 1833-1858 : ; The suppression of the so-called “ eens List” of 1801 Opinion supplementary to Opinion 11 on the interpretation of Latreille’s Considéra- tions génévales suv lovdre naturel des ani- maux composant les classes des Crustacés, des Avachnides et des Insectes avec un tableau méthodique de leurs genres disposés en familles, Paris, 1810 On the relative precedence to be accorded to certain generic names published in 1807 by Fabricius and Hubner respec- tively for identical genera in the Lepido- ptera Rhopalocera On the method by which the amendment to Article 25 of the International Code adopted by the Budapest Meeting of the International Zoological Congress, relating to the replacement of invalid names, should be interpreted The names Cephus Latreille, [1802— -1803], and A stata Latreille, 1796, in the Hymeno- ptera added to the Official List of Generic Names On the method of forming the family names for Merops Linnaeus, 1758 (Aves) and price 8d. OPINION 135. price 8d. OPINION 136. DEICE 1S Od: OPINION 137. PrICe 1S. Od: OPINION 138. OMICS LS, Od. OPINION 139. ICS BS, Oa OPINION 140. OPINION OPINION Merope Newman, 1838 (Insecta) On the principles to be observed in interpret- ing Article 4 of the International Code re- lating to the naming of families and sub- families Suspension of the Rules for Satyrus Latreille, 1810 (Insecta, Lepidoptera) price 2s. pce 25. [DINOS BS 6d. 6d. Nore :—Opinions One to One Hundred and Thirty-Three (Opinions 1-133) rendered by the International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature were not published by the Commission itself owing to lack of funds. Through the intermediary of the late Dr. C. W. Stiles, at that time Secre- tary to the International Commission, the Smithsonian Institution very kindly came to the aid of the Commission and agreed to publish the Opinions in the Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections. Unfortunately, all except a few of the later of the above Opinions are now out of print, and are therefore not obtainable by working zoologists. In order to remedy the serious position so created, it is proposed, as soon as funds are available, to reprint Opinions 1 to 133 as Volume 1 of Opinions rendered by the Inter- national Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. _Ricuarp CLay AND Company, L1tp., BuUNGAY, SUFFOLK. © STi 5 i * i § ‘ r 4 ate SS 4 4 " 4 = es E = e ; ; 7 : s ‘one: ay f Tea) " ab 4 £ i » ; ; i Y Aa 6 4 , 5 . , Fj rs oe a OPINIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON LOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Edited by FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E. Secretary to the Commission VOLUME 2 (pp. 81-88) OPINION 143 On the method of forming the family name for Tingis Fabricius, 1803 (Insecta, Hemiptera) LONDON : Printed by Order of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature Sold at the Publications Office of the Commission 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7 1943 Price two shillings and sixpence (All rights reserved) eo Sea Issued 25th March, 1943 INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE COMPOSITION OF THE COMMISSION The Officers of the Commission President: Dr. Karl Jordan, Ph.D., F.R.S. (United Kingdom). Secretary : Mr. Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. (United Kingdom). Assistant Secretary: Dr. James L. Peters (U.S.A.). The Members of the Commission Class 1943 Senor Dr. Afranio do AMARAL (Brazil). Professor Lodovico di CAPORIACCO (Italy). Professor J. R. DYMOND (Canada). Dr. James L. PETERS (U.S.A.) (Assistant Secretary to the Commission). Dr. Leonhard STEJNEGER (U.5.A.). (vacant) .* Class 1946 Herr Professor Dr. Walter ARNDT (Germany). Dr. William Thomas CALMAN (United Kingdom). Professor Teiso ESAKI (Japan). Professor Béla von HANKO (Hungary). Dr. Tadeusz JACZEWSKI (Poland). (vacant).t Class 1949 Senor Dr. Angel CABRERA (Argentina). Dr. Frederick CHAPMAN (Australia). Mr. Francis HEMMING (United Kingdom) (Secretary to the Commission). Dr. Karl JORDAN (United Kingdom) (President of the Commission). Monsieur le Docteur Jacques PELLEGRIN (France). Herr Professor Dr. Rudolf RICHTER (Germany). Secretariat of the Commission : British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London, S.W. 7. Publications Office of the Commission : 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W. 7. Personal address of the Secretary : 83, Fellows Road (Garden Flat), London, N.W. 3. * This vacancy was caused by the death on 23rd May, 1939, of Dr. Witmer STONE (U.5.A.). + This vacancy was caused by the death on 24th January, 1941, of Dr. Charles Wardell STILES (U.S.A.), Vice-President of the Commission and former Secretary to the Commission (1897-1935). j TTT TTI er ae on “ _ . az i § : Fae a ee Se ; Mo als: sig cake elo ey a> ; é f “ SS OPINION 143. ON THE METHOD OF FORMING THE FAMILY NAME FOR TINGIS FABRICIUS, 1803 (INSECTA, HEMIPTERA). SUMMARY.—The family name for Tingis Fabricius, 1803 (Syst. Rhyng. : 124) in the Hemiptera is TINGIDAE. I.—THE STATEMENT OF THE CASE. The question of the form of the family name for Tingis Fabricius, 1803, was first submitted to the Commission by Dr. A. C. Baker of East Falls Church, Va., in January 1923. The following is the text of Dr. Baker’s note :— TINGITIDAE, TINGIDAE or TINGIIDAE. Dr. W. J. Holland (1922, Science 56 : 334-335) contends that Fabri- cius intended to use the word Tinge, the Latin equivalent of the Greek word Tiyyis, Of which the stem is Tingit. He, therefore, makes the family name TINGITIDAE. Dr. H. M. Parshley (1922, Science 56: 449) contends that Fabricius coined the word Tingis and did not base it on the Greek word Tiyys and following the genitive used by Fabricius he makes the word an i-stem and writes the family name TINGIDAE. Dr. Baker (1922, Science 56 : 603) contends that Fabricius introduced into the Latin language the Greek word Tiyyis and since an i-stem in Greek made it an i-stem in Latin. Following Article 4 strictly he writes the family name TINGIIDAE. Dr. Holland (1922, Science 56 : 535-536) replies to Dr. Parshley objecting to his stand. Dr. Parshley (1922, Science 56: 754) accepts Dr. Baker’s conclusion about the origin of the word but objects to the application of Article 4. He claims that Dr. Baker introduced this use in such cases. Dr. Baker informs you of the fact that the word mentioned by Dr. Parshley, APHIIDAE, has been in the literature for ten years so that others have followed Article 4 in such cases. Shall Article 4 be followed ?, Il_ THE SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF THE CASE. 2. After preliminary consideration, the Commission decided to invite the International Committee on Entomological Nomen- clature to advise them on the merits of the alternatives submitted in connection with this name. 84 OPINIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL 3. This case was considered by the International Committee on Entomological Nomenclature at its meeting held in Paris in 1932 during the Meeting of the Fifth International Congress of En- tomology. The International Committee adopted the following Resolution in this matter :— TINGIDAE versus TINGITIDAE et TINGIIDAE. Tingis étant un nom latin dont le génitif est Tingis et l’accusatif Tingim, TINGIDAE est la forme correcte du nom de la famille. 4. This Resolution was unanimously confirmed by Section VIII of the Fifth International Congress of Entomology and by the said Congress in Concilium Plenum on the presentation of the Report of the Secretary of the Executive Committee. III—THE CONCLUSION REACHED BY THE INTER- NATIONAL COMMISSION. 5. The resolution adopted by the International Committee on Entomological Nomenclature was considered by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature at the second meeting of the Session held at Lisbon in September 1935 during the meeting of the Twelfth International Congress of Zoology. At this meet- ing, which was held on the morning of Monday, 16th September 1935, the International Commission agreed (Lisbon Session, 2nd Meeting, Conclusion 12) :— (a) that the form of the family name to be established for the genus 7ingis Fabricius, 1803 (Syst. Rhyng.: 124) in the Hemiptera was a question which affected entomologists alone and in consequence was a matter on which the Com- mission could properly be guided by the International Congress of Entomology ; in view of (a) above, to render an Opinion declaring that the family name for the genus T7mgis Fabricius, 1803, was TINGIDAE. S 6. At their meeting held at Lisbon on the morning of Tuesday, 17th September 1935 (Lisbon Session, 4th Meeting, Conclusion 17), Commissioner Francis Hemming, who, in the absence through ill-health of Dr. C. W. Stiles, Secretary to the Commission, had been charged with the duty of preparing the Report to be submitted by the Commission to the Twelfth International Congress of COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 143. 85 Zoology, reported that, in accordance with the request made by the Commission on the previous day (Lisbon Session, 3rd Meeting, Conclusion 3 (b)) he had made a start with the drafting of the Commission’s Report; that he made considerable progress in spite of being hampered by the lack of standard works of refer- ence; and that he did not doubt that he would be in a position to lay a draft Report before the Commission at their next meeting, though in the time available it would be quite impracticable to prepare the drafts of paragraphs relating to all the matters on which decisions had been reached during the Lisbon meetings of the Commission. As agreed upon at the meeting referred to above (Lisbon Session, 3rd Meeting, Conclusion 3 (a) (iii)), he was therefore concentrating upon those matters that appeared to be the more important. Commissioner Hemming proposed that those matters which it was found impossible to include in the Report, owing to the shortness of the time available, should be dealt with after the Congress on the basis of the records in the Official Record of the Proceedings of the Commission during their Lisbon Session. For this purpose, Commissioner Hemming pro- posed that all matters unanimously agreed upon during the Lisbon Session should be treated in the same manner, whether or not it was found possible to include references to them in the Report to be submitted to the Congress, and therefore that every such decision should be treated as having been participated in by all the Commissioners and Alternates present at Lisbon. The Commission took note of, and approved, the statement by Com- missioner Hemming, and adopted the proposals submitted by him, as recorded above, in regard both to the selection of items to be included in their Report to the Twelfth International Con- gress of Zoology and to the procedure to be adopted after the Congress in regard to those matters with which, for the reasons explained, it was found impossible to deal in that Report. 7. The question dealt with in the present Opinion was one of the matters to which it was found impossible, in the time available, to include a reference in the Report submitted by the Commission to the Twelfth International Congress of Zoology at Lisbon. It is therefore one of the matters which falls to be dealt with under the special procedure agreed upon by the Commission as set out in paragraph 6 above. 8. The present Opinion was concurred in by the twelve (12) Commissioners and Alternates present at the Lisbon Session of the International Commission, namely :— 86 OPINIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL Commissioners :—Calman; Hemming; Jordan; Pellegrin; Peters ;; and Stejneger. Alternates :—do Amaral vice Cabrera; Ohshima vice Esaki; Bradley vice Stone; Beier vice Handlirsch; Arndt vice Richter; and Mortensen wice Apstein. g. The present Opinion was dissented from by no Commissioner or Alternate at the Lisbon Meeting. IV.—AUTHORITY FOR THE ISSUE OF THE PRESENT OPINION. WHEREAS the By-Laws of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature provide that, except in cases involving the Suspension of the Rules, an Opinion is to be deemed to have been adopted by the said International Commission as soon as a majority of the Members of the Commission, that is to say ten (10) Members of the said Commission, have recorded their votes in favour thereof, provided that, where any proposed Opinion involves a reversal of any former Opinion rendered by the Com- mission, such proposed Opinion shall obtain the concurrence of at least fourteen (14) Members of the Commission voting on the same before such Opinion is to be deemed to have been adopted by the Commission; and WHEREAS the present Opinion neither requires, in order to be valid, the Suspension of the Rules, nor involves a reversal of any former Opinion rendered by the Commission; and WHEREAS twelve (12) Members of the Commission have signified their concurrence in the present Opinion either in person or through Alternates at the Meeting of the Commission held in Lisbon in September 1935 : Now, THEREFORE, I, FRANcIS HEMMING, Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, acting in virtue of all and every the powers conferred upon me by reason of holding the said Office of Secretary to the International Commission, hereby announce the said Opinion on behalf of the International Commission, acting for the International Congress of Zoology, and direct that it be rendered and printed as Opinion Number One Hundred and Forty Three (Opinion 143) of the said Commission. COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 143. 87 In faith whereof, I, the undersigned FRANCIS HEMMING, Secre- tary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, have signed the present Opinion. Done in London, this twenty-seventh day of January, Nineteen Hundred and Forty Three, in a single copy, which shall remain deposited in the archives of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. FRANCIS HEMMING 88 INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION NOTICES. ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. The undermentioned publications of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature are obtainable at the Publications Office of the Commission, 41, Queen’s Gate, London, 5.W. 7 :— OPINION OPINION OPINION OPINION OPINION OPINION OPINION OPINION OPINION OPINION OPINIONS I-133. 134. re5. 130. 139. 139. 140. it Ait AP, 143. On the method to be adopted in interpreting the generic names assigned by Freyer to species described in his Neuere Bettrage zur Schmetterlingskunde, 1833-1858 The suppression of the so-called ‘“‘ Erlangen List’ ‘of 1801 5 Opinion supplementary fo Opinion 11 on the interpretation of Latreille’s Considéva- tions génévales sur Vordre naturel des ani- maux composant les classes des Crustacés, des Avachnides et des Insectes avec un tableau méthodique de leurs genres ee en familles, Paris, 1810 On the relative precedence to be sceoeden to certain generic names published in 1807 by Fabricius and Hiibner respec- tively for identical genera in the meu ptera Rhopalocera On the method by which the anicnamene fs Article 25 of the International Code adopted at the Budapest Meeting of the International Zoological Congress, relat- ing to the replacement of invalid names, should be interpreted j ‘ The names Cephus Latreille, [1802-1803], and A stata Latreille, 1796, in the Hymeno- ptera added to the Official List of Generic Names On the method of forming the family names for Mevops Linnaeus, 1758 (Aves) and for Mevope Newman, 1838 (Insecta) On the principles to be observed in interpret- ing Article 4 of the International Code re- lating to the es of families and sub- families Suspension of the Rules fo Sie Latveile 1810 (Insecta, Lepidoptera) On the method of forming the family name for Tingis Fabricius, ee oe ie Hemi- ptera) price 8d. price 8d. price mG. PLICe Is: price Is. price zs: price 2s. Price ze. price 2s. price 2s. od. od. Od. 6d. od. 6d. 6d. 6d. The bulk of fete are out sf sie and it is accordingly proposed to reprint them, as soon as funds permit, as Volume 1 of Opinions venderved by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. PRINTED IN GREAT BRITAIN BY RICHARD CLAY AND CompANy, LTD., BUNGAY, SUFFOLK. OPINIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Edited by FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E. Secretary to the Commission VOLUME 9) (pp. 89-98) OPINION 144 On the status of the names Crabro Geoffroy, 1762, Crabro Fabricius, 1775, and Cimbex Olivier, 1790 (Insecta, Hymenoptera) LONDON : Printed by Order of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature Sold at the Publications Office of the Commission 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7 ey 1943 . | Price two shillings and sixpence (All rights reserved) | eee Le Issued 30th March, 1943 | INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE COMPOSITION OF THE COMMISSION The Officers of the Commission President: Dr. Karl Jordan, Ph.D., F.R.S. (United Kingdom). Secretary : Mr. Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. (United Kingdom). Assistant Secretary : Dr. James L. Peters (U.S.A.). The Members of the Commission Class 1943 Senor Dr. Afranio do AMARAL (Brazil). Professor Lodovico di CAPORIACCO (Italy). Professor J. R. DYMOND (Canada). Dr. James L. PETERS (U:S.A.) (Assistant Secretary to the Commission). Dr. Leonhard STEJNEGER (U.5.A.). (vacant) .* Class 1946 Herr Professor Dr. Walter ARNDT (Germany). Dr. William Thomas CALMAN (United Kingdom). Professor Teiso ESAKI (Japan). Professor Béla von HANKO (Hungary). Dr. Tadeusz JACZEWSKI (Poland). (vacant).7 Class 1949 Senor Dr. Angel CABRERA (Argentina). Dr. Frederick CHAPMAN (Australia). Mr. Francis HEMMING (United Kingdom) (Secretary to the Commission). Dr. Karl JORDAN (United Kingdom) (President of the Commission). Monsieur le Docteur Jacques PELLEGRIN (France). Herr Professor Dr. Rudolf RICHTER (Germany). Secretariat of the Commission : British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London, S.W. 7. Publications Office of the Commission : 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W. 7. Personal address of the Secretary : 83, Fellows Road (Garden Flat), London, N.W. 3. * This vacancy was caused by the death on 23rd May, 1939, of Dr. Witmer STONE (U:S.A.). + This vacancy was caused by the death on 24th January, 1941, of Dr. Charles Wardell STILES (U.S.A.), Vice-President of the Commission and former Secretary to the Commission (1897-1935). OPINION 144. ON THE STATUS OF THE NAMES CRABRO GEOFFROY, 1762, CRABRO FABRICIUS, 1775, AND CIMBEX OLIVIER, 1790 (INSECTA, HYMENOPTERA). SUMMARY.—Under suspension of the rules (i) the name Crabro Geoffroy, 1762, is suppressed ; (ii) all existing type designa- tions for Crabro Fabricius, 1775, and Cimbeax Olivier, 1790, are set aside; (ili) Vespa cribraria Linnaeus, 1758, is hereby designated as the type of Crabro Fabricius; and (iv) Tenthredo lutea Linnaeus, 1758, is hereby designated as the type of Cimbeax Olivier. The names Crabro Fabricius and Cimbeax Olivier, with the types indicated above, are hereby added to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. I.—THE STATEMENT OF THE CASE. Attention was first drawn by Professor James Chester Bradley in 1919 (Tvans. ent. Soc. Lond. 1919 : 66-67) to the serious diffi- culties arising from the strict application of the rules in the case of the names Cvabro Fabricius, 1775, and Cimbex Olivier, 1790. The difficulties involved in this case led Professor Chester Bradley to consult the leading systematic workers in all countries on the course of action to be pursued. As the result of these consulta- tions, the following petition signed by Professor Chester Bradley and 59 other Hymenopterists was submitted to the International Commission :— THE CASE OF CRABRO AND CIMBEX “In Tvans. ent. Soc. Lond. 1919 : 66, Bradley has shown that the valid name under the code for the genus of the common willow sawfly is Crabro Geoffr. rather than Cimbex by which it has been universally known, and as it is the type of its family the CimBIcIDAE must be changed to CRABRo- NIDAE despite the fact that Cvabro, CRABRONINI, CRABRONINAE and CRABRONIDAE have been familiar and universally employed terms applied to groups of sphecoid wasps. ““ There seems to be no question as to the validity of Cvabro Geoffr. under the Code as interpreted by Opinion 20, but since some Commissioners and Opinions have recently shown a tendency not to strictly adhere to that Opinion,* we wish to ask for a specific decision concerning the validity of Crabro Geoffr., 1762 (nec Fabricius, 1775). * The question here referred to is at present sub judice. See paragraph 14 of the Report submitted by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to, and approved by, the Twelfth International Congress of Zoology (Compte Rendu XII* Congrés international de Zoologie Lisbonne 1985 : 184-185). * Q2 OPINIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL ‘Tn case you sustain the validity of Cvabro Geoffr. we hereby pray for relief from the intolerable situation resulting, and respectfully petition you to invoke the plenary power granted you by the Monaco Congress, and to take action as follows, to wit : (1) to suspend the Rules in the cases of Crabro Geoffr., 1762 Crabro Fabr., 1775 (2) to permanently reject Crabyo Geoffr., 1762 (3) to validate Cimbex Ol., 1790, type Tenthvedo lutea L. (by designation of Latreille, 1810). Crabro Fabr., 1775, type Crvabro cribrarius i.e. Vespa cribvania L., for the genus of aculeate wasps commonly known by that name, and for the subgenus thereof referred to by Kohl (1915, Die Crabronen der palaearktischen Region) as Thyreopus. 2. The following is the list of signatures attached to the above petition at the time of its submission to the International Com- mission :— C. T. Brues R. Benoist * H. Haupt Jos. Bequaert J. D. Alfken'* H. Brauns { G. Grandi A. Krausse L. Berland ALB; Gahan: * H. Wolff A. A. Oglobin EEE risen J. G. Betrem- O. W. Richards ieulemnatla R. Fouts le le, ISajoiny H. H. Ross * G. Arnold VSL Bate J. M. Dusmet A. Handlirsch J. C. Bradley W. M. Wheeler * I. Micha C. Enderlein Gale pleyvile H. Hacker T. Uchida + R. A. Cushman * A. C. Kinsey * O. Vogt + Ba A lott H. de W. Marriott H. Habermehl f A. Crevecoeur F. Maidl R. Kruger + W. M. Mann R. Roth W. Hellen + R. Friese E. Enslin F, X. Williams f H. von Ihering { A. C. W. Wagner A. von Schulthess Rk. P. Benson * O. Schmiedeknecht + N. N. Kuznezev-Ugamt- H. Hedicke H. F. Schwarz sky + H. Bischoff W.V. Baloutf * 1p. 18, Ibionez L. Masi. D. S. Wilkinson * L. H. Weld * * In accord with results sought by the petition without having studied the points involved in the particular case. + Evidently intended to subscribe to this petition, but sheet bearing his signature was not included in his reply. i) Deceased. 3. This case was circulated to the members of the International Commission in January 1935, when it was arranged that it and the other Hymenoptera cases submitted at the same time should be dealt with at the meeting of the Commission due to be held at Lisbon in September of that year, by which time the recommenda- COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 144. 93 tions of the International Committee on Entomological Nomen- clature would be available. Il.—THE SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF THE CASE. 4. This case was considered by the International Committee on Entomological Nomenclature at its meeting held at Madrid in the second week of September 1935 during the Sixth International Congress of Entomology. After careful consideration, the Inter- national Committee agreed to recommend that the International Commission should deal with this case under their plenary powers in the manner indicated in the petition. 5. This and other resolutions adopted by the International Committee at its meeting held at Madrid were subsequently con- firmed by the Sixth International Congress of Entomology at the Concilium Plenum held at Madrid on 12th September 1935. Iil—THE CONCLUSION REACHED BY THE INTERNA- TIONAL COMMISSION. 6. When the International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature met at Lisbon immediately after the close of the Sixth International Congress of Entomology in September 1935, they found themselves confronted with a large number of cases involv- ing proposals for the suspension of the rules, in respect of some of which advertisements had not been published or, if published, had not been published for the prescribed period, owing to the illness of Dr. Stiles, Secretary to the Commission, or for other causes. In these circumstances the Commission decided at their meeting held on the morning of Monday, 16th September 1935 (Lisbon Session, 2nd Meeting, Conclusion 9) that immediate consideration should be given to all cases submitted to the Com- mission that, in their judgment, had reached the stage at which a decision could properly be taken and that, in so far as this involved taking decisions “‘ under suspension of the rules ’’ in cases where the prescribed advertisement procedure had not been complied with, the cases in question should be duly advertised as soon as might be practicable after the conclusion of the Lisbon Congress and that no Opinion should be rendered and published thereon until aiter the expiry of a period of one year from the date on which the said advertisement was despatched to the prescribed journals for publication. The case of Crabro Geoffroy, Crabro Fabricius, and Cimbex Olivier was one of the cases in question and was 94 OPINIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL accordingly dealt with by the Commission at Lisbon under the above procedure. 7. The present case was considered by the International Commission at their meeting held on the afternoon of Monday, 16th September 1935 (Lisbon Session, 3rd Meeting, Conclusion 2), when the Commission agreed * :— (b) under “‘ Suspension of the Rules” permanently to reject the following generic names :— er ye) cqnmiey He cee, oe, Ser te) ere (c) under “‘ Suspension of the Rules ”’ to set aside all type designations for the undermentioned genera and to declare their types to be the species indicated below :— Name of genus Type of genus (19) Cimbex Olivier, 1790, Tenthredo lutea Linnaeus, Ency. méth. 5 (Ins.) : 1758, Syst. Nats (edaioy: 762 555 (20) Crabro Fabricius, 1775, Vespa cribraria Linnaeus, Syst. Ent. > 373 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) : DIS | (d) under ‘‘ Suspension of the Rules ”’ to place on the Official List of Generic Names the sixteen generic names enumer- ated ‘in (c) above (names (19) to (34)), each with the type species there indicated ; (e) to render Opinions in the sense of (a) to (d) above. 8. The foregoing decisions were embodied in paragraph 27 of the Report which at their meeting held on the morning of Wednes- day, 18th September 1935, the Commission (Lisbon Session, 5th Meeting, Conclusion 6) unanimously agreed to submit to the Twelfth International Congress of Zoology. This report was unanimously approved by the Section on Nomenclature at its joint meeting with the International Commission held on the afternoon of the same day. It was thereupon submitted to the Twelfth International Congress of Zoology by which it was approved at the Concilium Plenum of the Congress held on the afternoon of Satur- day, 21st September 1935, the last day of the Congress. * Only those portions of Conclusion 2 which relate to the present case are here quoted. COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 144. 95 g. In accordance with the decision taken by the Commission at Lisbon in regard to their procedure at that Session, this case was duly advertised in 1936 in two or more of the journals named in the Resolution adopted by the Ninth International Congress of Zoology held at Monaco in March 1913, by which the said Inter- national Congress conferred upon the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature plenary power to suspend the Rules as applied to any given case where in the judgment of the Com- mission the strict application of the Rules would clearly result in greater confusion than uniformity. In the period that has elapsed since the advertisement in the said journals of the proposed Suspension of the Rules in the case of the names specified in paragraph 7 above, no communication of any kind has been received by the International Commission objecting to the issue of an Opinion in the terms proposed. 10, The Opinion as set out in paragraph 7 above was concurred in by the twelve (12) Commissioners and Alternates present at the Lisbon meeting of the International Commission, namely :— Commissioners :—Calman; Hemming; Jordan; Pellegrin; Peters; and Stejneger. Alternates :—do Amaral vice Cabrera; Ohshima wice Esaki; Bradley vice Stone; Beier vice Handlirsch; Arndt vice Richter; and Mortensen vice Apstein. 11. [he present Opinion was dissented from by no Commissioner or Alternate present at the Lisbon meeting. Nor since that Meeting has any Commissioner who was neither present on that occasion nor represented thereat by an Alternate indicated dis- agreement with the conclusions then reached by the Commission in this matter. The following five (5) Commissioners who were not present at Lisbon nor represented thereat by Alternates did not vote on the above Opinion :— Bolivar y Pieltain; Chapman; Fantham; Silvestri; and Stiles. 1V.—AUTHORITY FOR THE ISSUE OF THE PRESENT OPINION. WHEREAS the Ninth International Congress of Zoology at its Meeting held at Monaco in March 1913, adopted a Resolution conferring upon the International Commission on Zoological 96 OPINIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL Nomenclature, acting for the International Congress of Zoology, Plenary Power to suspend the Rules as applied to any given case, where, in the judgment of the Commission, the strict application of the said Rules would clearly result in greater confusion than uniformity, provided that not less than one year’s notice of the possible Suspension of the Rules as applied to the said case should be given in two or more of five journals named in the said Resolu- tion, and provided that the vote in the Commission was unanim- ously in favour of the proposed Suspension of the Rules; and WHEREAS the Suspension of the Rules is required to give valid force to the provisions of the present Opinion; and WHEREAS not less than one year’s notice of the possible Sus- pension of the Rules as applied to the present case has been given to two or more of the journals referred to in the Resolution adopted by the Ninth International Congress of Zoology at its meeting held at Monaco in March 1913; and WHEREAS the vote in the Commission at their Lisbon Meeting was unanimously in favour of the issue of an Opinion in the terms of the present Opinion ; Now, THEREFORE, I, FRANCIS HEMMING, Secretary to the International Com- mission on Zoological Nomenclature, acting in virtue of all and every the powers conferred upon me by reason of holding the said Office of Secretary to the International Commission, hereby announce the said Opinion on behalf of the International Com- mission, acting for the International Congress of Zoology, and direct that it be rendered and printed as Opinion One Hundred and Forty Four (Opinion 144) of the said Commission. In faith whereof, I, FRANCIS HEMMING, Secretary to the Inter- national Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, have signed the present Opinion. Done in London, this ninth day of February, Nineteen Hundred and Forty Three, in a single copy, which shall remain deposited in the archives of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. FRANCIS HEMMING COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 144. 97 NOTICES. The undermentioned publications of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature are obtainable at the Publications Office of the Commission, 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W. 7 :-— OPINION 134. On the method to be adopted in interpreting the generic names assigned by Freyer to species described in his Neuere Bettrage zur Schmetterlingskunde, 1833-1858 ; 3 price 8d. OPINION 135. The suppression of the so-called “‘ Erlangen TLAge 7 Oil UCOT : : : : : price 8d. OPINION 136. Opinion supplementary to Opinion 11 on the interpretation of Latreille’s Considéra- tions génévales suv Vordrve naturel des ani- maux composant les classes des Crustacés, des Avachnides et des Insectes avec un tableau méthodique de leurs genres Ly a en familles, Paris, 1810 : : DICE 1S, Ow, OPINION 137. On the relative precedence to be seeoeded to certain generic names published in 1807 by Fabricius and Hubner respec- tively for identical genera in the peu ptera Rhopalocera ; ICO US, Od. OPINION 138. On the method by which the eee oe Article 25 of the International Code adopted at the Budapest Meeting of the International Zoological Congress, relat- ing to the replacement of invalid names, should be interpreted . A price Is. 6d, OPINION 139. The names Cephus Latreille, [1 ee Soa, and A stata Latreille, 1796, in the Hymeno- ptera added to the Official List of Generic Names : ICS 2S, Gd. OPINION 140. On the method of forming the enh names for Mevops Linnaeus, 1758 (Aves) and for Mevope Newman, 1838 (Insecta) 5 DIMOS BS, Od! OPINION 141. Onthe principles to be observed in interpret- ing Article 4 of the International Code re- lating to the Sane of families and sub- families ‘ , joe 2S, Od). OPINION 142. Suspension of the ites oe Sis eae 1810 (Insecta, Lepidoptera) . : 5 Ores 2S, Gal. OPINION 143. On the method of forming the family name for Tingis Fabricius, 1803 ee Hemi- ptera) 4 : 5 IEICE BS. OU, OPINION 144. On the status of the. names Craivs Conaeey: 1762, Cvabro Fabricius, 1775, and Cimbex Olivier joo) Insecta Elyinenoptera)i) 4) price 2s" od: OPINIONS 1-133. The bulk of these are out of print and it is accordingly proposed to reprint them, as soon as funds permit, as Volume 1 of Opinions vendered by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. PRINTED IN GREAT BRITAIN BY RICHARD CLAY AND CoMPANy, LTD., BUNGAY, SUFFOLK. | i wa i . ’ . ) gam |} 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 Vol. 2. Part 12. Pp. 99-108. On the status of names first published in works rejected for nomenclatorial purposes and subsequently published in other works. | | OPINION 145 | LONDON : | Printed by Order of the International Commission on ae Zoological Nomenclature 1 .. Sold at the Publications Office of the Commission | 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7 ; ok 1943 Price two shillings and sixpence (All rights reserved) Issued 30th September, 1943 INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE COMPOSITION OF THE COMMISSION ’ The Officers of the Commission President: Dr. Karl Jordan, Ph.D., F.R.S. (United Kingdom). Secretary : Mr. Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. (United Kingdom). Assistant Secretary: Dr. James L. Peters (U.S.A.). The Members of the Commission Class 1943 Senor. Dr. Afranio do AMARAL (Brazil). Professor Lodovico di CAPORIACCO (Italy). Professor J. R. DYMOND (Canada). — Dr. James L. PETERS (U.S.A.) (Assistant Secretary to the Commission). Dr. Leonhard STEJNEGER (U.5.A.). ) (vacant).* ! Class 1946 Herr Professor ie. Walter ARNDT (Germany). Dr. William Thomas CALMAN (United Kingdom). Professor Teiso ESAKI (Japan). Professor Béla von HANKO (Hungary). Dr. Tadeusz JACZEWSKI (Poland). (vacant).f Class 1949 Senor Dr. Angel CABRERA (Argentina). Dr. Frederick CHAPMAN (Australia). Mr. Francis HEMMING (United Kingdom) (Secretary to the Commission). Dr. Karl JORDAN (United Kingdom) (President of the Commission). Monsieur le Docteur Jacques PELLEGRIN (France). Herr Professor Dr. Rudolf RICHTER (Germany). Secretariat of the Commission : British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London, S.W. 7. Publications Office of the Commission : 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W. 7. Personal address of the Secretary : 83, Fellows Road (Garden Flat), London, N.W. 3. * This vacancy was caused by the death on 23rd May, 1939, of Dr. Witmer STONE (U.S.A.). {| This vacancy was caused by the death on 24th January, 1941, of Dr. Charles Wardell STILES (U.S.A.), Vice-President of the Commission and former Secretary to the Commission (1897-1935). 7 . 1 ‘ "a 3 v ry 5 VG G ay ew CRAG Paks BEY s . y AY} an erane biWy j f tr) dg , é } oy, OPINION 145. ON THE STATUS OF NAMES FIRST PUBLISHED IN WORKS REJECTED FOR NOMENCLATORIAL PURPOSES AND SUB- | SEQUENTLY PUBLISHED IN OTHER WORKS. SUMMARY.—Where a _work is rejected for nomenclatorial purposes, either under Article 25 of the International Code or under the plenary powers granted to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, names (whether generic or specific) first published in such works are to be treated as having never been published. Where, therefore, an author subsequently establishes a genus or species to which he applies the same name as one of those in the rejected work, the later published name is available nomenclatorially and is not to be rejected as a homonym by reason of the earlier publication of that name in the work so rejected. . | -I—THE STATEMENT OF THE CASE. At their Session held at Lisbon in September 1935, the Inter- national Commission had under consideration a proposal that the long forgotten paper on generic names in the Hymenoptera commonly known as the “Erlangen List’’ should be suppressed on the ground that greater confusion than uniformity would - clearly result if it were necessary to change the meaning to be attached to the many well-known genera in question by reason of the change in their type species that would follow inevitably from the acceptance of this paper. 2. In the course of the discussion of this proposal, attention was drawn to the need for a clear indication on the status of a name © (whether generic or specific) (a) first published in a work subse- quently rejected for nomenclatorial purposes and (b) later repub- lished either (1) in some other sense or (ii) in the same sense. The question was whether a name so republished should be treated as available nomenclatorially, in view of the rejection of the work in which it had first been published; or whether, notwithstanding — the rejection of that work, the name, when subsequently repub- 102 OPINIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL lished, should be treated as unavailable nomenclatorially as being a homonym. 3. It was pointed out that the latter of the two courses indicated above would amount to the total and permanent exclusion from availability of every name that was first published in a rejected work. The result would be the very opposite of what anyone desired, for instead of enabling rejected works to be consigned to oblivion, it would make it more important than ever that a close and detailed study should be made of all such works to make sure that they did not contain names, the use of which it was desired to retain. A decision in this sense could not be confined to works specifically rejected by the International Commission but would need to apply also to every work rejected under Article 25 as the work of an author who had not applied the principles of binary nomenclature. This would be the very negation of the object of that Article, since it would mean that far from the works of such authors being excluded from account in nomenclatorial matters, such works would become of great nomenclatorial importance since the publication of a generic name in such a work would suffice to prevent the subsequent acceptance of that name as an available name in any branch of zoology. 4. But it was not only on grounds of logic that such a decision would be open to objection; powerful reasons on grounds of practical convenience pointed to the same conclusion. An admirable case in point was provided by the “ Erlangen List ”’ at that moment under consideration by the Commission. The objection taken to the “ Erlangen List ’’ was not that the names first published in it were new—but long since forgotten—names, the reintroduction of which into the literature would displace well-known names and thereby result in greater confusion than uniformity. On the contrary, the objection to the “ Erlangen List ’’ was that it was the work in which were first published many generic names which in the course of over 100 years had become some of the best known in the order Hymenoptera; their use in the “‘ Erlangen List ’’ was different, however, from that which had come to be universally adopted, and the acceptance of the “Erlangen List ’’ would involve the changing of the types of (and consequently also the meaning to be assigned to) many of these genera. No one desired that these names should be com- pletely suppressed for all nomenclatorial purposes; what was desired was that their use in the “ Erlangen List’ should be suppressed, so as to validate their use in the commonly accepted COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 145. 103 sense, 7.€. in what would be the correct sense if it were permissible to treat the names in question as having nomenclatorial status only from the date and place of their next subsequent publication. 5. [he proposal placed before the International Commission was, therefore, first that the “‘ Erlangen List ’’ should be elimin- ated from the literature by being suppressed under the Commis- sion’s plenary powers, and second that the availability of the generic names first published in that work should be judged as from the date on which the names in question were first republished and by reference to the species then placed in the genera in question. This was not a matter which could be settled in relation to a particular case, since the same problem inevitably arose whenever a work was rejected for nomenclatorial purposes. The Com- mission were accordingly asked to give a decision on this question in general terms that would ape automatically whenever the problem arose. | I1.—THE CONCLUSION REACHED BY THE INTERNA- TIONAL COMMISSION. 6. The general problem discussed above and also the petition relating fo the particular case presented by the ‘“‘ Erlangen List ”’ were considered by the International Commission at their meeting held on the morning of Monday, 16th September 1935, when the Commission agreed (Lisbon Session, 2nd Meeting, Conclusion ee | 3 to render Opinions :— (i) declaring, under suspension of the rules, that the so-called “ Erlangen List’ is to be treated as though it had never been published ; _ (ii) making it clear that, where any subsequent author published a genus having the same name as one of the genera proposed in the “ Erlangen List,’ the later- published name is not to be rejected as a homonym > by reason of the earlier publication of that name in the Po bilancen List) ; (ii) indicating that the principle laid down in (ii) above applies generally both where the Commission render (or have rendered) an Ofimion declaring that a given work is to be treated as though it had never been published or where a work is rejected automatically under Article 25 of the International Code. I04 OPINIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL 7. The above matter was dealt with by the Commission in paragraph 17 of the report which on Wednesday, 18th September 1935, they unanimously agreed to submit to the Twelfth Inter- national Congress of Zoology (Lisbon Session, 5th Meeting, Conclusion 6). On the afternoon of the same day the report of the Commission was unanimously approved by the Section on Nomenclature at its joint meeting with the International Com- mission. That report was thereupon submitted to the Twelfth International Congress of Zoology by which it was unanimously approved and adopted at the Concilium Plenum held on the afternoon of Saturday, 21st September 1935, the last day of the Congress. | | 8. The present Opinion 1 was concurred in by the twelve (12) Commissioners and Alternates present at the Lisbon Session of the International Commission, namely :— Commissioners :—Calman; Hemming; Jordan; Pellegrin; Peters; and Stejneger. Alternates :—do Amaral vice Cabrera; Ohshima vice Esaki; Bradley vice Stone; Beier vice Handlirsch; Arndt wice Richter; and Mortensen vice Apstein. g. The present Opinion was dissented from by no Commissioner or Alternate at the Lisbon Session. The following five (5) Com- missioners who were not present at Lisbon nor represented thereat by Alternates did not vote on the present Opinion :— Bolivar y Pieltain; Chapman; Fantham; Silvestri; and Stiles. III1.— AUTHORITY FOR THE ISSUE OF THE PRESENT OPINION. | WHEREAS the By-Laws of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature provide that, except in cases involving the suspension of the rules, an Opinion is to be deemed to have been adopted by the said International Commission as soon as a majority of the Members of the said Commission, that is to say ten (10) Members of the said Commission, have recorded their votes in favour thereof, provided that, where any proposed Opinion involves a reversal of any former Opinion rendered by the Com- 1 Of the three items composing the Conclusion quoted in paragraph 6 of the present Opinion, items (i) and (ii) have been dealt with in the Opinion rendered by the Commission as Opinion 135. The present Opinion deals therefore only with item (iii). COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 145. 105 mission, such proposed Ofinion shall obtain the concurrence of at least fourteen (14) Members of the Commission voting on the same before such Opinion is to be deemed to have been adopted by the Commission; and WHEREAS the present Opinion, as set out in the summary thereof, neither requires, in order to be valid, the suspension of the rules, nor involves a reversal of any former Opinion rendered by the Commission; and WHEREAS twelve (12) Members of the Commission have peated their concurrence in the present Opinion either in person or through Alternates at the Session of the Commission held in Lisbon in September 1935: _ Now, THEREFORE, I, FRANCIS HEMMING, Secretary to the International Com- mission on Zoological Nomenclature, acting in virtue of all and every the powers conferred upon me by reason of holding the said Office of Secretary to the International Commission, hereby announce the said Opinion on behalf of the International Com- mission, acting for the International Congress of Zoology, and direct that it be rendered and printed as Opinion Number One Hundred and Forty Five (Opinion 145) of the said Commission. In faith whereof, I, the undersigned FRANcIS HEMMING, Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature, have signed the present Opinion. Done in London, this second day of March, Nineteen Hundred and Forty Three, in a single copy, which shall remain deposited in the archives of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. FRANCIS HEMMING 106 OPINIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL PUBLICATIONS OF THE COMMISSION Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature The Bulletin is the Official Organ of the International Com- The following Parts have so far been published :— (contents include a survey of the functions and powers of the International Commission) pp. XXV1 s (report on the financial position of the Interna- tional Commission and survey of outstanding tasks) pp. xiv . , : mission. PART OT. PART 2. OPINION OPINION OPINION OPINION OPINION OPINION OPINION OPINION OPINION OPINION OPINION 134. 135. 136. 137. 138. 130. 140. 14. 142. 143. 144. Opinions Published by the Commission On the method to be adopted in interpreting the generic names assigned by Freyer to the species described in his Neuere Bettrage ZUy Schmetterlingskunde, 1833-1858 The suppression of the so-called “‘ eee List ”’ of 1801 Opinion supplementary to ‘Opinion 11 on the interpretation of Latreille’s Considéva- tions générales sur Vordre naturel des ant- maux composant les classes des Crustacés, des Avachnides et des Insectes avec un tableau méthodique de leurs genres disposés en familles, Paris, 1810 On the relative precedence to be accorded to certain generic names published in 1807 by Fabricius and Hiibner respec- tively for identical genera in the Lepido- ptera Rhopalocera ; On the method by which the amendment to Article 25 of the International Code adopted at the Budapest Meeting of the International Zoological Congress, relat- ing to the replacement of invalid names, should be interpreted . The names Cephus Latreille, [r 802-1 803], and A stata Latreille, 1796, in the Hymeno- ptera added to the Official List of Generic Names On the method of forming the family names for Merops Linnaeus, 1758 (Aves) and for Merope Newman 1838 (Insecta) é On the principles to be observed in interpret- ing Article 4 of the International Code re- lating to the naming of families and sub- families Suspension of the rules for Satyrus Latreille, 1810 (Insecta, Lepidoptera) . 4 On the method of forming the family name for Tingis Fabricius, 1803 (Insecta, Hemi- ptera) : On the status of the names Crabyo Geoffroy, 1762, Crabyo Fabricius, 1775, and Cimbex Olivier, 1790 (Insecta, Hymenoptera) price 9s. price 5S, od. od. price 8d. price 8d. price Is. price Is. price Is. price 2s. price 2s. price 2s. price 2s. price 2s. price 2s. od. 6d. 6d. 6d. od. 6d. 6d. 6d. 6d. COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION I45. 107 OPINION 145. On the status of names first published in works rejected for nomenclatorial pur- poses and subsequently published in other works 3) Price 255 Od. OPINION 146. Suspension of the rules for Colias Fabricius, 1807 (Insecta, Lepidoptera) . 3 Sa pLICe 254 .0q- OPINION 147. On the principles to be observed in inter- preting Article 34 of the International Code in relation to the rejection, as homonyms, of generic and subgeneric names of the same origin and meaning as _ lames previously published . é y uplice 2s) as Opinions Rendered by the Commission but not yet Published OPINIon 148. On the principles to be observed in inter- preting Articles 25 and 34 of the Interna- tional Code in relation to the availability of generic names proposed as emendations of, or as substitutes for, earlier generic : names of the same origin and meaning. OPINION 149. ‘Twenty-one names in the Orthoptera (In- secta) added to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology OPINION 150. On the dates of publication of the several portions of Hiibner (J.), Verzeichniss bekannter Schmettlinge [sic], 1816-[1826]. OPINION 151. On the status of the names Lasius Panzer, [1801-1802], Podahrius Latreille, 1802, Lasius Fabricius, [1804-1805] and Anthophora Latreille, 1803 (Insecta, fe Hymenoptera). OPINION 152. On the status of the generic names in the Order Diptera (Insecta) first published in 1800 by J. W. Meigen in his Nouvelle Classification des Mouches a deux ailes. OPINION 153. Onthestatus of the names Bethylus Latreille, [1802-1803], and Dyryinus Latreille, [1804] (Insecta, Hymenoptera). OPINION 154. On the status of the names Phaneroptera Serville, 1831, and Tylopsis Fieber, 1853 (Insecta, Orthoptera). OPINION 155. On the status of the names Callimome Spinola, 1811, Misocampe Latreille, 1818, and Torymus Dalman, 1820 (In- secta, Hymenoptera). OPINION 156. Suspension of the rules for Vanessa Fabri- cius, 1807 (Insecta, Lepidoptera). OPINION 157. Three names in the Hymenoptera (Insecta) added to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. OPINION 158. On the status of the name Locusta Linnaeus, 1758 (Insecta, Orthoptera). All orders for, and inquiries in regard to, the publications of the Commission should be addressed to the Commission at their Publications Office, 41, Queen’s Gate, London, 5.W.7. 108 INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. AN URGENT APPEAL FOR A FUND OF £1800 TO ENABLE THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION TO CONTINUE ITS WORK — The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature urgently appeal for grants to the above Fund to Museums, Research Institutes and other Institutions concerned with any branch of zoology ; to Learned Societies and Associations concerned with any aspect of zoology ; to Institutions and Learned Societies in the fields of Agriculture, Horticulture, Medicine and Veterinary Science, all of whom have a direct interest in that portion of the work of the Commission which is concerned with the stabilisa- tion of Zoological Nomenclature ; to University and other Depart- ments engaged in the teaching of zoology as being directly interested to secure stability in the scientific nomenclature used in biological text-books ; and to every individual zoologist who may be in a position to contribute to the funds of the Commission. Full particulars of the purposes for which the above Fund is required are given in Part 2 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. Contributions of any amount, however small, will be most gratefully received. ‘They should be addressed to the Commission at their Publications Office, 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7. Bankers’ drafts, cheques, and Postal Orders, should be made payable to the *‘ International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature ’’ and crossed *‘ Account payee. Coutts & Co.’’. PRINTED IN GREAT BRITAIN BY RICHARD CLAY AND COMPANY, LTD., BuUNGAY, SUFFOLK. 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 Vol. 2. Part 13. Pp. 109-121. OPINION 146 Suspension of the rules for Colias Fabricius, 1807 (Insecta, Lepidoptera) LONDON : Printed by Order of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature Sold at the Publications Office of the Commission 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7 1943 Price two shillings and sixpence (All rights reserved) Issued 30th September, 1943 INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE COMPOSITION OF THE COMMISSION The Officers of the Commission President: Dr. Karl Jordan, Ph.D., F.R.S. (United Kingdom). Secretary : Mr. Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. (United Kingdom). Assistant Secretary: Dr. James L. Peters (U.5S.A.). The Members of the Commission Class 1943 E Senor Dr. Afranio do AMARAL (Brazil). HA Professor Lodovico di CAPORIACCO (Italy). i Professor J. R. DYMOND (Canada). Dr. James L. PETERS (U.S.A.) (Assistant Secretary to the Commission). Dr. Leonhard STEJNEGER (U.S.A.). (vacant) .* Class 1946 Herr Professor Dr. Walter ARNDT (Germany). Dr. William Thomas CALMAN (United Kingdom). Professor Teiso ESAKI (Japan). Professor Béla von HANKO (Hungary). Dr. Tadeusz JACZEWSKI (Poland). (vacant).f Class 1949 Senor Dr. Angel CABRERA (Argentina). Dr. Frederick CHAPMAN (Australia). ; Mr. Francis HEMMING (United Kingdom) (Secretary to the Commission). * Dr. Karl JORDAN (United Kingdom) (President of the Commission). — Monsieur le Docteur Jacques PELLEGRIN (France). Herr Professor Dr. Rudolf RICHTER (Germany). Secretariat of the Commission : British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London, S.W. 7. Publications Office of the Commission : 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W. 7. Personal address of the Secretary :. 83, Fellows Road (Garden Flat), London, N.W. 3. * This vacancy was caused by the death on 23rd May, 1939, of Dr. Witmer STONE (U.S.A.). : + This vacancy was caused by the death on 24th January, 1941, of Dr. Charles Wardell STILES (U.S.A.), Vice-President of the Commission and former Secretary to the Commission (1897-1935). bs OPINION 146. ‘SUSPENSION OF THE RULES FOR COLIAS FABRICIUS, 1807 (INSECTA, LEPIDOPTERA). SUMMARY.—Under suspension of the rules Papilio hyale Linnaeus, 1758, is hereby designated as the type of Colias Fabricius, 1807, and that name, so defined, is hereby added to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. I.—THE STATEMENT OF THE CASE. This case was submitted to the International Commission ina letter dated 23rd February 1934, in which the Council of the Royal Entomological Society of London drew attention to the: conclusions reached by the Lepidoptera Sub-Committee? of the Society’s Committee on Generic Nomenclature,? regarding the generic names of certain of the British Lepidoptera,? as respects to which both the Lepidoptera Sub-Committee and the Committee on Generic Nomenclature were of the opinion that the strict applica- tion of the rules would clearly result in greater confusion than uniformity. The Society enclosed a copy of the Report of the Lepidoptera Sub-Committee (published that day as Part 2 of the Generic Names of British Insects), to which was attached a paper by Commissioner Francis Hemming, in which was given a full statement in regard to each of the names in question. One of these names was Colas Fabricius, 1807 (Mag. f. Insektenk. (Illiger) 6 : 284). 2. The following is an extract from the paper referred ‘to above of the passage relating to this genus :— 1 This Sub-Committee was then composed as follows :—Mr. Francis Hemming (Chairman), Mr. N. D. Riley, and Mr. W. H. T. Tams. _ * This Committee was then composed as follows:—Sir Guy Marshall (Chaiyman), Dr. K. G. Blair, Mr. Francis Hemming, Dr. O. W. Richards, Mr. N. D. Riley, and Professor W. A. F. Balfour-Browne (Secretary). 3 The other genera referred to in this communication were Argynnis Fabricius, 1807, Vanessa Fabricius, 1807, and Styymon Hiibner, 1818. For the decisions of the International Commission on these cases, see Opinions 156 (Vanessa Fabricius), 161 (Avgynnis Fabricius), and 165 (Stvymon Hiibner). | II2 OPINIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL COLIAS Fabricius Fabricius, 1807, Mag. f. Insektenk. (Illiger) 6: 284 Latreille, 1810, Consid. gén. Anim. Crust. Ins. : 440 Swainson, 1820, Zool. Iilustr. (1) 1: pl. 5 Curtis, 1829, Brit. Entom. 6: pl. 242 Butler, 1870, Cist. ent. 1: 43 Scudder, 1872, 4th Ann. Rep. Peabody Acad. Sct. 1871 3 59 Latreille (1810) fixed the type of this genus (which he called by the French and Latin names “‘ Coliade’’ and Colias) as Colias rhamni Fab. (i.e. Papilio rhamni Linn.), which was one of the original species given by Fabricius. ‘The next author to fix a type for this genus was Swainson, who in 1820 specified Papilio eubule Linn. (which he mis-spelt ebule). This selection could in no circumstances be valid, as Papilio eubule Linn. was not one of the five species given by Fabricius in 1807. In 1829, Curtis specified Papilio hyale Linn. as the type. This is one of Fabricius’s original species, and its selection as the type would be perfectly valid, were it not for Latreille’s action in 1810 in selecting Papilio rhamni Linn. as the type. Later, Butler (1870) and Scudder (1872) selected Papilio palaeno Linn. asthetype. This selection would be invalid owing to Curtis’s action, quite apart from that of Latreille. The name Colias Fab. has been universally used throughout its history for the ‘‘ Clouded Yellows’’ of English, and the “‘Sulphurs’’ of American, lepidopterists (i.e. for Papilio hyale Linn. and its congeners) and except for the few species described in the eighteenth century under the name Papilio Linn. every species of ‘‘Clouded Yellow’’, European and American alike, has been described under the name Colias Fab. Strict adherence to the provisions of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature would, however, remove the name Colias Fab. from these species and would trans- fer it to Papilio rhamni Linn. and its congeners. This transfer would be highly inexpedient, as Papilio yhamni Linn. has been universally assigned for over a century to Gonepteryx Leach, which would fall as a synonym of Colias Fab. Noris this the only inconvenience attaching to such a transfer, as if the ‘‘ Clouded Yellows’’ were deprived of the name Colias Fab.} there is no generic name to which they could be unequivocally assigned, and for this reason. The next name which might be allotted to them is Zervene Hiibn. The type of that genus is Papilio cesonia Stoll, 1790, which in 1863 Reakirt separated generically from Papilio hyale Linn. and the other ‘Clouded Yellows’’ under the name Megonostoma. Since that date, most American lepidopterists have accepted Reakirt’s view that the two groups are generically distinct from one another. The question is, however, by no means clear. Thus, Godman and Salvin (1889, Biol. Cent.-Amer. Lep.- Rhop. 2: 151) gave their reasons for considering that there were no struc- tural characters by which Papilio cesonia Stoll could be separated from the “Clouded Yellows’’ which they assigned to Colias Fab. More recently, Klots (1931, Ent. News 42 : 255) has expressed the opinion that, at most, Zevene Hiibn. (type Papilio cesonia Stoll) can only be separated in a subgeneric sense from the ‘‘ Clouded Yellows’’. Though he realised that by the strict letter of the Code Colias Fab. was not available for the ‘‘ Clouded Yellows’’, he took the view that it was undesirable to disturb the long- established usage of this name and decided to apply it to those species. Other American lepidopterists (e.g. Barnes and Benjamin, 1926, Bull. S. Calif. Acad. Sci. 25: 8) have applied the name Eurymus Horsf., 1829, (which some authors have wrongly attributed to Swainson) to Papilio hyale Linn. and the other ‘‘Clouded Yellows’’. Holland has, however, pointed out (1930, Ann. Carnegie Mus. 19: 198, 200) that this name cannot possibly be employed for these species as it is a homonym of Eurymus Rafinesque, 1815. Those entomologists who (a) accept Papilio vhamni Linn. as the type of Colias Fab. and (b) regard Papilio cesonia COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 146. II3 . Stoll as generically distinct from Papilio hyale Linn. are driven to use the name Scalidoneuva Butler, 1871 (type Scalidoneuva hermina Butler, 1871, a species discovered in eastern Peru) for Papilio hyale Linn. and the other “« Clouded Yellows ’’. For the reasons given above, the strict application to Colias Fab. of the rules laid down in the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature would, in my opinion, produce a state of confusion of the very type which the International Zoological Congress had in mind when they invested the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature with plenary powers to suspend the rules in cases where their strict application would clearly result in greater confusion than uniformity. 3. The paper from which the foreging passage is an extract concluded with the hope that the Lepidoptera Sub-Committee would join in reporting to the Committee on Generic Nomenclature of the Royal Entomological Society of London that it was highly desirable that in the exercise of their plenary powers the Inter- national Commission on Zoological Nomenclature should as soon as possible render an Opinion to the following effect :— Opinion 11 regarding the designation of genotypes by Latreille, 1810, shall not be interpreted to mean that in the work referred to in that Opinion Latreille designated Papilio rhammi Linn., 1758, as the type of Colias Fab. Consequently, the fixation by Curtis in 1829 of Papilio hyale Linn., 1758, as the type of that genus is valid and the name Colzas Fab. as thus defined is hereby added to the Official List of Generic Names. These conclusions were concurred in by the Lepidoptera Sub- Committee by whom they were submitted to the Committee on Generic Nomenclature. The latter body endorsed the view of the Sub-Committee and recommended the Council of the Society to approach the International Commission in the sense indicated above. It was in accordance with this recommendation that the Council addressed to the Commission the letter referred to in paragraph 1 above. Il—THE SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF THE CASE. 4. Before the Commission had time to take any action on this case, they received a letter on the same subject (dated 17th May 1934) from Dr. J. Mc. Dunnough, Chief of the Division of Systematic Entomology, Entomological Branch, Department of Agriculture, Ottawa, from which the following is an extract :— I am enclosing signed copies of a short note which is appearing in the current number of the ‘‘ Canadian Entomologist’’. You will see by this that the large majority of active systematic Lepidopterists advocate the fixing of certain genotypes for the four genera mentioned in the note and I am sure also that the large proportion of continental entomologists are in favour of such procedure. .. . II4 OPINIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL The following is an extract from the note referred to above :— ON THE STABILIZING OF FOUR GENERIC NAMES (Lepid. : Rhopalocera) To students of the involved generic nomenclature of the Palaearctic and Nearctic Diurnal Lepidoptera, the recent publication of the ‘‘ Generic Names of British Rhopalocera’’ will prove of great interest. This pamphlet has been prepared by Mr. Francis Hemming at the request of the Committee on Generic Nomenclature of the Royal Entomological Society of London, and includes full details regarding type fixation and synonymy. Appended to the list is the first report of the Lepidoptera Sub-committee to the main committee, and following Mr. Hemming’s suggestions, the suspension of the Law of Priority in four cases is advocated by this sub-committee, the ground being that strict application of the rules would cause serious, and quite unnecessary, disturbance in existing practice. The genera involved, with their proposed genotypes, are as follows *: Palen Cisse Colias Fabr. (P. hyale Linn.). Welcoming any action that would assist in stabilizing generic Nomen- clature, the undersigned lepidopterists express their full agreement with the recommendations of the above sub-committee and would urge the adoption of this report. J. Mc. Dunnough, Entom, Br., Dept. of Agriculture, Ottawa, Canada. May 15, 1934. Jessie D. Gunder, 310 Linda Vista Ave., Pasadena, Calif. Apr. 13, 1934. John A. Comstock, Los Angeles Museum, Exposition Park, Los Angeles, Calif. Apr. 26, 1934. Wm. T. M. Forbes, Dept. of Entomology, Cornell U., Ithaca, N.Y. Apr. 17, 1934. Roswell C. Williams, Jr., Acad. Nat. Sciences, 19th & Race Sts., Phila- \ delphia, Pa. Apr. 17, 1934. E. Irving Huntington, 155 East 90th St., New York, N.Y. April 21, 1934. Cyril F. dos Passos, Washington Corners, Mendham, N.J. Apr. 23, 1934. Frank E. Watson, Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist., N.Y. City. Apr. 23, 1934. Cry He Curran, Amer: Mus, Nat. buist., INSY: City. Apr 22 mean Ernest Bell, 150-17 Roosevelt Ave., Flushing, N.Y. Apr. 24, 1934. Alyach B. Klots, College of the City of New York, Dept. of Biology. Apr. 24, 1934. 5. As a first step the Commission decided to invite the Inter- national Committee on Entomological Nomenclature to report on the present application. This case was accordingly considered by the International Committee at their meeting held at Madrid in the second week of September 1935 during the Sixth Interna- tional Congress of Entomology. After careful consideration, the Committee agreed to recommend that the International Com- mission on Zoological Nomenclature should take such action under their plenary powers as might be necessary to secure that the type of Colas Fabricius, 1807, should be Papilio hyale Lin- naeus, 1758. 4 For the names of the other genera referred to in this communication, see footnote 3. J COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 146. Slee 6. This, and other, recommendations adopted by the Inter- national Committee on Entomological Nomenclature at their Madrid meeting were confirmed by the Sixth International Con- gress of Entomology at the Concilium Plenum held on 12th September 1935. -IiI.—THE CONCLUSION REACHED BY THE INTERNA- TIONAL COMMISSION, 7. When the International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature met at Lisbon immediately after the close of the Sixth International Congress of Entomology in September 1935, they found themselves confronted with a large number of cases in- volving proposals for the suspension of the rules, in respect of some of which advertisements had not been published or, if published, had not been published for the prescribed period, owing to the illness of Dr. C. W. Stiles, Secretary to the Commission, or for other causes. In these circumstances the Commission decided at their meeting held on the morning of Monday, 16th September 1935 (Lisbon Session, 2nd Meeting, Conclusion g) that immediate consideration should be given to all cases submitted to the Com- mission that, in their judgment, had reached the stage at which a decision could properly be taken; that the By-Laws of the Commission should be suspended during the Lisbon Session to such extent as might be necessary to give effect to this decision ; and that, in so far as this procedure involved taking decisions “under suspension of the rules’’ in cases where the prescribed advertisement procedure had not been complied with, the cases in question should be duly advertised as soon as might be prac- ticable after the conclusion of the Lisbon Congress and that no Opinion should be rendered and published thereon until after the expiry of a period of one year from the date on which the said advertisement was despatched to the prescribed journals for publication. The case of the genus Colias Fabricius, 1807, was one of the cases in question and was accordingly dealt with by the Commission at Lisbon under the above procedure. 8. This case was considered by the International Commission later in the course of the meeting referred to above (Lisbon Session, 2nd Meeting, Gonclusion 22), when the Commission agreed ° :— 5 Only those portions of Conclusion 22 which relate to the present case are here quoted. For the full text of Conclusion 22, see, 1943, Bull. zool. Nomencel. 1: 20-23. 116 OPINIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL (a) to “‘ suspend the rules ” in the case of the following generic names :— | 6: 284; (h) to declare that the type of Colias Fabricius, 1807, Mag. f. Insektenk. (Illiger) 6: 284, 1s Papilio hyale Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) : 460; (i) to add the generic names . . . Colas Fabricius, 1807, to the Official List of Generic Names, with the types indicated above; g. The foregoing decisions in regard to the name Colias Fabricius were embodied in paragraph 28 of the report which at their meeting held on the morning of Wednesday, 18th September 1935 (Lisbon Session, 5th Meeting, Conclusion 6) the Commission unanimously agreed to submit to the Twelfth International Congress of Zoology. That report was unanimously approved by the Section on Nomen- clature at its joint meeting with the International Commission held on the afternoon of the same day. It was thereupon sub- mitted to the Twelfth International Congress of Zoology by which it was unanimously approved and adopted at the Concilium Plenum held on the afternoon of Saturday, 21st September 1935, the last day of the Congress. 10. In accordance with the decision taken by the Commission at Lisbon in regard to their procedure at that Session (paragraph 7 above), this case was duly advertised in 1936 in two or more of the journals named in the Resolution ® adopted by the Ninth International Congress of Zoology at its Meeting held at Monaco in March 1913, by which the said International Congress conferred upon the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature plenary power to suspend the rules as applied to any given case where, in the judgment of the Commission, the strict application | of the rules would clearly result in greater confusion than uni-— formity. In the period that has elapsed since the advertisement in the said journals of the proposed suspension of the rules in the present case, no communication of any kind has been addressed 6 For the text of this Resolution, see Declaration 5. ie COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 146. II7 to the International Commission objecting to the issue of an Opinion in the terms proposed. 11. The present Opinion was concurred in by the twelve (12) Commissioners and Alternates present at the Lisbon Session of the International Commission, namely :— Commissioners :—Calman; Hemming; Jordan; | Pellegrin ; Peters; and Stejneger. Alternates : a Amaral vice Cabrera; Ohshima. vice Esaki: bradley, vice Stone; » Beier vice Blandi, Arndt vice Richter; and Mortensen vice Apstein. 12. The present Opinion was dissented from by no Commissioner or Alternate present at the Lisbon Session. Nor since that Session has any Commissioner who was neither present on that occasion nor represented thereat by an Alternate indicated dis- agreement with the conclusions then reached by the Commission in this matter. The following five (5) Commissioners who were not present at Lisbon nor represented thereat by Alternates did | not vote on the present Opinion :— Bolivar y Pieltain; Chapman; Fantham; Silvestri; and Stiles. IV.—AUTHORITY FOR THE ISSUE OF THE PRESENT OPINION. WHEREAS the Ninth International Congress of Zoology at its Meeting held at Monaco in March 1913, adopted a Resolution con- ferring upon the International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature, acting for the International Congress of Zoology, plenary power to suspend the rules as applied to any given case, where, in the judgment of the Commission, the strict application of the said rules would clearly result in greater confusion than uniformity, provided that not less than one year’s notice of the possible sus- pension of the rules as applied to the said case should be given in two or more of five journals named in the said Resolution, and provided that the vote in the Commission was unanimously in favour of the proposed suspension of the rules; and WHEREAS the suspension of the rules is required to give valid force to the provisions of the present Opinion as set out in the summary thereof; and ~ WHEREAS not less than one year’s notice of the possible suspension of the rules as applied to the present case has been given to two or more of the journals referred to in the Resolution 118 OPINIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL adopted by the Ninth International Congress of Zoology at its Meeting held at Monaco in March 1913; and WHEREAS the vote in the Commission at their Lisbon Session was unanimously in favour of the issue of an Opinion in the terms of the present Opinion ; Now, THEREFORE, I, Francis HEMMING, Secretary to the International Com- mission on Zoological Nomenclature, acting in virtue of all and every the powers conferred upon me by reason of holding the said Office of Secretary to the International Commission, hereby announce the said Opinion on behalf of the International Com- mission, acting for the International Congress of Zoology, and direct that it be rendered and printed as Opinion Number One Hundred and Forty Six (Opinion 146) of the said Commission. In faith whereof, I, the undersigned FRANCIS HEMMING, Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature, have signed the present Opinion. Done in London, this third day of March, Nineteen Hundred and Forty Three, in a single copy, which shall remain deposited in the archives of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. FRANCIS HEMMING ‘ COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. PUBLICATIONS OF THE COMMISSION Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature OPINION 146. 11g The Bulletin is the Official Organ of the International Com- The following Parts have so far been published :— mission. PART I. PaRT 2. OPINION OPINION OPINION OPINION OPINION OPINION OPINION OPINION OPINION OPINION OPINION (contents include a survey of the functions and powers of the International Commission) pp. XXvi : (report on the financial position of the Interna- tional Commission and survey of outstanding tasks) pp. xlv . . ‘ 134. 135. 136. 137, 138. 139. 140. 141. 142. 143. 144. Opinions Published by the Commission On the method to be adopted in interpreting the generic names assigned by Freyer to the species described in his Neuere Beitrage zur Schmetterlingskunde, 1833-1858 The suppression of the so-called “ ae List ”’ of 1801 Opinion supplementary to Opinion rr on the interpretation of Latreille’s Considéra- tions génévales suv Vordve naturel des ani- maux composant les classes des Crustacés, des Avachnides et des Insectes avec un tableau méthodique de leurs genres disposés en familles, Paris, 1810 On the relative precedence to be accorded to certain generic names published in 1807 by Fabricius and Hiibner respec- tively for identical genera in the Lepido- ptera Rhopalocera i On the method by which the amendment to Article 25 of the International Code adopted at the Budapest Meeting of the International Zoological Congress, relat- ing to the replacement of invalid names, should be interpreted . The names Cephus Latreille, [1 802—1 803], and A stata Latreille, 1796, in the Hymeno- ptera added to the Official List of Generic Names On the method of forming the family - names for Merops Linnaeus, 1758 (Aves) and for Mevope Newman 1838 (Insecta) ‘ On the principles to be observed in interpret- ing Article 4 of the International Code re- lating to the naming of families and sub- families Suspension of the rules for Satyrus Latreille, 1810 (Insecta, Lepidoptera) . On the method of forming the family name for Tingis Fabricius, 1803 (Insecta, Hemi- ptera) é On the status of the names Crabro Geoffroy, 1762, Crabro Fabricius, 1775, and Cimbex Olivier, 1790 (Insecta, Hymenoptera) price 9s. price 5s. od. od. price 8d. price 8d. price Is price Is. JOGOS, 5S price 2s. plice 2s. price 2s. DHS AS. Price) 2s. price 2s. . od. 6d. 6d. 6d. od. 6d. 6d. 6d. 6d. I20 OPINIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL OPINION 145. On the status of names first published in works rejected for nomenclatorial pur- poses and subsequently. published in other works - price 2s. 6d. OPINION 146. Suspension of the rules for Colias Fabricius, 1807 (Insecta, Lepidoptera) . i, (price, Zswode OPINION 147. On the principles to be observed in “inter- preting Article 34 of the International Code in relation to the rejection, as homonyms, of generic and subgeneric names of the same origin and meaning as . names previously published . é «= price 25560: Opinions Rendered by the Commission but not yet Published OPINION 148. On the principles to be observed in inter- preting Articles 25 and 34 of the Interna- tional Code in relation to the availability of generic names proposed as emenda- tions of, or as substitutes for, earlier generic names of the same origin and meaning. OPINION 149. . Twenty-one names in the Orthoptera (In- © secta) .added to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. OPINION 150. On the dates of publication of the several portions of Htibner (J.), Verzeichniss bekannter Schmetilinge [sic], 1816-[1826]. OPINION 151. On the status of the names Lasius Panzer, [1801-1802], Podalirius Latreille, 1802, Lasius Fabricius, [1804-1805] and Anthophora Latreille, 1803 (Insecta, Hymenoptera). OPINION 152. On the status of the generic names in the Order Diptera (Insecta) first published in 1800 by J. W. Meigen in his Nouvelle Classification des Mouches a deux ailes. OPINION 153. Onthestatus of the names Bethylus Latreille, [1802-1803], and Dyryinus Latreille, [1804] (Insecta, Hymenoptera). OPINION 154. On the status of the names Phaneroptera Serville, 1831, and Tylopsis Fieber, 1853 (Insecta, Orthoptera). OPINION 155. On the status of the names Callimome Spinola, 1811, Muisocampe Latreille, 1818, and Torymus Dalman, 1820 (In- secta, Hymenoptera). OPINION 156. Suspension of the rules for Vanessa Fabri- cius, 1807 (Insecta, Lepidoptera). OPINION 157. Three names in the Hymenoptera (Insecta) added to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. OPINION 158. On the status of the name Locusta Linnaeus, 1758 (Insecta, Orthoptera). All orders for, and inquiries in regard to, the publications of the Commission should be addressed to the Commission at their Publications Office, 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7. COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 146. I21I AN URGENT APPEAL FOR A FUND OF £1800 TO ENABLE THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION TO CONTINUE ITS WORK The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature urgently appeal for grants to the above Fund to Museums, Research Institutes and other Institutions concerned with any branch of zoology ; to Learned Societies and Associations concerned with any aspect of zoology ; to Institutions and Learned Societies in the fields of Agriculture, Horticulture, Medicine and Veterinary Science, all of whom have a direct interest in that portion of the work of the Commission which is concerned with the stabilisa- tion of Zoological Nomenclature ; to University and other Depart- ments engaged in the teaching of zoology as being directly interested to secure stability in the scientific nomenclature used in biological text-books ; and to every individual zoologist who may be in a position to contribute to the funds of the Commission. Full particulars of the purposes for which the above Fund is required are given in Part 2 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. Contributions of any amount, however small, will be most gratefully received. They should be addressed to the Commission at their Publications Office, 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7. Bankers’ drafts, cheques, and Postal Orders, should be made payable to the °* International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature ’’ and crossed ‘* Account payee. Coutts & Co.’’. PRINTED IN GREAT BRITAIN BY RICHARD CLAY AND COMPANY, LTD., BUNGAY, SUFFOLK. i ‘ S ; } P fie fs ae rs ; 4 g 4 ers i mC F Dfne Le + 2 . a! 4 < \ y u y ease ‘ ’ ‘ : . t 1 Ae * r oe Fiz nu t f ¢ ‘y t Oe UY is “4% . . - rn =e ee te e rat ae at R f . re » ) : Ld a s , \ A vw reed TE Dea Bae tS aa ay a ' : ME hp Pe ea ARM ' ELLE) eet FO RI My) 0 Or a = en A a “* Dy ey Pit NG he ae Lirewd hie Pont BON ost i 4 det WER aa Ss Bae BM YESH CBN ISTO NS A aia ge 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 Vol. 2. Part 14. Pp. 123-132. OPINION 147 On the principles to be observed in interpreting Article 34 of the International Code in relation to the rejection, as homonyms, of generic and subgeneric names of the same origin and meaning as names previously published LONDON : Printed by Order of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature Sold at the Publications Office of the Commission 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7 1943 Price two shillings and sixpence (All rights reserved) issued 30th September, 1943 INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON | ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE | COMPOSITION OF THE COMMISSION The Officers of the Commission President: Dr. Karl Jordan, Ph.D., F.R.S. (United Kingdom). . Secretary : Mr. Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. (United Kingdom). Assistant Secretary: Dr. James L. Peters (U.S.A.). The Members of the Commission Class 1943 Senor Dr. Afranio do AMARAL (Brazil). Professor Lodovico di CAPORIACCO (Italy). Professor J: R. DYMOND (Canada). Dr. James L. PETERS (U.S.A.) (Assistant Secretary to the Commission). Dr. Leonhard STEJNEGER (U.S.A.). (vacant) .* Class 1946 Herr Professor Dr. Walter ARNDT (Germany). Dr. William Thomas CALMAN (United Kingdom). Professor Teiso ESAKI (Japan). Professor Béla von HANKO (Hungary). Dr. Tadeusz JACZEWSKI (Poland). (vacant).f Class 1949 Senor Dr. Angel CABRERA (Argentina). Dr. Frederick CHAPMAN (Australia). Mr. Francis HEMMING (United Kingdom) (Secretary to the Commission). Dr. Karl JORDAN (United Kingdom) (President of the Commission). Monsieur le Docteur Jacques PELLEGRIWN (France). Herr Professor Dr. Rudolf RICHTER (Germany). Secretariat of the Commission : British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London, S.W. 7. Publications Office of the Commission : 41, Queen’s Gate, London, 5.W. 7. Personal address of the Secretary : 83, Fellows Road (Garden Flat), London, N.W. 3. * This vacancy was caused by the death on 23rd eye 1939, of Dr, Witmer STONE (U.S.A.). + This vacancy was caused by the death on 24th yaneaes 1941, of Dr. Charles Wardell STILES (U.S.A.), Vice-President of the Commission and former Secretary to the Commission (1897-1935). OPINION 147 - ON THE PRINCIPLES TO BE OBSERVED IN INTERPRETING ARTICLE 34 OF THE INTERNATIONAL CODE IN RELATION TO THE REJECTION, AS HOMONYMS, OF GENERIC AND SUBGENERIC NAMES OF THE SAME ORIGIN AND MEANING AS NAMES PREVIOUSLY PUBLISHED. ~ SUMMARY.—tThe following principles are to be observed in interpreting Article 34 of the International Code relating to the rejection, as homonyms, of generic and subgenerie names of the same origin and meaning :— (1) a generic name of the same origin and meaning as a pre- viously published generic name is to be rejected as a homo- nym of the said name if it is distinguished therefrom only by the following differences :— (a) the use of *‘ ae ’’, “‘ oe ’’, and “‘e’’ ; the use of “‘ ei ’’, *“*7’, and “‘y ’’ $ or the use of “‘c’’ and “‘k’”’ ; (b) the aspiration or non-aspiration of a consonant ; (ec) the presence or absence of a ‘‘c”’ before a “‘t’’ ; (d) the use of a single or double consonant ; _ (2) the prineiples set out in (1) above in regard to generic names apply equally to subgeneric names. I—THE STATEMENT OF THE CASE. ‘This question was first brought forward by Commissioner Francis Hemming, who in 1935 submitted the following statement thereon to the International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature at their Session held’ at Lisbon during the Twelfth Inter- national Congress of Zoology :— On the conditions in which generic (and subgeneric) names should be rejected as homonyms of earlier generic (and subgeneric) names of the same origin and meaning in preparing my Generic Names of the Holarctic Butterflies (published last year 1) I was seriously embarrassed on a number of occasions by the fact that the International Code does not contain any express definition of 1 This work was published by the Trustees of the British Museum peal History) on 28th July 1934. 126 OPINIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL the term ‘‘homonym”’ in relation 'to the rejection, as homonyms, of generic and subgeneric names of the same origin and meaning (Article 34), although there is such a definition in relation to specific and subspecific names in Article 35. The definition given in Article 35 reads as follows :— ‘« Specific names of the same origin and meaning shall be considered homonyms if they are distinguished from each other only by the following differences : (a) the use of ‘ae’, oe’, and ‘e€% as caevuleus comics ceyvuleus; “el’; 1’ and “vy, as ‘chivopus.\cheivopus a en and ‘ k’ as microdon, mikrodon. (b) the aspiration or non-aspiration of a consonant, as oxry- vyncus, o#yrhynchus. (c) the presence or absence of a ‘c’ before ‘t’, as autumnalis, auctumnalis. (d) by a single or double consonant; litovalis, littovalis. (e) by the endings ‘ esis’ and ‘ zensis’ to a geographical name, as timorensis, tumoriensis.”’ I have always assumed that the fact that the above provision was inserted in Article 35 (specific and subspecific names) without any corre- sponding provision being inserted in Article 34 (generic and subgeneric names) was due to the fact that, when at Graz in 1910 the passage quoted above was added to Article 35 by the Eighth International Congress of Zoology, on the recommendation of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, both bodies were addressing themselves only to the problem as it arose in connection with specific (and subspecific) names and did not consider it necessary on that occasion to carry through to their logical conclusion, as regards generic (and subgeneric) names, the decision then taken in regard to specific (and subspecific) names. Ihave therefore proceeded on the assumption that mutatis mutandis the Graz decision in regard to Article 35 must be held to apply equally to Article 34. I am particularly glad therefore to find confirmation of the correctness of this view in the discussion in the draft Opinion 7 now before the Commis- sion in regard to the name Uvothoe Dana, where the principle of analogy is invoked in favour of the proposition that a principle laid down in the Code in relation to the types of genera (Article 30) should, in the absence of express provision to the contrary, be held to apply also to the types of families (Article 4).° In view, however, of the doubt entertained in some quarters as to the correct course to be followed in determining whether a given generic name should or should not be deemed to be a homonym of a previously published generic name that is similar but not identical therewith, I consider it very important that the Commission should now give an express ruling on this subject. No new question of principle is involved, since all that is required to settle this question is that the Commission should agree to render an Opinion applying to generic (and subgeneric) names in relation to Article 34 the principles already expressly laid down in the Code (Article 35) in relation to specific names, so far as those principles are applicable to nouns (which all generic (and subgeneric) names must be (Article 8)). I accordingly invite the Commission to agree to apply to generic names the first four of the principles (principles (a) to (d)) laid down in relation to specific names in the concluding portion of Article 35 of the Code, but to exclude the fifth of those principles (principle (e)), since that principle, being applicable only to specific names of adjectival form, is wholly in- applicable to nouns and therefore to generic names. 4 See Opinion 133: 3 See Opinion 141. COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 147. 127 IIl.—THE CONCLUSION REACHED BY THE INTERNA- TIONAL COMMISSION. 2. This question was considered by the International Com- mission at their meeting held at Lisbon on Tuesday, 17th Sep- tember 1935, when in the course of discussion it was explained that the Commission had hitherto held the view that it would naturally be concluded by zoologists that the principles laid down for specific names in this matter applied also to generic names. In view, however, of the fact that it was now clear that the present position was liable to give rise to misunderstandings, the Commission agreed (Lisbon Session, 4th Meeting, Conclusion 14) :— to render an Opinion making it clear that the principles lettered (a) to (d) in Article 35 of the International Code for determining whether a given specific (or subspecific) name is a homonym of another specific (or subspecific) name of earlier date that is of the same origin and meaning, apply equally to the determination under Article 34 of the question whether a given generic (or subgeneric) name is a homonym of another generic (or subgeneric) name of earlier date, where the two generic (or subgeneric) names are of the same origin and meaning. 3. At the same meeting as that at which the foregoing decision was taken (Lisbon Session, 4th Meeting, Conclusion 17), Com- missioner Francis Hemming, who, in the absence through ill- health of Dr. C. W. Stiles, Secretary to the Commission, had been charged with the duty of preparing the report to be submitted by the Commission to the Twelfth International Congress of Zoology, reported that, in accordance with the request made by the Commission on the previous day (Lisbon Session, 3rd Meeting, Conclusion 3 (b)), he had made a start with the drafting of the Commission’s report; that he had made considerable progress in spite of being hampered by the lack of standard works of reference ; and that he did not doubt that he would be in a position to laya draft report before the Commission at their next meeting, though in the time available it would be quite impracticable to prepare the drafts of paragraphs relating to all the matters on which - decisions had been reached during the Lisbon Session of the Commission. As agreed upon at the meeting referred to above (Lisbon Session, 3rd Meeting, Conclusion 3 (a) (iii)), he was there- fore concentrating upon those matters that appeared to be the more important. Commissioner Hemming proposed that those 128 OPINIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL matters which it was found impossible to include in the report, owing to the shortness of the time available, should be dealt with after the Congress on the basis of the records in the Official Record of the Proceedings of the Commission during their Lisbon Session. For this purpose, Commissioner Hemming proposed that all matters unanimously agreed upon during the Lisbon Session should be treated in the same manner, whether or not it was found possible to include references to them in the report to be sub- mitted to the Congress, and therefore that every such decision should be treated as having been participated in by all the Com- missioners and Alternates present at’ Lisbon. The Commission took note of, and approved, the statement by Commissioner Hemming, and adopted the proposals submitted by him, as recorded above, in regard to the selection of items to be included in their report to the Twelfth International Congress of Zoology . and to the procedure to be adopted after the Congress in regard to those matters with which, for the reasons explained, it was found impossible to deal in that report. 4. The question dealt with in the present Opinion - was one of the matters to which it was found impossible, in the time available, to include a reference in the report submitted by the Commission to the [Twelfth International Congress of Zoology at Lisbon. It is therefore one of the matters which falls to be dealt with under the procedure agreed upon be the Commission as set out in paragraph 3 above. 5. The present Opinion was concurred in by the twelve (12) Commissioners and Alternates present at the Lisbon Session of the International Commission, namely :— Commissioners :—Calman; Hemming; Jordan; Pellegrin; Peters; and Stejneger. Alternates :—do Amaral vice Cabrera; Ohshima vice Esaki; Bradley vice Stone; Beier vice Handlirsch ; Arndt VICE Richter; and Mortensen vice Apstein. 6. The present Opinion was dissented from by no Commissioner or Alternate at the Lisbon Session. The following five (5) Commissioners who were not present at Lisbon nor represented — thereat by Alternates did not vote on the present Opinion :— Bolivar y Pieltain; Chapman; Fantham; Silvestri; and Stiles. COMMISSION ON. ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 147. 129 III.—AUTHORITY FOR THE ISSUE OF THE PRESENT | _ OPINION. - WHEREAS the By-Laws of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature provided that, except in cases involving the suspension of the rules, an Opinion is to be deemed to have been adopted by the said International Commission as soon as a majority of the Members of the Commission, that is to say ten (10) Members of the said Commission, have recorded their votes in favour thereof, provided. that, where any proposed Opinion involves a reversal of any former Opinion rendered by the Com- mission, such proposed Opinion shall obtain the concurrence of at least fourteen (14) Members of the Commission voting on the same before such Opinion is to be deemed to have been adopted by the Commission; and WHEREAS the present Opinion, as set out in the summary there- of, neither requires, in order to be valid, the suspension of the rules, nor involves a reversal of any former ek rendered by the Commission ; and WHEREAS twelve (12) Members of the Commission have signi- fied their concurrence in the present Opinion either in person or through Alternates at the Session of the Commission held. in Lisbon in September 1935 : NOW, THEREFORE, _I, Francis HEMMING, Secretary to the International Com- mission on Zoological Nomenclature, acting in virtue of all and every the powers conferred upon me by reason of holding the said Office of Secretary to the International Commission, hereby announce the said Opinion on behalf of the International Com- mission, acting for the International Congress of Zoology, and direct that it be rendered and printed as Opinion Number One Hundred and Forty Seven (Opinion 147) of the said Commission. In faith whereof, I, the undersigned FRANcIS HEMMING, Secre- tary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature, have signed the present Opinion. Done in London, this tenth day of March, Nineteen Hundred and Forty Three, in a single copy, which shall remain deposited in the archives of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. FRANCIS HEMMING 130 OPINIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL PUBLICATIONS OF THE COMMISSION Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature The Bulletin is the Official Organ of the International Com- mission. The following Parts have so far been published :— Part 1. (contents include a survey of the functions and powers of the International Commission) pp. Xxvi : price gs. od. PART 2, (report on the financial position of the Interna- tional Commission and survey of Beare tasks) pp. xiv . ; : : : price 5s. od. Opinions Published by the Commission OPINION 134. On the method to be adopted in interpreting the generic names assigned by Freyer to the species described in his Neuere Beitrage zur Schmetterlingskunde, 1833-1858 3 price 8d. OPINION 135. The suppression of the so-called “ ue List ”’ of 1801 : price 8d. OPINION 136. Opinion supplementary to Opinion 11 on the interpretation of Latreille’s Considéra- tions génévales sur Vordre naturel des ant- maux composant les classes des Crustacés, des Avachnides et des Insectes avec un tableau méthodique de leurs genres disposés en familles, Paris, 1810 price Is. od. OPINION 137. On the relative precedence to be accorded to certain generic names published in 1807 by Fabricius and Hubner respec- tively for identical genera in the Lepido- ptera Rhopalocera : price 1s. 6d. OPINION 138. On the method by which the amendment to Article 25 of the International Code adopted at the Budapest Meeting of the International Zoological Congress, relat- ing to the replacement of invalid names, should be interpreted . price ts. 6d. OPINION 139. The names Cephus Latreille, [r802— 1803], and A stata Latreille, 1796, in the Hymeno- ptera added to the Official List of Generic Names price 2s. 6d. OPINION 140. On the method of forming the family names for Merops Linnaeus, 1758 (Aves) and for Merope Newman 1838 (Insecta) . | price’2s0d- OPINION 141. On the principles to be observed in interpret- ing Article 4 of the International Code re- lating to the naming of families and sub- families : price 25. 6d: OPINION 142. Suspension of the rules for Satyrus Latreille, 1810 (Insecta, Lepidoptera) . price 2s. 6d. OPINION 143. On the method of forming the family name for Tingis Fabricius, Lees (Insecta, Hemi- ptera) : price 2s. 6d. OPINION 144. On the status of the names Crabro Geoffroy, 1762, Cvabvo Fabricius, 1775, and Cimbex Olivier, 1790 (Insecta, Hymenoptera) . pHcezs od: COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION TA io ee OPINION 145. On the status of names first published in works rejected for nomenclatorial pur- poses and subsequently published in other works 7) PRICE! 255 0d. OPINION 146. Suspension of the rules for Colias Fabricius, 1807 (Insecta, Lepidoptera) . . price 2s. 6d. OPINION 147. On the principles to be observed in “inter- preting Article 34 of the International Code im relation to the rejection, as homonyms, of generic and subgeneric names of the same origin and meaning as names previously published . ; a) Pkicel sod: Opinions Rendered by the Commission but not yet Published. Opinion 148. On the principles to be observed in inter- preting Articles 25 and 34 of the Interna- tional Code in relation to the availability of generic names proposed as emenda- tions of, or as substitutes for, earlier | generic names of the same origin and meaning. OPINION 149. Twenty-one names in the Orthoptera (In- secta) added to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. OPINION 150. On the dates of publication of the several portions of Hubner (J.), Verzeichniss bekannter Schmetilinge [sic], 1816—-[1826]. OPINION 151. On the status of the names Lasius Panzer, [1801-1802], Podalivius Latreille, 1802,/ Lasius Fabricius, *[1804-1805] and Anthophora Latreille, 1803 (Insecta, Hymenoptera). OPINION 152. On the status of the generic names in the Order Diptera (Insecta) first published in 1800 by J. W. Meigen in his Nouvelle Classification des Mouches a deux atles. OPINION 153. Onthestatus of the names Bethylus Latreille, [1802-1803], and Dyvyinus Latreille, [1804] (Insecta, Hymenoptera). OPINION 154. On the status of the names Phaneroptera Serville, 1831, and Tylopsis Fieber, 1853 (Insecta, Orthoptera). OPINION 155. On the status of the names Callimome Spinola, 1811, Muisocampe Latreille, 1818, and Torymus Dalman, 1820 (In- secta, Hymenoptera). OPINION 156. Suspension of the rules for Vanessa Fabri- cius, 1807 (Insecta, Lepidoptera). OPINION 157. Three names in the Hymenoptera (Insecta) added to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. : OPINION 158. On the status of the name Locusta Linnaeus, 1758 (Insecta, Orthoptera). All orders for, and inquiries in regard to, the publications of the Commission should be addressed to the Commission at their Publications Office, 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7. I32 INTERNATIONAL. COMMISSION ON .ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. AN URGENT APPEAL FOR A FUND OF £1800 TO ENABLE THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION TO CONTINUE ITS WORK The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature urgently appeal for grants to the above Fund to Museums, Research Institutes and other Institutions concerned with any branch of. zoology ; to Learned Societies and Associations concerned with any aspect of zoology ; to Institutions and Learned Societies in the fields of Agriculture, Horticulture, Medicine and Veterinary Seience, all of whom have a direct interest in that portion of the work of the Commission which is concerned with the stabilisa- tion of Zoological Nomenclature ; to University and other Depart- ments engaged in the teaching of zoology as being directly interested to secure stability in the scientific nomenclature used in biological text-books ; and to every individual zoologist who may be in a position to contribute to the funds of the Commission. Full particulars of the purposes for which the above Fund is required are given in Part 2 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, — Contributions of any amount, however small, will be most gratefully received. They. should be addressed to the Commission at their Publications Office, 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7. Bankers’ drafts, cheques, and Postal Orders, should be made payable to the ‘‘ International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature ’’ and crossed ‘‘ Account payee. Coutts & Co.’’. PRINTED IN GREAT BRITAIN BY RICHARD CLAY AND COMPANY, LTD., BUNGAY, SUFFOLK. A 9 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 2. Part. 15. Pp. 133-144. OPINION 148 On the principles to be observed in interpreting Articles 25 and 34 of the International Code in relation to the availability of generic names proposed as emendations of, or as substitutes for, earlier generic names of the same origin and meaning ™ rf LONDON : Printed by Order of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature Sold at the Publications Office of the Commission 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7 1943 Price two shillings and sixpence (All rights reserved) ELE ET TE Oe Fe EE EE RO EE SE Ws Issued 26th October, 1943 . INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE COMPOSITION OF THE COMMISSION The Officers of the Commission President: Dr. Karl Jordan, Ph.D., F.R.S. (United Kingdom). Secretary : Mr. Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. (United Kingdom). Assistant Secretary: Dr. James L. Peters (U.S.A.). 1am The Members of the Commission Class 1943 Senor Dr. Afranio do AMARAL (Brazil). Professor Lodovico di CAPORIACCO (Italy). Professor J. R. DYMOND (Canada). Dr. James L. PETERS (U.S.A.) (Assistant Secretary to the Commission). Dr. Leonhard STEJNEGER (U.S.A.). (vacant) .* Class 1946 Hert Professor Dr. Walter ARNDT (Germany). Dr. William Thomas CALMAN (United Kingdom). Professor Teiso ESAKI (Japan). Professor Béla von HANKO (Hungary). Dr. Tadeusz JACZEWSKI (Poland). (vacant). Class 1949 Senor Dr. Angel CABRERA (Argentina). Dr. Frederick CHAPMAN (Australia). Mr. Francis HEMMING (United Kingdom) (Secretary to the Commission). Dr. Karl JORDAN (United Kingdom) (President of the Commission). Monsieur le Docteur Jacques PELLEGRIN (France). Herr Professor Dr. Rudolf RICHTER (Germany). Secretariat of the Commission : British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London, SW. 7; Publications Office of the Commission : 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W. 7. Personal address of the Secretary : 83, Fellows Road (Garden Flat), London, N.W. 3. * This vacancy was caused by the death on 23rd May, 1939, of Dr. Witmer STONE (U.S.A.). + This vacancy was caused by the death on 24th January, t941, of Dr. Charles Wardell STILES (U.S.A.), Vice-President of the Commission and former Secretary to the Commission (1897-1935). OPINION 148. _ ON THE PRINCIPLES TO BE OBSERVED IN INTERPRETING ARTICLES 25 AND 34 OF THE INTERNATIONAL CODE IN RELATION TO THE AVAILABILITY OF GENERIC NAMES PROPOSED AS EMENDATIONS OF, OR AS SUBSTITUTES FOR, EARLIER GENERIC NAMES OF THE SAME ORIGIN AND MEANING. SUMMARY.—The following principles are to be observed in interpreting Articles 25 and 34 of the International Code in relation to the availability of generic names proposed as emendations of, or as substitutes for, earlier generic names of the same origin and meaning :— (1) A generic name published as an emendation of an earlier name of the same origin and meaning is to be rejected as a synonym of the earlier name, and the type of the genus bearing the emended name is automatically the same species as the type of the genus bearing the earlier name so proposed to be emended. Example: Achatinus de Montfort, 1810, being an emendation of Achatina Lamarck, 1799, is to be rejected as a synonym of Achatina Lamarck ; the type of Achatinus de Montfort is automatically the same species as the type of Achatina Lamarck. (2) A generic name is to be rejected as a homonym if it has previously been published as an emendation of another generic name of earlierdate. Example: Borus Albers, 1850 (Mollusca) is to be rejected as a homonym of Borus Agassiz, 1846, an emendation of Boros Herbst, 1797 (Coleoptera). A generic name published as a substitute (nomen novum) for a name rejected by reason of its being a homonym is not _ Itself to be rejected on the ground that it is of the same origin and meaning as the name for which it has been proposed as a substitute. Example: Protodryas Reuss, 1928, was published as a substitute for Prodryas Reuss, 1926, whieh is invalid, as it is a homonym of Prodryas Scudder, 1878 ; as such, Protodryas Reuss is available, although it is of the same origin and meaning as Prodryas Reuss. If, however, Protodryas Reuss had been published as an emenda- (3 — 136 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL tion of Prodryas Reuss (instead of as a substitute), it would have been a synonym of Prodryas Reuss and therefore not available. (4) The principles set out in (1) to (3) above in regard to generic names apply equally to subgenerie names. I.—THE STATEMENT OF THE CASE. This question was raised at Lisbon by Commissioner Francis Hemming during the discussion, at the meeting of the Inter- national Commission held on Tuesday, 17th September 1935 (Lisbon Session, 4th Meeting, Conclusion 14), of the question of the applicability to Article 34 in respect of generic names of the principles laid down in Article 35 in respect of specific names of the same origin and meaning.! The following is the statement then submitted by Commissioner Hemming :— The position of generic names proposed as emendations of, or as substitutes for, earlier generic names of the same origin and meaning. The decision just taken! by the Commission to make it clear that the principles laid down in the concluding portion of Article 35 of the Inter- national Code for determining whether a given specific name is a homonym of an earlier specific name of the same origin and meaning apply equally to the determination under Article 34 of corresponding problems when these arise in connection with generic names, removes most of the difficul- ties which have long embarrassed systematists when attempting to ascertain which of the generic names in their group are available nomenclatorially. There remains, however, one allied problem which is in urgent need of clarification, namely the status to. be accorded to a name published as an emendation of an earlier generic name of the same origin and meaning. The most common type of case in this class is where an author publishes the generic name “ X-us’’ and this name is later emended to “ X-a” or vice versa. I was myself confronted with this problem when during the preparation of my Generic Names of the Holarctic Butterflies (published in 1934) I came to consider the names Argyveus Scopoli, 1777 (Iniry. Hist. nat. : 431) and its emendation Argyvea Billberg, 1820 (Enum. Ins. : 77). Attempts have been made in the past to argue that differences such as alone distinguish the names just referred to are differences only of gender and therefore that the two generic names are identical; but this particular line of approach is clearly unsound since in Latin it is only adjectives that are subject to changes in their terminations according to the gender of the nouns with which they are in agreement and Article 8 expressly provides that generic names are to be treated as nouns in the nominative singular.’ 1 See Opinion 147. * In the French text of the Code Article 8 states that a generic name must be a single word ‘‘ employé comme substantif au nominatif singulier’”’. The corresponding words in the English text are “‘ employed as a sub- stantive in the nominative singular’’. Since in any case of doubt the French text is the substantive text and the other texts are to be treated as translations (1897, Bull. Soc. zool. France 22: 173), the word “ substan- tive ’’ in the English text of Article 8 must be treated as a translation of the French word “ substantif’’. As a translation, it is defective and the word that should have been used is the word ‘‘ noun’’. COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 148. 137 Similarly, the concluding portion of Article 35 (in regard to specific names) threw no light on the treatment to be accorded to generic names that differed from one another only in this limited way, since the agreement of specific names, when of adjectival form, with the noun representing the generic name is dealt with in Article 14, which contains no provisions covering the present problem. At-that time, therefore, I felt bound to treat Avgyvea Billberg as an entity distinct from Argyveus Scopoli, and, as no type had so far been designated for Argyvea Billberg, I myself then selected one of Billberg’s originally included species for this purpose (1933, Entomologist 66: 197). Sinai only later—and then quite by accident—that I discovered that the Commission had settled the principles to be observed in a case of this kind, when in Opinion 120 they had given their decision in regard to the status of Achatinus de Montfort, 1810, an emendation of Achatina Lamarck, 1799 (Mollusca). The decision then taken was announced in the following terms :— / “ Achatinus, 1810, is emendation of and therefore objective synonym of Achatina, 1799; the designation of zebva as type of - Achatinus contravenes Article 30a andc. Achatinus, 1810, invalidates any later use of Achatinus in a different sense.” Quite recently the Commission have re-affirmed these principles in an Opinion at present awaiting publication,®? the summary of which reads as follows :— “ Borus Agassiz, 1846, is an emendation of, and therefore an absolute synonym of, Boros Herbst, 1797; Borus Albers, 1850, is a dead homonym.”’ The attitude of the Commission in this matter is perfectly clear from these Opinions. Unfortunately, however, their decision on this important question has been almost completely overlooked through the fact that the Commission did not devote a special Opinion to the statement of their decision as a matter of principle applying to names throughout the animal kingdom, but only stated this principle incidentally in the course of an Opimion (Opinion 120) relating to certain disputed names in a single group (Mollusca), an Opinion not likely to be studied in detail by any but special- ists in Mollusca. The request that I now make to the Commission is that they should agree to render an Opinion stating in general terms the important decision that they reached on this matter nearly five years ago (January 1931) but which so far has been presented in an inaccessible form in an Opinion concerned only with the case of a particular pair of names. I hope that at the same time the Commission will make it clear that tha decision relates only to generic names that are emendations of generic names and does not apply to names expressly published as substitute names (nomina nova) for names that are unavailable by reason of being homonyms. I have no reason to doubt that this was the intention of the Commission, but it is important that it should be expressly stated, since there are many substitute names in ‘common use that are of the same origin and meaning as the names which they replaced, and which, if they had been published as emendations of, instead of as substitutes for, the names in question would, under the rule stated in Opinion 120, become invalid synonyms and themselves require to be replaced by still other names. An example of this class is provided by the names Protodryas Reuss, 1928 “‘ gen. nov.”’ (Int. ent. Z. 22: 146) and Prodryas Reuss, 1926 (Deuts. ent. Z. 1926 (1) : 66) in the same group of the NyMPHALIDAE as the genera already referred 3 See Opinion 125. 138 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL to (Arvgyveus Scopoli and Argyrea Billberg). Pvodvyas Reuss is invalid as it is a homonym of Prodryas Scudder, 1878 (Bull. U.S. Geol. geogy. Survey 4: 520); it was therefore replaced by the substitute name Protodryas Reuss. As a substitute name, Pvotodryas Reuss is available; but, if it had been published as an emendation of Pvodryas Reuss (instead of as a substitute for that name) it would, under Opinion 120, have become a synonym of Pyvodvyas Reuss and therefore unavailable nomenclatorially. II.—THE CONCLUSION REACHED BY THE INTERNA- TIONAL COMMISSION. 2. On the general issue involved the Commission was unani- mously of the view that, when the Commission reached a decision — on a question of interest to the general body of zoologists, it was of the greatest importance that that decision should be presented in such a way to ensure that it was most readily available to all concerned. In the particular case raised by Commissioner Hemming, the Commission agreed (Lisbon Session, 4th Meeting, Conclusion 15) :— | : | to render an Ofimion restating in general terms the decision embodied in Opinion 120 in regard to the status of a generic or subgeneric name published as an emendation of an earlier generic or subgeneric name of the same origin and meaning, and making it clear that that decision did not apply to a name expressly published as a substitute name (nomen novum), even when that name was of the same origin and meaning as the name replaced. 3. At the same meeting as that at which the foregoing decision was taken (Lisbon Session, 4th Meeting, Conclusion 17), Com- missioner Hemming, who, in the absence through ill-health of Dr. C. W. Stiles, Secretary to the Commission, had been charged with the duty of preparing the report to be submitted by the Commission to the Twelfth International Congress of Zoology, reported that, in accordance with the request made by the Com: mission on the previous day (Lisbon Session, 3rd Meeting, Con- clusion 3(b)), he had made a start with the drafting of the Com- mission’s report; that he had made considerable progress in spite of being hampered by the lack of standard works of reference ; and that he did not doubt that he would be in a position to lay a draft report before the Commission at their next meeting, though in the time available it would be quite impracticable to prepare the drafts of paragraphs relating to all the matters on which decisions had been reached during the Lisbon Session of the Commission, As agreed upon at the meeting referred to above COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 148. 139 (Lisbon Session, 3rd Meeting, Conclusion 3(a)(ii)), he was there- fore concentrating upon those matters that appeared to be the more important. Commissioner Hemming proposed that those matters which it was found impossible to include in the report, owing to the shortness of the time available, should be dealt with after the Congress on the basis of the records in the Official Record of the Proceedings of the Commission during their Lisbon Session. For this purpose, Commissioner Hemming proposed that all matters unanimously agreed upon during the Lisbon Session should be treated in the same manner, whether or not it was found possible to include references to them in the report to be submitted to the Congress, and therefore that every such decision should be treated as having been participated in by all the Commissioners and Alternates present at Lisbon. The Commission took note of, and approved, the statement by Commissioner Hemming, and adopted the proposals submitted by him, as recorded above, in regard to the selection of items to be included in their report to the Twelfth International Congress of Zoology and to the pro- cedure to be adopted after the Congress in regard to those matters with which, for the reasons explained, it was found me to dealin that report. _4. The question dealt with in the present Opinion was one of the matters to which it was found impossible, in the time avail- able, to include a reference in the report submitted by the Com- mission to the Twelfth International Congress of Zoology at Lisbon. It is therefore one of the matters which falls to be dealt with under the procedure agreed upon by the Commission set out in paragraph 3 above. 5. The present Opinion was concurred in by the twelve (12) Commissioners and Alternates present at the Lisbon Session of the International Commission, namely :— | Commissioners :—Calman : Hemming ; Jordan; » Pellegrin ; pebers; and Stejneger. Alternates :—do Amaral vice Cabrera; Ohshima vice Easki; Brad- ley vice Stone; Beier vice Handlirsch; Arndt vice Richter ; and Mortensen vice Apstein. 5. The present Ofinion was dissented from by no Commissioner or Alternate at the Lisbon Session. The following five (5) Com- missioners who were not present at Lisbon nor represented thereat by Alternates did not vote on the present Opinion :— Bolivar y Pieltain; Chapman; Fantham; Silvestri; and Stiles. I40 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL III.—AUTHORITY ‘FOR THE ISSUE OF THE PRESENT OPINION. WHEREAS the By-Laws of the International Commission on.. Zoological Nomenclature provide that, except in cases involving the suspension of the rules, an Opinion is to be deemed to have been adopted by the said International Commission as soon as a majority of the Members of the Commission, that is to say ten (10) Members of the said Commission have recorded their votes in favour thereof, provided that, where any proposed Opinion involves a reversal of any former Opinion rendered by the Com- mission, such proposed Opinion shall obtain the concurrence of at least fourteen (14) Members of the Commission voting on the same before such Opinion is to be deemed to have been adopted by the Commission; and WHEREAS the present Opinion, as set out in the summary there- of, neither requires, in order to be valid, the suspension of the rules, nor involves a reversal of any former Opinion rendered by the Commission; and WHEREAS twelve (12) Members of the Commission have signified their concurrence in the present Ofimion either in person or through Alternates at the Session of the Commission held in Lisbon in September 1935 : Now, THEREFORE, I, FRANCIS HEMMING, Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, acting in virtue of all and every the powers conferred upon me by reason of holding the said Office of Secretary to the International Commission, hereby announce the said Opinion on behalf of the International Commission, acting for the International Congress of Zoology, and direct that it be rendered and printed as Ofimion Number One Hundred and Forty Fight (Opinion 148) of the said Commission. | In faith whereof, I, the undersigned FRANCIS HEMMING, Secre- tary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature, have signed the present Opinion. | Done in London, this tenth day of March, Nineteen Hundred and Forty Three, in a single copy, which shall remain deposited in the archives of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. FRANCIS HEMMING COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. PUBLICATIONS OF THE COMMISSION Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature OPINION 148. I4I The Bulletin is the Official Organ of the International Com- The following Parts have so far been published :— (contents include a survey of the functions and powers of the International Commission) p. XXV1 ‘ (report on the financial position of the Interna- tional Commission and survey of outstanding tasks) pp. xiv . ; i mission. PART I. PART 2), OPINION OPINION OPINION OPINION OPINION OPINION 4 OPINION OPINION OPINION OPINION OPINION 1 ByAle 135. 136. 137. 138. 139. 140. HAL, 142. 143. 144. Opinions Published by the Commission On the method to be adopted in interpreting the generic names assigned by Freyer to the species described in his Neuere Bettrage zuy Schmetterlingskunde, 1833-1858 The suppression of the so-called “ ean List ’’ of 1801 Opinion supplementary to Opinion rr on the interpretation of Latreille’s Considéva- tions générales suv Vordrve naturel des ani- maux composant les classes des Crustacés, des Avachnides et des Insectes avec un tableau méthodique de leurs genres disposés en familles, Paris, 1810 On the relative precedence to be accorded to certain generic names published in 1807 by Fabricius and Hiibner respec- tively for identical genera in the Lepido- ptera Rhopalocera On the method by which the amendment to Article 25 of the International Code adopted at the Budapest Meeting of the International Zoological Congress, relat- ing to the replacement of invalid names, should be interpreted . The names Cephus Latreille, (1 802— 1803], and A stata Latreille, 1796, in the Hymeno- ptera added to the Official List of Generic Names On the method of forming the family names for Mevrops Linnaeus, 1758 (Aves) and for Merope Newman 1838 (Insecta) On the principles to be observed in interpret- ing Article 4 of the International Code re- lating to the naming of families and sub- families Suspension of the rules for Satyrus Latreille, 1810 (Insecta, Lepidoptera) . On the method of forming the family name for Tingis Fabricius, 1803 (Insecta, Hemi- ptera) On the status of the names Crabro Geoffroy, 1762, Crabro Fabricius, 1775, and Cimbex Olivier, 1790 (Insecta, Hymenoptera) price 9s, price 5s. od. od. price 8d. price 8d. price Is, DEICE) hs: jOLNCE! IES. price 25; price 2s. PLICe! 2s. Price 2. Price 25) price 2s. 6d, 6d. 6d. od. I42 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL OPINION 145. On the status of names first published in works rejected for nomenclatorial pur- poses and subsequently published in other works 24) DHCEL2 Sioa. OPINION 146. Suspension of the rules for Colias Fabricius, 1807 (Insecta, Lepidoptera) . : . | “prices od: OPINION 147. On the principles to be observed in inter: preting Article 34 of the International Code in relation to the rejection, as homonyms, of generic and subgeneric names of,the same origin and meaning as names previously published . ; By OLS 2S, Ga. OPINION 148. On the principles to be observed in inter- preting Articles 25 and 34 of the Interna- tional Code in relation to the availability of generic names proposed as emenda- tions of, or as substitutes for, earlier generic names of the same origin and Mea ANE : A : i PRICE: 2s oa. Opinions Rendered by the Commission but not yet Published OPINION 149. Twenty-one names in the Orthoptera (In- secta) added to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. OPINION 150. On the dates of publication of the several portions of Hubner (J.), Verzeichniss bekannter Schmettlinge [sic], 1816—[1826]. OPINION 151. On the status of the names Lasius Panzer, [1801-1802], Podalirius Latreille, 1802, Lasius Fabricius, [1804-1805] and Anthophova Latreille, 1803 (Insecta, Hymenoptera). OPINION 152. On the status of the generic names in the Order Diptera (Insecta) first published in 1800 by J. W. Meigen in his Nouvelle Classification des Mouches a deux atles. OPINION 153. Onthestatus of the names Bethylus Latreille, [1802-1803], and Dyryinus Latreille, [1804] (Insecta, Hymenoptera). OPINION 154. On the status of the names Phaneropiera Serville, 11830) anda ylopsis) Euebers 1853 (Insecta, Orthoptera). OPINION 155. On the status of the names Callimome Spinola, 1811, Misocampe Latreille, 1818, and Torymus Dalman, 1820 (In- secta, Hymenoptera). OPINION 156. Suspension of the rules for Vanessa Fabri- cius, 1807 (Insecta, Lepidoptera). OPINION 157. Three names in the Hymenoptera (Insecta) added to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. OPINION 158. On the status of the name Locusta Linnaeus, 1758 (Insecta, Orthoptera). All orders for, and inquiries in regard to, the publications of the Commission should be addressed to the Commission at their Publications Office, 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7. } COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 148. 143 AN URGENT APPEAL FOR A FUND OF £1800 TO ENABLE THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION TO CONTINUE ITS WORK The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature urgently appeal for grants to the above Fund to Museums, Research Institutes and other Institutions concerned with. any branch of zoology ; to Learned Societies and Associations concerned with any aspect of zoology ; to Institutions and Learned Societies in the fields of Agriculture, Horticulture, Medicine and Veterinary Science, all of whom have a direct interest in that portion of the work of the Commission which is concerned with the stabilisa- tion of Zoological Nomenclature ; to University and other Depart-- ments engaged in the teaching of zoology as being directly interested to secure stability in the scientific nomenclature used in biological text-books ; and to every individual zoologist who may be in a position to contribute to the funds of the Commission. Full particulars of the purposes for which the above Fund is required are given in Part 2 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, Contributions of any amount, however small, will be most gratefully received. They should be addressed to the Commission at their Publications Office, 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7. Bankers’ drafts, cheques, and Postal Orders, should be made payable to the ‘* International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature ’’ and crossed ‘‘ Account payee. Coutts & Co.’’. 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 2. Part 16. Pp. 145-160. OPINION 149 Twenty-one names in the Orthoptera (Insecta) added to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology LONDON : Printed by Order of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature Sold at the Publications Office of the Commission 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7 1943 Price four shillings (All rights reserved) Issued 9th December, 1943 INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE COMPOSITION OF THE COMMISSION The Officers of the Commission President: Dr. Karl Jordan, Ph.D., F.R.S. (United Kingdom). Secretary : Mr. Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. (United Kingdom). Assistant Secretary: Dr. James L. Peters (U.S.A.). a The Members of the Commission Class 1943 Senor Dr. Afranio do AMARAL (Brazil). Professor Lodovico di CAPORIACCO (Italy). Professor J. R. DYMOND (Canada). Cs Dr. James L. PETERS (U.S.A.) (Assistant Secretary to the Commission). Dr. Leonhard STEJNEGER (U.5.A.). (vacant) .* Class 1946 Herr Professor Dr. Walter ARNDT (Germany). Dr. William Thomas CALMAN (United Kingdom). Professor Teiso ESAKI (Japan). Professor Béla von HANKO (Hungary). Dr. Tadeusz JACZEWSKI (Poland). (vacant).f Class 1949 Senor Dr. Angel CABRERA (Argentina). Dr. Frederick CHAPMAN (Australia). Mr. Francis HEMMING (United Kingdom) (Secretary to the Commission). Dr. Karl JORDAN (United Kingdom) (President of the Commission). Monsieur le Docteur Jacques PELLEGRIWN (France). Herr Professor Dr. Rudolf RICHTER (Germany). Secretariat of the Commission : British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London, S.W. 7. Publications Office of the Commission : 4I, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W. 7. © Personal address of the Secretary g 83, Fellows Road (Garden Flat), London, N.W. 3. * This, vacancy was caused by the death on 23rd May, 1939, of Dr. Witmer STONE (U.S.A,). + This vacancy was caused by the death on 24th January, 1941, of Dr. Charles Wardell STILES (U.S.A.), Vice-President of the Commission and former Secretary to the Commission (1897-1935). . OPINION 149. _ TWENTY-ONE NAMES IN THE ORTHOPTERA (INSECTA) ADDED TO THE OFFICIAL LIST OF GENERIC NAMES IN ZOOLOGY. SUMMARY.—The following names in the Orthoptera (Insecta) are hereby added to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology, with the types specified in paragraph 10 of the present Opinion :— Bacillus Le Peletier de Saint Fargeau and Serville, 1825 ; Cheli- dura Berthold, 1827 ; Eumastax Burr, 1899 ; Gampsocleis Fieber, 1852 ; Gryllacris Serville, 1831 ; Gryllotalpa Latreille, [1802— 1803] Hemimerus Walker, 1871 ; Labia Leach, 1815 ; Leptophyes Fieber, 1852 ; Mantis Linnaeus, 1767 ; Myrmecophilus Berthold, 1827 ; Oedipoda Latreille, 1829; Phyllium Illiger, 1798 ; Pro- phalangopsis Walker, 1871 ; Proscopia Klug, 1820; Psophus Fieber, 1853 ; Saga Charpentier, 1825 ; Schizodactylus Brullé, 1835 ; Sphingonothus Fieber, 1852 ; Stenopelmatus Burmeister, 1838 ; and Tridactylus Olivier, 1789. Felon tiene, OF Hb CAS: Fifteen of the names dealt with in the present Opinion were included in the list of 52 generic names in the Orthoptera that figured in the comprehensive list of names drawn from many Phyla and Classes set out in the paper published in 1915 by © Commissioner Karl Apstein under the title “ Nomina conservanda. Unter Mitwirkung zahlreicher Spezialisten herausgegeben von Prof. C. Apstein, Berlin” (SitzBer. Ges. naturf. Fr. Berl. 1915 (5) : 119- 202). The names in question were :—Bacillus Le Peletier de Saint Fargeau and Serville.(attributed to Latreille); Chelidura _ Berthold (attributed to Serville); Gampsocleis Fieber; Gryllacris Serville; Gryllotalpa Latreille; Labia Leach; Leptophyes Fieber ; Mantis Linnaeus; Myrmecophilus Berthold (as Myrmecophila and attributed to Latreille); O¢edspoda Latreille; Phyllium Illiger; Psophus Fieber (as Psopha); Saga Charpentier; Sphin- gonothus Vieber (as Splingonotus); and Tridactylus Olivier (attributed to Latreille). 2. Commissioner Apstein communicated his List to the Com- mission in the course of 1915 and in December of that year the 148 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL Secretary to the Commission suggested that the most satisfactory way of dealing with this proposal would be to refer the various portions of which it was made up to special advisory committees on the nomenclature of the groups concerned. This course was adopted but, as was inevitable, the reports from the committees were a long time in coming in. In 1922, the Commission agreed to render an Opinion (Opinion 74), in which they pointed out that they had no power to adopt en bloc the list submitted by Com- missioner Apstein but indicated that they were prepared “to consider names separately upon presentation of reasonably com- plete evidence’’. The examination of the names contained in Commissioner Apstein’s list continued without interruption, and in due course Dr. A. N. Caudell of the United States National Museum, to whom the generic names in the Orthoptera had been referred, submitted a report in which he gave grounds for the acceptance for the Official List of 12 of the 15 names indicated in the preceding paragraph. The 3 names not dealt with by Dr. Caudell were Gryllacris Serville, Oedipoda Latreille, and Tridactylus Olivier. 3. In June 1929 (when Dr. Caudell’s report was already in draft), Commissioner Anton Handlirsch submitted to the Commission a further list of 28 names in the Orthoptera for inclusion in the Oficial List. In addition to 8 of the names indicated in paragraph 1 above (Bacillus, Gryllacris, Gryllotalpba, Mantis, Oedipoda, Phylum, Saga, Tridactylus), this list contained, amongst others, the following names dealt with in the present Opimon :— Eumastax Burr; Hemimerus Walker; Prophalangopsis Walker ; Proscopia Klug; Schizodactylus Brullé; and Stenopelmatus Burmeister. II.—THE SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF THE CASE. 4. Later in 1929, the Commission invited the International Committee on Entomological Nomenclature to consider (a) the list of 52 names submitted by Commissioner Apstein, (b) the report on certain names contained therein furnished by Dr. Caudell, and (c) the list of 28 names submitted by Commissioner Handlirsch, and to submit recommendations to the Commission in regard thereto. vam 5. This request involved a considerable amount of preliminary study by the International Committee, and it was accordingly not until their meeting at Madrid in the second week of September COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 149. I49 1935 that the International Committee were able to draw up a resolution on this subject for submission to the International Commission. Of the 80 names comprised in the combined lists, 20 .0f those in Commissioner Handlirsch’s list were included also in the earlier list submitted by Commissioner Apstein. The total number of names to be considered was therefore 60. Two of these names (Locusta Linnaeus and Phaneroptera Serville), which appeared in both the lists, were placed on one side by the Inter- national Committee as names which could not be added to the Official List of Generic Names unless and until the International Commission decided to use their plenary powers to suspend the rules in the International Code, a course which the International Committee decided to recommend.t There remained therefore 56 names proposed for inclusion in the Official List as names which were available nomenclatorially and whose types had been cor- rectly determined under Article 30 of the International Code. After careful consideration, the International Committee came to the conclusion that the evidence submitted in regard to 34 of these names was insufficient to justify them in recommending the International Commission to add the names in question to the Official List. The International Committee considered that the remaining 22 names Satisfied all the necessary conditions and agreed to recommend that they be added to the Official List. The names in question, together with the species believed to be their types correctly determined under the Code, were accordingly placed on a list for submission to the International Commission as follows :— (i) Bacillus St. Fargeau ? and Serville, 1825. type: Mantis. rossia Rossi, 1790. (monotypical) (11) Chelidura Berthold, 1827. type: Forficula aptera Char- pentier, 1825. (type designated by Serville, 1831) (ii) Ewmastax Burr, 1899. type: Mastax tenuis Perty, 1830.2, (monotypical) (iv) Gampsoclets Fieber, 1852. type: Locusta glabra Herbst, 1786. (type designated by Fieber, 1853?) (v) Gryllacris Serville, 1831. type: Gryllacris maculicollis 2 Serville, 1831. (type designated by Rehn, 1905) (vi) Gryllotalpa Latreille, 1802.2 type: Gryllus gryllotalpa Linnaeus, 1758. (monotypical) ; * The case of Phaneroptera Serville is dealt with in Opinion 154 and that of Locusta Linnaeus in Opinion 158. _ # See note on this name in paragraph 9g below. I50 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL (vil) Hemimerus Walker, 1871. type: Hemimerus talpordes Walker, 1871. (monotypical) (vili) Labia Leach, 1815. type: Forficula minor Linnaeus, 1758. (monotypical) (ix) Leptophyes Fieber, 1852. type: Locusta punctatissima Bosc, 1792. (monotypical) (x) Mantis Linnaeus, 1758.2 type: Gryllus religiosa? Lin- naeus, 1758. (type designated by Latreille, 1810) (x1) Myrmecophilus Berthold, 1827. type: Blatta acervorum Panzer, 1799.2. (monotypical) (xii) Oedipoda Serville,2 1831.2 type: Gvryllus caerulescens Linnaeus, 1758. (type designated by Kirby, rg10) * (xiil) Phyllium? Mlliger, 1798. type: Gryllus siccifolsus Lin- naeus, 1758. (monotypical) | (xiv) Prophalangopsis Walker, 1871. type: Tarraga obscura Walker, 1868.2. (monotypical) | (xv) Proscopia Klug, 1820. type: Proscopia oculata? Klug, 1820. (type designated by Kirby, 1910 ?) 7 | (xvi) Psopha ? Fieber, 1852.2. type: Gryllus stridulus Linnaeus, 1758. (monotypical) 2 (xvil) Saga Charpentier, 1825. type: Locusta serrata Fabricius, 1793. (monotypical) (xviii) Schizodactylus Brullé, 1835. type: Gryllus monstrosus Drury, 1773. (monotypical) (xix) Sphingonothus Fieber, 1852. type: Gryllus caerulans Linnaeus, 1767. (monotypical) (xx) Stenopelmatus Burmeister, 1838. type: Stenopelmatus talba Burmeister, 1838. (type designated by Kirby, 1906) (xxi) Tvidactylus Olivier, 1789. type: Acheta digitata? Co- quebert,? 1804.2 (type designated by Latreille, 1804 ?) The twenty-second name proposed by the International Com-- mittee on Entomological Nomenclature for inclusion in the Official List of Generic Names was Tylopsis Fieber, 1853, but, as the status of that name is bound up with the decision on Phanero- plera Serville, 1831, it is dealt with in the Opinion relating to that name.? 6. In view of the fact that the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature was to meet at Lisbon immediately after 2 See note on this name in paragraph 9g below. 3 See Opinion 154. COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 149. I51 the close of the Sixth International Congress of Entomology at Madrid, it was impossible for the International Committee on Entomological Nomenclature to prepare a formal report on the above names for consideration by the International Commission. Further, owing to the impossibility of consulting works of refer- ence during the Congress at Madrid it was impossible for the International Committee to verify all the references given in the list included in paragraph 5 above. The International Committee accordingly invited their Secretary (Commissioner Karl Jordan) to explain orally to the International Commission when it met at Lisbon the grounds on which their recommendations were based and to explain that those recommendations were submitted on the basis that the references would be checked by the International Commission and any minor errors eliminated before the Com- mission rendered an Opinion in the sense proposed. 7. The recommendations agreed upon by the International Committee on Entomological Nomenclature, as set out in para- graph 5 above, together with other recommendations submitted by the International Committee, were confirmed by the Sixth International Congress of Entomology at the Concilium Plenum held at Madrid on 12th September 1935. HT—THE CONCLUSION REACHED BY THE INTERNA- TIONAL COMMISSION. 8. This question was considered by the International Com- mission on Zoological Nomenclature at the second meeting of the Session held in Lisbon in September 1935 during the meeting of the Twelfth International Congress of Zoology. At this meeting, which was held on the morning of Monday, 16th September 1935, the Commission approved the proposals submitted by the Inter- national Committee on Entomological Nomenclature as set out in paragraph 5 above (Lisbon Session, 2nd Meeting, Conclusion 20). The Commission, who (like the International Committee at Madrid) were handicapped at Lisbon by not having access to standard works of reference, agreed, when approving their report to the Twelfth International Congress of Zoology, at their meeting held on Wednesday, 18th September 1935 (Lisbon Session, 5th Meeting, Conclusion 1 (c)) :— to authorise Commissioner Hemming to examine the report after the close of the Congress when works of reference were available to him, for the purpose of checking the accuracy of the bibliographical and other references cited therein, and to correct any errors that might be found before the text of the report was officially printed. I52 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL 9. After the close of the Lisbon Congress, the list submitted by the International Committee on Entomological Nomenclature (quoted in paragraph 5 above) was examined from the foregoing point of view and the following corrections, for the most part of a minor character, were found to be necessary and were accordingly incorporated both in the report 4 and in the Official Record of the Proceedings of the Commission at the Lisbon Session :— (a) Bacillus. This name was published in the entomological . portion of volume 10 of the Encyclopédie méthodique, Paris 1825. This was prepared by Le Peletier de Saint Fargeau and Serville, in collaboration. The name of the first of these authors was given incorrectly in the Lisbon report aS ote me anceauine Eumastax Burr. The date of Mastax tenuis Perty, the type of this genus, is 1832 not 1830 (see Sherborn, 1931, Index Anim. (Pars secund.) : 6424). (c) Gampsoclets Fieber. The type of this genus was correctly given in the Lisbon report as Locusta glabra Herbst, 1786, but the statement in that report that this species was designated as the type by Fieber in 1853 (Lotos 3 : 147) is not accurate. On the first publication of this genus in 1852, Fieber gave as sole species, and therefore as the type (Article 30 (I) (c)), a species to which he applied the name Dect[icus| maculatus var. glaber. The reference is clearly to Decticus glaber Burmeister, 1838 (Handb. Ent. 2 (2) (No. 1) : 713) but, as pointed out by Sherborn (1926, Index Anim. (Pars secund.) : 2708), Burmeister did not publish this as a new name but merely as a grammatical variant of the name Locusta glabra Herbst. Gryllacris Serville. Serville placed in this genus three species: (i) G. maculicollis Serville; (ii) G. ruficeps Serville; and (ili) G. personata Serville. The first author to select any of these species as the type of Gvyllacris S S * As has been explained elsewhere (Hemming, 1943, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 1: 64), it was not found practicable to revise the Commission’s report in the manner indicated in the Conclusion quoted in paragraph 8 of the present Opinion_in time to permit the publication of the revised text in the Compie Rendu of the Twelfth International Congress of Zoology. Accord- ingly, the report as there published is identical in every respect with the report actually submitted to, and approved by, the Congress at the Con- cijium Plenum held on 21st September 1935. The corrected text of the report has been published in 1943, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 1: 53-62, with notes ay Be See to the Commission on the corrections so made (ibid. : 64-60). COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION I49. 153 ~~ ~~ Serville was Rehn, who in 1905 (Proc. Acad. nat. Sct. Philad. 57 : 827) designated G. maculicollis as the type. If, as is commonly held (e.g. by Kirby, 1906, Syn. Cat. Orthobpt. 2:144), that name is a synonym of Gryllus signifera Stoll, 1813 (Spectres Saut. : 26), the first type designation of this genus is that by Chenu, 1859 (Ency. Hist. nat. Annel. : 66), who specified G. signifera, thereby automatically specifying G. maculicollts, one of the originally included species. Both. these designations have priority over Kirby’s selection of G. ruficeps Serville in 1906 (Syn. Cat. Orthopt. 2: 139, 143). Gryllotalpa Latreille. The date of this name was given in the report as 1802. It has since been ascertained (Griffin, 1938, J. Soc. Bibl. nat. Hist. 1: 157) that volume 3 of the work by Latreille in which this name was first published should be dated [1802-1803]. Mantis Linnaeus. (i) Under Opinion 124 the subdivisions of genera by Linnaeus in the 10th edition of the Syst. Nat. do not rank as of subgeneric value as from that date (1758), except in any case where the International Commission by using their plenary powers to suspend the rules direct otherwise, as they did at Lisbon in the case of the name Locusta (Lisbon Session, 2nd Meeting, Conclusion 18).° All that the Commission did at Lisbon in the case of the name Mantis as a generic name was to agree that it should be placed on the Official List of Generic Names, with standing as from the date of its first valid publication. Mins was i 1767 (Syst. Nate (ed. 12) 1 (2):: 689). The date “ 1758’ given for Mantis in the Lisbon report was a lapsus calam. | (11) Linnaeus originally published the name of the type of this genus as Gryllus religiosus not as Gryllus religiosa, the form given in the Lisbon report. Myrmecophilus Berthold. The date of Blatta acervorum Panzer, the type of this genus, should be cited in square brackets, since the Parts of Panzer’s Faun. Ins. germ. are undated and their dates of publication can only be ascer- tained from external sources. Oedtpoda. The author of this name is Latreille and not Serville, as inadvertently stated in the Lisbon report; the date of publication is 1829 not 1831. The name was 5 See Opinion 158. I54 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL a _— first published by Latreille 7m Cuvier, Régne Anim. (ed. 2) O188. Phyllium Mlliger. In the version of the Lisbon report published in 1936 this name was, through a printer’s error, misspelt Phyllum. Prophalangopsis Walker. The date of publication of LTarraga obscura Walker, the type of this genus, is 1869 not 1868 (as stated in the Lisbon report). The reference is Cat. Dermapt. Saltat. Brit. Mus. 1 : 100. Proscopia Klug. According to the information supplied to the Commission at Lisbon, the first of the originally- included species validly to be designated as the type of this genus under Article 30 of the Code was Proscopia oculata Klug, 1820, and this information was accepted by the Commission, subject (as in the case of all similar data) to verification after the close of the Congress (see paragraph 8 of the present Ofinion). In fact, however (as pointed out by Roberts, 1941, Trans. amer. ent. Soc. 67 : 20), the first of the originally-included species to be designated as the type was Proscopia gigantea Klug, 1820, that species having been so designated twice before Kirby in 1910 (Syn. Cat. Orthopt. 3 :.83, 84) selected Proscopia oculata Klug as the type. The first selection of Proscopia gigantea Klug as the type was by Guérin in 1828 (Dict. Class. Hist. nat. 14 3 297) ; the second was by Kirby himself in 1890 (Scr. Proc. R. Dublin Soc. (n.s.) 6: 586). In these circumstances, it has been necessary, under the general directions given by the Commission, to substitute Proscopia gigantea Klug for - Proscopia oculata Klug as the type of this genus in correct- ing the Lisbon report. This change does not affect the systematic position of the genus Proscopia Klug according to recent authors (e.g. Hebard, 1924, Jvans. amer. ent. Soc. 50: 93 and Roberts, 1941, 1b1d. 67: 20), who treat Proscopia oculata and Proscopia gigantea as congeneric. Psophus Fieber. Through some misunderstanding the name of this genus was given in the Lisbon report as Psopha Fieber, 1852 (in Kelch, Grundl. Orth. Obersches. : 2) instead of as Psophus Fieber, 1853 (Lotos 8: 122). This was purely by inadvertence since Psopha Fieber, 1852, is invalid, as it is a homonym of Psopha Billbery, 1828 (Syn. Scand. 1 (2): tabell. A). That this was so was recognised by Fieber himself and it was for this reason that within a COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 149. 155 year of the publication of Psopha he replaced that name DY, the name Psophus. The genus is monotypical. (m) Tridactylus Olivier. According to the information given to the International Commission at Lisbon, the type of this genus was Acheta digitata Coquebert, 1804, that species hayineabeem sordesionated by ) Watreille, 1804 7%, 7.¢. by Latreille, [1803-1804] ® (7m Sonnini’s Buffon), Hist. nat. gén. partic. Crust. Ins. 12:120. In that work Latreille said (a) that “‘Vespece d’aprés laquelle j’ai établi’’ the characters there cited for Tvidactylus Olivier was T7- dactylus paradoxus Latreille and (b) that the latter was the same species as Acheta digitata Coquebert, 1804. In actual fact, the first occasion on which any species was placed in the genus Tridactylus Olivier is Latreille, [1802—1803],’ (¢m Sonnini’s Buffon), Hist. nat. gén. partic. Crust. Ins. 3 : 276, which also is the place where the name Trzdactylus paradoxus Latreille was first published. As that species was the sole species placed by Latreille in this genus on that occasion, the genus is monotypical and Trdactylus paradoxus Latreille is automatically the type. Fortun- ately, the correction which it has in consequence been necessary to make in the Lisbon report is a purely formal one only, since Tvidactylus paradoxus Latreille and Acheta digitata Coquebert are no more than different names for a single species. 10. The following is the text of Ane decision taken by the Commission at Lisbon in the present case (Lisbon Session, 2nd Meeting, Conclusion 20) :— to render an Opinion placing on the Official List of Generic Names the under- mentioned twenty-two * nomenclatorially available generic names in the Orthoptera, with the types indicated, each of which has been duly designated in accordance with the provisions of the Code :— Name of genus Type of genus (1) Bacillus Le Peletier de Saint- Mantis vossia Rossi, 1790, Faun. Fargeau & Serville, 1825, Ency. etrusc.1: 259 méth. Hist. nat. Ent. 10: 446 (monotypical) (2) Cheliduva Berthold, 1827, im Forficula aptera Charpentier, 1825, Latreille, Nat. Fam. Thterrv.: Hor. Ent. : 69 409 (type designated by Serville, 1831, Ann. Scr. nat. 22: 36 (as Cheli- doura)) Pvomme £27 is dated An, XIl”, the equivalent of 24th Sept. meo3-22nd Sept. 1804 (See Griffin, 1930, /. Soc. Bibi, nat. Hist. 1: 249). 7 For the date here assigned to this volume, see note (e) above. * For the reasons explained “in paragraph 5 above, the twenty-second name (Tylopsis Fieber) 1s not dealt with in the present Opinion. 156 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL (3) (4) Name of genus Eumastax Burr, 1899, An. Soc. esp. Hist. nat. 28: 75, 94, 257 Gampsocleis Fieber, 1852, in Kelch, Grundl. Orth. Obersches. : 2 (5) Gryllacris Serville, 1831, Ann. (16) (17) (18) Sct. nat. 22 (86) : 138 Gryllotalpa Latreille, [1802- 1803], (i Sonnini’s Buffon) Hist. nat. gén. partic. Crust. Ins. 33275 Hemimerus Walker, 1871, Cat. Dermapt. Saltat. Brit. Mus. 5 Suppl. Dermapt. Salt. : 2 Brewster’s : 118 Labia Leach, 1815, Edinburgh Ency. 9 (1) Leptophyes Fieber, 1852, 1m Kelch, Gvundl. Orth. Obersches. : 3 Mantis Linnaeus, 1767, Syst. Nat. (ed. 12) 1 (2) : 689 Myrmecophilus Berthold, 1827, in Latreille, Nat. Fam. Thierr. : 409 f Oedipoda Latreille, 1829, im Cuvier, Régne Anim. (ed. 2) 5: 188 Phyllium Mliger, 1798, in Kugel- ann, Kdfer Preuss. : 499 Prophalangopsis Walker, 1871, Cat. Dermapt. Saltat. Brit. Mus. 5 Suppl. Dermapt. Salt. : 116 Proscopia Klug, 1820, Hor. phys. Berol. : 17 Psophus Fieber, 1853, Lotos 3: 122 Saga Charpentier, 1825, Hor. Ent. : 95 Schizodactylus Brullé, 1835, Hist. nat. Ins. 9 (Orth.) : 161 Type of genus Mastax tenuis Perty, 1832, Del. Anim. artic. Brasil (2) : 123 (monotypical) Locusta glabra Herbst, 1786, in Fuessly, Arch. Ins. 7: 193 (monotypical) Gryllacris maculicollis Serville, 1831, Ann. Sct. nat. 22 (86) : 139 (type designated by Rehn, 1905, Proc. Acad. nat. Sci. Philad. 57: 827) Gryllus gryllotalpa Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) : 428 (monotypical) Hemimerus talpoides Walker, 1871, Cat. Dermapt. Saltat. Bt. Mus. 5 Suppl. Dermapt. Salt. : 2 (monotypical) Forficula minor Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) : 423 (monotypical) Locusta punctatissima Bosc, 1792, Actes Soc. Hist. nat. Paris 1(1): 45 (monotypical) Gryllus religiosus Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) : 426 (type designated by Latreille, 1810, Consid. gén. Anim. Crust. Ayvach. Ins. : 433) Blatta acervorum Panzer, [1799], Faun. Ins. germ. (68) : Tab. 24 (monotypical) ; Gryllus caerulescens Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) : 432 © (type.designated by Kirby, 1g1I0, Syn. Cat. Orthopt. 3 : 238) Gryllus siccifolius Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) : 425 (monotypical) Tarvaga obscuva Walker, 1869, Cat. Dermapt. Saltat. Brit. Mus. 1: 100 (monotypical) Proscopia gigantea Klug, 1820, Hor. phys. Berol. : 18 (type designated by Guérin, 1828, Dict. Class. Hist. nat. 14: 297) Gryllus stridulus Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) : 432 (monotypical) Locusta serrata Fabricius, 1793, Ent. syst. 23 43 (monotypical) Gryllus monstrosus Drury, 1773, Iij. nat. Hist. 2: index & 81 (monotypical) COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION I49. 157 Name of genus Type of genus (19) Sphingonothus Fieber, 1852, in Gryllus caerulans Linnaeus, 1767, Kelch, Grundl. Orth. Obersches.: Syst. Nat. (ed. 12) 1 (2) : 7or 2 (monotypical) (20) Stenopelmatus Burmeister, 1838, Stenopelmatus talpa Burmeister, Handb. Ent. 2 (2) (No. 1) : 720 1838, Handb. Ent. 2 (2) (No.1): 721 (type designated by Kirby, 1906, Syn. Cat. Orthopt. 23 111) (21) Tvidactylus Olivier, 1789, Ency. Tridactylus paradoxus Latreille, méth. 4 (Ins.) : 26 [1802-1803], (¢# Sonnini’s Buffon), Hist. nat. gén. partic. Crust. Ins. 3: 276 (monotypical) Ir. The decisions set out above were embodied in paragraph 24 of the report which at their meeting held on the morning of Wednesday, 18th September 1935, the Commission unanimously agreed (Lisbon Session, 5th Meeting, Conclusion 6) to submit to the Twelfth International Congress of Zoology. That report was unanimously approved by the Section on Nomenclature at its joint meeting with the International Commission held on the afternoon of the same day. It was thereupon submitted to the Twelfth International Congress of Zoology by which it was unanimously approved and adopted at the Concilium Plenum held on the afternoon of Saturday, 21st September 1935, the last day of the Congress. 12. The Ofinion as set out in paragraph 10 above was concurred in by the twelve (12) Commissioners and Alternates present at the Lisbon Session of the International Commission, namely :— Commissioners :—Calman; Hemming; Jordan; Pellegrin; Peters; and Stejneger. _ Alternates :—do Amaral vice Cabrera; Ohshima vwice Esaki; Bradley vice Stone; Beier vice Handlirsch; Arndt vwice Richter; and Mortensen vice Apstein. 13. The present Opinion was dissented from by no Commissioner ‘or Alternate present at the Lisbon Session. Nor since that Session has any Commissioner who was not present on that occasion indicated disagreement with the conclusions then reached by the Commission in this matter. 14. The following five (5) Commissioners who were neither present at the Lisbon Session of the International Commission nor represented thereat by Alternates did not vote on the present Opinion :— Bolivar y Pieltain; Chapman; Fantham; Silvestri; and Stiles. 158 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL IV._AUTHORITY FOR THE ISSUE OF THE PRESENT OPINION. is WHEREAS the By-Laws of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature provide that, except in cases involving the suspension of the rules, an Opznion is to be deemed to have been adopted by the'said International Commission as soon as a majority of the Members of the Commission, that is to say ten (10) Members of the said Commission, have recorded their votes in favour thereof, provided that, where any proposed Ofinion involves a reversal of any former Opinion rendered by the Commission, such proposed Opinion shall obtain the concurrence of at least fourteen (14) Members of the Commission voting on the same before such Opinion is to be deemed to have been adopted by the Commission ; and WHEREAS the present Opinion, as set out in the summary thereof, neither requires, in order to be valid, the suspension of the rules, nor involves a reversal of any former Opinion rendered by the Commission; and WHEREAS twelve (12) Members of the Commission have signified their concurrence inthe present Ofimzon either in person or through Alternates at the Session of the Commission held in Lisbon in September 1935; Now, THEREFORE, I, FRANCIS HEMMING, Secretary to the International Com- mission on Zoological Nomenclature, acting in virtue of all and every the powers conferred upon me by reason of holding the said Office of Secretary to the International Commission, hereby announce the said Ofinion on behalf of the International Com- mission, acting for the International Congress of Zoology, and direct that it be rendered and printed as Ofimion Number One Hundred and Forty Nine (Opfimion 149) of the said Commission. In faith whereof, I, the undersigned FRANCIS HEMMING, Secre- tary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, have signed the present Opinion. DonE in London, this fifteenth day of March, Nineteen Hundred and Forty Three, in a single copy, which shall remain deposited in the archives of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. , Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. FRANCIS HEMMING _ COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE, OPINION 149. 159 THE PUBLICATIONS OF THE COMMISSION. (obtainable at the Publications Office of the Commission at 41, Queen’s Gate, London, 5.W.7.) Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. This journal has been established by the International Com- mission as their Official Organ in order to provide a medium for the publicatiofi of :— (a) proposals on zoological nomenclature submitted to the Commission for deliberation and decision ; (b) comments received from, and correspondence by the Secre- _ tary with, zoologists on proposals published in the Bulletin under (a) above: and (c) papers on nomenclatorial implications of developments in taxonomic theory and practice. Three Parts have so far been published: Part 1 (introductory, including an account of the functions and powers of the Com- mission and a summary of the work so far achieved); Part 2 (relating to the financial position of the Commission); Part 3 (containing the official records of the decisions taken by the Commission at their meeting at Lisbon in 1935). Opinions and Declarations Rendered by the International Com- mission on Zoological Nomenclature. Volume 1 will contain Declarations 1-g. (which have never previously been published) and Opinions 1-133 (the original issue of which is now out of print). Parts 1-8 (containing Declarations _ 1-8) have now been published. Volume 2 commences with Declaration 10 and Opinion 134. Parts I-17 (containing Opinions 134-150) have so far been pub- lished. The titles of these Opinions are given on the wrappers to Parts 1 and 2 of the Bulletin. Other Parts will be published shortly. I60 INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. AN URGENT APPEAL FOR A FUND OF £1800 TO ENABLE THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION TO CONTINUE ITS WORK The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature urgently appeal for grants to the above Fund to Museums, Researeh Institutes and other Institutions concerned with any branch of zoology ; to Learned Societies and Associations concerned with any aspect of zoology ; to Institutions and Learned Societies in the fields of Agriculture, Horticulture, Medicine and Veterinary Science, all of whom have a direct interest in that portion of the work of the Commission which is concerned with the stabilisa- tion of Zoological Nomenclature ; to University and other Depart- ments engaged in the teaching of zoology as being directly interested to secure stability in the scientific nomenclature used in biological text-books ; and to every individual zoologist who may be in a position to contribute to the funds of the Commission. Full particulars of the purposes for which the above Fund is required are given in Part 2 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. Contributions of any amount, however small, will be most gratefully received. They should be addressed to the Commission at their Publications Office, 44, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7. Bankers’ drafts, cheques, and Postal Orders, should be made payable to the ‘‘ International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature °’ and crossed ‘‘ Account payee. Coutts & Co.’’. PRINTED IN GREAT BRITAIN BY RICHARD CLAY AND ComPANY, LTD., BuUNGAY, SUFFOLK. eee Oe ae OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTER- NATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Edited by f FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E. Secretary to the Commission VOLUME 2. Part 17. Pp. 161-168. OPINION 150 On the dates of publication of the several portions of Hiibner (J.), Verzeichniss bekannter Schmettlinge [sic], 1816—-[1826] LONDON : Printed by Order of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature Sold at the Publications Office of the Commission 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7 1943 _Price two shillings and sixpence (All rights reserved) Issued 9th December, 1943 INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE COMPOSITION OF THE COMMISSION The Officers of the Commission President: Dr. Karl Jordan, Ph.D., F.R.S. (United Kingdom). Secretary : Mr. Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. (United Kingdom). Assistant Secretary: Dr. James L. Peters (U.S.A.). The Members of the Commission Class 1943 “Senor Dr. Afranio do AMARAL (Brazil). Professor Lodovico di CAPORIACCO (Italy). Professor J. R. DYMOND (Canada). Dr. James L. PETERS (U.5.A.) (Assistant Secretary to the Commission). Dr. Leonhard STEJNEGER (U.5.A.). (vacant).* Class 1946 Herr Professor Dr. Walter ARNDT (Germany). Dr. William Thomas CALMAN (United Kingdom). Professor Teiso ESAKI (Japan). Professor Béla von HANKO (Hungary). Dr. Tadeusz JACZEWSKI (Poland). (vacant).f Class 1949 Senor Dr. Angel CABRERA (Argentina). Dr. Frederick CHAPMAN (Australia). Mr. Francis HEMMING (United Kingdom) (Secretary to the Cone Dr. Karl JORDAN (United Kingdom) (President of the Commission). - Monsieur le Docteur Jacques PELLEGRIN (France). Herr Professor Dr. Rudolf RICHTER (Germany). Secretariat of the Commission : British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London, S.W. 7. Publications Office of the Commission : 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W. 7. Personal address of the Secretary : 83, Fellows Road (Garden Flat), London, N.W. 3. * This vacancy was caused by the death on 23rd May, 1939, of Dr. Witmer STONE (U.S.A.). + This vacancy was caused by the death on 24th January, 1941, of Dr. Charles Wardell STILES (U.S.A.), Vice-President of the Commission and former Secretary to the Commission (1897-1935). | y OPINION 150. ON THE DATES OF PUBLICATION OF THE SEVERAL POR- TIONS OF HUBNER (J.), VERZEICHNISS BEKANNTER SCHMETTLINGE [sic], 1816—[1826].* SUMMARY.—The dates of publication of Jacob Htibner’s Verzeichniss bekannter Schmettlinge [sic| should be determined in the light of the evidence made available as the result of the dis- covery of Hiibner’s manuscripts. The conclusions to be drawn from that evidence are summarised in paragraph 8 of the present Opinion. I—THE STATEMENT OF THE CASE. _ This question was raised by the International Committee on Entomological Nomenclature at its meeting held in Paris in 1932. At this meeting the International Committee adopted the follow- ing resolution :— Les dates de Hiibner, Verzeichniss Les Citations dans le Verzeichniss de quelques planches des Zutrage ne prouvent pas que ces pages du Verzeichniss aient été publiées postérieure- ment aux planches citées. 2. This resolution was submitted by the International Com- mittee on Entomological Nomenclature to Section VIII (Section on Nomenclature) of the Fifth International Congress of En- ‘tomology, by whom it was unanimously approved. Finally, this resolution was adopted by the Fifth International Congress of Entomology in Concilium Plenum on the presentation of the Report of the Secretary of the Executive Committee of the Congress. IJ—THE CONCLUSION REACHED BY THE INTERNA- TIONAL COMMISSION. 3. This subject was considered by the International Com- mission on Zoological Nomenclature at the second meeting of their Session held at Lisbon in September 1935 during the meeting of the Twelfth International Congress of Zoology. At this * Dates such as this which are ascertainable only from external sources are cited in square brackets. 164 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL meeting, which was held on the morning of Monday, 16th Sep- tember 1935, the International Commission (Lisbon Session, 2nd Meeting, Conclusion 11) :— (a) took note that since the adoption by the International Committee on Entomological Nomenclature of the Resolution referred to above,? the’ surviving manuscripts of Jacob Hubner had been discovered and that it was likely that these manuscripts, which were now being examined by Commissioner Hemming, would throw important fresh light on the problem of the dates of publication of this,* and other, works published by Jacob Hiibner ; (b) agreed that, in view of (a) above, the question of the dates of publica- tion of Hiibner’s Verzeichniss bekannter Schmettlinge [sic] was one which should be determined in the light of the evidence made available as the result of the discovery of Htibner’s manuscripts and that in conse- quence no action should be taken on the resolution on this subject adopted by the International Committee on Entomological Nomen- clature ; (c) agreed to render an Opinion in the sense of (b) above. 4. At their meeting held at Lisbon on the morning of Tuesday, 17th September 1935 (Lisbon Session, 4th Meeting, Conclusion 17), Commissioner Francis Hemming, who, in the absence through ill-health of Dr. C. W. Stiles, Secretary to the Commission, had been charged with the duty of preparing the report to be sub- mitted by the Commission to the Twelfth International Congress of Zoology, reported that, in accordance with the request made by the Commission on the previous day (Lisbon Session, 3rd Meeting, Conclusion 3(b)) he had made a start with the drafting of the Commission’s report ; that he had made considerable progress in spite of being hampered by the lack of standard works of reference ; and that he did not doubt that he would be in a position to lay a draft report before the Commission at their next meeting, though in the time available it would be quite impracticable to prepare the drafts of paragraphs relating to all the matters on which decisions had been reached during the Lisbon Session of the Commission. As agreed upon at the meeting referred to above (Lisbon Session, 3rd Meeting, Conclusion 3(a)(ii1)), he was there- fore concentrating upon those matters that appeared to be the more important. Commissioner Hemming proposed that those matters which it was found impossible to include in the report, owing to the shortness of the time available, should be dealt with after the Congress on the basis of the records in the Official Record of the Proceedings of the Commission during their Lisbon Session. * The resolution in question is that quoted in paragraph 1 of the present Opinion. % The work here referred to is the Verzeichniss bekannter Schmettlinge. COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION I50. 165 For this purpose, Commissioner Hemming proposed that all matters unanimously agreed upon during the Lisbon Session should be treated in the same manner, whether or not it was found possible to include references to them in the report to be sub- mitted to the Congress, and therefore that every such decision should be treated as having been participated in by all the Com- missioners and Alternates present at Lisbon. The Commission took note of, and approved, the statement by Commissioner Hemming, and adopted the proposals submitted by him, as recorded above, in regard both to the selection of items to be included in their report to the Twelfth International Congress of Zoology and to the procedure to be adopted after the Congress in regard to those matters with which, for the reasons explained, it was found impossible to deal in the report. 5. [he question dealt with in the present Opinion was one of the matters to which it was found impossible, in the time avail- able, to include a reference in the report submitted by the Com- mission to the Twelfth International Congress of Zoology at Lisbon. It is therefore one of the matters which falls to be dealt with under the procedure agreed upon by the Commission as set out in paragraph 4 above. 6. The present Opinion was concurred in by the twelve (12) Commissioners and Alternates present at the Lisbon Session of the International Commission, namely :—~ Commissioners :—Calman; Hemming; Jordan; Pellegrin; eves) ald) otejmegen: | Alternates :—do Amaral vice Cabrera; Ohshima vice Esaki; ibmadley, vce stone; Beier wce Handlirsch; Arndt vice Richter; and Mortensen vice Apstein. 7. The present Opinion was dissented from by no Commissioner or Alternate at the Lisbon Session. The following five (5) Com- missioners who were not present at Lisbon nor represented thereat by Alternates did not vote on the present Opinion :— Bolivar y Pieltain; Chapman; Fantham ; Silvestri; and Stiles. 8. The surviving manuscripts of Jacob Hitibner referred to in the Conclusion adopted by the Commission at Lisbon (quoted in full in paragraph 3 of the present Opinion) came into the posses- sion of the Royal Entomological Society of London in February 1935. A start was at once made by Commissioner Hemming in 166 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL examining the documents involved, in order to ascertain what fresh evidence they contained in regard to the dates of publication of Hiibner’s entomological works; but in view of the large number of documents involved it was not until the autumn of 1936 that this task was completed. The results of this investigation, together with particulars of evidence on this subject drawn from all other available sources, were set out by Commissioner Hemming in a work entitled Hiibner published by the Royal Entomological Society in February 1937. The evidence relating to the dates of publication of the several portions of Hiibner’s Verzeschmiss bekannter Schmettlinge [sic], together with an analysis of the conclusions to be drawn therefrom, is given in Part 2, Chapter II, of that work (Hiibnery 1: 488-517). The final conclusions there reached are as follows :— The dates of publication of Hiibner (J.), Verzeichniss bekannter Schmettlinge [sic], 1816-[1826] Date of publication Signature Pages Species nos. Verzeichniss I [x ]-—[3]-4-16 I-96 1816 2-8 17-128 97-1379 [1819] Q-II 129-176 1380-1822 [1819] 12-13 177-208 1823-2084 [1820] 14-15 209-240 2085-2388 [1821] 16 241-256 23890-2531 [1821] 17-19 257-304 2532-2936 [1823] 20-27 305-431 2937-4198 [1825] Anzeiger I-9 I-72 = [1826] Ii]. AUTHORITY FOR THE ISSUE OF THE PRESEN OPINION. WHEREAS the By-Laws of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature provide that, except in cases involving the suspension of the rules, an Opinion is to be deemed to have been adopted by the said International Commission as soon as a majority of the Members of the Commission, that is to say ten (10) Members of the said Commission, have recorded their votes in favour thereof, provided that, where any proposed Opinion involves a reversal of any former Opinion rendered by the Com- mission, such proposed Opinion shall obtain the concurrence of at least fourteen (14) Members of the Commission voting on the same COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION I50. 167 before such Opinion is to be deemed to have been adopted by the Commission; and WHEREAS the present Opinion, as set out in the summary thereof, neither requires, in order to be valid, the suspension of the rules, nor involves a reversal of any former Opinion rendered by the Commission; and WHEREAS twelve (12) Members of the Commission have signi- fied their concurrence in the present Opinion either in person or through Alternates at the Session of the Commission held in Lisbon in September 1935: Now, THEREFORE, I, FRANCIS HEMMING, Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, acting in virtue of all and every the powers conferred upon me by reason of holding the said Office of Secretary to the International Commission, hereby announce the said Opinion on behalf of the International Commission, acting for the International Congress of Zoology, and direct that it be rendered and printed as Opinion Number One Hundred and Fifty (Opinion 150) of the said Commission. In faith whereof I, the undersigned FRANCIS HEMMING, Secre- tary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, have signed the present Opinion. Done in London, this sixteenth day of March, Nineteen Hundred and Forty Three, in a single copy, which shall remain deposited in the archives of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. FRANCIS HEMMING 168 INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. THE PUBLICATIONS OF THE COMMISSION. (obtainable at the Publications Office of the Commission at 41, Queen’s ~ Gate, London, S.W.7.) Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature This journal has been established by the International Commission as their Official Organ in order to provide a medium for the publication of :— (a) proposals on zoological nomenclature submitted to the Commission for deliberation and decision ; (b) comments received from, and correspondence by the Secretary with, zoologists on proposals published in the Bulletin under (a) above : and (c) papers on nomenclatorial implications of developments in taxonomic theory and practice. Parts 1-3 of Volume 1 have so far been published. ~ Opinions and Declarations Rendered by the International Com- mission on Zoological Nomenclature. Parts 1-8 of Volume 1 (containing Declavations 1-8) have so far been published. Parts 1-17 of Volume 2 (containing Opinions 134-150) have so far been published. Additional Parts of both Volumes will be published shortly. AN URGENT APPEAL FOR A FUND OF £1800 TO ENABLE THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION TO CONTINUE ITS WORK The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature urgently appeal for grants to the above Fund to Museums, Research Institutes and other Institutions concerned with any branch of zoology ; to Learned Societies and Associations concerned with any aspect of zoology ; to Institutions and Learned Societies in the fields of Agriculture, Horticulture, Medicine and Veterinary Seience, all of whom have a direct interest in that portion of the work of the Commission which is concerned with the stabilisa- tion of Zoological Nomenclature ; to University and other Depart- ments engaged in the teaching of zoology as being directly interested to secure stability in the scientific nomenclature used in biological text-books ; and to every individual zoologist who may be in a position to contribute to the funds of the Commission. Full particulars of the purposes for which the above Fund is required are given in Part 2 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. Contributions of any amount, however small, will be most gratefully received. They should be addressed to the Commission at their Publications Office, 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7. Bankers’ drafts, cheques, and Postal Orders, should be made payable to the ‘‘ International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature ’’ and crossed ‘‘ Account payee. Coutts & Co.’’. [Printed by Richard Clay and Company, Lid., Bungay, Suffolk. OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTER- NATIONAL COMMISSION ON LOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Edited by FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E. Secretary to the Commission VOLUME 2. Part 20. Pp. 169-180. OPINION 151 On the status of the names Lasius Panzer, [1801-1802], Podalirius Latreille, 1802, Lasius Fabricius, [1804-1805], and Anthophora Latreille, 1803 (Class Insecta, Order Hymenoptera) LONDON: . Printed by Order of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature Sold at the Publications Office of the Commission 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7 1944 Price three shillings (All rights reserved) ae es ee a | Issued 24th May, 1944 INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE COMPOSITION OF THE COMMISSION The Officers of the Commission President: Dr. Karl Jordan, Ph.D., F.R.S. (United Kingdom). Secretary : Mr. Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. (United Kingdom). Assistant Secretary : Dr. James L. Peters (U.S.A.). The Members of the Commission Class 1946 Herr Professor Dr. Walter ARNDT (Germany). Dr. William Thomas CALMAN (United Kingdom). Professor Teiso ESAKI (Japan). Professor Béla von HANKO (Hungary). Dr. Tadeusz JACZEWSKI (Poland). (vacant) .* Class 1949 Senor Dr. Angel CABRERA (Argentina). Dr. Frederick CHAPMAN (Australia). Mr. Francis HEMMING (United Kingdom) (Secretary to the Commission). Dr. Karl JORDAN (United Kingdom) (President of the Commission). Monsieur le Docteur Jacques PELLEGRIN (France). Herr Professor Dr. Rudolf RICHTER (Germany). Class 1952 Senor Dr. Afranio do AMARAL (Brazil). Professor James Chester BRADLEY (U.S.A.). Professor Lodovico di CAPORIACCO (Italy). Professor J. R. DYMOND (Canada). sot Dr. James L. PETERS (U.S.A.) (Assistant Secretary to the Commission). Dr. Harold E. VOKES (U.S.A.). Secretariat of the Commission : British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London, S.W. 7. Publications Office of the Commission : 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W. 7. Personal address of the Secretary : 83, Fellows Road (Garden Flat), London, N.W. 3. * This vacancy was caused by the death on 24th January, 1941, of Dr. Charles Wardell STILES (U.S.A.), Vice-President of the Commission and former Secretary to the Commission (1897-1935). ~~ tions MLS EL HA ———<——<——— enna eeenns viel ‘AN OPINION 151. sd ON THE STATUS OF THE NAMES LASIUS PANZER, [1801- 1802], PODALIRIUS LATREILLE, 1802, LASTUS FABRICIUS, [1804-1805], AND ANTHOPHORA LATREILLE, 1893 (CLASS INSECTA, ORDER HYMENOPTERA). SUMMARY.—Under suspension of the rules (i) the name Lasius Panzer, [1801-1802], and (ii) the name Podalirius Latreille, 1802 (Class Inseeta, Order Hymenoptera) are suppressed ; (iii) all existing type designations for Lasius Fabricius, [1804-1805], and Anthophora Latreille, 1803, are set aside; (iv) Formica nigra Linnaeus, 1758, is hereby designated as the type of Lasius Fabricius; and (v) Apis pilipes Fabricius, 1775, is hereby designated as the type of Anthophora Latreille. The names Lasius Fabricius and Antho- phora Latreille (Class Insecta, Order Hymenoptera), with the types indicated above, are hereby added to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology as Names Nos. 594 and 595. I.— THE STATEMENT OF THE CASE. As the result of consultations initiated by Professor James Chester Bradley with the leading systematic workers in the Hymenoptera in all countries, the following petition signed by Professor Chester Bradley and 59 other hymenopterists was sub- mitted to the International Commission :— The case of Lasius, Podahirius and Anthophora Lasius Fabricius 1804 ! applies to a genus of ants. Latreille in 1809 sank it as a synonym of Formica. Mayr in 1861 revived Lasius Fabr. and designated Formica nigra L.as type. The name has since been universally used for the very common genus of ants for which it was proposed. But Jurine, 1801 (Panzer: Erlangen List) had established a Lasius for a genus of bees (type: Apis quadrimaculata Panzer, a well-known European bee). Until Morice and Durrant, 1914, called attention to it, this prior use of Lasius had escaped the attention of all subsequent writers, who, as pointed out by Morice and Durrant, if they recognised it at all, ascribed it to Jurine, 1807, and hence later than the synonyms Podalirius and Anthophora. Podalirius was established by Latreille (1802). Latreille proposed Anthophora as a substitute name for Podalivius on the ground that the 1 The correct date of Fabricius’s Systema Piezatorum is [1804-1805], not 1804, as here stated. See Griffin, 1935, im Richards, Trans. R. ent. Soc. Lond. 88: 144. * I72 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL latter was preoccupied in plants. Therefore when in 1810 he made pilipes type of Podalirius, it became, ipso facto, type of Anthophora. Since 1803 authors have universally used Anthophora, have made it type of the sub- family ANTHOPHORINAE and of the family ANTHOPHORIDAE; except that Dalla Torre in his Catalogus Hymenopterorum quite correctly restored Podalivius and changed the subfamily to PODALIRINAE. Nevertheless subsequent writers on bees have mostly continued to use Anthophora and ANTHOPHORIDAE. In view of the above facts, of the extreme confusion that would be caused by the substitution of the name of a well-known genus of ants for that ofa large and common genus of bees, with its dependent subfamily and family ; and in further view of the lesser confusion that would be caused by having to adopt Podalirius for Anthophora, the undersigned respectfully request the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to take the follow- . ing action, to wit: (1) to suspend the rules in the cases of the genera Lasius Jurine, Lasius Fabricius, Podalirius Latreille, and Anthophora Latreille ; (2) to permanently reject Lasius Jurine (or Panzer) 1801, type Apis quadrimaculata; and Podalirius Latreille, 1803, type Apis pilipes Fabr. ; (3) to validate Anthophora Latreille, 1803, type Apis pilipes Fabr., and Lasius Fabricius, 1804, type Formica nigra L. ; (4) to place on the Official List of Generic Names Anthophora Latr., 1803, type Apis pilipes Fabr., for the genus of bees commonly known by that name, and Lasius Fabr., 1804, type Formica nigra L., for the genus of FoRMICIDAE commonly known by that name. 2. The following is the list of signatures attached to the above petition at the time of its submission to the International Commission :— H. von Thering { A. C. "W. Wagner A. von Schulthess Rk. B. Benson * C. T. Brues R. Benoist * H. Haupt Jos. Bequaert je Aliken H. Brauns ¢ G. Grandi A. Krausse L. Berland A. B. Gahan * M. Wolff A. A. Oglobin ie Erison = J. G. Betrem O. W. Richards A, Ro Park R. Fouts P. P. Baby, H. H. Ross * G,. Arnold Vi, SOL. Pate J. M. Dusmet A. Handlirsch J. C. Bradley OW eViG Wy Weeler = I. Micha G. Enderlein G, F, Lyle H. Hacker T. Uchida + R. A. Cushman * A. C, Kinsey * O. Vogt Tf E, A. Elliott H. de W. Marriott H. Habermehl + A. Crevecoeur F. Maidl E. Kruger + W. M. Mann PP; kKoth W. Hellen + R. Friese E. Enslin F. X. Williams f O. Schmiedeknecht + N, N.. Kuznezoy- H. Hedicke H. F. Schwarz Ugamtsky + ‘H.. Bischoff... W. V. Balouf * hE aes -L. Masi D. S. Wilkinson * L. A Weld = * In accord with results sought by the petition without having studied the points involved in the particular case. . + Evidently intended to subscribe to this petition, but sheet bearing his signature was not included in his reply. { Deceased. COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION I5I. 173 fi—_THE SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF THE CASE. 3. This case was circulated to the members of the International Commission in January 1935, when it was arranged that it and — the other Hymenoptera cases submitted at the same time should be dealt with at the meeting of the Commission due to be held at Lisbon in September of that year, by which time the recom- mendations of the International Committee on Entomological Nomenclature would be available. 4. This case was considered by the International Committee on Entomological Nomenclature at its meeting held at Madrid in the second week of September 1935 during the Sixth International Congress of Entomology. After careful consideration the Com- mittee decided to frame its recommendations to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, first on the assumption that the Commission would agree to use their plenary powers to -suppress the “ Erlangen List ’’ in which the name Lastus Jurine, 1801, was published, and second on the assumption that the Commission would not be able to see their way to deal with the problem in this radical fashion. If the first of these courses were taken by the International Commission, there would be no need to suspend the rules for the purpose of eliminating the name Lasius Jurine, 1801, since that name would cease to be available nomenclatorially immediately the ‘‘Erlangen List ’’ was suppressed. It would still be necessary, however, for the International Com- mission to use their plenary powers in order to achieve the object indicated in the petition. The International Committee ac- cordingly recommended that, if the ‘“‘ Erlangen List’’ were not suppressed, the whole of the petition should be granted; .and that, if the ‘‘ Erlangen List ”’ were suppressed, the petition, less the portion relating to Lasius Jurine, 1801, should be granted. 5. These and other resolutions adopted by the International Committee at its meeting held at Madrid were subsequently confirmed by the Sixth International Congress of Entomology at the Concilium Plenum held at Madrid on 12th September 1935. IIIl.—THE CONCLUSION REACHED BY THE INTERNA- TIONAL COMMISSION. 6. When the International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature met at Lisbon immediately after the close of the Sixth International Congress of Entomology in September 1935, they 174 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL found themselves confronted with a large number of cases involv- ing proposals for the suspension of the rules, in respect of some of which advertisements had not been published or, if published, had not been published for the prescribed period, owing to the illness of Dr. C. W. Stiles, Secretary to the Commission, or for other causes. In these circumstances the Commission decided at their meeting held on the morning of Monday, 16th September 1935 (Lisbon Session, 2nd Meeting, Conclusion 9), that immediate consideration should be given to all cases submitted to the Com- mission that, in their judgment, had reached the stage at which a decision could properly be taken; that the By-Laws of the Com- mission should be suspended during the Lisbon Session to such extent as might be necessary to give effect to this decision; and that, in so far as this procedure involved taking decisions “‘ under suspension of the rules ’’ in cases where the prescribed advertise- ment procedure had not been complied with, the cases in question should be duly advertised as soon as might be practicable after the conclusion of the Lisbon Congress and that no Opinion should be rendered and published thereon until after the expiry of a period of one year from the date on which the said advertisement was despatched to the prescribed journals for publication. The case of the names Lasius Panzer, [1801-1802], Podalirius Latreille, 1802, Lasius Fabricius, [1804-1805], and Anthophora Latreille, 1803, was among the cases in question and was accordingly dealt with by the Commission under the above procedure. 7. At their meeting held at Lisbon on the morning of Monday, 16th September 1935 (Lisbon Session, 2nd Meeting, Conclusion 13), the International Commission unanimously agreed to use the plenary powers conferred upon them by the Ninth International Congress of Zoology at Monaco in Ig13, in order to suppress the “Erlangen List ’’.2 When, therefore, at their meeting held on the afternoon of the same day (Lisbon Session, 3rd Meeting, Con- clusion 2) the Commission came to consider the present case, they found that there was no need to make use of their plenary powers so far as the name Lasius Jurine, 1801, was concerned, since that name had ceased to be available on the suppression of the ‘Erlangen List”’. The Commission proceeded therefore to consider this case in the light of the recommendations framed by the International Committee on Entomological Nomenclature in anticipation of the decision that the ‘‘ Erlangen List ’’ should be suppressed. 2 See Opinion 135. COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION I5I. 175 _8.- After careful consideration, the International Commission decided to adopt the recommendations submitted in this case by the International Committee on Entomological Nomenclature, and accordingly agreed 3__ es 3 OOM Kel OO Y!@ (b) under “‘ suspension of the rules ’’ permanently to reject the following generic names :— | af mets py Sienna (8) Lasius Panzer, [1801-1802],4 Faun. Ins. germ. (86) : Tab. 16 (9) Podalirius Latreille, 1802, Hist. nat. Fourmis : 430 (c) under “ suspension of the rules’ to set aside all type designations for the undermentioned genera and to declare their types to be the species indicated below :— Name of genus Type of genus (21) Lasius Fabricius, [1804-1805],5 Formica mgva Linnaeus, 1758, Syst, Piezat. : 415 Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) : 580 (22) Anthophova Latreille, 1803, Apis pilipes Fabricius, 1775, Syst. Nouv. Dict. Hist. nat. 18: 167 Ent. : 383 (d) under ‘“‘ suspension of the rules”’ to place on the Official List of Generic Names the sixteen generic names enumerated in (c) above (names (19) to (34)), each with the type species there indicated ; (e) to render Opinions in the sense of (a) to (d) above. g. The foregoing decisions were embodied in paragraph 27 of the report which at their meeting held on the morning of Wednes- day, 18th September 1935, the Commission (Lisbon Session, 5th Meeting, Conclusion 6) unanimously agreed to submit to the Twelfth International Congress of Zoology. That report was unanimously approved by the Section on Nomenclature at its, joint meeting with the International Commission held on the afternoon of the same day. It was thereupon submitted to the Twelfth International Congress of Zoology by which it was unanimously approved and adopted at the Concilium Plenum held on the afternoon of Saturday, 21st September 1935, the last day of the Congress. 10. In accordance with the decision taken by the Commission 3 Only those portions of Conclusion 2 which relate to the present case are here quoted. For the full text of this Conclusion, see 1943, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 1: 27-30. * The date of Lasius Panzer was inadvertently given in the Lisbon report as 1804. The correct date for Heft 86 of Panzer’s Faun. Ins. geym., in which this name was first published, is [1801-1802]. Dates assigned to names published in this work should be cited in square brackets, since the -Hefte in which it was published are undated and their dates of publication can only be ascertained from outside sources. > See footnote 1. : 3 176 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL at Lisbon in regard to their procedure at that Session (paragraph 6 above), this case was duly advertised in 1936 in two or more of the journals named in the Resolution adopted by the Ninth International Congress of Zoology at its meeting held at Monaco in March 1913, by which the said International Congress conferred - upon the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature plenary power to suspend the rules as applied to any given case where, in the judgment of the Commission, the strict application of the rules would clearly result in greater confusion than uni- formity.6 In the period that has elapsed since the advertisement in the said journals of the proposed suspension of the rules in the case of the names specified in paragraph 8 above, no communi- cation of any kind has been received by the International Com- — mission objecting to the issue of an Opinion in the terms proposed. 11. The present Opinion was concurred in by the twelve (12) Commissioners and Alternates present at the Lisbon Session of the International Commission, namely :— Commissioners :—Calman; Hemming; Jordan; Pellegrin; Peters; and Stejneger. Alternates :—do Amaral vice Cabrera; Ohshima vice Esaki; Bradley vice Stone; Beier vice Handlirsch; Arndt vice Richter; and Mortensen vice Apstein. 12. The present Opinion was dissented from by no Commissioner or Alternate present at the Lisbon Session. Nor since that Session has any Commissioner who was neither present on that occasion nor represented thereat by an Alternate indicated dis- agreement with the conclusions then reached by the Commission in this matter. The following five (5) Commissioners who were not present at Lisbon nor Fpieconced thereat by Alternates did not vote on the present Opinion :— Bolivar y Pieltain; Chapman; Fantham ; Silvestri. and Stiles. - [V.—AUTHORITY FOR THE ISSUE OR iris PRESENT OPINION. WuerEAS the Ninth International Congress of Zoology at its’ meeting held at Monaco in March 1913, adopted a Resolution conferring upon the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, acting for the International Congress of Zoology, plenary power to suspend the rules as applied to any given case, where, in the judgment of the Commission, the strict eee CS 6 See Declaration 5. COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION I51. 177 of the said rules would clearly result in greater confusion than uniformity, provided that not less than one year’s notice of the possible suspension of the rules as applied to the said case should be given in two or more of five journals named in the said Resolu- tion, and provided that the vote in the Commission was unani-_ mously in favour of the proposed suspension of the rules; and WHEREAS the suspension of the rules is required to give valid force to the provisions of the present Opinion as set out in the summary thereof; and WHEREAS not less than one year’s notice of the possible sus- pension of the rules as applied to the present case has been given to two or more of the journals referred to in the Resolution adopted by the Ninth International Congress of Zoology at its meeting held at Monaco in March 1913; and WHEREAS the vote in the Commission at their Lisbon Session was unanimously in favour of the issue of an Opinion in the terms of the present Opinion : Now, THEREFORE, I, FRANCIS HEMMING, Secretary to the International Com- mission on Zoological Nomenclature, acting in virtue of all and every the powers conferred upon me in that behalf by reason of holding the said Office of Secretary to the International Com- mission, hereby announce the said Opinion on behalf of the International Commission, acting for the International Congress of Zoology, and direct that it be rendered and printed as Opinion Number One Hundred and Fifty One (Opinion 151) of the said Commission. In faith whereof, I, the undersigned FRANCIS HEMMING, Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature, have signed the present Opinion. Done in London, this sixth day of April, Nineteen Hundred and Forty Three, in a single copy, which shall remain deposited in the archives of the International Commission on Zoological Nomen- eigpure. | Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. FRANCIS HEMMING 178 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL THE PUBLICATIONS OF THE COMMISSION. (obtainable at the Publications Office of the Commission at 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7.) Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. This journal has been established by the International Com- mission as their Official Organ in order to provide a medium for the publication of :— (a) proposals on zoological nomenclature submitted to the Commission for deliberation and decision ; (b) comments received from, and correspondence by the Secre- tary with, zoologists on proposals published in the Bulletin under (a) above: and (c) papers on nomenclatorial implications of developments in taxonomic theory and practice. Three Parts have so far been published: Part 1 (introductory, including an account of the functions and powers of the Com- mission and a summary of the work so far achieved): 9 eatgas2 (relating to the financial position of the Commission); Part 3 (containing the official records of the decisions taken by the Commission at their meeting at Lisbon in 1935). Opinions and Declarations Rendered by the International Com- mission on Zoological Nomenclature. Volume 1 will contain Declarations 1-9 (which have never previously been published) and Opinions 1-133 (the original issue of which is now out of print). Parts 1-9 (containing Declarations I—g) have now been published. Volume 2 commences with Declaration 10 and Opinion 134. Parts I-21 (containing Declarations 10 and 11 and Opinions 134- 152) have so far been published. The titles of these Opinions are given on the wrappers to Parts 1 and 2 of the Bulletin. Other Parts will be published shortly. — ee COMMISSION ON a eh ie NOMENCLATURE. OPINION I5I. 179 AN URGENT APPEAL FOR A FUND OF £1800 TO ENABLE THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION TO CONTINUE ITS WORK The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature urgently appeal for grants to the above Fund to Museums, Research Institutes and other Institutions concerned with any branch of zoology ; to Learned Societies and Associations coneerned with any aspect of zoology ; to Institutions and Learned Societies in the fields of Agriculture, Horticulture, Medicine and Veterinary Science, all of whom have a direct interest in that portion of the work of the Commission which is concerned with the stabilisa- tion of Zoological Nomenelature ; to University and other Depart- ments engaged in the teaching of zoology as being directly interested to secure stability in the scientific nomenclature used in biological text-books ; and to every individual zoologist who may be in a position to contribute to the funds of the Commission. Full particulars of the purpose for which the above Fund is required are given in Part 2 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. Contributions of any amount, however small, will be most gratefully received. They should be addressed to the Commission at their Publications Office, 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7. Bankers’ drafts, cheques, and Postal Orders, should be made - payable to the ‘* International Commission on Zoological Nomen- elature °’ and crossed ‘‘ Account payee. Coutts & Co.’’. ‘ ~ ‘ \ = A rc . = A . = ed , 2 e . i i ile) . . ~ 5 : E - - 3 f . 7 y Y +4 é Pie he th i - y ¢ = “J ‘ > a AS . , pata “3 3s 2 “ i 5 = s . } P > - ¥. y “ , t - = rs ' > ~ 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 2. Part 21. Pp. 181-196. OPINION 152 On the status of the generic names in the Order Diptera (Class Insecta) first published in 1800 by J. W. Meigen in his Nouvelle Classification des Mouches a deux ailes N LONDON: Printed by Order of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature Sold at the Publications Office of the Commission 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7 1944 Price four shillings (All rights reserved) Issued 24th May, 1944 INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE COMPOSITION OF THE COMMISSION The Officers of the Commission President : Dr. Karl Jordan, Ph.D., F.R.S. (United Kingdom). Secretary : Mr. Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. (United Kingdom). Assistant Secretary : Dr. James L. Peters (U.5.A.). The Members of the Commission Class 1946 Herr Professor Dr. Walter ARNDT (Germany). | Dr. William Thomas CALMAN (United Kingdom). Professor Teiso ESAKI (Japan). Professor Béla von HANKO (Hungary). Dr. Tadeusz JACZEWSKI (Poland). (vacant) .* Class 1949 Senor Dr. Angel CABRERA (Argentina). Dr. Frederick CHAPMAN (Australia). Mr. Francis HEMMING (United Kingdom) (Secretary to the Commission). Dr. Karl JORDAN (United Kingdom) (President of the Commission). Monsieur le Docteur Jacques PELLEGRIN (France). Herr Professor Dr. Rudolf RICHTER (Germany). Class 1952 Senor Dr. Afranio do AMARAL (Brazil). Professor James Chester BRADLEY (U.S.A.). Professor Lodovico di CAPORIACCO (Italy). Professor J. R. DYMOND (Canada). Dr. James L. PETERS (U.S.A.) (Assistant Secretary to the Commission). Dr. Harold E. VOKES (U.S.A.). Secretariat of the Commission : British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London, $.W. 7. Publications Office of the Commission : 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W. 7. Personal address of the Secretary : 83, Fellows Road (Garden Flat), London, N.W. 3. * This vacancy was caused by the death on 24th January, 1941, of Dr. — Charles Wardell STILES (U.S.A.), Vice-President of the Commission and former Secretary to the Commission (1897-1935). OPINION) 152. -ON THE STATUS OF THE GENERIC NAMES IN THE ORDER DIPTERA (CLASS INSECTA) FIRST PUBLISHED IN 1800 BY J. W. MEIGEN IN HIS NOUVELLE CLASSIFICATION DES MOUCHES A DEUX AILES. ‘SUMMARY.—The generic names in the Order Diptera (Class Insecta) first published in 1800 by J. W. Meigen in his Nouvelle Classification des Mouches a deux ailes are to be treated as having priority as from that date. Where, in the case of any given name first published in the above work, specialists in the group concerned are of the opinion that the strict application of the rules would clearly result in greater confusion than uniformity, the specialists in question should submit full particulars to the International Commission with such recommendations for the suspension of the rules in the case of that generic name as they may consider the most appropriate. Adin STATEMENT OF THE CASE. During the meeting of the Fifth International Congress of Entomology held in Paris in July 1932, the Section on Nomen- clature (Section VIII) constituted an ad hoc committee on nomen- clature for the duration of the Congress (Compte Rendu : 57). This committee, by a majority of 4 to 2, decided to recommend the adoption by Section VIII of the following resolution :— Meigen, Nouvelle Classification, 1800 Resolution: La Section VIII, étant d’opinion qu'il ¥. aurait maintenant plus de confusion a rejeter les noms génériques de la ‘‘ Nouvelle Classifica- tion ’’ de MEIGEN 1800 qu’a les retenir, mepomumanidle par conséquent ae ils soient définitivement adoptés. 2. This and other resolutions adopted by the ad hoc committee were subsequently adopted by Section VIII of the Congress (Compte Rendu: 57). At the close of the Congress, these resolu- tions were laid before the Congress at the final Concilium Plenum in the report presented by the Permanent Secretary to the Executive Committee of the Congress. The Congress was then asked to confirm or reject each resolution without discussion (Compte Rendu:57). In the published version of the Report of 184 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL the Permanent Secretary, an annotation (in heavy clarendon type) is added at the end of each resolution indicating the action taken in regard thereto under this procedure by the Concilium Plenum of the Congress. In the case of the resolution quoted in paragraph I above, the annotation so added (zb7d. : 58) reads : ‘““ Adopté par majorité contre dix voix.’’. Immediately below the last of the resolutions so adopted by the Paris Congress there appears the following note (1bid.: 58): ““ Toutes ces Résolutions doivent étre soumises au Comité international pour la Nomen- clature entomologique.”’ II.—_THE SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF THE CASE. 3. The first meeting after the Paris Congress of the International Committee on Entomological Nomenclature was held at Madrid in the second week of September 1935 during the meeting of the Sixth International Congress of Entomology. At this Session the International Committee were confronted with an exceptionally long agenda in view of the large number of cases that had been referred to them by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature with a request for a statement of their views in time for consideration by the International Commission at their Session arranged to open at Lisbon immediately after the close of the Madrid Congress. In these circumstances, the International Committee concentrated the bulk of the attention upon these cases, even though they recognised that by so doing they might ~ be unable to give detailed consideration to each of the resolutions adopted by the Paris Congress. As regards the resolution adopted at that Congress in regard to Meigen’s Nowvelle Classification, the International Committee took the view that the division of opinion among dipterists in regard to this work was such that it was impossible to find a solution that would be agreeable to all concerned; the most that the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature could hope to do would be to devise some arrangement which would provide a basis on which later a settlement could be framed. : ; 4. At their meeting held on Monday, 16th September 1935 (Lisbon Session, 2nd Meeting, Conclusion 8), the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature re-affirmed the view expressed in reports submitted by them to previous meetings of the International Congress of Zoology that great weight should be attached to recommendations submitted by groups of special- COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION I52. 185. ists such as the International Committee on Entomological Nomenclature and the corresponding body formed recently in the case of ornithology. The Commission felt bound, however, to reserve to themselves the right in all cases of deciding whether recommendations so submitted were in conformity with the principles of the Code and were within the powers granted to the Commission at successive meetings of the International Congress of Zoology. The Commission accordingly decided to guide themselves by these principles in their examination of the recom- mendations submitted by the Fifth International Congress of Entomology at their meeting held in Paris in 1932. Iit.—THE CONCLUSION REACHED BY THE INTER- NATIONAL COMMISSION. 5. The resolution in regard to Meigen’s Nouvelle Classification quoted in paragraph 1 above was considered by the International Commission’ at Lisbon at their meeting held on the morning of Monday, 16th September 1935. In the course of the discussion of the problems involved, attention was drawn to the following considerations :— (i) fhe present was the second occasion on which the Com- mission had been asked to render an Ofznion on Meigen’s Nouvelle Classification. The first was in 1909 when Pro- fessor J. M. Aldrich had asked for a decision on the validity of the generic names published in this work and, in doing so, -had expressed the view that “‘ nothing in recent years has threatened the nomenclature of Diptera with such an over- turning as the position taken by three European entomolo- gists in recognizing this paper as a valid nomenclatural contribution.” (11) At the time that Professor Aldrich submitted this case, the only power of the Commission was to render Opinions on questions involving—directly or indirectly—the interpreta- tion of the Code, as it was not until four years later that (in 1913) the Ninth International Congress of Zoology at their Monaco meeting had conferred upon the Commission plenary powers to suspend the rules as applied to any given case, where, in the judgment of the Commission, the strict appli- cation of the rules would clearly result in greater confusion 1 See Declaration to, 186 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL (iii) than uniformity. Thus, at the time of the receipt of Pro- fessor Aldrich’s application, the only question which it was open to the Commission to consider was whether Meigen’s- Nouvelle Classification had, or had not, been published within the meaning of the Code. For the reasons-given in their Opinion on this subject (Opinion 28 published in- October 1910), the Commission had reached the conclusion that the Nouvelle Classification had been duly published. They had accordingly adopted the following conclusion which they had set out in the “Summary ” of Opinion 28 :— “The generic names contained in Meigen’s ‘ Nouvelle Classification ’, 1800, must take precedence over those in his ‘Versuch ’, 1803, in every case where the former are found to be valid under the International Code.”’ The present application dealt with an entirely different aspect of the problem, for, in effect, it asked @thangene: Commission should use their plenary powers to suspend the rules, in order to declare that the generic names first published in the Nouvelle Classification should now be “ definitively adopted ’’. That such a proposal should have been put forward could only be due to a misapprehension of the position. No such action was required—or would be appropriate—since (as stated in Opinion 28) the Nouvelle Classification satisfied the requirements of the Code as regards publication. The present position was therefore that the names first published in that work, if otherwise available, should be used in preference to any later name in every case where the genera so named could’ be identified “and type speéciés could be assigned -to them. oe It was obvious that, before any given generic name first published in the Nouvelle Classification could be accepted as valid under the Code, it would bé necessary to determine whether that name was available nomenclatorially. Four questions were involved in this process. The: first and third of these were concerned with nomenclatorial questions, while the answers to the second and fourth depended on decisions taken on taxonomic grounds. The questions to be answered were :— (a) Is the name a homonym of some other name pre- viously published for a genus in any part of the animal kingdom ? COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 152. 187 (b) If the answer to (a) is in the negative, what is the species which, under the procedure indicated in Opinion 46, should be accepted as the type of the genus ? as) (c) Is the species recognised under (b) above as the type of the genus also the type of another genus having an older and nomenclatorially available name? — (d) If the answer to (c) is in the negative, should the species recognised as the type of the genus be regarded as congeneric with some other species that is the type of a genus having an older and nomenclatorially available name ? Only where questions (a), (c) and (d) were all answered in the negative is the name in question a name which could— and should—be brought into use for the species recognised under (b) above as its type and for any other species which on taxonomic grounds are regarded as congeneric therewith. (v) Although Meigen placed no species in the genera first published in the Nouvelle Classification, this was because in that work he was only concerned with genera. It was certainly in no way due to any failure on his part to accept the principles of binary nomenclature, whether that term was interpreted in the sense indicated in Opinion 20 or in the narrower sense proposed in the resolution voted upon at the Eleventh International Congress of Zoology at Padua in 1930. Thus, whatever decision might ultimately be __ taken as the definition of the term “‘ binary nomenclature ’’, _.... that. decision. could in. no. circumstances. have any bearing _... upon.the status .of the. names in Meigen’s. Nowvelle Classi- MO (vi) Generic names first. published without originally included species were always liable to give rise to difficulty and to prove a stumbling block in the way of attaining stability in nomenclature. The procedure for dealing with such cases that had been indicated by the Commission in Opinion 46 did not—and in the nature of things could not—provide an . automatic means of determining the types of such genera. 2 The question of the meaning to be attached to the expression ‘‘ binary nomenclature ’’ as used-in the International Code is at present sub judice, having been expressly referred to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature by the Twelfth International Congress of Zoology. For further particulars, see 1943, Bull. zool, Nomencl. 1:45, 55. 188 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL (vil —— It was inevitable therefore that cases should arise where specialists would differ on the question of the identity of the type of a genus of this kind. Where this happened, the only way of securing stability for the nomenclature of the group concerned was to obtain from the International Commission an Opinion under their plenary powers either definitely selecting a given species as the type of the genus or suppressing the generic name altogether. In the case of Meigen’s Nouvelle Classification, it must be noted that those specialists who claimed to have recognised genera first named in the Nouvelle Classification were by no means unanimous regarding the identity of the type species of the genera so recognised. Another difficulty that was always liable to arise in the case of genera first published without included species (such as those in the Nouvelle Classification) was that it might prove impossible to recognise any species as certainly referable to a particular genus. In such a case, no type could be designated and the genus remained indefinitely a “ genus dubium’’. In such a case, great inconvenience (or con- fusion) might arise if the name in question—as used by some later author or by the same author in a later publica- tion—had become an important name, for example the type genus of a well-known family, and had thus become deeply embedded in the literature of the group and perhaps also in the technical literature of some allied science. The fact that on its first publication a name was applied to a genus which later it was agreed must be regarded as a genus dubium did not in any way affect the nomenclatorial status of that name. Unless it was a homonym of a still earlier name, it continued to be available nomenclatorially, even though attached only to a genus dubium. It was obvious that in the interests of zoology as a whole, this was inevitable, since otherwise an author on Phylum “‘ X ”’ who wished to ascertain whether a given name was available for a genus in his group and found that it had already been published as a generic name in some other Phylum “ Y ”’, would not— as at present—know at once that the name in question was unavailable in his own group (Phylum “ X’’) but would have to start researches in Phylum “‘ Y ”’ (a group regarding the systematics of which he probably knew nothing) in order to ascertain whether the name with which he was con- COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION I52. 189 (vill) ~— cerned was accepted as the recognisable name of a genus in that Phylum or whether it was regarded as the name of a genus dubium. Clearly any such procedure would throw an altogether intolerable burden on workers in other groups. The only way in which the name bestowed upon a genus dubtum can be made available for use in some other sense is by the use by the International Commission of their plenary powers to suspend the rules in order to suppress for nomenclatorial purposes the use of that name on the occasion on which it was published in connection with the genus dubtum. Except where such action is taken by the Inter- national Commission, any later use is automatically invalid, since the name, when so used, is a dead homonym (under Article 34 of the Code) of the same name when originally used for the genus dubium. The Paris resolution in regard to Meigen’s Nouvelle Classi- jication now before the Commission had not been unanimously adopted by the ad hoc committee of the Congress by whom it had been drafted. Nor had the Fifth International Congress of Entomology itself been unanimous, for it had only adopted the resolution by a majority. Further, it was common knowledge that opinion on this subject was deeply divided among dipterists. It was particularly desirable therefore that the Commission should weigh the various relevant considerations with the greatest care in order to ensure that whatever decision they might now take was the one best calculated to promote stability of nomenclature in the Order Diptera. The generic names first published in the Nouvelle Class1- fication were of very unequal importance. In the case of some of these names, it was a matter of indifference whether the genus so named could be recognised or not or, if it could be recognised, whether it replaced some other name first published by Meigen in 1803. On the other hand, many of the genera published by Meigen in 1800 had been identified _ with, and should therefore replace, genera first published by him in 1803. Some of the latter were genera of great importance in the Order Diptera and in a considerable number of cases had given their names to well-known Families in that Order. The supersession of these names by names published in 1800 (of which the same species had been specified as the type) would—it was claimed— I90 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL lead to great confusion, without securing any compen- sating advantage whatever. It was precisely to remove anomalies of this kind resulting from the application of the rules in the International Code to names published long before that instrument had been adopted by the. International Congress of Zoology that that body had at Monaco in 1913 conferred upon the International Com- mission plenary powers to suspend the rules as applied to any given case where, in the judgment of the Commission, the strict application of the rules would clearly result in greater confusion than uniformity. There were, therefore, strong grounds for treating these cases individually, in order to determine whether the circumstances were such as to call for the use by the Commission of their plenary powers. Clearly, if an individual examination was to be made of these cases, Specialists in the groups concerned should submit to the Commission the data necessary to enable a decision to be taken. (x) In assessing the importance to be attached to evidence so supplied it would be necessary for the Commission, when considering names that were widely used either in applied entomology or in the teaching of entomology, to take account of the views of workers in those fields as well as of the opinion of systematic workers in the Order Diptera. 6. At the conclusion of the discussion summarised in the preceding paragraph, the Commission agreed (Lisbon Session, 2nd Meeting, Conclusion I =e : | to anaes an Olen dicate my (i) that the generic names first. oe ched iba) 2 ace ee Folens * Wilhelm MEIGEN in his “ Nouvelle Classification des Mouches a deux atles” should be treated as having priority as from that date; but (1) that, where in the case of any given generic name first published i in the above work, specialists in the group concerned are of the opinion that The Senet application of the rules would clearly result in greater con- fusion than uniformity, the specialists in question should submit full particulars to the Commission with such recommendations for the suspension of the rules in the case of that sone name as yey may consider the most appropriate. 7. At their meeting held at Lisbon on the morning of Tuesday, © 17th September 1935 (Lisbon Session, 4th Meeting, Conclusion 17), Commissioner Francis Hemming, who, in the absence through ill-health of Dr. C, W. Stiles, Secretary to the Commission, had COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 152. IQl been charged with the duty of preparing the report to be sub- mitted by the Commission to the Twelfth International Congress of Zoology, reported that, in accordance with the request made by the Commission on the previous day (Lisbon Session, 3rd Meeting, Conclusion 3(b)), he had made a start with the drafting of the Commission’s report; that he had made considerable progress in spite of being hampered by the lack of standard works of refer- ence; and that he did not doubt that he would be in a position to lay a draft report before the Commission at their next meeting, though in the time available it would be quite impracticable to prepare the drafts of paragraphs relating to all the matters on which decisions had been reached during the Lisbon Session of the Commission. As agreed upon at the meeting referred to above (Lisbon Session, 3rd Meeting, Conclusion 3(a)(i11)), he was therefore concentrating upon those matters that appeared to be the more important. Commissioner Hemming proposed that those matters which it was found impossible to include in the report, owing to the shortness of the time available, should be dealt with after the Congress on the basis of the records in the Offictal Record of the Proceedings of the Commission during their Lisbon Session. For this purpose, Commissioner Hemming proposed that all matters unanimously agreed upon during the Lisbon Session should be treated in the same manner, whether or not it was found possible to include references to them in the report to be submitted to the Congress, and therefore that every such decision should be treated as having been participated in by all the Commissioners and Alternates present at Lisbon. The Commission took note of, and approved, the-statement by Commissioner Hemming, and adopted - the proposals submitted by him, as recorded above; in régard both tothe selection: of items: to: be ineluded in: their report ‘to: the Twelfth International Congress of Zoology and to the procedure to be adopted after the Congress in regard to those matters with _ which, for the reasons explained, it was found impossible to deal- in the report.- 8. The question dealt with in the present Opinion was one of the matters to whichit was found impossible, in the time available, to include a reference in the report submitted by the Commission to the Twelfth International Congress of Zoology at Lisbon. It is therefore one of the matters which falls to be dealt with under the procedure agreed upon by the Commission as set out in paragraph 7 above. | g. The present Opinion was concurred in by the twelve (12) I92 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL Commissioners and Alternates present at the Lisbon Session of the International Commission, namely :— Commissioners :—Calman; Hemming; Jordan; Pellegrin; Peters; and Stejneger. Alternates :—do Amaral vice Cabrera; Ohshima vice Esaki; Bradley vice Stone; Beier vice Handlirsch; Arndt vice Richter; and Mortensen vice Apstein. 10. The present Opinion was dissented from by no Commissioner- or Alternate present at the Lisbon Session. The following five (5) Commissioners who were not present at Lisbon nor represented thereat by Alternates did not vote on the present Opinion :— Bolivar y Pieltain; Chapman; Fantham; Silvestri; and Stiles. IV.—AUTHORITY FOR THE ISSUE OF THE PRESENT OPINION. WHEREAS the By-Laws of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature provide that, except in cases involving the suspension of the rules, an Ofimion is to be deemed to have been adopted by the said International Commission as soon as a majority of the Members of the Commission, that is to say ten (10) Members of the said Commission, have recorded their votes in favour thereof, provided that, where any proposed Opinion involves a reversal of any former Opinion rendered by the Com- mission, such proposed Opinion shall obtain the concurrence of at least fourteen (14) Members of the Commission voting on the same before such Opinion is to be deemed to have been aoe by the Commission; and WHEREAS the present Opinion, as set out in the summary thereof, neither requires, in order to be valid, the suspension of the rules, nor involves a reversal of any former Opinion rendered by the Commission; and WHEREAS twelve (12) Members of the Commission have signified their concurrence in the present Opimion either in person or through Alternates at the Session of the Commission held in Lisbon in September 1935 : Now, THEREFORE, I, FRANCIS HEMMING, Secretary to the International Com- mission on Zoological Nomenclature, acting in virtue of all and every the powers conferred upon me in that behalf by reason of COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 152. 193 holding the said Office of Secretary to the International Com- mission, hereby announce the said Opinion on behalf of the Inter- national Commission, acting for the International Congress of Zoology, and direct that it be rendered and printed as Opinion Number One Hundred and Fifty Two (Opinion 152) of the said Commission. In faith whereof I, the undersigned FRANCIS HEMMING, Secre- tary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature, have signed the present Opinion. Done in London, this seventh day of April, Nineteen Hundred and Forty Three, in a single copy, which shall remain deposited in the archives of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. | | Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. FRANCIS HEMMING I94 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL THE PUBLICATIONS OF THE COMMISSION. (obtainable at the Publications Office of the Commission at 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7.) Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. This journal has been established by the International Com- mission as their Official Organ in order to provide a medium for the publication Cl oe _(a) proposals on Jeatoatl nomenclature cubiaereae to ‘the Commission for deliberation and decision ; (b) comments received from, and correspondence by the Secre- tary with, zoologists on proposals published in the Bulletin under (a) above: and (c) papers on nomenclatorial implications of developments in taxonomic theory and practice. Three Parts have so far been published: Part 1 (introductory, including an account of the functions and powers of the Com- mission and a summary of the work so far achieved); Part 2 (relating to the financial position of the Commission); Part 3 (containing the official records of the decisions taken by the Commission at their meeting at Lisbon in 1935). Opinions and Declarations Rendered by the International Com- mission on Zoological Nomenclature. Volume 1 will contain Declarations 1-9 (which have never previously been published) and Opimions 1-133 (the original issue of which is now out of print). Parts 1-9 (containing Declarations 1-9) have now been published. Volume 2 commences with Declaration 10 and Opinion 134. Parts I-21 (containing Declarations 10 and 11 and Opinions 134- 152) have so far been published. The titles of these Opinions are given on the wrappers to Parts 1 and 2 of the Bulletin. Other Parts will be published shortly. COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 152. 195 AN URGENT APPEAL FOR A FUND OF £1800 TO ENABLE THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION TO CONTINUE ITS WORK The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature urgently appeal for grants to the above Fund to Museums, Research Institutes and other Institutions concerned with any branch of zoology ; to Learned Societies and Associations concerned with any aspect of zoology ; to Institutions and Learned Societies in the fields of Agriculture, Horticulture, Medicine and Veterinary ' Seience, all of whom have a direct interest in that portion of the work of the Commission which is concerned with the stabilisa- tion of Zoological Nomenclature ; to University and other Depart- ments engaged in the teaching of zoology as being directly interested to secure stability in the scientific nomenclature used in biological text-books ; and to every individual zoologist who may be in a position to contribute to the funds of the Commission. Full particulars of the purpose for which the above Fund is required are given in Part 2 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. Contributions of any amount, however small, will be most gratefully received. They should be addressed to the Commission at their Publications Office, 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7. Bankers’ drafts, cheques, and Postal Orders, should be made payable to the ‘*‘ International Commission on Zoological Nomen- elature ’’ and crossed ‘‘ Account payee. Coutts & Co.’’. 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 2. Part 23. Pp. 197-208. OPINION 153 On the status of the names Bethylus Latreille, [1802-1803], and Dryinus Latreille, [1804] (Class Insecta, Order Hymenoptera) LONDON : Printed by Order of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature Sold at the Publications Office of the Commission 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7 1944 Price three shillings (All rights reserved) ————— eee Issued 12th July, 1944 Se mm," Ff en _ , , Pipl —_ hewmen T CTE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE COMPOSITION OF THE COMMISSION The Officers of the Commission President: Dr. Karl Jordan, Ph.D., F.R.S. (United Kingdom). Secretary : Mr. Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. (United Kingdom). Assistant Secretary: Dr. James L. Peters (U.S.A.). The Members of the Commission Class 1946 Herr Professor Dr. Walter ARNDT (Germany). Dr. William Thomas CALMAN (United Kingdom). Professor Teiso ESAKI (Japan). Professor Béla von HANKO (Hungary). Dr. Tadeusz JACZEWSKI (Poland). (vacant).* Class 1949 Senor Dr. Angel CABRERA (Argentina). Dr. Frederick CHAPMAN (Australia). Mr. Francis HEMMING (United Kingdom) (Secretary to the Commission). Dr. Karl JORDAN (United Kingdom) (President of the Commission). Monsieur le Docteur Jacques PELLEGRIN (France). Herr Professor Dr. Rudolf RICHTER (Germany). Class 1952 Senor Dr. Afranio do AMARAL (Brazil). Professor James Chester BRADLEY (U.S.A.). Professor Lodovico di CAPORIACCO (Italy). Professor J. R. DYMOND (Canada). Dr. James L. PETERS (U.S.A.) (Assistant Secretary to the Commission). Dr. Harold E. VOKES (U.5S.A.). Secretariat of the Commission : British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London, S.W. 7. Publications Office of the Commission : 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W. 7. Personal address of the Secretary : 83, Fellows Road (Garden Flat), London, N.W. 3. * This vacancy was caused by the death on 24th January, 1941, of Dr. Charles Wardell STILES (U.S.A.), Vice-President of the Commission and former Secretary to the Commission (1897-1935). OPINION 153. ON THE STATUS OF THE NAMES BETHYLUS LATREILLE, [1802-1803], AND DRYINUS LATREILLE, [1804] (CLASS INSECTA, ORDER HYMENOPTERA). SUMMARY.—Under suspension of the rules (i) all existing type designations for Bethylus Latreille, [1802—1803],1 are suppressed ; and (ii) Omalus fuscicornis Jurine, 1807, is hereby designated as the type of Bethylus Latreille. The names Bethylus Latreille, with the type indicated above, and Dryinus Latreille, [1804], with type Dryinus formicarius Latreille, [1804-1805] (Class Insecta, Order Hymenoptera) are hereby added to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology as Names Nos. 596 and 597. T—THE STATEMENT OF THE CASE. As the result of consultations initiated by Professor James Chester Bradley with the leading systematic workers in the Hymenoptera in all countries, the following petition signed by Professor Chester Bradley and 59 other hymenopterists was sub- mitted to the International Commission :— The case of Psilus, Bethylus and Dryinus Under the rules, as shown by Bradley (1919, p. 71),? Pstlus Jurine, 1801, is the valid name for the genus of wasps universally known as Bethylus, type of the family BETHYLIDAE, and therefore the family named BETHYLIDAE must be changed to the unfamiliar family PsILIDAE. The type of Bethylus Latr., 1802, is Tiphia hemiptera Fabr., a species not certainly recognizable but which may be a Dryinus in the sense of authors (see Dalla Torre) or a Bethylus in the sense of the customary usage of that name (see Kieffer). Under the rules it would seem that Bethylus as well as the family name BETHYLIDAE must be suppressed. Dryinus Fabr. (1804, Syst. Piez. p. 200) was proposed for five species, aeneus, auripennis, planifrons, planiceps, and explanatus. Schulz has studied the Fabrician types and finds that no one of these was a Dryinus in the sense of Latreille, 1805, and all subsequent authors. So far as I am aware, no one has designated a type for Dryinus Fabr., 1804. Dryinus Latr., 1805, type D. formicarius Latr. by designation of Latr., 1810, is a homonym of Dryinus Fabr., 1804, as pointed out by Kieffer (1911) and by Schulz (1912) and hence invalid under the Code. Kieffer (Joc. cit.) has proposed for it the new name Lestrodryinus.3 1 Where the date of a name can be ascertained only by reference to some work other than that in which the name in question was first published, that date is cited in square brackets. * The reference is to Bradley, 1919, Tvans. ent. Soc. Lond. 1919: 71. 3 Lestrodryinus Kieffer, 1911, Bull. Soc. Metz 27: 108. 200 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL But Dryinus Latr. (nec Fabr.) is the type of the family DRYINIDAE Haliday, 1837, and most subsequent writers. Schulz (1906) has therefore proposed the name ANTEONIDAE to replace DRYINIDAE Haliday, 1837, basing the name on Anteon Jurine, 1807, the next oldest contained genus inthe family. In this procedure Schulz appears to the undersigned to be wrong.* Since Dryinus Latr., 1805, is type of the family DRYINIDAE Haliday, 1837, but is a homonym of Dryinus Fabr., the name of the genus Dryinus must be changed (to Lestrodryinus Kieffer if it is the first name available under the Code) but the same genus should remain as type under its new name and the family name should be based on the replacing name (i.e. LESTRODRYINIDAE not ANTEONIDAE). We respectfully wish to ask the Commission to decide whether under the Code and so far as the facts known and above stated indicate, the name of the family should be ANTEONIDAE or LESTRODRYINIDAE.! Further, in view of the uncertainty as to whether Bethylus hemipterus is or is not a Dryinid (sense of authors) and as to whether BETHYLIDAE ought not really to be used in the sense of DRYINIDAE instead of in its customary sense, and of the needless confusion that will arise in the minds of all and in future literature if we must change all these long-established names, the undersigned respectfully petition you to invoke the plenary power conferred by the Monaco Congress, and to take action as follows : (1) suspend the rules in the case of Psilus Jurine, 1801, Dryinus Fabricius, 1804, Dryinus Latreille, 1805, Bethylus Latreille, 1802; (2) to permanently reject Psilus Jurine, 1801, type Psitlus cenoptera (Panzer) Jurine, i.e. Tiphia cenoptera Panzer, and Dvryinus Fabricius, 1804 ; (3) to validate :— (a) Bethylus Latreille, 1802, establishing any known European species as for example Bethylus cephalotes Forster, as type, in lieu of the unidentified B. hemipterus ; (b) Dryinus Latr., 1805, type Dryinus formicarius Lattr. ; (4) to place on the Official List of Generic Names :— (a) Bethylus Latreille, type Bethylus cephalotes Forster, for the genus of wasps commonly passing under that name; (b) Dryinus Latr., 1805, type Dryinus formicarius Latr., for the genus of wasps commonly passing under that name. * Art. 5 of the Code says “‘ The name of a family or subfamily is to be changed when the name of its type genus is changed ’”’ but it does not specify that the type genus itself is to be changed.* 2. The following is the list of signatures attached to the above petition at the time of its submission to the International Com- mission :— C. T. Brues R. Benoist * H. Haupt Jos. Bequaert J. D. Alfken * H. Brauns { G. Grandi A. Krausse L. Berland A. B. Gahan * M. Wolff A. A. Oglobin TEL Prison J. G. Betrem O. W. Richards Peal kee dereualce cs R. Fouts P. P. Babiy H. H. Ross * G. Arnold V.S. Ly Bate 4 For the decision of the Commission on the principles to be observed in interpreting Article 4 of the International Code relating to the naming of families and subfamilies, see Opinion 141. COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 153. 201 J. M. Dusmet A. Handlirsch J. C. Bradley W. M. Wheeler * I. Micha G. Enderlein et Wyle H. Hacker T. Uchida + R. A. Cushman * A. C. Kinsey * OV Vost E. A. Elliott H. de W. Marriott H. Habermehl t A. Crevecoeur F. Maidl E. Kruger + W. M. Mann P. Roth W. Hellen + R. Friese E. Enslin Be Se Walliams; H. von Ihering { A. von Schulthess O. Schmiedeknecht + A. C. W. Wagner R. B. Benson * N. IN: Kuznezov- H. Hedicke H. F. Schwarz Ugamtsky + H. Bischoff W. V. Balouf * F. E. Lutz L. Masi D. S$. Wilkinson * L. H. Weld * * Tn accord with results sought by the petition without having studied the points involved in the particular case. + Evidently intended to subscribe to this petition, but sheet bearing his signature was not included in his reply. t Deceased. II.—_ THE SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF THE CASE. 3. This case was circulated to the members of the International Commission in January 1935, when it was arranged that it and the other Hymenoptera cases submitted at the same time should be dealt with at the meeting of the Commission due to be held at Lisbon in September of that year, by which time the recom- mendations of the International Committee on Entomological Nomenclature would be available. 4. This case was considered by the International Committee on Entomological Nomenclature at its meeting held at Madrid in the second week of September 1935 during the Sixth International Congress of Entomology. The International Committee found itself in general agreement with the object sought in the petition, except that it considered that, if the International Commission were to agree to use their plenary powers in this case, it would be preferable that the Commission. should designate Omalus fusci- cornis Jurine, 1807, as the type of Bethylus Latreille, [1802-1803], rather than Bethylus cephalotes Forster, the species tentatively suggested in the petition. After careful consideration the Committee decided to frame its recommendations to the Inter- national Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, first on the assumption that the Commission would agree to use their plenary powers to suppress the “ Erlangen List’”’ in which the name Psilus Jurine, 1801, was published, and second on the assumption that the Commission would not be able to see their way to deal with the problem in this radical fashion. If the first of these courses were taken by the International Commission, there would 202 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL be no need to suspend the rules for the purpose of eliminating the name Psilus Jurine, 1801, since that name would cease to be available nomenclatorially immediately the “ Erlangen List ”’ was suppressed. It would still be necessary, however, for the International Commission to use their plenary powers in order to achieve the object indicated in the petition. The International Committee accordingly recommended that, if the “‘ Erlangen List ”’ were not suppressed, the whole of the petition should be granted, except for the substitution of Omalus fuscicornis Jurine, 1807, for Bethylus cephalotes Forster as the species to be designated as the type of Bethylus Latreille, [1802-1803]; and that, if the “ Erlan- gen List ’’ were suppressed, the petition should be dealt with in the same way, except that in that case there would be no need to take any specific action as regards Psilus Jurine, 1801. 5. These and other resolutions adopted by the International Committee at its meeting held at Madrid were subsequently confirmed by the Sixth International Congress of Entomology at the Concilium Plenum held at Madrid on 12th September 1935. - III—THE CONCLUSION REACHED BY THE INTER- NATIONAL COMMISSION. 6. When the International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature met at Lisbon immediately after the close of the Sixth International Congress of Entomology in September 1935, they found themselves confronted with a large number of cases involv- ing proposals for the suspension of the rules, in respect of some of which advertisements had not been published or, if published, had not been published for the prescribed period, owing to the illness of Dr. C. W. Stiles, Secretary to the Commission, or for other causes. In these circumstances the Commission decided at their meeting held on the morning of Monday, 16th September 1935 (Lisbon Session, 2nd Meeting, Conclusion 9), that immediate con- sideration should be given to all cases submitted to the Com- mission that, in their judgment, had reached the stage at which a decision could properly be taken; that the By-Laws of the Com- mission should be suspended during the Lisbon Session to such extent as might be necessary to give effect to this decision; and that, in so far as this procedure involved taking decisions “ under suspension of the rules ’’ in cases where the prescribed advertise- ment procedure had not been complied with, the cases in question should be duly advertised as soon as might be practicable after -* COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 153. 203 ‘the conclusion of the Lisbon Congress and that no Opinion should be rendered and published thereon until after the expiry of a period of one year from the date on which the said advertisement was despatched to the prescribed journals for publication. The case of the names Bethylus Latreille, [1802-1803], and Dryinus Latreille, [1804], was one of the cases in question and was accord- ingly dealt with under the above procedure. 7 7. At their meeting held at Lisbon on the morning of Monday, 16th September 1935 (Lisbon Session, 2nd Meeting, Conclusion 13), the International Commission unanimously agreed to use the plenary powers conferred upon them by the Ninth International Congress of Zoology at Monaco in 1913, in order to suppress the “Erlangen List ’’.5> When, therefore, at their meeting held on the afternoon of the same day (Lisbon Session, 3rd Meeting, Conclusion 2) the Commission came to consider the present case, they found that there was no need to make use of their plenary powers, so far as the name Psilus Jurine, 1801, was concerned, since that name had ceased to be available on the suppression of the “ Erlangen List ’’. The Commission proceeded therefore to consider this case in the light of the recommendations framed by the International Committee on Entomological Nomenclature in anticipation of the decision that the ‘“‘ Erlangen List ’”? would _ be suppressed. : 8. When the Commission turned to the examination of the details of this case, attention was drawn to the fact that since ‘its submission to the Commission further information had become available regarding the dates of publication of the works in which two of the names cited in the petition were first published (see Griffin, 1935, 7” Richards, Trans. R. ent. Soc. Lond. 88 : 144) :— (a) The name Dryinus Latreille was published on page 176 of volume 25(Tab.) of the Nowvelle Dictionnaire d’ Histoire naturelle. This work had hitherto been treated as having been published in 1805. It had now been ascertained, however, that it was already published by March 1804 ; (b) The name Dryinus Fabricius was published on page 200 of ; that author’s Systema Piezatorum, which, though dated _ “ 1804’, was probably published in the early part of 1805 and was certainly not published until late in 1804. This name must therefore be dated [1804-1805]. 5 See Opinion 135. — 204 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL There is thus now no doubt that Dryinus Latreille is an older name than Dyyinus Fabricius and not (as previously supposed) the reverse. In these circumstances there was no need to suspend the rules (as proposed in the petition) so far as concerns these two names. g. After careful consideration, the Commission decided to approve the recommendation submitted in this case by the International Committee, subject only to the modification noted in paragraph 8 above. The Commission accordingly agreed (Lisbon Session, 3rd Meeting, Conclusion 2) ® :— (a) to place on the Official List of Generic Names the undermentioned six nomenclatorially available names, with types as shown, each of which has been duly designated in accordance with the provisions of the International Code :— Name of genus Type of genus ( 3 ) Dryinus Latreille, [March Dryinus formicarius Latreille, ESo4)|, Nouv. «Dict. salase. [Sept. 1804—Sept. 1805], (im nat. 24(Tab.) : 176 Sonnini’s Buffon) Hist. nat. gén. partic. Crust. Ins. 18: 228 (monotypical) oe « © e© (c) under ‘‘ suspension of the rules ’’ to set aside all type designations for the undermentioned genera and to declare their types to be the species indicated below :— Name of genus Type of genus (28) Bethylus Latreille, [1802— Omalus fuscicornis Jurine, 1807, 1803], (4m Sonnini’s Buf- Nouv. Méth. class. Hyménoft. : fon) Hist. nat. gén. partic. 301 Crust. Ins. 33 315 (d) under “‘ suspension of the rules’’ to place on the Official List of Generic Names the sixteen generic names enumerated in (c) above (names (19) to (34)), each with the type species there indicated ; (e) to render Opinions in the sense of (a) to (d) above. 10. The foregoing decisions were embodied in paragraphs 25 (Dryinus Latreille) and 27 (Bethylus Latreille) of the report which at their meeting held on the morning of Wednesday, 18th Septem- ber 1935, the Commission (Lisbon Session, 5th Meeting, Conclusion 6) unanimously agreed to submit to the Twelfth International Congress of Zoology. That report was unanimously approved by the Section on Nomenclature at its joint meeting with the Inter- national Commission held on the afternoon of the same day. It was thereupon submitted to the Twelfth International Congress 6 Only those portions of Conclusion 2 which relate to the present case are here quoted. For the full text of Conclusion 2, see 1943, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 1: 27-30. COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 153. 205 of Zoology by which it was unanimously approved and adopted at the Concilium Plenum held on the afternoon of Saturday, 21st September 1935, the last day of the Congress. Ir. In accordance with the decision taken by the Commission at Lisbon in regard to their procedure at that Session (paragraph 6 above), this case was duly advertised in 1936 in two or more of the journals named in the Resolution adopted by the Ninth International Congress of Zoology at its meeting held at Monaco in March 1913, by which the said International Congress conferred upon the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature plenary power to suspend the rules as applied to any given case where, in the judgment of the Commission, the strict application of the rules would clearly result in greater confusion than uni- formity.’ In the period that has elapsed since the advertisement in the said journals of the proposed suspension of the rules in the case of the names specified in paragraph 9 above, no communica- tion of any kind has been received by the International Com- mission objecting to the issue of an Ofznion in the terms proposed. 12. The present Ofimion was concurred in by the twelve (12) Commissioners and Alternates present at the Lisbon Session of the International Commission, namely :— Commissioners :—Calman; Hemming; Jordan; Pellegrin; Peters; and Stejneger. Alternates :—do Amaral vice Cabrera; Ohshima vice Esaki; Bradley vice Stone; Beier vice Handlirsch; Arndt vice Richter; and Mortensen vice Apstein. 13. The present Ofini10n was dissented from by no Commissioner or Alternate present at the Lisbon Session. Nor since that Session has any Commissioner who was neither present on that occasion nor represented thereat by an Alternate indicated dis- agreement with the conclusions then reached by the Commission in this matter. The following five (5) Commissioners who were not present at Lisbon nor represented thereat by Alternates did not vote on the above Opinion :— Bolivar y Pieltain; Chapman; Fantham; Silvestri; and Stiles. IV.—AUTHORITY FOR THE ISSUE OF THE PRESENT OPINION. WHEREAS the Ninth International Congress of Zoology at its meeting held at Monaco in March 1913, adopted a Resolution 7 See Declaration 5. 206 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL conferring upon the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, acting for the International Congress of Zoology, plenary power to suspend the rules as applied to any given case, where, in the judgment of the Commission, the strict application of the said rules would clearly result in greater confusion than uniformity, provided that not less than one year’s notice of the possible suspension of the rules as applied to the said case should be given in two or more of five journals named in the said Resolu- tion, and provided that the vote in the Commission was unani- mously in favour of the proposed suspension of the rules; and WHEREAS the suspension of the rules is required to give valid force to certain of the provisions of the present Opinion as set out in the summary thereof; and WHEREAS not less than one year’s notice of the possible sus- pension of the rules as applied to the name Bethylus Latreille dealt with in the present Opinion has been given to two or more of the journals referred to in the Resolution adopted by the Ninth International Congress of Zoology at its meeting held at Monaco. in March 1913; and WHEREAS the vote in the Commission at their Lisbon Session was unanimously in favour of the issue of an Opinion in the terms of the present Opinion ; Now, THEREFORE, I, FRANCIS HEMMING, Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, acting in virtue of all and every the powers conferred upon me in that behalf by reason of holding the said Office of Secretary to the International Commission, hereby announce the said Opinion on behalf of the International Com- mission, acting for the International Congress of Zoology, and direct that it be rendered and printed as Ofimion Number One Hundred and Fifty Three (Opinion 153) of the said Commission. In faith whereof, I, the undersigned FRANcIS HEMMING, Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature, have signed the present Opinion. DonE in London, this fourteenth day of April, Nineteen Hundred and Forty Three, in a single copy, which shall remain deposited in the archives of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. f3 Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. FRANCIS HEMMING “ COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 153. 207 THE PUBLICATIONS OF THE COMMISSION. (obtainable at the Publications Office of the Commission at 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7.) Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. This journal has been established by the International Com- mission as their Official Organ in order to provide a medium for the publication of :— (a) proposals on zoological nomenclature submitted to the Commission for deliberation and decision ; (b) comments received from, and correspondence by the Secre- tary with, zoologists on proposals published in the Bulletin under (a) above: and _(c) papers on nomenclatorial implications of developments in taxonomic theory and practice. Three Parts have so far been published: Part 1 (introductory, including an account of the functions and powers of the Com- mission and a summary of the work so far achieved); Part 2 (relating to the financial position of the Commission); Part 3 (containing the official records of the decisions taken by the Commission at their meeting at Lisbon in 1935). Opinions and Declarations Rendered by the International Com- mission on Zoological Nomenclature. Volume 1 will contain Declarations 1-g (which have never previously been published) and Ofinions 1-133 (the original issue of which is now out of print). Parts 1-12 (containing Declarations I-9 and Opinions 1-3) have now been published. Volume 2 commences with Declaration 10 and Opinion 134. Parts 1-25 (containing Declarations 10-12 and Opinions 134-155) have so far been published. The titles of these Opinions are _ given on the wrappers to Parts 1 and 2 of the Bulletin. Other Parts will be published shortly. 208 INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. AN URGENT APPEAL FOR A FUND OF £1800 TO ENABLE THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION TO CONTINUE ITS WORK The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature urgently appeal for grants to the above Fund to Museums, Researeh Institutes and other Institutions concerned with any branch of zoology ; to Learned Societies and Associations concerned with any aspect of zoology ; to Institutions and Learned Societies in the fields of Agriculture, Horticulture, Medicine and Veterinary Science, all of whom have a direct interest in that portion of the work of the Commission which is coneerned with the stabilisa- tion of Zoological Nomenclature ; to University and other Depart- ments engaged in the teaching of zoology as being directly interested to secure stability in the scientific nomenclatie used in biological text-books ; and to every individual zoologist who may be in a position to contribute to the funds of the Commission. Full particulars of the purposes for which the above Fund is required are given in Part 2 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. Contributions of any amount, however small, will be most gratefully received. They should be addressed to the Commission at their Publications Office, 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7. Bankers’ drafts, cheques, and Postal Orders, should be made payable to the ‘* International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature *’ and crossed ** Aecount payee. Coutts & Co.”’. x Jt aay PRINTED IN GREAT BRITAIN BY RICHARD CLAY AND COMPANY, LTD BUNGAY, SUFFOLK. RENDERED BY THE INTER- NATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Edited by 7 FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E. Secretary to the Commission VOLUME 2. Part 24. Pp. 209-226. OPINION 154 On the status of the names Phaneroptera Serville, 1831, and Tylopsis Fieber, 1853 (Class Insecta, Order Orthoptera) OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS LONDON : Printed by Order of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature Sold at the Publications Office of the Commission 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7 1944 Price five shillings (All rights reserved) _ Issued 12th July, 1944 INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE COMPOSITION OF THE COMMISSION The Officers of the Commission President: Dr. Karl Jordan, Ph.D., F.R.S. (United Kingdom). Secretary : Mr. Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. (United Kingdom). Assistant Secretary : Dr. James L. Peters (U.S.A.). The Members of the Commission Class 1946 Herr Professor Dr. Walter ARNDT (Germany). Dr. William Thomas CALMAN (United Kingdom). Professor Teiso ESAKI (Japan). Professor Béla von HANKO (Hungary). Dr. Tadeusz JACZEWSKT (Poland). (vacant) .* Class 1949 Senor Dr. Angel CABRERA (Argentina). Dr. Frederick CHAPMAN (Australia). Mr. Francis HEMMING (United Kingdom) (Secretary to the Commission). Dr. Karl JORDAN (United Kingdom) (President of the Commission). Monsieur le Docteur Jacques PELLEGRIN (France). Herr Professor Dr. Rudolf RICHTER (Germany). Class 1952 Senor Dr. Afranio do AMARAL (Brazil). Professor James Chester BRADLEY (U.S.A.). Professor Lodovico di CAPORIACCO (Italy). Professor J. R. DYMOND (Canada). . ou Dr. James L. PETERS (U.S.A.) (Assistant Secretary to the Commission). Dr. Harold FE. VOKES (Us .4.). Secretariat of the Commission: - British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London, S.W. 7. Publications Office of the Commission : 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W. 7. Personal address of the Secretary : 83, Fellows Road (Garden Flat), London, N.W. 3. * This vacancy was caused by the death on 24th January, 1941, of Dr. Charles Wardell STILES (U.S.A.), Vice-President of the Commission and former Secretary to the Commission (1897-1935). OPINION 154. ON THE STATUS OF THE NAMES PHANEROPTERA SER- VILLE, 1831, AND TYLOPSIS FIEBER, 1853 (CLASS INSECTA, ORDER ORTHOPTERA). SUMMARY.—Under suspension of the rules Gryllus falcata Poda, 1761, is hereby designated as the type of Phaneroptera Serville, 1831. The;name Phaneroptera Serville with the type indicated above, and the name Tylopsis Fieber, 1853, with type - Locusta lilifolia Fabricius, 1793 (Class Insecta, Order Orthoptera), are hereby added to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology as Names Nos. 598 and 599. fn STATEMENT. OF THE CASE. Both Phaneroptera Serville, 1831, and Tylopsis Fieber, 1853, were included in the long list of generic names drawn from many Phyla and Classes dealt with in the paper published in 1915 by Commissioner K. Apstein under the title “ Nomina conservanda. Unter Mitwirkung zahlreicher Spezalisten herausgegeben von Prof. C. Apstein, Berlin’’ (StizBer. Ges. naturf. Fr. Berl. 1915 (5): IIg-202). Commissioner Apstein proposed that these two names should be treated as ‘“‘ nomina conservanda ”’ (1.e. that they should be placed on the Official List) and that “ falcata F., 1793’ should be declared to be the type of Phaneroptera Serville and that “ lilufola [sic], F., 1793’ should be declared to be the type of Tylopsis Fieber. II.—THE SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF THE CASE. 2. Commissioner Apstein communicated his list to the Com- mission in the course of 1915 and in December of that year the Secretary to the Commission suggested that the most satisfactory way of dealing with this proposal would be to refer the various portions of which it was made up to special advisory committees on the nomenclature of the groups concerned. This course was adopted but, as was inevitable, the reports from the committees were a long time in coming in. In 1922, the Commission agreed to render an Opinion (Opinion 74), in which they pointed out that they had no power to adopt en bloc the list submitted by Com- 212 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL missioner Apstein but indicated that they were prepared “ to consider names separately upon presentation of reasonably complete evidence ”’. 3. In 1923 (in a letter dated 4th May) Dr. A. N. Caudell of the United Statés National Museum, who (at the request of the International Commission) had been studying the generic names in the Orthoptera included in Commissioner Apstein’s list, sub- mitted the following proposal as regards Phaneroptera Serville :— I herewith transmit for official decision by the International Com- mission the matter of genotype of the orthopterous genus Phaneroptera of Serville. This genus was established by Serville in 1831, Ann. Sci. Nat., vol. xxii, p. 138, with two species originally included, Locusta lilifolia Fabricius and Locusta curvicauda DeGeer. No genotype was selected by the author, Serville, nor was such a selection made until 1906, when W. F. Kirby, Syn. Cat. Ovth., vol. ii, p. 434, selected the Gryllus falcatus of Poda?1 as the type of Phanevopiera. Deeming this selection of falcatus, a species the name of which was not mentioned in the original publication of Phaneropteva, as unwarranted, the present writer, Journ. Wash. Acad. Sct., vol. xi, p. 487, 1921, selected the species Locusta curvicauda DeGeer as the genotype of Phaneroptera. My reasons are set forth in my article cited but I may repeat here that both included species, lilifolia and curvicauda, had been removed prior to the citing of any genotype for Phaneroptera, lilifolia having become the genotype of the monobasic genus Tylopsis Fieber, 1853, and curvicauda the genotype of Scudderia Stal, 1873, also a monobasic genus. By the rules of your Commission the removal of one of the two included species from Phanero- pteva, through its selection as the type of another genus, limits the remain- ing species as the type of the old genus. Thus curvicauda became auto- matically the type of Phaneroptera when liifolia was eliminated, thus my designation. But there is dispute, some maintaining that falcatus Poda is the type of Phaneropteva, this view being based upon the fact that Serville, Orthoptéves, p. 420, footnote, 1839, published the fact that he had mis- determined the species Locusta lilifolia of Fabricius, the species he had being really Gryllus falcatus Poda, credited however by him at this reference to Carpentier or Scopoli. This matter seems to me to be one of a genus based on a misidentifica- tion and is really covered by Opinion 65 of your Commission, though the conditions show a shade of difference from those there discussed. But the arguments there considered and which lead up to the decision rendered, apply here with equal strength. Thus it would seem that the decision ought to be the same, that is that the type of a polybasic genus auto- matically selected, by the elimination of other eligibles by removal as genotypes of other genera * should stand regardless of misidentification. It would appear that to deny correction in one case and permit it in another might be considered absurd. And to permit correction in the case of the genotype of the bibasic, or polybasic, genus would create all the confusion that would arise by doing the same in the case of the 1 This name was published by Poda as Gryllus falcata. 2 Opinion 6, which is the only Opinion which deals with this type of case, is expressly limited to genera published prior to rst January 1931 with only two originally included species, neither of which is designated as the type by the originalauthor. That Opinion has no bearing upon genera originally published with three or more species. Ts COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 154. 213 monobasic genus. My remarks on page 153? of the Opinion 65 bear directly on the point. The references to literature bearing on this matter are as follows: Most. Senville, Any. Sel, Nal. vol. xxi, ps 158. (erects genus Phaneropteva) 1839. Serville, Ovthoptéves, p. 420, footnote. (corrects determination of lilifolia) 1906. Kirby, Syn. Cat. Ovth., vol. ii, p. 434. (cites falcata as genotype of Phaneroptera) 1921. Caudell, Journ. Wash. Acad. Sci., vol. xi, p. 487. (cites curvicauda as genotype of Phaneroptera) ——. Internat. Commission, Opinion No. 65, and discussion by various authors. 4. On receipt of Dr. Caudell’s letter, Dr. C. W. Stiles, Secretary to the Commission, submitted this case to the Committee on Nomenclature of the Entomological Society of Washington, with a request that that body would furnish him with its opinion from the standpoint of entomology. In making this request, Dr. Stiles furnished the Committee with the following preliminary memorandum that he had prepared for communication to the International Commission :— 2 Preliminary memorandum prepared by Dr. C. W. Stiles, Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Attention is invited to Opinion 65 which states that ‘“ The Com-. mission is of the opinion that as a specimen is the type of a species, so a species is the type of a genus, and hence that when an author names a particular species as type of a new genus it is to be assumed that it has been correctly determined. If a case should present itself in which it appears that an author has based his genus upon certain definite speci- mens rather than upon a species it should be submitted to the Com- mission for consideration.” The premises presented to the Commission do not show that Serville, 1831, based his genus upon any particular specimens but rather upon two species, namely, Phanervopteva lilifolia (Fabricius) from the suburbs of Paris and P. curvicauda (DeGeer) from Pennsylvania. In 1839, p. 420, Serville recognised that P. lilifolia, from his point of view of 1831, was a composite species, namely P. falcata (syn. lilifolia of 1831 pars) and P. hilifolia (1793, restr.). The Secretary has been unable to trace P. curvicauda in 1839. Any restricted unit of the two original species is ‘available as type. According to the premises there are three restricted original units from the standpoint of Serville, 1839, namely falcata, lilifolia and curvicauda. According to the premises also, Fieber, 1853, took hhfolia sensu stvicto as type of Tylopsis and Stal, 1873, took curvicauda as type of Scudderia. In neither case was the original genus Phaneropteva rendered monotypic in the sense of Opinion 6, International Commission. Accord- ingly, so far as the premises have been presented to the Commission, Kirby, 1906, was at liberty to select any of the two original (1831), namely three restricted (1839), species as type. He accepted Serville’s (1839) identification of falcata with lilifolia pars and definitely designated this unit as genotype. Accordingly, lifolia pars of Serville from the 3 See Smithson. misc. Coll. 2256 ; 153, published in March ror4. 214. OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL suburbs of Paris (= a subjective synonym of falcata Poda, 1761) is the type of Phaneroptera, provided the premises are correct that this (1906) was the first definite designation of genotype. 5. In accordance with Dr. Stiles’s request, this matter was duly considered by the Committee of the Entomological Society of Washington, whose conclusions were embodied in a document entitled Opinion 5 of that Committee) bearing the date 25th October 1923 and signed by S. A. Rohwer (by whom it was stated to have been drafted), A. C. Baker, and Carl Heinrich. This document reads as follows :— The type of Phaneroptera Serville Summary.—From the evidence submitted it is evident that Serville in 1831 wrongly applied a Fabrician name to the first species he placed in the genus Phaneropteva and that his genus included two species only (lilifolia Serville =) falcata Scopoli and curvicauda DeGeer. Falcata Scopoli was therefore correctly selected as the genotype by Kirby in 1906. In our judgment Opinion 65. has no bearing on this case. Statement of case.—Summary by this committee. Serville in 1831 described the genus Phaneropteva and included two Species : : 1. Phaneroptera lilifolia (Fabr.) = (Locusta lilifola Fabr.). En- viron de Paris. 2. Phaneroptera curvicauda eee = (Locusta curvicauda DeGeer) Pennsylvania. No mention is made of a genotype nor is there any statement which would lead one to assume that the identification of either of the species is incorrect. In 1839, however, Serville says, ‘‘ It is an error on my part to have believed that the unique Phanevopteva inhabiting the vicinity of Paris was the Locusta lilifolia of Fabr.’”’ and he goes on to say that it was Gryllus falcatus instead. In 1853 Fieber used Locusta lilifolia Fabr. (not the misidentification of the species of Serville of 1831) as the single species, hence the type, for his genus Tylopsis. In 1873 Stal used (and removed from the genus Phaneropteva) Locusta curvicauda DeGeer as the single species, hence the type for his genus Scudderia. In 1906 W. F. Kirby named Gvryllus falcatus (= Locusta lilifolia Serville, 1831 (nec Fabr.) as pointed out by Serville (1839)) as the type of the genus Phaneroptera Serville. In 1921 Caudell (believing that Kirby’s type citation of 1906 was incorrect) cited Locusta curvicauda DeGeer as the type of Phaneroptera.* Discussion.—Inasmuch as Serville neither in 1831 nor 1839 designates any species as the genotype, Opinion 65 cannot be said to cover this case. The first author to designate a genotype for the genus Phanero- pteva was Kirby, in 1906, and at this time he had an opportunity to select either (lilifolia Serville (not Fabr.) =) falcatus Scopoli or curvicauda DeGeer. Curvicauda DeGeer had in 1873 been removed from the genus and Kirby wisely selected falcatus as the type of Phanevopteva. The inclusion of the name falcatus is based on Serville’s correction, 1839, where he definitely states that the species he had referred to as lilifolia 4 At this point the Committee quoted in full (i) the original application to the International Commission by Dr. Caudell (see paragraph 3 above) and (11) the preliminary memorandum prepared by Dr. Stiles (see paragraph 4 above). COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 154. 215 in 1831 is falcata Scopoli. From Serville’s correction in 1839 it is evident that he had only two species before him in 1831, and that insofar as the species which he called lilifolia, his conception of the genus was founded on specimens. These specimens came from the environs of Paris and represent the species falcatus. We cannot agree with the second sentence of paragraph two of the above cited circular letter ® as we find no evidence that Serville in 1839 ‘says his lilifolia of 1831 1s a composite species. He only states his identification of ilifolia in 1831 was wrong. Nor can we agree with the third paragraph of circular 66 ®* in saying that according to the standpoint of Serville, 1839, there were three units, namely falcata, llfolia and curvicauda in the genus. Serville does not admit lilifolia to be in the genus in 1839 and there is nothing to indicate that he was dealing with more than two species, falcata and curvicauda. To admit the composite species idea and to assume that in the composite you still have the true species is, it seems to us, opening the door to a variety of opinions. It is a well-recognised fact that as our knowledge in systematic work has advanced there has been a closer and closer definition of species and because of this many of the species of the old writers have been divided. Such a division of a species has not, however, been made in this case. We presented this entire case again to Mr. Caudell for consideration and he submits the following additional data in a letter to Rohwer dated une’ 7, 1923): I can but deplore a decision permitting a third species, and one not mentioned among those originally included, being cited as the type of a bibasic genus while Opinion 65 prohibits a second species being similarly cited as the type of a mono- basic genus.® It is illogical. If the mere citing of a locality for included species of a genus, as in the case of lihifoha in the genus Phaneroptera, throws said genus without the range of Opinion 65 of the International Commission and makes it a case referable to the Commission for separate decision, then I would call attention to the probability that scarcely one old genus out of ten will come under Opinion 65, the other ninety percent coming under the heading of those to be referred to the Commission for separate decision. It is doubtful if the Commission intended to consider the mere citing of localities as evidence that the genus was based on specimens rather than on species, thus making it necessary to render separate decisions on most older genera. In the briefs on this matter undue stress is laid upon the statement of Serville in 1839, eight years after the establishment of the genus Phaneroptera, that an error of determination was concerned in the included species. The original citation is the pertinent one, and subsequent treatment by the author of a genus should carry no more weight, nomenclatorially, than if by any other person. We therefore recommend that the Commission in reviewing this case accept Serville’s statement in 1839 as correcting an error and accept the citation of falcata as the type of the genus, validated from Kirby’s selection in 1906. 6. The documents quoted in paragraphs 3, 4, and 5 above were communicated to the members of the Commission by Dr. 5 The document here referred to is the preliminary memorandum by Dr. Stiles quoted in paragraph 4 above. In sending that.document to the Committee, Dr. Stiles had made it clear that it was his intention to include it in a circular letter to the International Commission. At the time Dr. Stiles had provisionally assigned the number “66” to this circular. Actually, the number under which it was ultimately issued was 83. 6 Opinion 65 was not intended to do more than lay down a presumption and establish a procedure for dealing with doubtful cases. For the subse-. quent elaboration of the question dealt with in Opinion 65, see Official Record of Proceedings of the International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clatuve, Lisbon Session, 1935 (Lisbon Session, 2nd Meeting, Conclusion 23) (1943, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 1: 23-25) and Opinion 168. 216 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL Stiles in a circular letter (C.L, 83) dated May 109247) Dir "Stiles reminded the Commission that “‘ cases of mistaken determination such as is before the Commission in Phaneroptera have given us no end of trouble in years past ’’ and invited from the Commissioners “an expression of opinion in this case so that he [Dr. Stiles] may tabulate the views ”’ before a final vote was taken. 7. In March 1925, Dr. Stiles reported to the Commission (in circular letter 96) the following views that had been expressed on this question by individual Commissioners in the light of the documents circulated for their consideration in circular letter 83 :— (i) Apstein: “falcata Typus des Genus Phaneroptera ist.”’ (ii) Handlirsch: “ The type species is falcata Poda.”’ (iii) Horvath: ‘“‘ The genotype of Phaneroptera Srv. is Gryllus falcatus Poda” (= Phaneroptera lilifolia Serv. nec. Fabr.).”’ (iv) Jordan, K.: “‘ The unanimous opinion of the British Entom. Committee on Nomenclature is this: a genus is based on species, not on names; the genotype is a species, not a name. ‘“ Phaneroptera Serville, 1831, was based on two insects; Kirby in 1906 was at liberty to select one of the two as genotype, there being no prior selection. He selected the species erroneously identified by Serville as lilifolia F. The correct name of this species is falcata Poda. Not the letters falcata are the genotype of Phaneroptera, but the insect to which this name is applied.”’ (v) Kolbe: “Ich halte es fiir gut, die genotypen Species in folgender Weisse zu verteilen. “1. Phaneroptera Serv., 1831, mit falcata Poda. “2. Tylopsis Fieb., 1853, mit lalifolia F. | “3. Scudderia Stal, 1873, mit curvicauda De Geer.” (vi) Monticelli: “‘ The typical species of Phaneroptera is falcata »Poday. (vil) Skinner: “‘ The type should be Gryllus falcatus Poda.”’ 7 (vill) Bather: “‘ curvicauda De Geer became automatically the type of Phaneroptera when lilifolia was eliminated by Fieber, 1853, as type of Tylopsis. “ Treating this question purely in its legal aspect, i.e. by the letter of the law, I hold that we must first inquire what was the position in 1831 and the seven succeeding years. Having been unable to look up the original literature, I take the premises of the circular letter, and find that a genus ” For the correct form of this name as published by Poda, see footnote 1. COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 154. 217 existed with two genosyntypes, Locusta lilifolia Fabricius and L. curvicauda De Geer. There was (as I understand) nothing to suggest any misidentification to the minds of contemporary readers; at any rate Serville himself did not suggest it. Therefore the genoholotype of Phaneroptera must be one of those two species. Serville in 1839 did not select a genotype, and what he then said may have elucidated his intention but could not alter the legal situation. We are bound in these cases not by what an author means to say or might have said, but by what he actually said. The next step was the removal of Phaneroptera lilifolia (Fabr.) as genotype of Tylopsis by Fieber in 1853, leaving Phanero- plera curvicauda (De Geer) as genoholotype of Phanero- ptera. These facts remain unaffected by any subsequent action, but have as corollary that Scudderia Stal was ab mitio a synonym of Phaneroptera, and that a new generic name was ex hypothesi required for Gryllus falcatus Poda *— and, for all I- know, still is required.”’ In the light of the foregoing preliminary expressions of opinion by Commissioners, Dr. Stiles then called upon the Commission to vote on the question of the type of the genus Phaneroptera. 8. By March 1927, eight (8) Commissioners (Apstein; Neveu- Lemaire; Handlirsch; Horvath; Jordan, D. S.; Jordan, K.; Monticelli ; Stiles) had voted in favour of the issue of an Opinion declaring that Grvyllus falcata Poda, 1761, was the type of Phanero- ptera Serville, 1831; two (2) Commissioners (Bather; Warren) had voted in favour of the issue of an Opinion declaring Locusta curvicauda De Geer, 1773, to be the type of that genus; and two (2) Commissioners had expressed themselves as undecided. At this time the Commission was beginning to consider the procedure to be adopted at their meeting due to be held at Budapest later in that year. In notifying to the Commission the foregoing particulars regarding the state of the voting in this case, Dr. Stiles suggested that ‘“‘ Commissioners Handlirsch and Neveu-Lemaire consider and report on this case at Budapest ”’. g. At the first meeting of the Budapest Session held on 29th August, 1927, the Commission (Budapest Session, 1st Meeting, Conclusion g) assigned various outstanding propositions to ad hoc committees for examination and report. Under this procedure, the case of Phaneroptera Serville was referred to a special com- mittee consisting of Commissioner Karl Jordan (Conclusion 9(j)). 218 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL 10. Commissioner Jordan came to the conclusion that the most satisfactory way of dealing with this case would be to refer it to the International Committee on Entomological Nomenclature for consideration and report. In 1929, the International Commission decided to invite the International Committee to consider also the whole of the proposals relating to the generic names contained in the list submitted by Commissioner Apstein in 1935 (paragraph 1 above), together with a report on some of the names in question that had been furnished to the Commission by Dr. A. N. Caudell and an additional list of names (including Phaneroptera Serville) submitted to the Commission by Commissioner A. Handlirsch in 1929. The International Committee on Entomological Nomen- clature were unable to dispose of the considerable amount of preliminary work in time to permit of their formulating a report on the questions at issue at their meeting held in Paris during the Fifth International Congress of Entomology. It was necessary therefore for the Committee to adjourn the matter for final consideration ‘at their meeting to be held at Madrid in 1935. | 11. When the International Committee met at Madrid in the second week of September 1935, one of the first problems to which they addressed themselves was that of the type of the genus Phaneroptera Serville. After careful consideration, the Inter- national Committee came to the conclusion that it was desirable that Gryllus falcata Poda, 1761, the species which was generally recognised as the type of Phaneroptera Serville, should be cate- gorically declared to be the type of that genus. The International Committee considered that the most satisfactory way of disposing of this case would be for the International Commission to make use of their plenary powers to declare under suspension of the rules that the type of Phaneroptera Serville was Gryllus falcata Poda, on the ground that the strict application of the rules in this case would clearly result in greater confusion than uniformity. The International Committee accordingly adopted a resolution in this sense for submission to the International Commission as their report in this case. At the same time, the Committee agreed to recommend the International Commission to add the name Phaneroptera Serville, so validated, to the Official List of Generic Names, together with the name Tylopsis Fieber, 1853 (type: Locusta lilifoia Fabricius, 1793). 12. These and other resolutions adopted by the International Committee on Entomological Nomenclature at its meeting held at Madrid were confirmed by the Sixth International Congress of COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 154. 219 Entomology at the Concilium Plenum held at Madrid on 12th September 1935. III.—THE CONCLUSION REACHED BY THE INTERNA- TIONAL COMMISSION. 13. When the International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature met at Lisbon immediately after the close of the Sixth International Congress of Entomology in September 1935, they found themselves confronted with a large number of cases involv- ing proposals for the suspension of the rules, in respect of some of which advertisements had not been published or, if published, had not been published for the prescribed period, owing to the illness of Dr. Stiles, Secretary to the Commission, or for other causes. In these circumstances, the Commission decided at their meeting held on the morning of Monday, 16th September 1935 (Lisbon Session, 2nd Meeting, Conclusion g), that immediate consideration should be given to all cases submitted to the Commission that, in their judgment, had reached the stage at which a decision could properly be taken; that the By-Laws of the Commission should be suspended during the Lisbon Session to such extent as might be necessary to give effect to this decision; and that, in so far as this procedure involved taking decisions “ under sus- pension of the rules ’’ in cases where the prescribed advertisement procedure had not been complied with, the cases in question should be duly advertised as soon as might be practicable after the con- clusion of the Lisbon Congress and that no Opinion should be rendered and published thereon until after the expiry of a period of one year from the date on which the said advertisement was despatched to: the prescribed journals for publication. The case of the genus Phaneroptera Serville was one of the cases in question and was accordingly dealt with by the Commission under the above procedure. 14. This case was considered by the International Commission at their meeting held on Monday, 16th September 1935 (Lisbon Session, 2nd Meeting, Conclusions 19 and 20), when the Com- mission agreed :— as regards the name Phaneroptera Serville (Conclusion 10) (a) to “‘ suspend the rules ”’ in the case e the generic name Phaneroptera Serville, 1831 (Aun. Sci. nat. 22: ; (b) in virtue of (a) above, to a nde i name Phaneroptera Serville, 1831, and to declare its type to be Gryllus falcata Poda, 1761, Ins. Mus. graec. : 52; 220 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL (c) to place the generic name Phanervoptera Serville, 1831, validated as in (b) above and with the type there specified, on the Official List of Generic Names; and (d) to render an Opinion in the sense of (a) to (c) above. as regards the name Tylopsis Fieber (Conclusion 20) § to render an Opinion placing on the Official List of Generic Names the under-mentioned twenty-two ® nomenclatorially available generic names in the Orthoptera, with the types indicated, each of which has been duly designated in accordance with the provisions of the Code :— Name of genus Type of genus (22) “Tylopsis Fieber, 1853, Lotos Locusta lifolia Fabricius, 1793, 3: 172 | Ent. syst. 2: 36 (monotypical) 15. The foregoing decisions in regard to the name Phaneroptera Serville were embodied in paragraph 26 of the report which at their meeting held on the morning of Wednesday, 18th September 1935, the Commission unanimously agreed (Lisbon Session, 5th Meeting, Conclusion 6) to submit to the Twelfth International Congress of Zoology. The decision in regard to the name Tylopsis Fieber was embodied in paragraph 24 of the same report. 16. At the same meeting the Commission agreed (Lisbon Session, 5th Meeting, Conclusion 10) :— that Commissioner Karl Jordan (President of the Commission) and the new Secretary to the Commission, when elected, should be authorised to make such arrangements, and to take such other action, as might appear to them necessary or expedient :— (1) to establish the Secretariat of the Commission at its new head- quarters ; (ii) to secure the due publication of the Opinions agreed upon from time to time by the Commission ; (i11) to give effect to the decisions reached by the Commission at their Lisbon Session ; ) to obtain the finance required for the due functioning of the Commission; and generally (v) to secure the effective continuance of the work of the Commission. (iv 17. The report adopted by the Commission on the morning of Wednesday, 18th September 1935, was unanimously approved by the Section on Nomenclature at its joint meeting with the International Commission held on the afternoon of the same day. It was thereupon submitted to the Twelfth International Congress 8 Only those portions of Conclusion 20 which relate to the present case are here quoted. For the full text of this Conclusion see 1943, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 1: 17-19. ® The other twenty-one generic names here slot e to have since been dealt with in Opinion 149. COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE, OPINION 154. 221 of Zoology by which it was unanimously approved and adopted at the Concilium Plenum held on Saturday, 21st September 1935, the last day of the Congress. 18. In accordance with the decision taken by the Commission at Lisbon in regard to their procedure at that Session (paragraph 13 above), the case of Phaneroptera Serville was duly advertised in 1936 in two or more of the journals named in the Resolution adopted by the Ninth International Congress of Zoology held at Monaco in March 1913, by which the said International Congress conferred upon the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature plenary power to suspend the rules as applied to any given case where, in the judgment of the Commission, the strict application of the rules would clearly result in greater con- fusion than uniformity.’ In the period that has elapsed since the advertisement in the said journals of the proposed suspension of the rules in the case of Phaneroptera Serville, one communica- tion only has been addressed to the Commission raising certain objections to the suspension of the rules in this case. This com- munication, which was dated 1st March 1937 and bore the signa- ture of Dr. S. A. Rohwer, was addressed to the Commission in the name of the Committee on Nomenclature of the Entomological Society of Washington. The passage in that document relating to Phaneroptera Serville reads as follows :— This generic name was originally published with two included species, Locusta hlifola F. and L. curvicauda Degeer. The first type designation was by Kirby, 1906 (Syn. Cat. Orthop. 2: 434) who named Gryllus fal- catus Poda !! type as he considered Serville’s lilifolia to be a misidentifica- tion for falcatus. It appears, however, that, at least in the absence of con- clusive evidence that the author based his names upon certain definite Specimens, the species originally included must be presumed to have been correctly identified. Kirby’s designation of a species not originally included is therefore invaid; and curvicauda Degeer, definitely named type of Phaneroptera by Caudell, 1921 (Jour. Wash. Acad. Sci., vol. 11: 487), must be considered type of the genus under the Rules. In the publication just cited Caudell properly suppressed Scudderia Stal, 1873, as a Synonym of Phaneropieva since both have the same genotype, Locusta curvicauda Degeer. At the same time he proposed a new generic name Anerota, with Gryllus falcatus Poda 11 as type, for the group of species remaining in Phaneroptera without valid generic assignment. All this, which was done 15 years ago, is in accord with the International Rules. No change in super generic names is involved and no serious _ confusion has resulted from Caudell’s action. There appears to be no sound reason, therefore, for setting aside the rules in this case and designation as type of Phaneropiera a species not originally included. 10 See Declaration 5. ‘1 For the correct form of this name as paiiohed by Poda, see footnote 1. 12 For the text of the more detailed communication previously received from the same source containing a recommendation in the opposite sense, see paragraph 5 above. 222 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL 19. Immediately upon its receipt by the Commission, copies of the document from which the above is an extract were com- municated (April 1937) to each member of the Commission, but since that date no member of the Commission has expressed himself as being in agreement with the representations contained therein. 20. The representations in regard to the case of Phaneroptera Serville referred to in paragraphs 18 and 19 above were considered at the Plenary Conference between the President of the Com- mission and the Secretary to the Commission convened in London on 19th June 1939 under the authority of the Resolution adopted by the Commission at their meeting held on 18th September 1935 (for the text of which see paragraph 16 above). The Conference (Plenary Conference, 1st Meeting, Conclusion 11) :— (a) took note that within the twelve months following the advertise- ment of the action proposed, representations had been received from the Committee on Nomenclature of the Entomological Society of Washington in regard to the names Locusta Linnaeus 1° and Phanero- ptera Serville ; (b) took note that, although a copy of the communication referred to above had been transmitted to each member of the Commission immediately upon its receipt, no member of the Commission had expressed himself as being in agreement with the representations contained therein ; (c) agreed that the communication referred to in (a) above brought for- ward no data and adduced no considerations that had not been before the International Commission on Zoological Nemenclature when at Lisbon in 1935 they approved the recommendations in favour of the suspension of the rules in these cases submitted to them by the International Committee on Entomological Nomenclature in resolu- tions adopted during the meeting of the Sixth International Congress of Entomology at Madrid in the same year ; (d) agreed that, in view of (b) and (c) above, the proper course for the present Conference in the discharge of the duties entrusted to it by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (Lisbon Session, 5th Meeting, Conclusion 10) was to give effect to the decision set out in paragraph 26 of the report of their Lisbon Session in regard to the names Locusta Linnaeus and Phaneroptera Serville and therefore that Opinions should be issued as soon as possible in the sense indicated in the said paragraph of the Commission’s report that had been approved and adopted by the Twelfth International Congress of Zoology at the Concilium Plenum held at Lisbon on 21st September 1935. 21. The present Opinion was concurred in by the twelve (12) Commissioners and Alternates present at the Lisbon Session of the International Commission, namely :— Commissioners :—Calman; Hemming; Jordan; Pellegrin; Peters; and Stejneger. 13 The case of Locusta Linnaeus has since been dealt with in Opinion 158. COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 154. 223 Alternates :—do Amaral vice Cabrera; Ohshima vice Esaki; Bradley vice Stone; Beier wice Handlirsch; Arndt’ vice Richter; and Mortensen vice Apstein. 22. The present Opinion was dissented from by no Commissioner or Alternate present at the Lisbon Session. Nor since that Session has any Commissioner who was neither present on that occasion nor represented thereat by an Alternate indicated disagreement with the conclusions then reached by the Commission in this matter. The following five (5) Commissioners who were not present at Lisbon nor represented thereat by Alternates did not vote on the present Opinion :— Bolivar y Pieltain; Chapman; Fantham; Silvestri; and Stiles. iy -AUTHORITY FOR THE ISSUE OF THE PRESENT OPINION. WHEREAS the Ninth International Congress of Zoology at its meeting held at Monaco in March 1913, adopted a Resolution conferring upon the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, acting for the International Congress of Zoology, Plenary Power to suspend the rules as applied to any given case, where, in the judgment of the Commission, the strict application of the said rules would clearly result in greater confusion than uniformity, provided that not less than one year’s notice of the possible suspension of the rules as applied to the said case should be given in two or more of five journals named in the said Resolu- tion, and provided that the vote in the Commission was unani- mously in favour of the proposed suspension of the rules; and WHEREAS the suspension of the rules is required to give valid force to certain of the provisions of the present Opimion; and WHEREAS not less than one year’s notice of the possible sus- pension of the rules as applied to the name Phaneropiera Serville dealt with in the present Opznion has been given to two or more of the journals referred to in the Resolution adopted by the Ninth International Congress of Zoology at its Meeting held in Monaco in March 1913, and | WHEREAS the vote in the Commission at their Lisbon Session was unanimously in favour of the issue of an Ofznion in the terms of the present Opinion : Now, THEREFORE, I, FRaNcIs HEMMING, Secretary to the International Com- 224 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL mission on Zoological Nomenclature, acting in virtue of all and every the powers conferred upon me in that behalf by reason of holding the said Office of Secretary to the International Com- mission, hereby announce the said Opinion on behalf of the Inter- national Commission, acting for the International Congress of Zoology, and direct that it be rendered and printed as Opinion Number One Hundred and Fifty Four (Opinion 154) of the said Commission. In faith whereof, I, the undersigned FRANCIS HEMMING, Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature, have signed the present Opinion. Done in London, this fifteenth day of April, Nineteen Hundred and Forty Three, in a single copy, which shall remain deposited in the archives of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. FRANCIS HEMMING COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 154. 225 THE PUBLICATIONS OF THE COMMISSION. (obtainable at the Publications Office of the Commission at 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7.) Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. This journal has been established by the International Com- mission as their Official Organ in Cer to provide a medium for the publication of :— (a) proposals on zoological nomenclature submitted to the Commission for deliberation and decision ; (b) comments received from, and correspondence by the Secre- tary with, zoologists on proposals published in the Bulletin under (a) above: and (c) papers on nomenclatorial implications of developments in taxonomic theory and practice. Three Parts have so far been published: Part 1 (introductory, including an account of the functions and powers of the Com- mission and a summary of the work so far achieved); Part 2 (relating to the financial position of the Commission); Part 3 (containing the official records of the decisions taken by the Commission at their meeting at Lisbon in 1935). Opinions and Declarations Rendered by the International Com- mission on Zoological Nomenclature. Volume 1 will contain Declarations 1-9 (which have never previously been published) and Opinions 1-133 (the original issue of which is now out of print). Parts 1-12 (containing Declarations I-9 and Opinions 1-3) have now been published. Volume 2 commences with Declaration 10 and Opinion 134. Parts 1-25 (containing Declarations 10-12 and Opinions 134-155) have so far been published. The titles of these Opinions are given on the wrappers to Parts 1 and 2 of the Bulletin. Other Parts will be published shortly. 226 INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. AN URGENT APPEAL FOR A FUND OF £1800 TO ENABLE THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION TO CONTINUE ITS WORK The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature urgently appeal for grants to the above Fund to Museums, Research Institutes and other Institutions concerned with any branch of zoology ; to Learned Societies and Associations concerned with any aspect of zoology ; to Institutions and Learned Societies in the fields of Agriculture, Horticulture, Medicine and Veterinary Science, all of whom have a direct interest in that portion of the work of the Commission which is concerned with the stabilisa- tion of Zoological Nomenclature ; to University and other Depart- ments engaged in the teaching of zoology as being directly interested to secure stability in the scientific nomenclature used in biological text-books ; and to every individual zoologist who may be in a position to contribute to the funds of the Commission. Full particulars of the purposes for which the above Fund is required are given in Part 2 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. Contributions of any amount, however small, will be most gratefully received. They should be addressed to the Commission at their Publications Office, 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7. Bankers’ drafts, cheques, and Postal Orders, should be made payable to the ‘‘ International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature ’’ and crossed ‘‘ Account payee. Coutts & Co.’’. ~~ PRINTED IN GREAT BRITAIN BY RICHARD CLAY AND COMPANY, LTD., BuUNGAY, SUFFOLK. } 1. 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 2. Part 25. Pp. 227-238. OPINION 155 On the status of the names Callimome Spinola, 1811, Misocampe Latreille, 1818, and Torymus Dalman, 1820 (Class Insecta, Order Hymeno- ptera) LONDON : Printed by Order of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature Sold at the Publications Office of the Commission 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7 1944 Price three shillings (All rights reserved) Issued 12th July, 1944 Ee macnn tie hl ag? a > INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE COMPOSITION OF THE COMMISSION The Officers of the Commission President: Dr. Karl Jordan, Ph.D., F.R.S. (United Kingdom). Secretary : Mr. Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. (United Kingdom). Assistant Secretary: Dr. James L. Peters (U.S.A.). The Members of the Commission Class 1946 Herr Professor Dr. Walter ARNDT (Germany). Dr. William Thomas CALMAN (United Kingdom). Professor Teiso ESAKI (Japan). Professor Béla von HANKO (Hungary). Dr. Tadeusz JACZEWSKI (Poland). (vacant) .* Class 1949 Senor Dr. Angel CABRERA (Argentina). Dr. Frederick CHAPMAN (Australia). Mr. Francis HEMMING (United Kingdom) (Secretary to the Commission). Dr. Karl JORDAN (United Kingdom) (President of the Commission). Monsieur le Docteur Jacques PELLEGRIN (France). Herr Professor Dr. Rudolf RICHTER (Germany). Class 1952 Senor Dr. Afranio do AMARAL (Brazil). Professor James Chester BRADLEY (U.S.A.). Professor Lodovico di CAPORIACCO (Italy). Professor J. R. DYMOND (Canada). Dr. James L. PETERS (U.S.A.) (Assistant Secretary to the Commission). Dr. Harold E. VOKES (U:S.A.). ‘ Secretariat of the Commission : | ® British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London, S.W. 7. Publications Office of the Commission : 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W. 7. Personal address of the Secretary : 83, Fellows Road (Garden Flat), London, N.W. 3. * This vacancy was caused by the death on 24th January, 1941, of Dr. Charles Wardell STILES (U.S.A.), Vice-President of the Commission and former Secretary to the Commission (1897-1935). OPINION 155. ON THE STATUS OF THE NAMES C4ALLIMOME SPINOLA, 1811, MISOCAMPE LATREILLE, 1818, AND TORYMUS DAL- MAN, 1820 (CLASS INSECTA, ORDER HYMENOPTERA). SUMMARY.—Under suspension of the rules (i) the name Callimome Spinola, 1811 and (ii) the name Misocampe Latreille, 1818, are suppressed ; (iii) all existing type designations for Torymus Dalman, 1820, are set aside; and (iv) Ichneumon bedeguaris Linnaeus, 1758, is hereby designated as the type of Torymus Dalman. The name Torymus Dalman, with the type indicated above (Class Insecta, Order Hymenoptera), is hereby added to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology as Name No. 600. I.—THE STATEMENT OF THE CASE, Attention was first drawn by Professor James Chester Bradley in 1919 to the serious difficulties that would arise if the rules were strictly applied to a number of well-known generic names in the Order Hymenoptera. These difficulties led Professor Chester Bradley to consult the leading systematic workers in the Hymeno- ptera in all countries in regard to the action to be taken as regards the names in question. As the result of these consultations, the following petition signed by Professor Chester Bradley and 59 other Hymenopterists was submitted to the International Commission :— The case of Torvymus versus Callimome Callumome Spinola, 1811, Misocampus 1 Latr., 1817,1 and Torymus Dalman, 1820, each have as type the species Ichnewmon bedeguaris L. Callimome was adopted by some writers, chiefly English and during the first half of the 19th century; Misocampus 1 was never adopted by 1 There is no such name as Misocampus. The name here referred to is Misocampe which was published by Latreille (Nouv. Dict. Hist. nat. (ed. 2) 21: 213) in 1818 and not in 1817 as stated in the petition. It is clear that this was intended by Latreille as a latinised spelling and not as a French form of the name since, as pointed out by Dr. O. W. Richards (im litt.), Latreille on page 217 referred to what he called Misocampe bedeguaris and gave both names in italics. The reference to the name ‘“ Misocampus Latreille’”’ in the present petition is presumably derived from Dalla Torre (1898, Cat. Hymenopt. 5: 297), who gave the reference “ Misocampus Latreille, Nouv. dict. hist. nat. Ed. 2a. 1817 p. ? .” 230 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL authors other than Latreille, and Torymus came into general use, becoming type of the family TORYMIDAE. - ' Gahan and Fagan (1914) called attention to the correct use of Calli- mome. In order to obviate the confusion incident to change of a long-established family name, the undersigned wish to ask the Commission to determine whether in their judgment it would be appropriate to reject Callimome and Misocampus,1 validating Torymus, and if so take the following action, to wit: : 1. to suspend the rules in the cases of the genera Callimome Spinola, 1811, Misocampus 1 Latr., 1817,1 and Torymus Dalman, 1820; 2. to permanently reject Callimome Spinola, 1811, and Misocampus } Latr.; ©8173 3. to validate Torymus Dalman, type Ichneumon bedeguaris L.’%; 4. to place on the Official List of Generic Names, Torymus Dalman, 1820, type Ichneumon bedeguaris L., a common parasite of the mossy rose-gall wasp, for the genus of chalcid-wasps, ordinarily known by that name. 2. The following is the list of signatures attached to the above petition at the time of its submission to the International Com- mission :— C. T. Brues R. Benoist * H. Haupt Jos. Bequaert J. D. Alfken * H. Brauns { G. Grandi - A. Krausse L. Berland A. B. Gahan * H. Wolff A. A. Oglobin T. H. Frison * J. G. Betrem O. W. Richards A. R: Park * R. Fouts P. P. Babiy H. H. Ross * G. Arnold V. SL. Bate J. M. Dusmet A. Handlirsch J. C. Bradley, W. M. Wheeler * I. Micha G. Enderlein Gi lve H. Hacker T. Uchida + R. A. Cushman * A. C. Kinsey * O. Vogt fT E. A. Elliott H. de W. Marriott H. Habermehl + A. Crevecoeur F. Maidl R. Kruger tf W,. M. Mann P. Roth W. Hellent | R. Friese E. Enslin F. X. Williams + H. von Ihering { A. von Schulthess O. Schmiedeknecht f A. C. W. Wagner R. B. Benson * N. N. Kuznezev- H. Hedicke H. F. Schwarz Ugamtsky + H. Bischoff W. V. Balout * F, E. Lutz L. Masi D. S. Wilkinson * L. H. Weld * * In accord with results sought by the petition without having studied > the points involved in the particular case. + Evidently intended to subscribe to this petition, but sheet bearing his signature was not included in his reply. ¢t Deceased. II.—THE SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF THE CASE. 3. This case was circulated to the members of the International Commission in January 1935, when it was arranged that it and the other Hymenoptera cases submitted at the same time should be dealt with at the meeting of the Commission due to be held at COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 155. 231 Lisbon in September of that year, by which time the recommenda- tions of the International Committee on Entomological einen: clature would be available. 4. This case was considered by the International Committee on Entomological Nomenclature at its meeting held at Madrid in the second week of September 1935 during the Sixth International Congress of Entomology. After careful consideration, the Inter- national Committee agreed to recommend that the International Commission should deal with this case under their plenary powers in the manner indicated in the petition. 5. This and other resolutions adopted by the International Committee at its meeting held at Madrid were confirmed by the Sixth International Congress of Entomology at the Concilium Plenum held at Madrid on 12th September 1935. * i TIL. —THE CONCLUSION REACHED BY THE INTER- NATIONAL COMMISSION. 6. When the International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature met at Lisbon immediately after the close of the Sixth International Congress of Entomology in September 1935, they found themselves confronted with a large number of cases involv- ing proposals for the suspension of the rules, in respect of some of which advertisements had not been published or, if published, had not been published for the prescribed period, owing to the illness of Dr. C. W. Stiles, Secretary to the Commission, or for other causes. In these circumstances the Commission decided at their meeting held on the morning of Monday, 16th September 1935 (Lisbon Session, 2nd Meeting, Conclusion g), that immediate consideration should be given to all cases submitted to the Commission that, in their judgment, had reached the stage at which a decision could properly be taken; that the By-Laws of the Commission should be suspended during the Lisbon Session to such extent as might be necessary to give effect to this decision; and that, in so far as this procedure involved taking decisions “‘ under suspension. of the rules’”’ in cases where the prescribed advertisement procedure had not been complied with, the cases in question should be duly advertised as soon as might be practicable after the conclusion of the Lisbon Congress and that no Ofimion should be rendered and published thereon until after the expiry of a period of one year from the date on which the said advertisement was dispatched to the prescribed journals 232 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL for publication. The case of the names Callimome Spinola, 1811, Misocampe Latreille, 1818, and Torymus Dalman, 1820, was among the cases in question and was accordingly dealt with under the above procedure. 7. The present case was considered by the International Commission at their meeting held on the afternoon of Monday, 16th September 1935 (Lisbon Session, 3rd Meeting, Conclusion 2), when the Commission agreed ? :— @: Werle (ee) ve (b) under “‘ suspension of the rules ’’ permanently to reject the following generic names :— (14) Callimome Spinola, 1811, Ann. Mus. Hist. nat. Paris 17 (98) : 148 (15) Misocampe Latreille, 1818, Nouv. Dict. Hist. nat. (ed. 2) 21: 213 (c) under “ suspension of the rules ”’ to set aside all type designations for the undermentioned genera and to declare their types to be the species indicated below :— Name of genus Type of genus (31) Torymus Dalman, 1820, K. Ichneumon bedeguaris Linnaeus Vet. Ac. Handl. 1820 (1) : 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) : 567 125 & 135 Ci On One (0% AD (d) under “ suspension of the rules” to place on the Official List of Generic Names the sixteen generic names enumerated in (c) above (names (19) to (34)), each with the type species there indicated ; (e) to render Opinions in the sense of (a) to (d) above. 8. The foregoing decisions were embodied in paragraph 27 of the report which at their meeting held on the morning of Wednes- day, 18th September 1935, the Commission unanimously agreed (Lisbon Session, 5th Meeting, Conclusion 6) to submit to the Twelfth International Congress of Zoology. g. At the same meeting the Commission agreed (Lisbon Session, 5th Meeting, Conclusion 10) :— that Commissioner Karl Jordan (President of the Commission) and the new Secretary to the Commission, when elected, should be authorised to make such arrangements, and to take such other action, as ec appear to them necessary or expedient :— (i) to establish the Secretariat of the Commission at its new head- quarters ; ~ (ii) to secure the due ‘publication of the Opinions agreed upon from time to time by the Commission ; * Only those portions of Conclusion 2 which relate to the present case are here quoted. For the full text of Conclusion 2, see 1943, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 1: 27-30. COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 155. 233 (iii) to give effect to the decisions reached by the Commission at their Lisbon Session ; (iv) to obtain the finance required for the due functioning of the Com- mission; and generally (v) to secure the effective continuance of the work of the Commission. 10. The report adopted by the Commission on the morning of Wednesday, 18th September 1935, was unanimously approved by the Section on Nomenclature at its joint meeting with the Inter- national Commission held on the afternoon of the same day. It was thereupon submitted to the Twelfth International Congress of Zoology by which it was unanimously approved and adopted at the Concilium Plenum of the Congress held on the afternoon of Saturday, 21st September 1935, the last day of the Congress. ir. In accordance with the decision taken by the Commission at Lisbon in regard to their procedure at that Session (paragraph 6 above), this case was duly advertised in 1936 in two or more of the journals named in the Resolution adopted by the Ninth International Congress of Zoology at its meeting held at Monaco in March 1913, by which the said International Congress conferred upon the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature plenary power to suspend the rules as applied to any given case where, in the judgment of the Commission, the strict application of the rules would clearly result in greater confusion than uni- formity.? In the period that has elapsed since the advertisement in the said journals of the proposed suspension of the rules in the case of the names dealt with in the present Opinion, one com- munication only has been addressed to the Commission raising objection to the suspension of the rules in this case. This com- munication, which was dated 1st March 1937, and bore the sig- nature of Dr. S. A. Rohwer, was addressed to the Commission in the name of the Committee on Nomenclature of the Entomological Society of Washington. The passage in that document relating to the present case reads as follows :— The case of Torymus Dalman, 1820 Callumome Spinola, 1811, and Torymus Dalman, 1820, are isogenotypic, Ichneumon bedeguaris L. being the type of both. Of the species listed in Dalla Torre’s ‘“‘ Catalogus Hymenopterorum’’, 1900, more were origin- ally described in Callimome than in Torymus, and of the references since that date many more employ the former than the latter of these names. The name Callimome and the accompanying family name CALLIMONIDAE [sic] are well established and accepted by workers in the group both in Europe and America. There is no sound reason whatever for suspension of the rules in this case and placement of Torymus on the Official List of Generic Names. 3 See Declaration 5. 234 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL 12. Immediately upon its receipt by the Commission, copies of the document from which the above is an extract were com- municated (April 1937) to each member of the Commission, but since that date no member of the Commission has expressed him- self as being in agreement with the representations contained therein. 13. The representations set out in paragraph II above were considered at the Plenary Conference between the President of the Commission and the Secretary to the Commission convened in London on 19th June 1939 under the authority of the Resolution adopted by the Commission at their meeting held at Lisbon on 18th September 1935 (for the text of which see paragraph 9 above). The Plenary Conference (Plenary Conference, Ist Meeting, Conclusion 9) * :— (b) examined the communications that had been received during ve prescribed period in regard to the undermentioned names :— eo © « « 6 © (vi) Torymus Dalman, 1820 from the Committee on Nomenclature of the Entomological Society of Washington ; ee © © «© « (c) took note that, although copies of the communications referred to in (b) above had been transmitted to each member of the Commission immediately upon their receipt, no member of the Commission had expressed himself as being in agreement with any of the representa- tions contained therein ; (d) agreed that the communications referred to in (b) above brought forward no data and adduced no considerations that had not been before the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature when at Lisbon in 1935 they approved the recommendations in favour of the suspension of the rules in these cases submitted to them by the International Committee on Entomological Nomenclature in resolutions adopted during the meeting of the Sixth International Congress of Entomology at Madrid in the same year; (e) agreed that, in view of (c) and (d) above, the proper course for the present Conference in the discharge of the duties entrusted to it by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (Lisbon Session, 5th Meeting, Conclusion 10) was to give effect to the decisions in this matter reached by the International Commission at their Lisbon Session (3rd Meeting, Conclusion 2) and therefore that Opinions should be issued as soon as possible in the sense indicated in paragraph 27 of the report submitted by them to the Twelfth International Congress of Zoology and approved and adopted by that Congress at the Concilium Plenum held at Lisbon on 21st September 1935. 4 Only those portions of Conclusion 9 which relate to the present case are here quoted. For the full text of Conclusion 9, see 1943, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 1: 76-77. COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 155. 235 © 14. The present Opinion was concurred in by the twelve (12) Commissioners and Alternates present at the Lisbon Session of the International Commission, namely :— Commissioners :—Calman; Hemming; Jordan; Pellegrin; Peters; and Stejneger. Alternates :—do Amaral vice Cabrera; Ohshima vice Esaki; Isradley vee Stone: Beier vee. Wandlirsch: Arndt vice Richter; and Mortensen vice Apstein. 15. [he present Ofimion was dissented from by no Commissioner or Alternate present at the Lisbon Session. Nor since that Session has any Commissioner who was neither present on that occasion nor represented thereat by an Alternate indicated disagreement with the conclusions then reached by the Commission in this matter. The following five (5) Commissioners who were not present at Lisbon nor represented thereat by Alternates did not vote on the present Opinion :— | Bolivar y Pieltain; Chapman; Fantham; Silvestri; and Stiles. IV.—AUTHORITY FOR THE ISSUE OF THE PRESENT OPINION. WHEREAS the Ninth International Congress of Zoology at its meeting held at Monaco in March 1913, adopted a Resolution conferring upon the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, acting for the International Congress of Zoology, Plenary Power to suspend the rules as applied to any given case, where, in the judgment of the Commission, the strict application of the rules would clearly result in greater confusion than uni- formity, provided that not less than one year’s notice of the possible suspension of the rules as applied to the said case should be given in two or more of five journals named in the said Resolu- tion, and provided that the vote in the Commission was unani- mously in favour of the proposed suspension of the rules; and WHEREAS the suspension of the rules is required to give valid force to the provisions of the present Opimion; and WHEREAS not less than one year’s notice of the possible sus- pension of the rules as applied to the present case has been given to two or more of the journals referred to in the Resolution adopted by the Ninth International Congress of Zoology at its meeting held at Monaco in March 1913; and 236 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL WHEREAS the vote in the Commission at their Lisbon Session was unanimously in favour of the issue of an Opinion in the terms of the present Opinion ; Now, THEREFORE, I, FRANcIS HEMMING, Secretary to the International Com- mission on Zoological Nomenclature, acting in virtue of all and every the powers conferred upon me in that behalf by reason of holding the said Office of Secretary to the International Com- mission, hereby announce the said Opinion on behalf of the Inter- national Commission, acting for the International Congress of Zoology, and direct that it be rendered and printed as Opinion Number One Hundred and Fifty Five (Opinion 155) of the said Commission. In faith whereof, I, the undersigned FRANCIS HEMMING, Secre- tary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, have signed the present Opzmion. Done in London, this fourth day of May, Nineteen Hundred and Forty Three, in a single copy, which shall remain deposited in the archives of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. FRANCIS HEMMING COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 155. 237 THE PUBLICATIONS OF THE COMMISSION. (obtainable at the Publications Office of the Commission at 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7.) Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. This journal has been established by the International Com- mission as their Official Organ in order to provide a medium for the publication of :— (a) proposals on zoological nomenclature submitted to the Commission for deliberation and decision ; (b) comments received from, and correspondence by the Secre- tary with, zoologists on proposals published in the Bulletin under (a) above: and (c)- papers on nomenclatorial implications of developments in taxonomic theory and practice. Three Parts have so far been published: Part 1 (introductory, including an account of the functions and powers of the Com- mission and a summary of the work so far achieved); Part 2 (relating to the financial position of the Commission); Part 3 (containing the official records of the decisions taken by the Commission at their meeting at Lisbon in 1935). Opinions and Declarations Rendered by the International Com- mission on Zoological Nomenclature. Volume 1 will contain Declarations 1-g (which have never previously been published) and Ofimions 1-133 (the original issue of which is now out of print). Parts 1-12 (containing Declarations I-g and Opinions 1-3) have now been published. Volume 2 commences with Declaration 10 and Opinion 134. Parts 1-25 (containing Declarations 10-12 and Opinions 134-155) have so far been published. The titles of these Opinions are given on the wrappers to Parts 1 and 2 of the Bulletin. Other Parts will be published shortly. 238 INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. AN URGENT APPEAL FOR A FUND OF £1800 TO ENABLE THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION TO CONTINUE ITS WORK The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature urgently appeal for grants to the above Fund to Museums, Research Institutes and other Institutions concerned with any branch of zoology ; to Learned Societies and Associations concerned with any aspect of zoology ; to Institutions and Learned Societies in the fields of Agriculture, Horticulture, Medicine and Veterinary Science, all of whom have a direct interest in that portion of the work of the Commission which is concerned with the stabilisa- tion of Zoological Nomenelature ; to University and other Depart- ments engaged in the teaching of zoology as being directly interested to secure stability in the scientific nomenclature used in biological text-books ; and to every individual zoologist who may be in a position to contribute to the funds of the Commission. Full particulars of the purposes for which the above Fund is required are given in Part 2 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. Contributions of any amount, however small, will be most gratefully received. They should be addressed to the Commission at their Publications Office, 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7. Bankers’ drafts, cheques, and Postal Orders, should be made payable to the °° International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature ’’ and erossed ‘‘ Account payee. Coutts & Co.’’. PRINTED IN GREAT BRITAIN BY RICHARD CLAY AND COMPANY, LTD., BuNGAY, SUFFOLK. vi/CT. 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 2. Part 26. Pp. 239-250. OPINION 156 Suspension of the rules for Vanessa Fabricius, 1807 (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera) LONDON: Printed by Order of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature Sold at the Publications Office of the Commission 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7 1944 | Price three shillings (All rights reserved) Issued 17th October, 1944 INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE COMPOSITION OF THE COMMISSION The Officers of the Commission President: Dr. Karl Jordan, Ph.D., F.R.S. (United Kingdom). Secretary : Mr. Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. (United Kingdom), Assistant Secretary: Dr. James L. Peters (U.S.A.). The Members of the Commission Class 1946 ° Herr Professor Dr. Walter ARNDT (Germany). Dr. William Thomas CALMAN (United Kingdom). Professor Teiso ESAKI (Japan). Professor Béla von HANKO (Hungary). Dr. Tadeusz JACZEWSKI (Poland). Dit Norman Ky STOLE (UeSe4,): Class 1949 Senor Dr. Angel CABRERA (Argentina). Mr, Francis HEMMING (United Kingdom) (Secretary to the Commission). Dr. Karl JORDAN (United Kingdom) (President of the Commission), Dr. Joseph PEARSON (Australia). Monsieur le Docteur Jacques PELLEGRIN (France). Herr Professor Dr. Rudolf RICHTER (Germany). Class 1952 Senhor Dr. Afranio do AMARAL (Brazil). Professor James Chester BRADLEY (U.S.A.). Professor Lodovico di CAPORIACCO (Italy). Professor J. R. DYMOND (Canada). Dr. James Lp PETERS (U.S.A.) (Assistant Secretary to the Commission). Dr tlarold .E; VOKES (U:S2A°): Secretariat of the Commission : British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London, S.W. 7. Publications Office of the Commission : 41, Queen’s Gate, London, 5.W: 7. Personal address of the Secretary : 83, Fellows Road (Garden Flat), London, N.W. 3. gees Se URS - a ee on TA KY BD ~— On TAA ILE LF Cea Pt ic iN RPURE Bt . ) Ny FO OD IGG > & ~~ e “% Yk tis ff f g oc f OPINION 156. SUSPENSION OF THE RULES FOR VANESSA FABRICIUS, 1807 (CLASS INSECTA, ORDER LEPIDOPTERA). SUMMARY.—Under suspension of the rules it is hereby declared that page precedence shall not be invoked to secure for Cynthia Fabricius 1807 (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera) over Vanessa Fabricius, 1807. Vanessa Fabricius, with type Papilio atalanta Linnaeus, 1758, is hereby added to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology as Name No. 601. I—THE STATEMENT OF THE CASE. This case was submitted to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature in a letter dated 23rd February 1934, in which the Council of the Royal Entomological Society of London drew attention to the conclusions reached by the Lepidoptera Sub-Committee 1 of the Society’s Committee on Generic Nomen- clature,? regarding the generic names of certain of the British Lepidoptera, in regard to which both the Lepidoptera Sub- Committee and the Committee on Generic Nomenclature were of the opinion that the strict application of the rules would clearly result in greater confusion than uniformity. The Society enclosed a copy of the Report of the Lepidoptera Sub-Committee (published that day as Part 2 of the Generic Names of British Insects), to which was attached a paper by Commissioner Francis Hemming, in which was given a full statement in regard to each of the names in question. One of these names was Vanessa Fabricius, 1807, Mag. f. Insektenk. (Illiger) 6 : 281 (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera, Family NYMPHALIDAE). 2. The following is an extract from the paper referred to above of the passage relating to this genus :— VANESSA Fabricius Fabricius, 1807, Mag. f. Imsektenk. (Illiger) 6 : 281. Latreille, 1810, Consid. gén. Anim. Avach. Ins. : 440. TYPE (fixed by Latreille) = Papilho atalania Linnaeus, 1758. 1 This Sub-Committee was then composed as follows :—Mr. Francis Hemming (Chaivman), Mr. N. D. Riley, and Mr. W. H. T. Tams. 2 This Committee was then composed as follows :—Sir Guy Marshall (Chaiyman), Dr. K. G. Blair, Mr. Francis Hemming, Dr. O. W. Richards, Mr. N. D. Riley, and Professor W. A. F. Balfour-Browne (Secretary), 242 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL I have included among the synonyms of Vanessa Fabricius the name Cynthia Fabricius, which on a strict application of the International Code should take precedence of Vanessa Fabricius. Nomenclatorially, both Vanessa Fabricius and Cynthia Fabricius are valid names, but as their respective types (Papilio atalanta Linnaeus and Papilio cardui Linnaeus) are undoubtedly congeneric, one must sink as a synonym of the other. Both were described by Fabricius in the same paper and the descriptions of both were printed on the same page. The genera enumerated by Fabri- cius were numbered consecutively and Cynthia Fabricius was number I1, while Vanessa Fabricius was number 12. Thus on the principle of page priority, Vanessa Fabricius should fall to Cynthia Fabricius. There are, however, very strong reasons against such an arrangement. The name Vanessa Fabricius, perhaps more than any other butterfly generic name, has throughout its history been applied to the same group of species. Further, these are some of the commonest and most widely known of all the palaearctic butterflies and include such species as the Painted Lady (Papilio cavdui Linnaeus) and the Red Admiral. (Papilio atalanta Linnaeus). There are very strong objections to upsetting so universal a usage unless on the other side very strong reasons can be adduced for doing so. Moreover, if one examines the history of the name Cynthia Fabricius, one finds that it has been used almost consistently for an entirely different group of butterflies belonging to an entirely different faunistic region, 7.e. the Indo-Malayan region. One of these butterflies; Papilio arsinoe Cramer 1777, was the first of the six very miscellaneous species included by Fabricius in his genus Cynthia. The name Cynthia Fabricius came into general use for these species as a result of Doubleday’s action in re-applying it to avsinoe Cramer in his Geneva of Diurnal Lepido- pleva and that species was actually specified as the type by Scudder (1875, Proc. Amer. Acad. Aris Sc1. Boston 10 : 152). It was consistently used in that sense by all subsequent authors until Barnes and Lindsey. (1922, Ann. ent. Soc. Amer. 15: 92) quite correctly pointed out that under the International Code this use was wrong as the type of Cynthia Fabricius is Papilio cavdui Linnaeus, 1758, that species having been specified as such in 1840 by Westwood (1840, Introd. Class. Ins.2 Syn. : 87), the first author to specify a type for this genus. The position is, therefore, that a strict application of the Code would :— (a) deprive Papilio atalanta Linnaeus and Papilio cardui Linnaeus of the generic name Vanessa Fabricius by which they have been almost universally known since 1807; (b) transfer those species to the genus Cynthia Fabricius, a name which has not only hardly ever been applied to them but has also been applied almost universally to an entirely different group of species (Papilio arsinoe Cramer and its allies) .3 In my opinion the confusion that would result is too high a price to pay for the sake of applying the principle of page priority to two names first published on the same page of the same work. 3. The paper from which the foregoing passage is an extract concluded with the hope that the Lepidoptera Sub-Committee would join in reporting to the Committee on Generic Nomen- clature of the Royal Entomological Society of London that it was highly desirable that in the exercise of their plenary powers the 3 The oldest available name for Papilio arsinoe Cramer and its allies is Vindula Hemming, 1934, Entomologist 67 : 77. COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 156. 243 International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature should as soon as possible render an Opinion to the following effect :— The principle of page priority shall not be invoked to secure precedence for Cynthia Fabricius, 1807 (Mag. f. Insektenk. (Illiger) 6 : 281 no. 11) over Vanessa Fabricius, 1807 (ibid. 6: 281 no. 12). Consequently Vanessa Fabricius shall be deemed to be the older of the two names and is hereby added to the Official List of Generic Names. These conclusions were concurred in by the Lepidoptera Sub- Committee by whom they were submitted to the Committee on Generic Nomenclature. The latter body endorsed the view of the Sub-Committee and recommended the Council of the Society to approach the International Commission in the sense indicated. It was in accordance with this recommendation that the Council addressed to the Commission the letter referred to in paragraph I above. otter SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF THE CASE. 4. Before the Commission had time to take any action on this case, they received a letter on the same subject (dated 17th May 1934) from Dr. J. Mc. Dunnough, Chief of the Division of Systematic Entomology, Entomological Branch, Department of Agriculture, Ottawa, from which the following is an extract :— I am enclosing signed copies of a short note which is appearing in the current number of the ‘“‘ Canadian Entomologist.’’? ‘You will see by this that the large majority of active systematic Lepidopterists advocate the fixing of certain genotypes for the four genera mentioned in the note and I am sure also that the large proportion of continental entomologists are in favour of such procedure. The following is an extract from the note referred to above :— ON THE STABILIZING OF FOUR GENERIC NAMES (Lepid. : Rhopalocera) To students of the involved generic nomenclature of the Palaearctic and Nearctic Diurnal Lepidoptera, the recent publication of the “‘ Generic - Names of British Rhopalocera’”’ will prove of great interest. This pamphlet has been prepared by Mr. Francis Hemming at the request of the Committee on Generic Nomenclature of the Royal Entomological Society of London, and includes full details regarding type fixation andsynonymy. Appended to the list is the first report of the Lepidoptera Sub-Committee to the main committee, and following Mr. Hemming’s suggestions, the suspension of the Law of Priority in four cases is advocated by this sub-committee, the ground being that strict application of the rules would cause serious, and quite unnecessary, disturbance in existing practice. The genera involved, with their proposed genotypes, are as follows : . a Vanessa Fabr. (P. atalanta Linn.)... 244 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL Welcoming any action that would assist in stabilizing generic Nomen- clature, the undersigned lepidopterists express their full agreement with the recommendations of the above sub-committee and would urge the adoption of this report. J. Mc. Dunnough, Entom. Br., Dept. of Agriculture, Ottawa, Canada. May 15, 1934. | Jessie D. Gunder, 310 Linda Vista Ave., Pasadena, Calif. Apr. 13, 1934. John A. Comstock, Los Angeles Museum, Exposition Park, Los Angeles, Calif. JA pr.20;-5934:, Wm. T. M. Forbes,4 Dept. of Entomology, Cornell U., Ithaca, N.Y. Apr. 17) 1OSA. Roswell C. Williams, Jr., Acad. Nat. Sciences, 19th & Race Sts., Phila delphia, Pay PAprni 77 Los. E. Irving Huntington, 155 East 90th St., New York, N.Y. Apr. 21, 1934. Cyril F. dos Passos, Washington Corners, Mendham, N.J. Apr. 23, 1934. Frank E. Watson, Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist. N.Y. City. Apr. 23, 1934. C. H. Curran, Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist. N.Y. City. Apr. 23, 1934. Ernest Bell, 150-17 Roosevelt Ave., Flushing, N.Y. Apr. 24, 1934. ~ Alyach B. Klots, College of the City of New York, Dept. of Biology. Apr. ZAG VOSA 5. As a first step the Commission decided to invite the Inter- national Committee on Entomological Nomenclature to report on the present application. This case was accordingly considered by the International Committee at their meeting held at Madrid in the second week of September 1935 during the Sixth Inter- nation@l Congress of Entomology. After careful consideration, the International Committee agreed to recommend the Inter- national Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to take such action under their plenary powers as might be necessary to secure that the generic name for Papilio atalanta Linnaeus, 1758, should be Vanessa Fabricius, 1807. This, and other, recommendations adopted by the International Committee on Entomological Nomenclature at their Madrid meeting were confirmed by the Sixth International Congress of Entomology at the Concilium Plenum held on 12th September 1935. Ill1—THE CONCLUSION REACHED BY THE INTERNA- TIONAL COMMISSION. 6. When the International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature met at Lisbon immediately after the close of the Sixth International Congress of Entomology in September 1935, they found themselves confronted with a large number of cases in- volving proposals for the suspension of the rules, in respect of 4 Dr. Forbes added the following note :—I should be equally willing to accept 10 or antiopa as type of Vanessa, being more interested in fixity than in what is fixed, within reason. - COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 156. 245 some of which advertisements had not been published or, if published, had not been published for the prescribed period, owing to the illness of Dr. C. W. Stiles, Secretary to the Com- mission, or for other causes. In these circumstances, the Com- mission decided at their meeting held on the morning of Monday, 16th September 1935 (Lisbon Session, 2nd Meeting, Conclusion 9) that immediate consideration should be given to all cases sub- mitted to the Commission that, in their judgment, had reached the stage at which a decision could properly be taken; that the By- Laws of the Commission should be suspended during the Lisbon Session to such extent as might be necessary to give effect to this decision; and that, in so far as this procedure involved taking decisions “‘ under suspension of the rules’’ in cases where the prescribed advertisement procedure had not been complied with, the cases in question should be duly advertised as soon as might be practicable after the conclusion of the Lisbon Congress and that no Ofimion should be rendered and published thereon until after the expiry of a period of one year from the date on which the said advertisement was despatched to the prescribed journals for publication. The case of the generic names Vanessa Fabricius and Cynthia Fabricius was one of the cases in question and was accordingly dealt with by the Commission under the above procedure. 7. This case was considered by the International Commission later in the course of the meeting referred to above (Lisbon Session, 2nd Meeting, Conclusion 22), when the Commission agreed :—® 66 (a) to “ suspend the rules ”’ in the case of the following generic names :— ee © © ee 6 (e) to declare that page precedence shall. not be invoked to secure precedence for Cynthia Fabricius, 1807, Mag. f. Insektenk. (Illiger) 6: 281 (type: Papilio cavdui1 Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1: 475) over Vanessa Fabricius, 1807, Mag. f. Insektenk.(Illiger) 6 ; 281 (lower down on the same page as the name Cynthia) (type: Papilio atalanta Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1: 478); and therefore that the name Vanessa Fabricius is valid ; Mmtenadd the generic mames ... Vanessa Pabricius, 1807, . . . to the Official List of Generic Names, with the types indicated above ; (1) to render Opinions in the sense of (a) to (1) above. > Only those portions of Conclusion 22 which refer to the present case are here quoted. For the full text of Conclusion 22, see 1943, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 1 : 20-23. 246 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL 8. The foregoing decisions were embodied in paragraph 28 of the report ® which at their meeting held on the morning of Wednes- day, 18th September 1935, the Commission (Lisbon Session, 5th Meeting, Conclusion 6) unanimously agreed to submit to the Twelfth International Congress of Zoology. That report was unanimously approved by the Section on Nomenclature at its joint meeting with the International Commission held on the afternoon of the same day. It was thereupon submitted to the Twelfth International Congress of Zoology by which it was unanimously approved and adopted at the Concilium Plenum held on the afternoon of Saturday, 21st September 1935, the last day of the Congress. g. In accordance with the decision taken by the Commission at Lisbon in regard to their procedure at that Session (paragraph 6 above), this case was duly advertised in 1936 in two or more of the journals named in the Resolution adopted by the Ninth International Congress of Zoology at its meeting held at Monaco in March 1913, by which the said International Congress con- ferred upon the International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature plenary power to suspend the rules as applied to any given case where, in the judgment of the Commission, the strict applica- tion of the rules would clearly result in greater confusion than uniformity. In the period that has elapsed since the advertise- ment in the said journals of the proposed suspension of the rules in the present case, no communication of any kind has been addressed to the International Commission objecting to the issue of an Opinion in the terms proposed. 10. The present Opinion was concurred in by the eee (12) Commissioners and Alternates present at the Lisbon Session of the International Commission, namely :— _ Commissioners :—Calman; Hemming; Jordan; Pellegrin; Peters; and Stejneger. , Alternates :—do Amaral vice Cabrera; Ohshima vice Esaki; Bradley vice Stone; Beier vice Handlirsch; Arndt vice Richter; and Mortensen vice Apstein. 11. The present Opinion was dissented from by no Commissioner or Alternate present at the Lisbon Session. Nor since that Session has any Commissioner who was neither present on that occasion nor represented thereat by an Alternate indicated dis- agreement with the conclusions then reached by the Commission 6 See 1943, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 1 : 60-61. COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 156. 247 in this matter. The following five (5) Commissioners who were not present at Lisbon nor represented thereat by Alternates did not vote on the present Opinion :— Bolivar y Pieltain; Chapman; Fantham; Silvestri; and Stiles. 12. At the time when the vote was taken on the present Opinion, there was one (1) vacancy in the Commission consequent upon the death of Commissioner Horvath. IV.-AUTHORITY FOR THE ISSUE OF THE PRESENT OPINION. WHEREAS the Ninth International Congress of Zoology at its meeting held at Monaco in March 1913, adopted a Resolution conferring upon the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, acting for the International Congress of Zoology, Plenary Power to suspend the rules as applied to any given © case, where, in the judgment of the Commission, the strict application of the said rules would clearly result in greater con- fusion than uniformity, provided that not less than one year’s notice of the possible suspension of the rules as applied to the said case should be given in two or more of five journals named in the said Resolution and provided that the vote in the Com- mission was unanimously in favour of the proposed suspension of the rules; and . WHEREAS the suspension of the rules is required to give valid force to the provisions of the present Ofinion as set out in the summary thereof; and WHEREAS not less than one year’s notice of the possible sus- pension of the rules as applied to the present case has been given to two or more of the journals referred to in the Resolution adopted by the Ninth International Congress of Zoology at its meeting held at Monaco in March 1913; and WHEREAS the vote in the Commission at their Lisbon Session was unanimously in favour of the issue of an Opinion in the terms of the present Opinion ; Now, THEREFORE, I, FRANCIS HEMMING, Secretary to the International Com- mission on Zoological Nomenclature, acting in virtue of all and every the powers conferred upon me in that behalf by reason of 248 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL holding the said Office of Secretary to the International Com- mission, hereby announce the-said Opinion on behalf of the Inter- national Commission, acting for the International Congress of Zoology, and direct that it be rendered and printed as Opinion Number One Hundred and Fifty Six (Opinion 156) of the said Commission. In faith whereof, I, the undersigned FRANcIS HEMMING, Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature, have signed the present Opinion. Done in London, this fifth day of May, Nineteen Hundred and Forty Three, in a single copy, which shall remain deposited in the archives of the International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature. Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. FRANCIS HEMMING COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 150. 249 THE PUBLICATIONS OF THE COMMISSION. (obtainable at the Publications Office of the Commission at 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7.) Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. This journal has been established by the International Com- mission as their Official Organ in order to provide a medium for the publication of :— (a) proposals on zoological nomenclature submitted to the International Commission for deliberation and decision ; (b) comments received from, and correspondence by the Secretary with, zoologists on proposals published in the Bulletin under (a) above; and (c) papers on nomenclatorial implications of Set PETES in taxonomic theory and practice. The Bulletin was established in 1943, in which year three Parts were published. Part 4 has been published in 1944 and Parts 5 and 6 are in the press. Opinions and Declarations Rendered by the International Com- mission on Zoological Nomenclature. The above work is being published in three volumes con- currently, namely :— Volume 1. This volume will contain Declarations 1-9 (which have never previously been published) and Ofinions 1-133 (the original issue of which is now out of print). Parts 1-15 (contain- ing Declarations 1-g and Ofimions 1-6) have now been published. Further Parts will be published shortly. Volume 2. ‘his volume will be issued in 52 Parts, comprising all the decisions taken by the International Commission at their meeting at Lisbon in 1935, namely Declarations 10-12 (with Roman pagination) and Opinions 134-181 (with Arabic pagina- tion). Part 52 will contain the index and title page of the volume. Parts 1-26, containing Declarations 10-12 and Opinions 134-156, have now been published. Further Parts will be published shortly. Volume 3. This volume, which commenced with Opinion 182, will contain the Ofimions adopted by the International Com- mission since their meeting at Lisbon in 1935. Parts 1-4 (con- taining Opinions 182-185) have now been published. Further Parts will be published as soon as possible. 250 INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. APPEAL FOR FUNDS The International Commission appeal earnestly to all institutions and individuals interested in the development of zoological nomen- clature to contribute, according to their means, to the Commission’s Special (Publications) Fund. Of the total sum of £1,800 required to enable the Commission to issue all the publications now awaiting | printing, donations amounting to £778 13s. 7d. were received up to 30th June 1944. Additional contributions are urgently needed in order to enable the Commission to continue their work without interruption. Contributions of any amount, however small, will be most gratefully received. Contributions should be sent to the International Commission at their Publications Office, 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W. 7, and made payable to the “ International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature or Order ’’ and crossed ‘‘ Account payee. Coutts & Co.’’. PRINTED IN GREAT BRITAIN BY RICHARD CLAY AND COMPANY, LTD., BUNGAY, SUFFOLK. 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 2. Part 27. Pp. 251-262. OPINION 157 Three names in the Order Hymenoptera _ (Class Insecta) added to the Official List of : Generic Names in Zoology | a. LONDON: Printed by Order of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature Sold at the Publications Office of the Commission | 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7 1945. Price three shillings (All rights reserved) Issued 21st February, 1945 INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE COMPOSITION OF THE COMMISSION The Officers of the Commission President: Dr. Karl Jordan, Ph.D., F.R.S. (United Kingdom). Secretary : Mr. Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. (United Kingdom). Assistant Secretary: Dr. James L. Peters (U.S.A.). The Members of the Commission Class 1946 Herr Professor Dr. Walter ARNDT (Germany). Dr. William Thomas CALMAN (United Dae Professor Teiso ESAKI (Japan). Professor Béla von HANKO (Hungary). Dr. Tadeusz JACZEWSKI (Poland). Dr. Norman R. STOLL (U:S.A.). Class 1949 Senor Dr. Angel CABRERA (Argentina). Mr. Francis HEMMING (United Kingdom) (Secretary to the Commission). Dr. Karl JORDAN (United Kingdom) (President of the Commission). Dr. Joseph PEARSON (Australia). Monsieur le Docteur Jacques PELLEGRIN (France). Herr Professor Dr. Rudolf RICHTER (Germany). Class 1952 Senhor Dr. Afranio do AMARAL (Brazil). Professor James Chester BRADLEY (U.S.A.). Professor Ludovico di CAPORIACCO (Italy). Professor J. R. DYMOND (Canada). Dr. James L. PETERS (U.S.A.) (Assistant Secretary to the Commission). Dr. Harold E. VOKES (U.S.A.). Secretariat of the Commission : British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London, S.W. 7. Publications Office 3 the Cuneo < 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W. 7. Personal address of the Secretary : 83, Fellows Road (Garden Flat), London, N.W. 3. OPINION 157. THREE NAMES IN THE ORDER HYMENOPTERA (CLASS INSECTA) ADDED TO THE OFFICIAL LIST OF GENERIC NAMES IN ZOOLOGY. SUMMARY.—The names Cryptus Fabricius, [1804-1805], Arge Schrank, 1802, and Diprion Schrank, 1802 (Class Insecta, Order Hymenoptera), with the types specified in paragraph 7 of the present Opinion, are hereby added to the Official List of Generic Names in Zology as Names Nos. 602 to 604. I.—THE STATEMENT OF THE CASE. Attention was first drawn by Professor James Chester Bradley in 1919 (Trans. ent. Soc. Lond. 1919 : 50-75) to certain serious difficulties in the Order Hymenoptera (Class Insecta) that would arise from the strict application of the rules as regards names first published in the so-called “‘ Erlangen List.’’ These difficulties led Professor Chester Bradley to consult the leading systematic workers in the Hymenoptera in all countries on the course of action tobe pursued. As the result of these consultations, the following petition signed by Professor Chester Bradley and 59 other hymeno- pterists was submitted to the International Commission :— The conservation of Cvyptus and Pieronus Crypius Jurine, 1801, Type C. segmentaria Panzer (see Bradley, 1919, Pp. 54) isasawfly. But the name has been universally used in the sense of Fabr., 1804, for a genus of ichneumon wasps, typical of the universally recognised ‘subfamily CRYPTINAE. Cryptus segmentaria Panzer is con- generic with Tenthredo enodis L., the genotype of Avge, today recognised as the type genus of a family of sawflies. Pievonus Jurine, 1801, Type.Tenthredo pini L, (see Morice and Durrant, 1915, p. 380 and Rohwer, 1g11, p. 88 and 98) has been in common use until Pievonidea was proposed by Rohwer (loc. cit.) to replace it, for a genus of TENTHREDINIDAE of the subfamily NEMATINAE. But Tenthredo pini is type of Diprion Schrank, 1802, the type genus of the family called by Rohwer DIPRIONIDAE. This group has been universally known as LOPHY- RIDAE OF LOPHYRINAE, the genus Lophyrus Latr., 1802, having as its type 1 Fabricius’s Systema Piezatorum was probably not published until the beginning of 1805 and if published in 1804 must have been published at the very end of that year (see Griffin, 1935, 7m Richards, Trans. R. ent. Soc. Lond. 83: 144). Names first published by Fabricius in this work ee therefore be dated ed —1805 and the date should be cited in square rackets. 254 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL also, Tenthvedo pini L., but since it was preoccupied in Mollusca by Poli in 1791, it has been recently replaced by Diprion. The changes from the universal usage of more than a century necessitated by the above facts under the application of the Code are hereunder tabulated :— Cryptus of authors becomes: JItamoplex Foerster (see Cushman, R. A., Proc. Washington Academy of Sci., 1925, 15: 280). CRYPTINI of authors becomes : ITAMOPLEGINI*; MESOSTENINI accord- ing to Cushman. CRYPTINAE of authors becomes : ITAMOPLEGINAE * ; GELIDINAE accord- ing to Cushman.t Arge Schrank and auctt. becomes: Cvypius Jurine nec auctt. ARGINAE Of Rohwer becomes : CRYPTINAE. ARGIDAE of Rohwer becomes : CRYPTIDAE. Ptervonus of authors becomes: Ptevonidea Rohwer. Lophyrus Latr. and authors (nec Poli) become: Pélevonus Jurine Diprion Schrank, a synonym of Lophyrus be auctt. LOPHYRINAE auctt., DIPRIONINAE Rohwer, becomes PTERONINAE. Since to follow the rules in these cases would involve great confusion, and would leave uncertainty in the future as to the sense in which these family names were used and would dissociate the future literature from the past to the utmost confusion of scholars, therefore the undersigned, hopeful of relief, respectfully petition the Commission to invoke the plenary power bestowed upon them by action of the Monaco Congress, and to take action as follows, to wit: (1) to suspend the rules in the case of the generic names Cryptus, Arge and Pieronus ; (2) to permanently reject : (a) Cryptus Jurine, 1801, and Panzer, 1804, type C. segmentaria Panzer; (b) Péevonus Jurine, 1801, and Panzer, 1804, type Tenthredo pint L.; (3) to validate : (a) Avge Schrank, 1802, type Fenthvedo enodis L.; (b) Cryptus Fabr., 1804, type C. viduatorius Fabr.; (c) Lophyrus Latr., 1802, type Tenthredo pini (in spite of Lophyrus Poli, 1791, in Mollusca §) or Diprion || Schrank, 1802, type Tenthredo pint; (4) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology : (a) Cryptus Fabricius, 1804, type C. viduatorius Fabr., as the correct name for a genus of ichneumon-wasps }; (b) Avge Schrank, 1802, type Tenthvedo enodis L., as the correct name for a genus of sawflies; (c) Lophyrus Latr., 1802, or Diprion Schrank,|| 1802, type Ten- thredo pint, as the valid name of a genus of sawflies. * On the grounds that CRYPTINAE auctt. was based on Cryptus Fabr., a homonym of Cryptus Jurine, that its type genus must not be changed, but only the name thereof, and that if the name of the type genus changes to Itamoplex, or otherwise the subfamily will be based on the changed name, + On the basis of Gelis being the oldest contained name although a name not hitherto used as type of a group name. § Lophyrus is no longer a recognised or a-valid name in Mollusca. || Diprion only in case the Commission is unwilling to validate Lophyrus. COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 157. 255 2. The following is the list of signatures attached to the above petition at the time of its submission to the International Com- mission :— 2, Brues R. Benoist * H. Haupt Jos. Bequaert J. D. Alfken * H. Brauns { G, Grandi A. Krausse L. Berland A. B. Gahan * M. Wolff A. A. Oglobin io. Prison * J. G. Betrem O. W. Richards A. R. Park * R. Fouts P. P. Babiy H. H. Ross * G,. Arnold V9. Lb, Pate J. M. Dusmet A. Handlirsch J. C. Bradley W. M. Wheeler * I. Micha G. Enderlein G. T. Lyle H. Hacker T. Uchida + R. A. Cushman * Aw: Kinsey. * O. Vogt tf E, A, Elliott H. de W. Marriott H. Habermehl t+ A. Crevecoeur P. Maidl E. Kruger f W. M. Mann P. Roth W. Hellen + R. Friese E. Enslin F. X. Williams f H. von Ihering { A. von Schulthess O. Schmiedeknecht tf R. B. Benson * N. N. Kuznezov- H. Hedicke H. F. Schwarz Ugamtsky + H. Bischoff W. V. Balouf * By, By Lutz L. Masi D. S. Wilkinson * L. H. Weld * * In accord with results sought by the petition without having studied the points involved in the particular case. + Evidently intended to subscribe to this petition, but sheet bearing his signature was not included i in his reply. t Deceased. Il.—THE SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF THE CASE. 3. This case was circulated to the members of the International Commission in January 1935, when it was arranged that it and the other Hymenoptera cases submitted at the same time should be dealt with at Lisbon in September of that year, by which time the recommendations of the International Committee on En- tomological Nomenclature would be available. 4. This case was considered by the International Committee on Entomological Nomenclature at its meeting held at Madrid in the second week of September 1935 during the Sixth Inter- national Congress of Entomology. After careful consideration the Committee decided to frame its recommendations to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, first on the assumption that the Commission would agree to use their plenary powers to suppress the “ Erlangen List ’’ in which the names Cryptus Jurine, 1801, and Ptervonus Jurine, 1801, were published, and second on the assumption that the Commission would not be able to see their way to deal with the problem in 256 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL this radical fashion. The International Committee accordingly agreed upon the following recommendations :— (a) if the “ Evlangen List’”’ was suppressed : (i) (iii) there would be no need for the International Commission to use their plenary powers to suppress the names, Cvypius Jurine, 1801, and Pteronus Jurine, 1801, since both those names would cease to. be available nomenclatorially if the “‘ Erlangen ps ce was suppressed ; In the petition the date 1804 had been assigned to the names Cryptus Panzer and Pieronus Panzer; but the second of ‘these names was certainly not published until 180 5, while the date of the first was uncertain. In these circumstances no question of the suspension of the rules would arise for Ptevonus Panzer and suspension would not be essential in the case of Cvyptus Panzer. the name Lophyrus Latreille, [1802—1803],? (42 Sonnini’s Buffon) Hist. nat. gén. partic. Crust. Ins. 3 : 302, was to be preferred to Diprion Schrank, 1802, Fauna boic. 2 (2) : 209, for the genus of sawflies referred to in paragraph 4(c) of the summary to the petition, but no serious confusion would arise if the Commission felt reluctant to use their plenary powers to validate Lophyrus Latreille by SUpPressins the name Lophyrus Poli, 1791, Test. S1éu. 1 32,-43 In the circumstances contemplated, it would therefore be sufficient if the International Commission were to add the names Cryptus Fabricius, [1804-1805], Avge Schrank, 1802, and Diprion Schrank, 1802, to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology, with the types ‘indicated 1 in paragraph 4 of the summary to the petition ; 4 i (b) if the ‘ Erlangen List’? was not suppressed : (i) In order to secure the desired result, it would be necessary for the International Commission to use their plenary powers to suppress the names Crypius Jurine, 1801, and Ptevonus Jurine, 1801, and, as the use of the plenary powers would in any case be necessary in order to deal with this case, the Commission might consider it convenient also to use those powers to suppress Cryptus Panzer, in order to eliminate the possibility of subsequent discussion in regard to the relative priority of that name and Cryptus Fabricius ; Once the Commission had used their plenary powers in the fore- going sense, the position would be similar to that which would exist if the ‘‘ Erlangen List ’’ was suppressed, and in consequence the recomnfendations set out in (a) (ili) and (iv) above would apply. 5. The recommendations agreed upon by the Tateraatienes Committee on Entomological Nomenclature, as set out in para- graph 4 above, together with the other resolutions adopted by the * This volume is dated ‘‘ An X”’ in the French Republican calendar. It. was, therefore, published between 23rd September 1801 and 22nd September 1802 (see Griffin, 1939, J. Soc. Bibl. nat. Hist. 1 (9) : 240). 3 The genus Lophyrus Poli, 1791, belongs to the Class and Order Poly- placophora. * For the text of the petition here referred to, see paragraph I oe the present Opinion. COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 157. 257 Committee during its meeting held at Madrid were confirmed by - the Sixth International Congress of Entomology at the Concilium Plenum held at Madrid on. 12th September 1935. 6. At their meeting held at Lisbon on the morning of Monday, 16th September 1935 (Lisbon Session, 2nd Meeting, Conclusion 13°), the International Commission unanimously agreed to use the plenary powers conferred upon them by the Ninth Inter- national Congress of Zoology at Monaco in 1913, in order to suppress the “‘ Erlangen List.’’ When, therefore, at their meeting held on the afternoon of the same day (Lisbon Session, 3rd Meeting, Conclusion 2 *) the Commission came to consider the present case, they found that it was only necessary to take into account the recommendations of the International Committee on Entomological Nomenclature set out in section (a) of paragraph 4 above, since those in section (b) were no longer applicable. Pe —lam CONCLUSION REACHED BY THE INTERNA- TIONAL COMMISSION. 7. After careful consideration, the International Commission decided to adopt the recommendations submitted in this case by the International Committee on Entomological Nomenclature as summarised in section (a) (iv) of paragraph 4 above, and accord- ingly agreed (Lisbon Session, 3rd Meeting, Conclusion 2 *) :— (a) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zocieey the under- : -mentioned six nomenclatorially available generic names, with types as shown, each of which has been duly designated in accordance with the provisions of the International Code :— Name of genus Tepe of genus (4) Cryptus Fabricius, [1804— Cryptus viduatorius Fabricius, 1805], Syst. Piezat. : 70 [1804-1805], (same reference as - generic name Crypius) (type designated by Curtis, 1837, ag Bnit. Ent. 14: pl. 668) Vet (5) Avge Schrank, 1802, Tenthvredo enodis Linnaeus, 1767, Fauna boic. 2 (2) : 209 SWVSis INGE NEG I) BCR. (type designated by Rohwer, ro11, Tech. Ser. U.S. Bur, Ent. 20 (2) : 74) _ ® See 1943, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 1 : 13-14. ® See 1943, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 1 : 27-30. * Only those portions of Conclusion 2 which refer to the present case are here quoted. For the full text of Conclusion 2, see 1943, Bull. zool. Nomencl.1:27-30. °._. 258 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL (6) Diprion Schrank, 1802, Tenthredo pint Linnaeus, 1758, Fauna boic. 2 (2) : 209 Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 3 556 (type designated by Rohwer, roto, Proc. U.S, nat. Mus. 39 : 103) eeeeee (e) to render Opinions in the sense of (a) to (d) above. 8. The foregoing decisions were embodied in paragraph 25 of the report ® which at their meeting held on the morning of Wed- nesday, 18th September 1935, the Commission (Lisbon Session, 5th Meeting, Conclusion 6) unanimously agreed to submit to the Twelfth International Congress of Zoology. That report was unanimously approved by the Section on Nomenclature at its joint meeting with the International Commission held on the afternoon of the same day. It was thereupon submitted to the Twelfth International Congress of Zoology by which it was unanimously approved and adopted at the Concilium Plenum held on the afternoon of Saturday, 21st September 1935, the last day of the Congress. g. The present Ofinion was concurred in by the twelve (12) Commissioners and Alternates present at the Lisbon Session of the International Commission, namely :— Commissioners :—Calman; Hemming; Jordan; Pellegrin; Peters; and Stejneger. Alternates :—do Amaral vice Cabrera; Ohshima vice Esaki; Bradley vice Stone; Beier vice Handlirsch; Arndt wice Richter; and Mortensen vice Apstein. 10. The present Opinion was dissented from by no Commissioner or Alternate present at the Lisbon Session. Nor since that Session has any Commissioner who was not present on that occasion indicated disagreement with the conclusions then reached by the Commission in this matter. 11. The following five (5) Commissioners who were neither present at the Lisbon Session of the International Commission nor represented thereat by Alternates did not vote on the present Opinion :— Bolivar y Pieltain; Chapman; Fantham; Silvestri; and-Stiles. 12. At the time when the vote was taken on the present Opinion, there was one (1) vacancy in the Commission consequent upon the death of Commissioner Horvath. 8 See 1943, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 1 : 58-59. COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION I57. 259 im AUTHORITY FOR THE ISSUBP OF THE PRESENT OPINION. WHEREAS the By-Laws of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature provide that, except in cases involving the suspension of the rules, an Opinion is to be deemed to have been adopted by the said International Commission as soon as a majority of the Members of the Commission, that is to say ten (10) Members of the said Commission, have recorded their votes in favour thereof, provided that, where any proposed Opinion involves a reversal of any former Opinion rendered by the Com- mission, such proposed Ofimion shall obtain the concurrence of at least fourteen (14) Members of the Commission voting on the same before such Opinion is to be deemed to have been adopted by the Commission; and WHEREAS the present Opinion, as set out in the summary thereof, neither requires, in order to be valid, the suspension of the rules, nor involves a reversal of any former Opinion rendered by the Commission; and WHEREAS twelve (12) Members of the Commission have signi- fied their concurrence in the present Opinion either in person or through Alternates at the Session of the Commission held in Lisbon in September 1935; Now, THEREFORE, I, FRANCIS HEMMING, Secretary to the International Com- mission on Zoological Nomenclature, acting in virtue of all and every the powers conferred upon me in that behalf by reason of holding the said Office of Secretary to the International Com- mission, hereby announce the said Opinion on behalf of the International Commission, acting for the International Congress of Zoology, and direct that it be rendered and printed as Opinion Number One Hundred and Fifty Seven (Opinion 157) of the said Commission. In faith whereof I, the undersigned FRANCIS HEMMING, Secre- tary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature, have signed the present Opinion. 260 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL DonE in London, this tenth day of May, Nineteen Hundred and Forty Three, in a single copy, which shall remain deposited in the archives of the International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature. Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. FRANCIS HEMMING - COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 157. 201 THE PUBLICATIONS OF THE COMMISSION. _ (obtainable at the Publications Office of the Commission at 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7.) Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. This journal has been established by the International Com- mission as their Official Organ in order to provide a medium for the publication of :— (a) proposals on zoological nomenclature submitted to the International Commission for deliberation and decision ; (b) comments received from, and correspondence by the Secretary with, zoologists on proposals published in the Bulletin under (a) above; and (c) papers on nomenclatorial implications of developments in taxonomic theory and practice. _ The Bulletin was established in 1943, in which year three Parts were published. Part 4 was published in 1944. Parts 5 and 6 are in the press. Opinions and Declarations Rendered by the International Com- ) - mission on Zoological Nomenclature. The above work is being published in three volumes con- _ currently, namely :— Volume 1. This volume will contain Declarations 1-9 (which have never previously been published) and Ofinions 1-133 (the original issue of which is now out of print). Parts 1-16 (contain- ing Declarations 1-9 and Opinions 1-7) have now been published. Further Parts will be published shortly. Volume 2. This volume will be issued in 52 Parts, comprising all the decisions taken by the International Commission at their meeting at Lisbon in 1935, namely Declarations 10-12 (with Roman pagination) and Opinions 134-181 (with Arabic pagina- tion). Part 52 will contain the index and title page of the volume. Parts I-29, containing Declarations 10-12 and Opinions 134-159, have now been published. Further Parts will be published shortly. Volume 3. This volume, which commenced with Opinion 182, will contain the Opinions adopted by the International Commis- sion since their meeting at Lisbon in 1935. Parts 1-4 (containing Opinions 182-185) have now been published. Further Parts will be published as soon as possible. 262 INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. APPEAL FOR FUNDS © The International Commission appeal earnestly to all institutions and individuals interested in the development of zoological nomen- clature to contribute, according to their means, to the Commission’s Special (Publications) Fund. Of the total sum of £1,800 required to enable the Commission to issue all the publications now awaiting printing, donations amounting to £819 8s. 7d. were received up to 31st December 1944. Additional contributions are urgently needed in order to enable the Commission to continue their work without interruption. Contributions of any amount, however small, will be most gratefully received. Contributions should be sent to the International Commission at their Publications Office, 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W. 7, and - made payable to the “ International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature or Order ’’ and crossed ‘‘ Account payee. Coutts & Co.’’. | . PRINTED IN GREAT BRITAIN BY RiIcHARD CLAY AND CoMPANY, Ltp., _ UNGAY SUFFOLK, te 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 2. Part 28. Pp. 263-274. OPINION 158 On the status of the name Locusta Linnaeus, 1758 (Class Insecta, Order Orthoptera) LONDON: Printed by Order of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature Sold at the Publications Office of the Commission 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7 1945 Price three shillings (All rights reserved) Issued 21st February, 1945 INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE COMPOSITION OF THE COMMISSION The Officers of the Commission President: Dr. Karl Jordan, Ph.D., F.R.S. (United Kingdom). Secretary : Mr. Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. (United Kingdom). Assistant Secretary : Dr. James L. Peters (U.S.A.). The Members of the Commission Class 1946 Herr Professor Dr. Walter ARNDT (Germany). Dr. William Thomas CALMAN (United Kingdom). Professor Teiso ESAKI (Japan). Professor Béla von HANKO (Hungary). Dr. Tadeusz JACZEWSKI (Poland). Dr. Norman R. STOLL (U.S.A.). Class 1949 Senor Dr. Angel CABRERA (Argentina). Mr. Francis HEMMING (United Kingdom) (Secretary to the Commission). Dr. Karl JORDAN (United Kingdom) (President of the Commission). Dr. Joseph PEARSON (Australia). Monsieur le Docteur Jacques PELLEGRIN (France). Herr Professor Dr. Rudolf RICHTER (Germany). Class 1952 Senhor Dr. Afranio do AMARAL (Brazil). Professor James Chester BRADLEY (U.S.A.). Professor Ludovico di CAPORIACCO (Italy). Professor J. R. DYMOND (Canada). Dr. James L. PETERS (U.S.A.) (Assistant Secretary to the Commission). Dr. Harold E. VOKES (U.S.A.). Secretariat of the Commission : British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London, S.W. 7. Publications Office of the Commission : 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W. 7. Personal address of the Secretary : 83, Fellows Road (Garden Flat), London, N.W. 3. OPINION 158. ON THE STATUS OF THE NAME LOCUSTA LINNAEUS, 1758 (CLASS INSECTA, ORDER ORTHOPTERA). _ SUMMARY.—Under suspension of the rules it is hereby declared that the name Locusta Linnaeus (Class Insecta, Order Orthoptera) is to be accepted as of subgeneric value as from 1758 (Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 431) and that its type is Gryllus migratorius Linnaeus, 1758. The name Locusta Linnaeus, validated as above and with the type indicated above, is hereby added to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology aS Name No. 605. [.—THE STATEMENT OF THE CASE. The name Locusta was included in the long list of generic names drawn from many Phyla and Classes dealt with in the paper published in 1915 by Commissioner C. Apstein under the title “ Nomina conservanda. Unter Mitwirkung zahlreicher Spezralisten herausgegeben von Prof. C. Apstein, Berlin’’ (SitzBer. Ges. naturf. Fr. Berl. 1915 (5) : 119-202). Commissioner Apstein proposed that all the names included in his list should be treated by the Commission as ““ nomina conservanda ”’ (7.e. that they should be placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology) with the types indicated in his list. 2. Commissioner Apstein in his list attributed the name Locusta (Class Insecta, Order Orthoptera) not to Linnaeus but to “ Geer ”’ eae itom 1773 and proposed that ~“ wividissima L., 1758,’ 1.€. Gryllus viridissimus Linnaeus, 1758 (Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 430) should be declared to be the type of this genus. Il—THE SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF THIS CASE. 3. Commissioner Apstein communicated his list to the Com- mission in the course of 1915 and in December of that year the Secretary to the Commission suggested that the most satisfactory. way of dealing with his proposal would be to refer the various portions of which it was made up to special advisory committees on the nomenclature of the groups concerned. This course was adopted but, as was inevitable, the reports from the Committees were a long time in coming in, In 1922, the Commission agreed 266 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL to render an Opinion (Opinion 74), in which they pointed out that they had no power to adopt en bloc the list submitted by Commissioner Apstein but indicated that they were prepared “ to consider names separately upon presentation of reasonably complete evidence.”’ 4. In 1929, Commissioner A. Handlirsch submitted to the Commission a further list of generic names in the Order Orthoptera which he recommended be added to the Official List. Com- missioner Handlirsch’s list contained a number of names already submitted to the Commission in Commissioner Apstein’s list. Among these names was Locusta, which Commissioner Handlirsch, like Commissioner Apstein, attributed to De Geer, 1773, and for which he also proposed that “ vividissima L., 1758” should be recognised as the type. 5. Later in 1929, the Commission invited the International Committee on Entomological Nomenclature to consider (a) the list of 52 names of genera of the Order Orthoptera submitted by Commissioner Apstein, (b) the report on certain of the names contained therein furnished at their request by Dr. A. N. Caudell of the United States National Museum,! and (c) the list of 28 names submitted by Commissioner Handlirsch, and to submit recommendations to the Commission in regard thereto. 6. This request involved a considerable amount of preliminary study by the International Committee, and it was accordingly not until their meeting at Madrid in the second week of September 1935 that the International Committee were able to draw up a resolution, for submission to the International Commission, in regard to the names in the Order Orthoptera on which they had been asked to advise. . 7, When the International Committee came to examine the case of the name Locusta, they found that the situation had changed materially since the receipt of Commissioner Apstein’s original proposal. The name Locusta was no longer commonly attributed to De Geer but was treated almost universally as having been published by Linnaeus in 1758 (Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1: 431), where it was introduced as one of six subdivisions (Mantis, Acrida, Bulla, Acheta, Tettigonia, Locusta) of the genus Gryllus. Further, as regards the type of Locusta, it was now recognised that, if Locusta was to be treated as having been published in the roth edition of the Systema Naturae, its type 1 The name Locusta was not one of the names dealt with in the report here referred to. COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 158. 267 could not possibly be Gryllus viridissimus Linnaeus, 1758 (as proposed by Commissioners Apstein and Handlirsch), since on that occasion Linnaeus had placed Gryllus viridissimus in the subdivision which he called Tettigonia and not in the subdivision Locusta. Moreover, Dr. B. P. Uvarov, a member of the Inter- national Committee, had in 1921 (Bull. ent. Res. 12 : 135-163) published a revision of the genus Locusta in which he had pointed out that the first valid type designation for this genus was that of Gryllus Locusta migratorius Linnaeus, 1758 (Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 432) by Curtis in 1836 (Brit. Ent. 3: 608). Since that date, that species had become generally accepted as the type of Locusta. In these circumstances, it seemed as though all that was required in this case was to recommend the International Commission to add the name Locusta Linnaeus, 1758, to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology, with Gryllus migratorius Linnaeus, 1758, as type, that species having been validly so designated under the International Code. - 8. At this stage in the consideration of this case, Commissioner Karl Jordan, Secretary to the International Committee, informed the Committee that at their meeting held at Padua on 30th August 1930, the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature had decided in principle to render an Opinion declaring that the various subdivisions of genera published by Linnaeus in 1758 (in the Syst. Nat.) are not to be accepted as of that date (1758) as of subgeneric value under the rules. An Opinion in this sense had recently been formally adopted by the Commission and would shortly be published.? It would be found that in that Opinion the Commission had made it clear that, if any group of specialists were to find that because of the literature in their group, the decision laid down in this Opinion would produce greater confusion than uniformity, the Commission would be prepared to consider individual cases submitted to them ‘by the specialists concerned. g. After further discussion, the International Committee were unanimously of the opinion that to deprive the name Locusta of its status as a name published by Linnaeus in 1758 would be likely to produce greater confusion than uniformity and that for this reason it was desirable that the International Commission should be asked to exclude the name Locusta from the scope of the general Opinion shortly to be published.2 The Committee * The Opinion here referred to was published as Opinion 124 in 1936 (Smithson. misc. Coll. 73 (No. 8) : 1-2). 208 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL were greatly strengthened in this view by the evident need of doing everything possible to secure stability of nomenclature in the case of a genus such as Locusta which contained species of very great economic importance and which had in consequence been widely used in technical publications outside the field of systematic entomology. | 10. The International Committee accordingly adopted a resolution inviting the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to make use of their plenary powers to suspend the rules, in order to ensure that the name Locusta should have status as from its publication in the roth edition of Linnaeus’s Systema Naturae, to declare Gryllus migratorius Linnaeus, 1758, to be the type of the genus Lecusta Linnaeus so validated and to add the name Locusta Linnaeus, 1758, with the above species as type, to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. iz. This and other resolutions adopted by the International Committee on Entomological Nomenclature during its meeting held at Madrid were confirmed by the Sixth International Congress of Entomology at the Concilium Plenum held at Madrid on rath September 1935. Ill.—THE CONCLUSION REACHED BY THE COMMISSION. 12. When the International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature met at Lisbon immediately after the close of the Sixth International Congress of Entomology in September 1935, they found themselves confronted with a large number of cases involv- ing proposals for the suspension of the rules, in respect of some of which advertisements had not been published or, if published, had not been published for the prescribed period, owing to the illness of Dr. C. W. Stiles, Secretary to the Commission, or for other causes. In these circumstances, the Commission decided at their meeting held on the morning of Monday, 16th September 1935 (Lisbon. Session, 2nd Meeting, Conclusion 9), that immediate consideration should be given to all cases submitted to the Com- mission that, in their judgment, had-reached the stage at which a decision could properly be taken; that the By-Laws of the Com- mission should be suspended during the Lisbon Session to such extent as might be necessary to give effect to this decision; and that, in so far as this procedure involved taking decisions “* under suspension of the rules ’’ in cases where the prescribed advertise- ment procedure had not been complied with, the cases in question COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 158. 269 should be duly advertised as soon as might be practicable after the conclusion of the Lisbon Congress and that no Opinion should be rendered and published thereon until after the expiry of a period of one year from the date on which the said advertisement was despatched to the prescribed journals for publication. The case of the genus Locusta Linnaeus was one of the cases in question and was accordingly dealt with by the Commission under the above procedure. 13. This case was considered by the International Commission at their meeting held on Monday, 16th September 1935 (Lisbon Session, 2nd Meeting, Conclusion 18 3), when the Commission agreed :— (a) to take note that the present was an application submitted by specialists under the invitation contained in the Resolution adopted by the International Commission at their meeting held at Padua on 30th August 1930, and reaffirmed in Opinion 124, for a name (Locusta) published by Linnaeus in 1758 (Syst. Nat. (ed. 10)) as a subdivision of a genus (Grvyllus Linnaeus, 1758) to be accepted as of that date (1758) as of subgeneric value under the International Rules; (b) to “‘ suspend the rules’ in the case of the name Locusta Linnaeus » and, under the said “ suspension of the rules,’”’ to declare :— (i) that the said name Locusta Linnaeus shall be accepted as of subgeneric value as from 1758 (Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1: 431); and (11) that the type of Locusta Linnaeus, 1758, so validated, shall be Gryllus migvatorius Linnaeus, 1758 (Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 432); (c) to place the generic name Locusta Linnaeus, 1758, as validated in (b) above and with the type there specified, on the Official List of Generic Names; ; (d) to render an Opinion in the sense of (a) to (c) above. 14. The foregoing decisions were embodied in paragraph 26 of the report 4 which at their meeting held on the morning of Wednes- day, 18th September 1935, the Commission unanimously agreed (Lisbon Session, 5th Meeting, Conclusion 6) to submit to the Twelfth International Congress of Zoology. 15. At the same meeting the Commission agreed (Lisbon Session, 5th Meeting, Conclusion 10 5) that Commissioner Karl Jordan (President of the Commission) and the new Secretary to the Commission, when elected, should be authorised to make such arrangements, and to take such other action, as might appear to them necessary or expedient :— (i) to establish the Secretariat of the Commission at its new head- - quarters ; ~~ 3 See 1943, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 1 : 16 4 See 1943, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 1 : 59. ' 5 See 1943, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 1 : 48. 270 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL (ii) to secure the due publication of the Opinions agreed upon from time to time by the Commission ; (i11) to give effect to the decisions reached by the Commission at their Lisbon Session ; (iv) to obtain the finance required for the due functioning of the Com- mission ; and generally (v) to secure the effective continuance of the work of the Commission. 16. The report adopted by the Commission on the morning of Wednesday, 18th September 1935, was unanimously approved by the Section on Nomenclature at its joint meeting with the Inter- national Commission held on the afternoon of the same day. It was thereupon submitted to the Twelfth International Congress of Zoology by which it was unanimously approved and adopted at the Concilium Plenum held on Saturday, 21st September 1935, the last day of the Congress. 17. In accordance with the decision taken by the Commicsion at Lisbon in regard to their procedure at that Session (paragraph 12 above), the case of Locusta Linnaeus was duly advertised in- 1936 in two or more of the journals named in the Resolution adopted by the Ninth International Congress of Zoology held at Monaco in March 1913, by which the said International Congress conferred upon the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature plenary power to suspend the rules as applied to any given case where, in the judgment of the Commission, the strict application of the rules would clearly result in greater con- fusion than uniformity. In the period that has elapsed since the advertisement in the said journals of the proposed suspension of the rules in the case of Locusta Linnaeus, no communication has been addressed to the Commission raising objection to the solution proposed in regard to the name Locusta Linnaeus. One communication has, however, been received expressing the view that the suspension of the rules is not necessary to secure the desired end. This communication, which was dated 1st March 1937 and bore the signature of Dr. S. A. Rohwer, was addressed to the Commission in the name of the Committee on Nomenclature of the Entomological Society of Washington. The passage in that document relating to Locusta Linnaeus reads as follows :— Locusta L. was proposed as a subdivision of Gryllus, with several included species—among them, migvatorius L. (Syst. Nat. 10, p. 442 7). The case has been briefly but ably reviewed by Uvarov, 1921 (Bull. ent. Res. 12 ; 136), 6 See Declaration 5 (1943, Opinions and Declarations rendered by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 1 31-40). ” The reference here given as “‘ 442 ”’ is a typist’s error for “‘ 432’ COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 158. 271 who shows that Curtis, 1836 (Brit. Ent. 3: 608) definitely named migra- tovius type of Locusta. As he points out this is in accord with Linnaeus’ conception of his genus Gryllus Locusta as well as conforming with the International Rules. It appears that no action under suspension of the Rules ® is necessary in this case. 18. Immediately upon its receipt by the Commission, copies of the document from which the above is an extract were com- municated (April 1937) to each member of the Commission, but since that date no member of the Commission has expressed him- self as being in agreement with the views expressed therein. 19. The communication received in regard to the name Locusta Linnaeus quoted in paragraph 17 above was considered—together with certain representations similarly received in regard to the name Phaneroptera Serville °—at a Plenary Conference between the President of the Commission and the Secretary to the Com- mission convened in London on roth June 1939 under the authority of the Resolution adopted by the Commission at their meeting held on 18th September 1935 (for the text of which see paragraph 15 above). The Conference (Plenary Conference, 1st Meeting, Conclusion 11 1°) :— (a) took note that within the twelve months following the advertisement of the action proposed, representations had been received from the Committee on Nomenclature of the Entomological Society of Washington in regard to the names Lecusta Linnaeus and Phanero- pteva Serville ; (b) took note that, although a copy of the communication referred to above had been transmitted to each member of the Commission immediately upon its receipt, no member of the Commission had expressed himself as being in agreement with the representations contained therein ; (c) agreed that the communication referred to in (a) above brought forward no data and adduced no considerations that had not been before the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature when at Lisbon in 1935 they approved the recommendations in favour of the suspension of the rules in these cases submitted to them _ by the International Committee on Entomological Nomenclature in resolutions adopted during the meeting of the Sixth International Congress of Entomology at Madrid in the same year; (d) agreed that, in view of (b) and (c) above, the proper course for the present Conference in the discharge of the duties entrusted to it by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (Lisbon Session, 5th Meeting, Conclusion 10) was to give effect to the decision set out in paragraph 26 of the report of the Lisbon Session in regard to the names Locusta Linnaeus and Phaneropteva Serville and there- fore that Opinions should be issued as soon as possible in the sense 8 See, however, paragraphs 8 and 9 of the present Opinion. ® For the decision of the Commission in regard to Phaneroptera Serville, see Opinion 154 (1944, Opinions and Declarations rendered by the Inter- national Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 2 : 209-226), 10 See 1943, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 1 : 79-80. 272 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL indicated in the said paragraph of the Commission’s report that had been approved and adopted by the Twelfth International Congress of Zoology at the Concilium Plenum held at Lisbon on 21st September 1935: 20. The present Opinion was concurred in by the twelve (12) Commissioners and Alternates present at the Lisbon Session of the Commission, namely :— Commissioners :—Calman; Hemming; Jordan; Pellegrin; Peters; and Stejneger. Alternates :—do Amaral vice Cabrera; Ohshima wice Esaki; Bradley vice Stone; Beier vice Handlirsch; Arndt vwice Richter; and Mortensen vice Apstein. 21. The present Ofinion was dissented from by no Commissioner . or Alternate present at the Lisbon Session. Nor since that Session has any Commissioner who was neither present on that occasion nor represented thereat by an Alternate indicated dis- agreement with the conclusions then reached by the Commission in this matter. The following five (5) Commissioners who were not present at Lisbon nor represented thereat by Alternates did not vote on the present Opinion :— Bolivar y Pieltain; Chapman; Fantham; Silvestri; and Stiles. 22. At the time when the vote was taken on the present Opinion, there was one (1) vacancy in the Commission consequent upon the death of Commissioner Horvath. IV.—AUTHORITY FOR THE ISSUE OF THE PRESENT OPINION. WHEREAS the Ninth International Congress of Zoology at its meeting held at Monaco in March 1913, adopted a Resolution conferring upon the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, acting for the International Congress of Zoology, Plenary Power to suspend the rules as applied to any given case, where, in the judgment of the Commission, the strict application of the said rules would clearly result in greater confusion than uniformity, provided that not less than one year’s notice of the possible suspension of the rules as applied to the said case should be given in two or more of five journals named in the said Resolution, and provided that the vote in the Commission was unanimously in favour of the proposed suspension of the rules; and : COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 158. 278 WHEREAS the suspension of the rules is required to give valid force to the provisions of the present Opinion as set out in the summary thereof; and WHEREAS not less than one year’s notice of the possible sus- pension of the rules as applied to the present case has been given to two or more of the journals referred to in the Resolution adopted by the Ninth International Congress of Zoology at its meeting held at Monaco in March 1913; and WHEREAS the vote in the Commission at their Lisbon Session was unanimously in favour of the issue of an Opinion in the terms of the present Opinion ; Now, THEREFORE, I, Francis HEMMING, Secretary to the International Com- mission on Zoological Nomenclature, acting in virtue of all and every the powers conferred upon me in that behalf by reason of holding the said Office of Secretary to the International Com- mission, hereby announce the said Opinion on behalf of the Inter- _ national Commission, acting for the International Congress of - Zoology, and direct that it be rendered and printed as Ofimion Number One Hundred and Fifty Eight (Opinion 158) of the said Commission. ; In faith whereof, I, the undersigned FRANCIS HEMMING, Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature, have signed the present Opinion. Done in London, this fifteenth day of May, Nineteen Hundred and Forty Three, in a single copy, which shall remain deposited in the archives of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. | Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. FRANCIS HEMMING \ 274. INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. THE PUBLICATIONS OF THE COMMISSION. (obtainable at the Publications Office of the Commission at 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7.) Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. This journal has been established bye the International Commission as their Official Organ in order to provide a medium for the publication of :— (a) proposals on zoological nomenclature submitted to the International Commission for deliberation and decision ; = (b) comments received from, and correspondence by the Secretary with, zoologists on proposals published in the Bulletin under (a) above; and (c) papers on nomenclatorial implications of developments in taxonomic theory and practice. The Bulletin was established in 1943, in which year three Parts were published. Part 4 was published in 1944 and Parts 5 and 6 are in the press. a Opinions and Declarations Rendered by the International Com- mission on Zoological Nomenclature. The above work is being published in three volumes concurrently, namely :— Volume 1. ‘This volume will contain Declarations 1-9 (which have never previously been published) and Opinions 1-133 (the original issue of which is now out of print). Parts 1-16 (containing Declarations 1-9 and Opinions 1-7) have now been published. Further Parts will be published shortly. Volume 2. This volume will be issued in 52 Parts, comprising all the decisions taken by the International Commission at their meeting at Lisbon in 1935, namely Declarations 10-12 (with Roman pagination) and Opinions 134-181 (with Arabic pagination). Part 52 will contain the index and title page of the volume. Parts 1-29, containin eclarvations 10-12 and Opinions 134-159, have now been published. . urther Parts will be published shortly. Volume 3. This volume, which commenced with Opinion 182, will contain the Opinions adopted by the International Commission since their meeting at Lisbon in 1935. Parts 1-4 (containing Opinions 182-185) have now been published. Further Parts will be published as soon as possible. APPEAL FOR FUNDS The International Commission appeal earnestly to all institutions and individuals interested in the development of zoological nomen- clature to contribute, according to their means, to the Commission’s Special (Publications) Fund. Of the total sum of £1,800 required to enable the Commission to issue all the publications now awaiting printing, donations amounting to £819 8s. 7d. were received up to 31st December 1944. Additional contributions are urgently needed in order to enable the Commission to continue their work without interruption. Contributions of any amount, however small, will be most gratefully received. Contributions should be sent to the International Commission at their Publications Office, 44, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W. 7, and made payable to the ‘“ International Commission on Zoological fay ee eae or Order ’’ and crossed * Account payee. Coutts 0.72 PRINTED IN GREAT BRITAIN BY RICHARD CLAY AND CoMPaANny, LTD., BUNGAY, SUFFOLK. 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 2. Part 29. Pp. 275-290. OPINION 159 On the status of the names Ephialtes Schrank, 1802, Ichneumon Linnaeus, 1758, Pimpla Fabri- cius, [1804-1805], and Ephialtes Gravenhorst, 1829 (Class Insecta, Order Hymenoptera) LONDON: Printed by Order of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature I Sold at the Publications Office of the Commission | 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7 | 1945 Price four shillings (All rights reserved) Wace Mere dbused 21st February, 1945 | INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE COMPOSITION OF THE COMMISSION The Officers of the Commission President: Dr. Karl Jordan, Ph.D., F.R.S. (United Kingdom). Secretary : Mr. Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. (United Kingdom), Assistant Secretary : Dr. James L. Peters (U.S.A.). The Members of the Commission Class 1946 Herr Professor Dr. Walter ARNDT (Germany). Dr. William Thomas CALMAN (United Kingdom). Professor Teiso ESAKI (Japan). Professor Béla von HANKO (Hungary). Dr Tadeusz JACZEWSKI (Poland). Dr. Norman R. STOLL (U.S.A.). Class 1949 Senor Dr. Angel CABRERA (Argentina). Mr. Francis HEMMING (United Kingdom) (Secretary to the Commission). Dr. Karl JORDAN (United Kingdom) (President of the Commission). Dr. Joseph PEARSON (Australia). Monsieur le Docteur Jacques PELLEGRIWN (France). Herr Professor Dr. Rudolf RICHTER (Germany). Class 1952 Senhor Dr. Afranio do AMARAL (Brazil). Professor James Chester BRADLEY (U.S.A.). Professor Ludovico di CAPORIACCO (Italy). Professor J. R. DYMOND (Canada). Dr. James L. PETERS (U.S.A.) (Assistant Secretary to the Commission). Dr. Harold E. VOKES (U.S.-A.). Secretariat of the Commission : British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London, S.W. 7. Publications Office of the Commission : 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W. 7. Personal address of the Secretary : 83, Fellows Road (Garden Flat), London, N.W. 3. OPINION 159. ON THE STATUS OF THE NAMES EPHIALTES SCHRANK, 1802, ICHNEUMON LINNAEUS, 1758, PIMPLA FABRICIUS, [1804-1805], AND EPHIALTES GRAVENHORST, 1829 (CLASS INSECTA, ORDER HYMENOPTERA). SUMMARY.—Under suspension of the rules (i) the name Ephialtes Schrank, 1802, is suppressed; (ii) all existing type designations for Ichneumon Linnaeus, 1758, Pimpla Fabricius, {1804-1805],1 and Ephialtes Gravenhorst, 1829, are set aside; (iii) Ichneumon extensorius Linnaeus, 1758, is hereby designated as the type of Ichnewmon Linnaeus, 1758; (iv) Ichneumon instigator Fabricius, 1793, is hereby designated as the type of Pimpla Fabricius, [1804-1805]1; (v) Ichneumon manifestator Linnaeus, 1758, is hereby designated as the type of Ephialtes Graven- ‘horst, 1829. The names Ichnewmon Linnaeus, Pimpla Fabricius, and Ephialtes Gravenhorst (Class Insecta, Order Hymenoptera), with the types severally indicated above, are hereby added to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology as Names Nos. 606 to 608. | el de STATEMENT OF THE Cask. As the result of consultations initiated by Professor James Chester Bradley with the leading systematic workers in the Order Hymenoptera in all countries, the following petition signed by Professor Chester Bradley and 59 other hymenopterists was sub- mitted to the International Commission :— THE CASE OF JCHNEUMON LINNAEUS, EPHIALTES SCHRANK AND PIMPLA FABRICIUS Ichneumon Linnaeus, type Ichneumon manifestator (see Viereck, 1914, -p. 75; Morice and Durrant, 1915, p. 389) has been known for a century as the type genus of the enormous family ICHNEUMONIDAE and its subfamily ICHNEUMONINAE, under the assumption that [chneumon comitator L. was its type or congeneric therewith. But the true type under the Code, 1 Fabricius’s Systema Piezatorum was probably not published until the beginning of 1805 and, if published in 1804, must have been published at the very end of that year (see Griffin, 1935, 7m Richards, Tvans. R. ent. Soc. Lond. 88:144). Names first published in this work should therefore be dated 1804-1805 and the date should be cited in square brackets. 278 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL Ichneumon manifestator is the recognised type of Ephialtes Gravenhorst, 1829 (mec Schrank, 1802), a genus that belongs to the great subfamily universally known as PIMPLINAE, and Viereck and a few very recent writers have used the genus Jchneumon in this sense, and the term ICHNEUMONINAE to replace what has universally been called PIMPLINAE. Pimpla Fabr., 1804,1 p. 112, type [chneumon manzfestator L. (see Viereck, 1914, p. 117), the type genus of the subfamily PIMPLINAE, has been uni- versally used in the sense that would imply instigator or a congener as its type, but the true type species, manifestator, is, as stated above, the type of Ephialtes Grav. and authors. Ephialtes Schrank, 1802, type Ichneumon compunctor (see Cushman and Rohwer, Pvoc. ent. Soc. Washington, IQ1Q, V. 20, p. 168) is probably identical with Pimpla in the sense of authors (nec Fabr.) or of Pimplidea Viereck (1914, p. 117), but that is not the sense in which the name has been em- ployed. It has been so used essentially only by Cushman and Rohwer, other authors using Ephialies in the Gravenhorstian sense. Accordingly, under the rules, [chneumon, Pimpla and Ephialtes Graven- horst are identical synonyms, each having the same type, and all referring to the group commonly known as EpAzalies altho’ for a century the names — have been applied to distinct groups. Ephialtes Schrank, on the other hand the use of which has only been recently resurrected by Cushman and Rohwer, is identical with Pimpla in the commonly accepted Gravenhorstian sense. These 3 groups, especially the 2 former, are large and important. There are approximately 1,000 described species of Ichneumon auctt., 340 of Pimpila auctt. in the broad sense, 80 of Ephialies auctt. Many species of Pimpla are exceedingly abundant and well known to everyone who has bred caterpillars. Ephialtes are less common, but some because of their large size and conspicuous appearance are very well known insects. There have been a considerable number of generic and subgeneric names formed by adding prefixes to the generic names Ichneumon and Pimbpla, some with Ephialies. Under the rules each of these will be dissociated from the genus under the name of which it is based. From the facts above cited, it follows that under the Code the following upheavals must be made in the nomenclature of the family ICHNEU- MONIDAE :— Ephialies of authors becomes Ichneumon ; Ichneumon of authors become Amblyieles Wesmael ; Tribe ICHNEUMONINI of authors becomes AMBLYTELINI; Subfamily ICHNEUMONINAE of authors (nec Viereck, Cushman, 7 becomes JOPPINAE ; Pimpla of authors becomes Ephialtes Schrank nec auctt. ; PIMPLINI Of authors becomes EPHIALTINI and ICHNEUMONINI; (Cushman and Rohwer divide the tribe PIMPLINI of authors into 2 tribes which they call EPHIALTINI and ICHNEUMONINI. Under the old usage of the generic names these would be known as PIMPLINI and EPHIALTINI respectively.) PIMPLINAE of authors becomes ICHNEUMONINAE Viereck, Cushman and Rohwer, etc. (nec auctt.). Of the 83 species listed by Dalla Torre (1903, Catalogus Hymenopierorum *) as Ephialies, 45 or more than 50 per cent., are under names used in both Ephialies and Ichneumon. 32 of these names were first used in the genus Ichneumon. Therefore, by the transfer of species from Ephialtes to I chneumon, 32 homonyms must be replaced by new names—that is between one-third and one-half of the genus must be renamed. * Dalla Torre, 1903, Cat. Hymenopt. 3 : 469. COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION I5Q. 279 Seven other names, having been first used in Ephialtes, will on their transfer to Ichneumon invalidate specific names standing in that genus, but which are now transferable to Amblyieles. Five species transferred to Ichneumon will bear names that differ only in termination from species already in that genus. The Commission, under its plenary power, can avoid most of this con- fusion by setting aside the designation by Latreille, 1810, of manifestator L. as type of Ichneumon, and validating the designation by Curtis, 1839, of comitator as its type. The result of this plan, if adopted, will be to save Ichneumon in its accepted (Gravenhorstian) sense for both generic and super-generic names, to restrict Pimpla, with type manzfestator L. (designation by Curtis, 1828) for the group called by Gravenhorst and subsequent authors Ephialtes, and to leave Ephialies Schrank, 1802, as the correct name for the group ordinarily known as Pimpla. Pimpla will be saved as type genus of the subfamily ordinarily known as PIMPLINAE, as well as for the tribe Pim- PLINI in the sense of Ashmead, and for one of the two tribes into which that group is divided by Rohwer and Cushman. Wherefore the undersigned respectfully request the International Commission on Nomenclature, acting under the plenary power bestowed upon them by the Monaco Congress, to grant relief from the intolerable- situation which has arisen, as above set forth, by taking the following action, to wit :* (x) to suspend the rules in the case of the generic name Ichneumon ; (2) to set aside the designation by Latreille, 1810, of Ichneumon mani- festator L. as type of Ichneumon L., 1758: (3) to validate the designation by Curtis, 1839, of Ichneumon comitator as type of Ichneumon L.; (4) to place on the Official List of Generic Names : Ichneumon L., 1758. type I. comitator L., as the valid name of a group of ichneumon wasps commonly called by that name. * We wish however to point out that the Commission could, if it so desired, more completely restore the status quo of the past century by also rejecting Ephialtes Schrank, 1802, and the designations of manifestator and of flavicans as type of Pimpla; by designa- tion of the originally included varicornis Fabr. as type of Pimpla; and finally by valida- tion of Ephialtes Gravenhorst, despite the poe use of the name by the rejected Ephialtes ’ Schrank. N 2. The following is the list of signatures attached to the above petition at the time of its submission to the International Com- mission :— © 1. Brues R. Benoist * H. Haupt Jos. Bequaert J. D. Alfken * H. Brauns ¢ G. Grandi A. Krausse, L. Berland A. B. Gahan * M. Wolff A. A. Oglobin ieee. Prison * J. G. Betrem O. W. Richards me WK. Park * R. Fouts P. P. Babiy H. H. Ross * G. Arnold Niro. ee Pate J. M. Dusmet A. Handlirsch J. C. Bradley eave MI Wheeler * I. Micha G. Enderlein ©. 1. Lyle H. Hacker T. Uchida + R. A. Cushman * mc. Kinsey + O. Vogt ft E. A. Elliott H. de W. Marriott H. Habermehl + A. Crevecoeur F, Maidl BiKeuger | W. M. Mann P. Roth W. Hellen + R. Friese E. Enslin F, X. Williams + 280 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL H. von Ihering ¢ A. von Schulthess O. Schmiedeknecht + A.C. W. Wagner kK. By. Benson * N. N. Kuznezov- H. Hedicke H. F.. Schwarz Ugamtsky ft H. Bischoff W. V. Balouf * Bo Ee otz L. Masi D. S. Wilkinson * L; Hi, Weld. * * In accord with results sought by the petition without having studied the points involved in the particular case. + Evidently. intended to subscribe to this petition, but sheet bearing his signature was not®*included in his reply. t Deceased. Il—THE SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF THE CASE. 3. This case was circulated to the members of the International Commission in January 1935, when it was arranged that it and the other Hymenoptera cases submitted at the same time should be dealt with at the meeting of the Commission due to be held at. Lisbon in September of that year, by which time the recom- mendations of the International Committee on Entomological Nomenclature would be available. 4. This case was considered by the International Committee on Entomological Nomenclature at its meeting held at Madrid in the second week of September 1935 during the Sixth International Congress of Entomology. After careful consideration, the Com- mittee came to the conclusion that the most satisfactory settle- ment of this case would be for the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to suppress the name Ephialtes Schrank, 1802, under their plenary powers, and, under the same powers, to set aside all existing type designations for Ichneumon Linnaeus, 1758, Pimpla Fabricius, [1804-1805], and Ephialtes Gravenhorst, 1829, and to designate the following species as the types of those genera :— Name of genus Type of genus Ichneumon Linnaeus, 1758 Ichneumon extensorius Linnaeus, . 1758 Pimpla Fabricius, [1804-1805 | Ichneumon. instigatoy Fabricius, © 1793 Ephialtes Gravenhorst, 1829 Ichneumon manifestator Linnaeus, © 1758. 5. The International Committee on Entomological Nomen-. clature accordingly agreed to recommend the International Com-- mission on Zoological Nomenclature to exercise their plenary powers in the manner indicated above and to place the names Ichneumon Linnaeus, Pimpla Fabricius, and Ephialies Graven- ‘horst, with the types so determined, on the Official List of *_. COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 159. 281 Generic Names. The International Committee agreed to add the further recommendation that, if the International Com- mission were to take the view that the course proposed was too drastic, it was desirable that this case should be dealt with in the more limited fashion suggested in the main recommendation at the end of the petition. 6. The recommendations agreed upon by the International Committee on Entomological Nomenclature, as set out in para- graphs 4 and 5 above, together with the other resolutions adopted by the Committee at its Madrid meeting, were confirmed by the sixth International Congress of Entomology at the Concilium Plenum held at Madrid on 12th September 1935. IT] HE CONCLUSION REACHED BY THE INTERNA- TIONAL COMMISSION. 7. When the International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature met at Lisbon immediately after the close of the Sixth International Congress of Entomology in September 1935, they found themselves confronted with a large number of cases in- volving proposals for the suspension of the rules, in respect of some of which advertisements had not been published or, if published, had not been published for the prescribed period, owing to the illness of Dr. C. W. Stiles, Secretary to the Com- mission, or for other causes. In these circumstances, the Com- mission decided at their meeting held on the morning of Monday, 16th September 1935 (Lisbon Session, 2nd Meeting, Conclusion g), that immediate consideration should be given to all cases submitted to the Commission that, in their judgment, had reached the stage at which a decision could properly. be taken; that the By-Laws of the Commission should be suspended during the Lisbon Session to such extent as might be necessary to give effect to this decision; and that, in so far as this procedure involved taking decisions “‘ under suspension of the rules ’’ in cases where the prescribed advertisement procedure had not been complied with, the cases in question should be duly advertised as soon as might be practicable after the conclusion of the Lisbon Congress and that no Opinion should be rendered and published thereon until after the expiry of a period of one year from the date on which the said advertisement was dispatched to the prescribed journals. for publication. The case’ of the names Ephialtes 282 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL Schrank, 1802, Ichneumon Linnaeus, 1758, Pimpla Fabricius, [1804-1805], and Ephialtes Gravenhorst, 1829, was among the cases in question and was accordingly dealt with under the above procedure. 8. The present case was considered by: aie International Com- mission at their meeting held on the afternoon of Monday, 16th September 1935. After careful consideration, the Commission came to the conclusion that the more radical of the proposals submitted by the International Committee on Entomological Nomenclature provided the most satisfactory solution of the difficulties presented by the present case. The Commission accordingly agreed (Lisbon Session, 3rd Meeting, Conclusion a) Ve! Hee Lie) 3e. (b) under “‘ suspension of the rules’’ permanently to reject the following generic names :— (10) ‘Ephialtes Schrank, 1802, Fauna boic. 2 (2) : 316 (c) under “‘ suspension of the rules ”’ to set aside all type designations for the undermentioned genera and to declare their types to be the species indicated below :— Name of genus Type of genus (2 3) “Ichneumon Linnaeus, Ichneumon extensorius Linnaeus, 1758,. Syst. Nat. (ed. 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed: 10) dae 5en 10) 1 : 560 (24) Pimpla Fabricius, [1804—" Ichneumon instigator Fabricius, £805], Syst. Prezat.: ~ 1793; Ent. syst aor 112 (25) Ephialies Gravenhorst, Ichneumon manifestator Linnaeus, 1829, Ichneumon. Europ. 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 3 563 1: Conspectus 64; 3: ; 224 (d) under “‘ suspension of the rules” to place on the Official List of Generic Names the sixteen generic names enumerated in (c) above (names (19) to (34)), each with the type species there indicated ; (e) to render Opinions in the sense of (a) to (d) above. g. The foregoing decisions were embodied in paragraph 27 of the | report * which at their meeting held on the morning of Wednesday, 18th September 1935, the Commission unanimously agreed 3 Only those portions of Conclusion 2 which relate to the present case are here quoted. For the full text of Conclusion 2, see 1943, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 1 : 27-30. 4 See 1943, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 1 : 59-60. COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION I59Q. 283 (Lisbon Session, 5th Meeting, Conclusion 6) to submit to the Twelfth International Congress of Zoology. | ro. At the same meeting the Commission agreed (Lisbon Session, 5th Meeting, Conclusion 10 5) that Commissioner Karl Jordan (President of the Commission) and the new Secretary to the Commission, when elected, should be authorised to make such _ arrangements, and to take such other action, as might appear to them to be necessary or expedient :— (i) to establish the Secretariat of the Commission at its new head- quarters ; (ii) to secure the due publication of the Opinions agreed upon from time to time by the Commission ; (iii) to give effect to the decisions reached by the Commission at their Lisbon Session ; (iv) to obtain the finance required for the due functioning of the Com- mission; and generally . (v) to secure the effective continuance of the work of the Commission. 11. The report adopted by the Commission on the morning of Wednesday, 18th September 1935, was unanimously approved by the Section on Nomenclature at its joint meeting with the Inter- national Commission held on the afternoon of the same day. It was thereupon submitted to the Twelfth International Congress of Zoology by which it was unanimously approved and adopted at the Concilium Plenum held on the afternoon of Saturday, 21st September 1935, the last day of the Congress. 12. In accordance with the decision taken by the Commission at Lisbon in regard to their procedure at that Session (paragraph 7 above), this case was duly advertised in 1936 in two or more of the journals named in the Resolution adopted by the Ninth International Congress of Zoology at its meeting held at Monaco in March 1913, by which the said International Congress conferred upon the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature plenary power to suspend the rules as applied to any given case where, in the judgment of the Commission, the strict application of the rules would clearly result in greater confusion than uni- formity.® In the period that has elapsed since the advertisement in the said journals of the proposed suspension of the rules in the case of the names dealt with in the present Opinion, one com- _ munication only has been addressed to the Commission raising objection to the suspension of the rules in this case. This com- 5 See 1943, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 1 : 48. § See Declaration 5 (1943, Opinions and Declarations rendered by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 1 : 31-40). 284 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL munication, which was dated 1st March 1937, and bore the sig- nature of Dr. S. A. Rohwer, was addressed to the Commission in the name of the Committee on Nomenclature of the Entomological Society of Washington. Attached to this document was a note of dissent by Dr. R. A. Cushman, who supported the suspension of the rules in this case. 13. The passage in the document-received from the Committee on Nomenclature of the Entomological Society of Washington relating to the present case reads as follows :— THE CASE OF JCHNEUMON L., 1758, PIMPLA F., 1804,7 AND EPHIALTES GRAV., 1829 Ichneumon L. has for its type Ichneumon manifestator L. (by designation of Latreille, 1810), which is also the type of Pimpla F., 1804.’ Neither of these generic names, however, was used in the sense of J. manifestator between the time of Gravenhorst’s classification of the ICHNEUMONIDAE, 1829, and the publication of Viereck’s ‘“‘ Type Species of the Genera of Ichneumon-flies’’, 1914. Instead, manifestator was considered as typical of the genus Ephialtes as interpreted by Gravenhorst, 1829; but this generic name had been published by Schrank, 1802, with a single, and therefore typical, species, Ichneumon compunctor L., a species belonging to Pimpla as defined by Gravenhorst. Even after these facts were made known, certain of the specialists in ICHNEUMONIDAE, particularly in Europe, have disregarded the proper type fixations of these genera and have con- tinued to use the names in the Gravenhorstian sense. The active American workers, however, together-with certain others, have employed the names as required by the Rules (see Cushman and Rohwer, “‘ Holarctic Tribes of the Subfamily ICHNEUMONINAE”’, Proc. U.S. Nat. Mus. v. 57: 379-3960; also Cushman, 1921, Pyvoc. U.S. Nat. Mus. vol. 60, Art. 4, pp. 1-14; and Ceballos, 1924, on the Subfamily yjopprnaE, Tvab. Mus. Nac. cien. Nat. (Sev. Zool.) No. 50: pp. 1-335). Furthermore, as a result of the large volume of identification work performed by the American taxonomists for numerous federal and state agencies in the United States and for institu- tions and individuals in various other parts of the world, the names involved here have been used in the sense required by the Code in a large body of. literature on insect biology and applied entomology, in faunal lists (e.g., Leonard, ‘“‘ A List of the Insects of New York,’’ 1928), in certain entomo- logical text-books, (e.g. Essig, Insects of Western North America, 1926) and in the indices of American Economic Entomology by Colcord, 1921, 1925 and 1930. Some confusion is inevitable from application of the Rules in such cases as these, especially since changes in subfamily names also are involved. Had earlier action in favor of retention of the Gravenhorstian concepts been requested of the Commission very little opposition would have developed. Now, however, that the names have been used in the proper sense for more than twenty years by some of the most active workers in the group, return to the long accepted Gravenhorstian usage would, in our opinion, result in greater confusion in the literature than would follow from conformity with the Rules. It would also fail to recognise, with _” For the correct date of Pimpla Fabricius and other names first pub- lished in the Systema Piezatovum, see footnote 1. COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 159. 285 corresponding appropriate credit, the advances made by recent workers in the use and interpretation of characters which have contributed much to the development of the classification of this group. In this respect it would place a premium on conservatism and compilation rather than on progress. We therefore urge that the request for specific action under suspension of the Rules, with respect to Ichneumon L., Pimpla F., and Ephialies Grav., be denied. At the same time we recognise disagreement with this recommendation on the part of R. A. Cushman, a member of this Society and a prominent ichneumonologist, and, in fairness to him, we append a statement which he has prepared. 14. Thenote of dissent by Dr. Cushman referred to in paragraphs 12 and 13 above reads as follows :— : SHOULD THE GENERIC NAMES JCHNEUMON L., PIMPLA FaB., AND EPHIALTES GRAV. BE PLACED ON THE OFFICIAL LIST OF NOMINA CONSERVANDA 8? By R. A. Cushman I am convinced that the science of Ichneumonology would be best served by the inclusion of Ichneumon L., Pimpla Fab. and Ephialtes Grav. in the Official List of nomina conservanda.® In 1829 Gravenhorst published the first real classification of the family ICHNEUMONIDAE. ‘This work is the basis for all subsequent classifications. The generic names employed by Gravenhorst are the very foundation stones of the nomenclature of the family, and the groups represented by those names the fourfdation stones of the classification. Most of those names furnish the stems of the names of supergeneric groups. With those names, modified by prefixes and suffixes, large numbers of generic and subgeneric groups have been named, the names being used in the Gravenhorstian sense. From the publication of Gravenhorst’s work for nearly a century these old generic names were employed unquestionably in the sense of Graven- horst ; and it was virtually not until after the publication in 1914 of Viereck’s “ Type Species of the Genera of Ichneumon-flies”’ that doubt as to their validity led to their use in other senses or caused the synonymizing of some with prior names, although several had been renamed because of pre- occupation. With very few exceptions, mostly Americans, the specialists in the ICHNEUMONIDAE have ignored the International Code in so far as the use of these names is concerned, the basic nomenclature of the family being still, for a very large majority of the specialists, that of Gravenhorst. In the two largest and most comprehensive recent works on the family, Schmiedeknecht’s ‘‘ Opuscula Ichneumonologica’’ and those fascicles of “Genera Insectorum”’ dealing with certain of the subfamilies, the nomen- clature is that of Gravenhorst. Uchida, in Japan, has recently produced a voluminous revision of the Japanese ICHNEUMONIDAE with the same interpretation of the genera; while Heinrich, in Poland, and Seyrig, in France and Madagascar, specializing, the one on the ICHNEUMONINAE and the other on the PIMPLINAE, employ these names in the same sense. 8 What is here referred to is the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. Owing to its associations, the phrase nomina conservanda is not used by the International Commission in its work. ae 286 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS. RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL Apparently, Ceballos, in Spain, is the only specialist on the family in Europe who is disposed to follow genotype fixation in the use of these names, and he goes only part way. The few American workers on the family who have, during the past 20 years, tried to follow the International Code in matters of nomenclature, have found conformity in relation to these .generic names increasingly irksome. Interpreting the names Ichneumon, Pimpla and Ephialtes strictly accord- ing to genotype fixation results in the transfer of Ichnewmon from its - historical position to another subfamily, necessitating changes in the names of two’ subfamilies and two tribes; Pimpla becomes synonymous with Ichneumon, the subfamily PIMPLINAE becomes ICHNEUMONINAE and the tribe PIMPLINI (sens. lat.) the ICHNEUMONINI; Ephialies Grav. also becomes synonymous with Ichneumon; while Ephialtes Schrank replaces Pimpla in the sense of Gravenhorst, making necessary the tribal name EPHIALTINI instead of PIMPLINI in the most restricted sense. The old subfamily ICHNEUMONINAE and the tribe ICHNEUMONINI require new names, and here arises confusion due to the differences in opinion as to how these names should be formed; whether from the name replacing Ichneumon, from the next oldest generic name, or from some other generic name.® Such names as Coelichneumon, Stenichneumon, Ctenichneumon, Barich- neumon and many others are left in a group apart from the name from which they are derived, as are Calliephialtes, Mesoephialtes, Epmaltites, and others; while the many names derived from Pimpla survive after the demise of the parent name. The many hundreds of specific names used in combination with Ichneu- mon, Pimpla and Ephialies, all of which, unless these names are given the benefit of the nomina conservanda, will have to go into combination with Ichneumon, will add greatly to the difficulty of cataloging and to the devis- ing of new names, to say nothing of the probable necessity of renaming homonyms. 15. Immediately upon its receipt by the Commission, copies of the document from which the passages quoted in paragraphs 13 and 14 above have been extracted were communicated (April 1937) to each member of the Commission, but since that date no member of the Commission has expressed himself as being in agreement with the objections raised in the document quoted in paragraph 13. _ 16. The representations set out in paragraph 13 above were considered at the Plenary Conference between the President of the Commission and the Secretary tothe Commission convened in London on 19th June 1939 under the authority of the Resolution adopted by the Commission at their meeting held at Lisbon on 18th September 1935 (for the text of which see paragraph 10 ® The question here raised by Dr. Cushman has since been dealt with by the International Commission in Opinion 141 (see 1943, Opinions and Declarations rendered by the I nternational Commission on Zoological Nomen- clatuve 2: 55-60). 10 See footnote 8 above. COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 159. 287 above). he Plenary Conference (Plenary Conference, 1st Meeting, Conclusion 9g) 11: ee, @ @ (b) examined the communications that had been received during the prescribed period in regard to the undermentioned names :— (i) Ichneumon Linnaeus, 1758 (ui) Pimpla Fabricius, [1804-1805] (iii) Ephialies Gravenhorst, 1829 from the Committee on Nomenclature of the Entomological Society of Washington (c) took note that, although copies of the communications referred to in (b) above had been transmitted to each member of the Commission immediately upon their receipt, no member of the Commission had expressed himself as being in agreement with any of the representa- tions contained therein ; (d) agreed that the communications referred to in (b) above brought _ forward no data and adduced no considerations that had not been before the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature when at Lisbon in 1935 they approved the recommendations in favour of the suspension of the rules in these cases submitted to them by the International Committee on Entomological Nomenclature in resolutions adopted during the meeting of the Sixth International Congress of Entomology at Madrid in the same year ; (e) agreed that, in view of (c) and (d) above, the proper course for the present Conference in the discharge of the duties entrusted to it by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (Lisbon Session, 5th Meeting, Conclusion 10) was to give effect to the decisions in this matter reached by the International Commission at their Lisbon Session (3rd Meeting, Conclusion 2) and therefore that Opinions should be issued as soon as possible in the sense indicated in paragraph 27 of the report submitted by them to the Twelfth International Congress of Zoology and approved and adopted by that Congress at the Concilium Plenum held at Lisbon on 21st _ September 1935. 17. The present Ofinion above was concurred in by the twelve (12) Commissioners and Alternates present at the Lisbon Session of the International Commission, namely :— Commissioners :—Calman; Hemming; Jordan; Pellegrin; Peters; and Stejneger. Alternates :—do, Amaral vice Cabrera; Ohshima vice Esaki; Bradley vice Stone; Beier vice Handlirsch; Arndt vice Richter; and Mortensen vice Apstein. 18. The present Opinion was dissented from by no Commissioner or Alternate present at the Lisbon Session. Nor since that Session has any Commissioner who was neither present on that occasion nor represented thereat by an Alternate indicated dis- 11 Only those portions of Conclusion 9 which relate to the present case are here quoted. For the full text of Conclusion 9, see 1943, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 1 : 76-77. 288 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL agreement with the conclusions then reached by the Commission in this matter. The following five (5) Commissioners who were not present at Lisbon nor represented thereat by Alternates did not vote on the present Opinion :— Bolivar y Pieltain; Chapman; Fantham; Silvestri; and Stiles. 19. At the time when the vote was taken on the present Opinion, there was one (I) vacancy in the Commission consequent upon the death of Commissioner Horvath. IV.—AUTHORITY FOR THE ISSUE OF THE PRESENT OPINION. WHEREAS the Ninth International Congress of Zoology at its meeting held at Monaco in March 1913, adopted a Resolution conferring upon the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, acting for the International Congress of Zoology, Plenary Power to suspend the rules as applied to any given case, where, in the judgment of the Commission, the strict application of the rules would clearly result in greater confusion than uni- formity, provided that not less than one year’s notice of the possible suspension of the rules as applied to the said case should be given in two or more of five journals named in the said Resolu- tion, and provided that the vote in the Commission was unani- mously in favour of the proposed suspension of the rules; and WHEREAS the suspension of the rules is required to give valid force to the provisions of the present Opinion, as set out in | the summary thereof; and WHEREAS not less than one year’s notice-of the possible sus- pension of the rules as applied to the present case has been given to two or more of the journals referred to in the Resolution adopted by the Ninth. International Congress of Zoology at its meeting held at Monaco in March 1913; and WHEREAS the vote in the Commission at their Lisbon Session was unanimously in favour of the issue of an Ofimion in the terms of the present Opinion ; Now, THEREFORE, I, Francis Hemminc, Secretary to the International Com- mission on Zoological Nomenclature, acting in virtue of all and every the powers conferred upon me in that behalf by reason of holding the said Office of Secretary to the International Com- COMMISSION ON. ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 159. 289 mission, hereby announce the said Opinion on behalf of the Inter- national Commission, acting for the International Congress of Zoology, and direct that it be rendered and printed as Opinion Number One Hundred and Fifty Nine (Opinion 159) of the said ‘Commission. Mme iaith whereof, 1, the undersigned FRANCIS HEMMING, Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomen- ‘Clature, have signed the present Opinion. Done in London, this nineteenth day of May, Nineteen Hundred and Forty Three, in a single copy, which shall remain deposited in the archives of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. | Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. FRANCIS HEMMING 290 INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. THE PUBLICATIONS OF THE COMMISSION. (obtainable at the Publications Office of the Commission at 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7.) Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature This journal has been established by the International Commission as their Official Organ in order to provide a medium for the publication of :— (a) proposals on zoological nomenclature submitted to the International Commission for deliberation and decision ; « (b) comments received from, and correspondence by the Secretary with, zoologists on proposals published in the Bulletin under (a) above; and (c) papers on nomenclatorial implications of developments in taxonomic theory and practice. The Bulletin was established in 1943, in which year three Parts were published. Part 4 was published in 1944. Parts 5 and 6 are in the press. Opinions and Declarations Rendered by the International Com- mission on Zoological Nomenclature. The above work is being published in three volumes concurrently, namely :— Volume t. This volume will contain Declarations 1-9 (which have never previously been published) and Opinions 1-133 (the original issue of which is now out of print). . Parts 1-16 (containing Declarations 1-9 and Opinions 1-7) have now been published. Further Parts will be published shortly. enum 2. This volume will be issued in 52 Parts, comprising all the decisions taken by the International Commission at their meeting at Lisbon in 1935, namely Declarations 10-12 (with Roman pagination) and Opinions 134-181 (with Arabic pagination). Part 52 will contain the index and title page of the volume. Parts 1-29, containing Declarations 10-12 and Opinions 134-159, have now been published. Further Parts will be published shortly. Volume 3. This volume, which commenced with Opinion 182, will contain the Opinions adopted by the International Commission since their meeting at Lisbon in 1935. Parts 1-4 (containing Opinions 182-185) have now been published. Further Parts will be published as soon as possible. APPEAL FOR FUNDS The International Commission appeal earnestly to all institutions and individuals interested in the development of zoological nomen- elature to contribute, according to their means, to the Commission’s Special (Publications) Fund. Of the total sum of £1,800 required to enable the Commission to issue all the publications now awaiting printing, donations amounting to £819 8s. 7d. were received up to 31st December 1944. Additional contributions are urgently needed in order to enable the Commission to continue their work without interruption. Contributions of any amount, however small, will be most gratefully received. Contributions should be sent to the Internaional Commission at their Publications Office, 44, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W. 7, and made payable to the “ International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature or Order ’’ and crossed “ Account payee. Coutts & Co.”’. [Printed by Richard Clay and Company, Lid., Bungay, Suffolk. ff i) 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 2. Part 30. Pp. 291-306. OPINION 160 On the status of the names Anguina Scopoli, 1777, Anguillulina Gervais van Beneden, 1859, and Tylenchus Bastian, 1865 (Class Nematoda) LONDON: Printed by Order of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature Sold at the Publications Office of the Commission 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7 1945 Price four shillings (All rights reserved) Issued 17th April, 1945 INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE COMPOSITION OF THE COMMISSION The Officers of the Commission President: Dr. Karl Jordan, Ph.D., F.R.S. (United Kingdom). Secretary : Mr. Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. (United Kingdom). Assistant Secretary : Dr. James L. Peters (U.S.A.). The Members of the Commission Class 1946 Herr Professor Dr. Walter ARNDT (Germany). Dr. William Thomas CALMAN (United Kingdom). Professor Teiso ESAKI (Japan). Professor Béla von HANKO (Hungary). Dr Tadeusz JACZEWSKI (Poland). Dr. Norman KE STOLL (Uls.A3): Class 1949 Senor Dr. Angel CABRERA (Argentina). Mr. Francis HEMMING (United Kingdom) (Secretary to the Commission). Dr. Karl JORDAN (United Kingdom) (President of the Commission). Dr. Joseph PEARSON (Australia). Monsieur le Docteur Jacques PELLEGRIN (France). Herr Professor Dr. Rudolf RICHTER (Germany). Class 1952 Senhor Dr. Afranio do AMARAL (Brazil). Professor James Chester BRADLEY (U.S.A.). Professor Ludovico di CAPORIACCO (Italy). Professor J. R. DYMOND (Canada). Dr. James L. PETERS (U.S.A.) (Assistant Secretary to the Commission). Dr. Harold E. VOKES (U.S.A.). Secretariat of the Commission : British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London, 5.W. 7. Publications Office of the Commission : 41, Queen’s Gate, London, 5.W. 7. Personal address of the Secretary : 83, Fellows Road (Garden Flat), London, N.W. 3. ee ee ‘a OPINION 160. ON THE STATUS OF THE NAMES ANGUINA SCOPOLI, 1777, ANGUILLULINA GERVAIS AND VAN BENEDEN, 1859, AND TYLENCHUS BASTIAN, 1865 (CLASS NEMATODA). SUMMARY.—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 Seopoli in 1777 in his Introductio ad Historiam naturalem are to be accepted as available nomenelatorially, but the position will need to be re- examined if later it is decided to reject generié 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 invalidating both Anguina Seopoli, 1777, and Anguiliulina Gervais and van Beneden, 1859, and validating Tylenchus Bastian, 1865 (Class Nematoda). Pee Slate MENT OF TH) CASE. This case was submitted to the International Commission in 1934 by Dr. B. G. Chitwood, Assistant Zoologist, Bureau of Animal Industry, United States Department of Agriculture, on behalf of himself and four other members of the staff of that Department. The following is the text of the document sub- mitted by Dr. Chitwood :— ‘THE STATUS OF ANGUINA SCOPOLI, 1777, ANGUILLULINA GERVAIS AND VAN BENEDEN, 1859, AND JT YLENCHUS BASTIAN, 1865 Premise : Anguina Scopoli, 1777 (Introd. ad Hist. nat. sist. Geneva Lapi- dum Plantarum et Animalium, Prague, p. 374) is the proper generic name for Vibrio tritict Steinbuch, 1799 (Der Naturforscher, v. 28, p. 251). Reasons: (1) Scopoli (loc. cit. p. 373) clearly stated that he was making a new genus, Anguina. (2) Scopoli gave a recognizable description (loc. cit. p. 374) because (a) he gave host; (b) he gave location; (c) he gave an attempted description ; (d) he referred to Linnaeus’ “ not.-.ad Chaos.”’ i see paragraph 16(d) of the present Opinion. 294 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL (3) Scopoli’s reference to Linnaeus is identifiable without doubt to Linnaeus (1767, Systema Naturae (ed. 12) 1 (2), p. 1326, footnote ? reference “rritic1’’). Linnaeus in. this footnote gave host, location, and an attempted description “‘ ascaridiformem quasi vermiculum.”’ (4) Scopol and Linnaeus undoubtedly referred to the same species. There is no doubt as to what that species is, for the species now known as Tylenchus tritici (= Anguillulina tritici) is the only species in the grains of wheat and it causes the formation of galls (rounded) instead of galls (oblong). This species was first observed by Needham (1744, Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. Vv. 42, pp. 634-641; and “‘ An Account of some new microscopical Dis- coveries, Lond., pp. 85-89, pl. 5, figs. 6-7). Needham referred to them. as “eels in blighted wheat ”’ and indicated that the symptoms in wheat were well known; he also mentioned the peculiar revivability of the apparently dead forms when placed in water. This is one of the outstanding biological characters. The next reference we find is Linnaeus (1767, loc. cit.), occurring as a footnote under Chaos ustilago. He did not name the form but rather considered it as an aberrant “ ustilago.’’ It is not identifiable as “ usti- lago ’’ since the description of this species, ‘‘ ustilago,’’ was based on a fish- like oblong vermiculus from Hordeum (probably a protozoan or rotiferan). Roffredi (1775, Obs. Mem. Phys. Nat. v. 5 (1) pp. USL, dealt with such a form, the wheat eelworm, but did not name it. Needham (1775, Jour. de Phys. v. 5, p. 227) stated that he had given Baker a sample of diseased wheat in 1744, and in 1771 Baker informed him! the * eels ~ still revived. Roffredi (1776, Nouv. Recherch. sur les Découv. microscop. etc. annot. par Needham Pars I, p. 25, Paris) took the view that the forms were moved by the penetration of fluid. Steinbuch (1799, Dev Naturforscher, v. 28, p. 256) calls the “‘ Wurm ”’ described by Roffredi Vibrio tritic1. This was the first time a specific name had been applied. Bauer (1823, Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc., pp. 1-16, pl. 1, figs. 1-23, pl. 2, figs. 1-2) described the species under the name Vibrio tritici, not quoting an author but referring to Needham (1744, loc. cit.) and to Roffredi (1775, 1776, loc. cit.), as well as to a letter of Fontana (1776, Journ. de Physique, P. 4 3) in which that author is said to have considered the infected grains as ‘extraneous turnaris or gall nuts.’ Dujardin (1845, Hist. Nat. Helm. ou Vers Intest., Paris 239, 242-243) made Vibrio and Anguillula synonyms of Rhabditis. He called the wheat eelworm Rhabditis tritic1, or in vernacular, ‘‘ Rhabditis du blé niellé.’’ As synonyms he listed : ce Anguille du blé rachitique ou du faux ergot, Rozier, Obs., 1775, 218. Vibrio anguillula (y) Miller, Infus. p. 63, pl. 9 Vibrio agrostis Steinbuch, dans Naturf., XXVIL, Pp. 233, pl. 5. Vibrio tritici Bauer dans les Transact., 1823, Gs CXII, p- 1, pl. 1-2 et dans les Ann. Sc. nat. 18245 (tLe puas4e ple 7. Ehrenberg (1828, Die Infusionsthieve als Vollkommene Organismen, p. 82) first placed the species ¢vitic1 Steinbuch in the genus Anguillula. Diesing (1851, Systema Helminthum, Vindobonae, v. 2, p. 132) renamed the “‘ wheat eelworm’’ Anguillula graminearum, listing as references the following : * The following is the text of the footnote here referred to :— TRITICI Grana abbreviata illa et votundata, exsiccata etiam post annos, in aqua teprdiuscula intra horulam egerminant in ascaridiformem quast vermiculum ; animatum vix dixero. er COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 160. 295 Needham: Micr. 99 Tab. V. 7 Backer: Micr. expl. 80 Tab. V Fig. 1, 2 Roffredi: in Journ. de Phys. 1775. 369 Anguille vulgaire Rozier: Obs. 1775, Mars. 218 Tab. 1. 7 et 1778, Nov. 401 Anguille du blé rachitique /.c. 1775, Janv. Tab. 1 Anguille du faux ergot. l.c. 1776, Janv. 72 et Mars. 372. et 436 Naturf. XIX. St. 40 Vibrio graminis Steinbuch: in Naturf. XXVIII. St. 233. Tab. V.—et Ej. Analecten. 97.-135. Tab. II. Fig. 1-6 Spallanzani: Micr. 189, Fig. 12 (pessima). idem Opusc. phys. II. 354. Tab. V. 10 Eichhorn: Micr. 72. Tab. VII. A Gleichen: Micr. 61. Tab. XXVIII. 6 Spuhlwtirmeradlchen. Schrank: Beitr. 19 Wurtemb. Wochenbl. 1782. 354 Vibrio anguillula. Anguillula fulviatilis Muller: Anim. Infus. 65. Tab. IX. 5-8 Vibrio tritici Bauer: in Philosoph. Trans. 1823. I. 1-12. Tab. I et II. Versio in Annal. des Sc. nat., prem. sér. II. 154-167 cum Tabula.— Bory: in_Encycl. méth. 1824. 779. — Duges : in Annal. des Sc. nat. prem. sér. IX. 225.— Henslow: in Microscopical Journal, 1841. 36. Rhabditis tritici Dujardin: Hist. nat. des Helminth. 242. Davaine (1857, Recherches sur l anguille du Blé Niellé, etc. oe) described the species and called it Anguillula tritict. Gervais and Beneden (1859, Zool. médicale, v. 2. p. 102) made a genus Anguillulina, placing tritici in the genus. They also included Anguillulina dipsaci (Kiihn, 1857). Bastian (1865, Tvans. linn. Soc. v.25, 125-128) made a genus Tylenchus, in which he included T. agvostidis Bastian, 1865; T. davaini Bastian, 1865; TJ. dipsaci (Kiihn, 1857) and T. tritici (Steinbuch, 1799). Schneider (1866, Monog. Nematoden, p. 164-165) renamed the species Anguillula scandens. Concerning the genera in which ¢viticz has been placed, the following may be said : (1) Chaos Linnaeus, 1767, has as its type Chaos protheus Linnaeus, 1767 (= Volvox chaos Linnaeus, 1758, Protozoan). (2) Vibrio Miller, 1773, type uncertain. Stiles and Hassall, 1905,—>preferably V. lineola or V. bacillus (Bacteria). (3) Angutllula Ehrenberg in Hemprich and Ehrenberg, 1828, has as its type fluviatilis (Miller, 1786). It was originally proposed for V. fluviatilis Miller, 1783, Ehren- berg, 1828; V. imflexa H. and E., 1828; V. coluber (M., 1786), H. and E., 1828; V. recticauda H. and E., 1828; and V. dongalana H. and E., 1828. Anguillula Miller, 1773, is an error; Miller did not make a genus Anguillula. He made the species Vibrio anguillula Miller, 1773, which included Chaos redivivum Linnaeus, 1767, 1326. Later (1783, 161-163) he subdivided the species anguillula into varieties. Miller (1786, Animalcula Infusoria fluviatila et marina, étc.), on page 63, gives the species Vibrio anguillula. Under that species he listed : (a) Anguillula acets (p. 63); (8) Anguillula glutinis (p.-64); (y) Anguillula fluviatilis (p. 65); (8) Anguillula marina (p. 66). Under fluviatilis he gave several references, including Needham (1745, loc. cit.) and others referring to the wheat eelworm, but the first reference is to his original description of fluviatilis which is not the wheat eelworm. Gmelin (1790, 3900-3901) was erroneously quoted by Stiles and Hassall (1905, Pp- 35) as having credited Miller with making a genus Anguillula. Sherborn (1902, p- 1077) erroneously attributed Anguwillula to Miller, 1786, by listing Miuiller’s varieties as species of Anguillula. This is apparently the cause of the error by Stiles and Hassall, to whom a copy of Miller (1786) was not available. Davaine designated tritici type of Angutllula Ehrenberg, and de Man designated acett type of this genus. Stiles and Hassall (1905, pp. 36, 86) designated A. fluvia- tilis (Muller, 1783) (= V. fluviatilis Miller, 1783) as type of Anguillula Ehrenberg. This designation must stand on the grounds that it is the first designation of an originally included species. = Peters (1927, J. Helminth. v. 5, 141-142) on the basis of the above designation made anew genus 7 urbatrix for the vinegar eel (T. aceti (Miller, 1783)) on the grounds that Anguillula fluviatilis is unrecognizable. We agree with this action. There- fore, Anguillula is no longer available for any animal. If this were not so, it would not be available for tritici because tritici was not an included species and because Anguina has priority. 296 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL (4) Rhabditis Dujardin, 1845, has as the type R. terricola Dujardin, 1845, (type desig- nation by Stiles and Hassall). Type not congeneric with trztict. (5) Anguillulina Gervais and Beneden, 1859, has as its type A. tritici (Steinbuch, 1799), des. by Stiles and Hassall, 1905. (6) Tylenchus Bastian, 1865, has as its type T. davainii Bastian, 1865. See Stiles and Hassall, 1905. Type congeneric with tritici. Thus we find three generic names available for the wheat eelworm namely, Anguina Scopoli, 1777, Anguillulina Gervais and Beneden, 1859, and Tylenchus Bastian, 1865. Baylis and Daubney (1926, Synop. Fam. and Gen. Nematoda, p. 65) recognized Anguillulina, giving Tylenchus and Anguina as synonyms. Goodey (J. Helminth. v. 10, p. 76) recognized Anguillulina, discarding both Anguina and Tylenchus, the former without stated reason, the latter as a Synonym. It appears to us that the action taken by Baylis and Daubney and by Goodey is illogical in view of the above data. On the grounds of priority the proper name should be Anguina. If priority is to be set aside Tylenchus should be recognized since this name is the best known and the most widely used. In our opinion Anguillulina has recently been injected into the literature on illogical grounds. At the present, the literature is in a state of flux. Either Anguina or Tylenchus should be recognized and put on the Official List. In our opinion Tylenchus would be preferable in that it would mean the return to a well established name. If Tylenchus is not retained, and some confusion is to prevail, then both Anguillulina and Tylenchus should be considered synonyms of Anguina. We, the undersigned, hereby request the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, to set aside the rules of priority in this case, recognizing Tylenchus, and putting it on the Official List, on the grounds that enforcement of the rules would cause more confusion than would suspension of the rules. G. Steiner, G. Thorne, Senior Nematologist, Associate Nematologist, Office of Nematology, Bureau of Plant Industry, Bureau of Plant Industry, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture U.S. Dept. of Agriculture M. C. Hall B. G. Chitwood, Chief, Zoological Division, Assistant Zoologist, Bureau of Animal Industry, Bureau of Animal Industry, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture U.S. Dept. of Agriculture eeixe: Christie) Associate Nematologist, Bureau of Plant Industry, WES Dept, OreNerncultunre Il.—THE SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF THE CASE: 2. Copies of the foregoing memorandum were communicated to members of the Commission by Commissioner C. W. Stiles, Secretary to the Commission, in January 1935. In a covering note Dr. Stiles informed the Commission that he was asking 15 specialists to furnish the Commission with their views on the proposal submitted. These specialists were resident in Sweden, England (3), Belgium, Denmark, U.S.S.R., Austria, Germany (3), Japan, Switzerland, Chile, and Holland. 3. In the same note Dr. Stiles made the following comment on COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 160. 297 the passage in the present petition where it is stated that he (Dr. Stiles) and Hassall (1905) had erroneously quoted Gmelin (1790) as having credited Miller with making a genus Anguallula :— The Secretary concurs with the statement that Miller, 1773, did not propose a new genus Anguillula but that he was dividing a species anguil- lula into varieties or subspecies. At the time (1905) Stiles and Hassall designated the type species of Anguillula, 1773, they based their decision on Gmelin, 1790, and Sherborn, 1902, since they could not obtain a copy of Miller, 1773. Quite recently the Secretary has been able to examine a photostat copy of Miller, 1773, and he concurs with the appellants that the premises accepted from literature by Stiles and Hassall were erroneous. 4. Eight of the specialists referred to in paragraph 2 above in due course furnished statements of their views for the considera- tion of the Commission. These are reproduced in the following paragraphs (paragraphs 5-14 below). 5. Views of Dr. Carl Allgen (Jonkoping, Sweden) : | Dr. Allgen endorsed the request that the rules should be sus- pended and that Tylenchus Bastian should be placed on the Oficial List. He did not add any comments. 6. Views of Dr. J. H. Schurmans Steckhoven (Zoological Labora- tory, University of Utrecht, The Netherlands) : Having read your interesting manuscript I have the honour to tell you that I quite agree with the premises as set forth in this document and that I am in favour for the last sentence, whereby you [1.e. the petitioners] do re- quest the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to set aside the rules of priority*in this case, recognising Tylenchus and putting it on the Official List, on grounds that enforcement of the rules would cause more confusion than would suspension of the rules. 7. Views of Dr. H. A. Baylis (British Museum (Natural History), London) : My answers to your questions are as follows :— (1) I do not agree with the premises as set forth in the document. (2) My reasons for this are: (a) that Anguina Scopoli, 1777, has no status, and (b) that Anguillulina has clear priority over Tylenchus. The question of the validity of Anguina seems to depend on the question whether Scopoli, in this instance, ‘‘ applied the principles of binary nomen- clature’’’ (Art. 25, condition (b)). I have carefully studied Scopoli, Joc. cit., and also the passage in Linnaeus’ 12th edition, p. 326, to which he seems to refer. It seems to me that it cannot be maintained that Scopoli here used a ““ binary ”’ system even of classification, while his nomenclature is certainly not ““ binary,’ his ultimate unit being the genus. Nor is it at all clear that Linnaeus intended to name the “‘ vermiculum ”’ referred to in his footnote. Apparently it is included in the species Chaos ustilago.® 3 Here followed a short discussion of the meaning to be applied to the term “ binary nomenclature,’’ which has been omitted for the reason that, as explained in section (d) of paragraph 16 of the present-Opinion, the decision embodied in this Opinion (in paragraph 17) was expressly taken by the Commission without prejudice to the meaning of that term. See also footnote 7. 298 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL are) ene) 0. ve (4) Isee no reason for not accepting Anguillulina, which has clear priority over Tylenchus, and has, in consequence of its acceptance by Dr. Goodey, already begun to be accepted by those who work on plant pathology. I am definitely opposed to the principle of nomina conservanda, and do not consider there is a good case in favour of retaining Tylenchus. 8. Later Dr. Baylis wrote :— I am unconvinced by Chitwood’s statement (1935, Proc. helm. Soc. Wash. 2:53) that “ the international rules . .. do mot imvalidate oldjeenera which have been described without a specific name being mentioned.”’ This statement does not seem to me to be in accordance with the intention of Article 25. Incidentally, I might mention that the frequent quotation (as in the original memorandum of Steiner, Hall and -others) of ‘“‘ Ehrenberg, 1825 ”’ as the author of Anguillulina, is incorrect. Sherborn has shown that although Ehrenberg’s plates were published in 1828 (containing no mention of this name) the text was not published until 1831. 9. Views of Dr. T. Goodey (St. Albans, England) : My answers to your points are :—- (1) Ido not agree with the premises set forth in the doouhene especially with regard to the alleged status and suggested validity of Anguina Scopohi, WIT (2) I have closely studied Scopoli, 1777, to determine whether he satis- fies the Law of Priority, Art. 25 of the International Rules of Zoological Nomenclature and find that though it may be conceded that he satisfies condition (a) he entirely fails to satisfy condition (b) in that he did not apply the principles of ‘“‘ binary nomenclature.”’ He merely put forward the generic name Anguina without an accompanying “‘ nomen triviale ”’ which is essential to satisfy “‘ binary’ principles. Since he failed to satisfy condition (b) I consider that Anguina has no status. I have also studied the passage in Linnaeus, 1767, and conclude that he did not propose a name for the “‘ vermiculum.’’ The footnote on p. 1326 is, in my view, merely a slightly expanded description of the material from deformed wheat grains which is included under the species Chaos ustilago. (3) For reasons stated above, I do not admit that under priority Anguina is the correct name, and therefore, the second part of the Ques does not call for discussion. (4) I am not in favour of a suspension of the rules which would involve the displacement of Anguillulina in favor of Tylenchus over which it has clear priority. I dissent from the view that “‘ At present the literature is in a state of flux ’’ for, in my opinion, the position with regard to these two names is now well established since the name Anguztllulina has been adopted in much recent specialist and non-specialist literature dealing with plant- parasitic nematodes both in this country and on the continent of Europe. In the U.S.A. also and in Canada the name has been adopted in recent papers. It would, therefore, serve no useful purpose but would result in added confusion to revert to the use of the name Tylenchus. 10. Later Dr. Goodey notified the Secretary to the Commission that he favoured the suppression of the name Anguina Scopoli, LE * See, however, paragraph 16(e) of the present Opinion. COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 160. 299 11. Views of Dr. Halmar Ditlevson (Zoological Museum, Copen- hagen, Denmark) : I thank you very much for your communication as to the priority of the names Anguina, Anguillulina, and Tylenchus. My answer is the following : (1) Yes, I agree with the premises set forth in your document. (3) My opinion is that an application of the rules of priority in this respect would produce greater confusion than conformity. (4) I vote for suspension of the rules in this case and I vote for the discarding of the name Anguillulina and the retaining of the name Tylen- chus as this name will produce the lesser confusion. 12. Views of Dr. W. Schneider (Friedrichsfeld, Germany) : Leider steht mir hier die Literatur vor 1866 (A. Schneider, Monogr.) nicht zur Verfiigung, so dass ich mich zu den Fragen 3 nicht selbstandig aussern kann. Aber auch dann, wenn dem Genus nach den Prioritatsre- geln der Name Anguina mit Recht zustande, wiirde ich dennoch vorsch- lagen, den Namen Tylenchus beizubehalten. Diese Bezeichnung ist in der neueren Literatur die allgemein gebrauchliche, und es wiirde nur zu weiterer Verwirrung beitragen, wenn sie aus Griinden der Prioritat durch Anguina ersetzt wiirde. Ebenso wenig vermag ich Peters zuzustimmen, wenn er fiir das Genus Anguillula den Namen Turbatrix einfiihren will. Auch in diesem Falle ist der bisherige Name allgemein iiblich. Aus dem Vorgehen von Peters zu schliessen, dass die Frage der Umbenennung zur Zeit im Fluss sei, halte ich nicht fiir richtig. Meine Meinung ist also, dass man Anguina und Anguillulina weetallen lassen sollte, dass aber Tylenchus Bastian (Type T. davaini Ba.) und Anguillula Ehrenberg (Type A. aceti) beibehalten werden miissen, 13. Views of Dr. H. Goffart (Biolog. Reichsanstalt, Katzeberg b, Kiel, Germany) : Ich bin grundsatzlich der Ansicht, dass das Gesetz der Prioritat geachtet wird und halte es: nicht fiir richtig, wenn von diesem Grundsatz abge- wichen wird, auch dann nicht, wenn ein bestimmter Name—in diesem Falle Tylenchus- bekannter sein sollte als ein anderer. Die Frage, ob dem Namen Anguina die Prioritat vor Anguillulina gebuhrt, muss ich streng- genommen verneinen, weil es sich bei Anguina um einen Namen handelt, der zwar dem 25 Absatz (a) der Internationalen Regeln entspricht, aber nicht der binadren Nomenklatur folgt (Absatz (b)). _Wirde man in diesem Falle eine Ausnahme schaffen, und den Namen Anguina anerkennen, weil aus der von Scopoli gegebenen Beschreibung hervorgeht, dass ihm dieselbe Form vorgelegen hat, so wiirde man damit einen Pracedenzfall schaffen, auf den man sich bei anderen Nomenklaturfragen berufen kann. Aus diesem Grunde halte ich es wat fiir richtig, wenn der Name Anguillulina abgeandert wird. 14. Views of Dr. I. N. Filipjev (Branch a the Academy of Sciences, Almata Krazekstau, U.S.S.R.) : I think that the reasons submitted to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature for the inclusion of Tylenchus as the official name for this genus are sound enough if one considers the genus not ecinag ole in BanEnee ones. 300 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL Such a division is attempted by me first on p. 32 > of my paper on ‘‘ The Classification of the free-living Nematodes ”’ of 1934, where a division in 8 genera is proposed (some species are referred to old genera) as follows-: (8) Anguillulina G. & B., or Anguina Scop. type tritici. The nomenclatorial problem would arise practically in regard only to the 8th genus where one of the two names is to be changed. On purely practical grounds Anguina would be preferable, because today Anguillulina and Tylenchus are treated invariably as being synonymous. Anguina would signify a use of the proposed generic division. Tvylenchus s.str. cannot, it seems, be avoided. My opinion is, therefore, that the rules of nomenclature in this case should not be suspended and that Anguina should be fixed for tvitic1, Anguillulina falling into synonymy. In the case of Anguillula, | come to a conclusion different from that of the authors of the present petition. Specific and subgeneric nomenclature is not always clearly separated in the papers of the XVIIIth century, including the works of Linnaeus himself. Miller quotes both Vibrio anguillula and Anguillula aceti. Both meanings of Anguillula—species with varieties or subgenus with species—are acceptable. The latter meaning has the advantage of being a binary naming and can therefore be accepted. It would secure the saving of an old—and prior to Bastian— universally used name, the rejection of which should be avoided if at all possible. 15. A Progress Report on various outstanding problems cir- culated by Dr. Stiles to the Members of the Commission in June 1935 for use at the Session due to be held at Lisbon in September of that year contained the following extract from a letter from Commissioner Karl Jordan :— As shown by his previous publications, Scopoli was a binary and binomial author. In his Intvoductio ad Historiam natuvalem, wherein Anguina appears as a new generic name, Scopoli gives a classification of Minerals, Plants and Animals down to genera, as stated on the title-page. There was no need for him to mention species, though he did so in many instances. ITI.—THE CONCLUSION REACHED BY THE INTERNA- TIONAL COMMISSION. 16. This case was considered by the International Commission at Lisbon at their meeting held on Tuesday, 17th September 1935. In the course of the discussion of the problems involved attention was drawn to the following considerations :— (a) There was complete lack of unanimity among the specialists who had advised on this case :— (i) Some accepted Anguina Scopoli, 1777, as available nomen- clatorially ; others considered that it was not available, since, in their opinion, it had been published in a work, the author ® Filipjev, 1934, Smithson. misc. Coll. 89 (No. 6) : 1-63, 8 pls. COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 160. BOI (b) of which had not applied the principles of binary nomenclature within the meaning of Article 25 of the International Code. (ii) Of those that accepted Anguina Scopoli as available nomen- clatorially, some favoured its suppression by the Commission under their plenary powers; others considered that it should be definitely brought into use for Vibrio tritict. (iii) Among those who either rejected Anguina Scopoli or recom- mended that it should be suppressed, there was disagreement as to the name which should take its place. Some favoured Anguillulina Gervais and Beneden, 1859; others considered that that name should be suppressed in order to validate Tylenchus Bastian, 1865. The plenary powers granted to the International Commission by the Ninth International Congress of Zoology at Monaco in 1913 were - only exercisable in cases where, in the judgment of the Commission, the strict application of the rules would clearly result in greater confusion than uniformity. The International Congress, in granting these powers, had deliberately so defined them as to exclude their use in cases where no more than inconvenience would result from the strict application of the rules. The powers granted to the Commission to suspend the rules could therefore only be used where the Commission were satisfied that certain conditions were fulfilled. The evidence brought forward in the present case did not satisfy those conditions; there was, therefore, no case for the suspension of the rules for the purpose either of invalidating Anguina Scopoli and validating Anguillulina Gervais and Beneden, 1859, or of invalidating both Anguina Scopoli and Anguillulina Gervais and Beneden and validating Tylenchus Bastian. The status of the name Anguina Scopoli depended on the question whether in the work in which that name had been published Scopolt had applied the principles of ‘‘ binary nomenclature.”’ The answer to that question in turn depended on the meaning to be applied to that term. This latter was a general question that was at present under consideration by the Permanent Committee of the International Zoological Congresses in connection with the procedure to be adopted in regard to the resolution on this subject that had been voted upon by the Eleventh International Congress of Zoology at Padua in 1930. It would clearly be improper for the International Commission to prejudge whatever decision might ultimately be reached on this matter; in consequence the Commission had in the meanwhile no option but to interpret that term in the sense that had been approved by previous meetings of the International Congress and had there- fore been recognised as the correct interpretation prior to the question being raised at the Padua meeting of the Congress. For the present therefore at least, the Commission were bound by the interpretation given in Opinion 20 and later Opinions dealing with the same subject. Pending a final decision on this subject, the position was that generic names published by authors who adopted a system of nomenclature, which, though “ binary” in the sense that Gronovius, 1763, was “Dpbinary ”’ (Opinion 20) was not a binominal system of nomenclature must be regarded as satisfying the requirements of Article 25 of the International Code. If at some later date it were decided to redefine the term “‘ binary nomenclature ’’ in the sense proposed at Padua, i.e. to secure that that term was identical in meaning with the term “ binominal nomenclature,’’ it would be necessary to re-examine Scopoli’s Introductio ad Historiam naturalem to ascertain whether it fell within the revised definition or whether it was excluded thereby. It was 302 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL argued by some of the specialists who had expressed views on the present case that the narrower interpretation of the term “ binary nomenclature ”’ would render this work of Scopoli’s unavailable for nomenclatorial purposes; but this proposition had not been clearly established. Scopoli, for whom Linnaeus had had a high regard, had published in 1763 a work, the Entomologia caryniolica, which was undoubtedly the work of an author who accepted the binominal system of nomenclature. In order therefore to reject the Introductio ad Histoviam naturalem, 1t would be necessary to prove that between 1763 and 1777 Scopoli had ceased to accept the binominal system of nomenclature; it would not be sufficient for this purpose to show that in that work or in parts of it he had not given particulars below the level of genera. Moreover, in some parts of the Intvoductio Scopoli had without doubt employed a strictly binominal system of nomenclature (e.g. in the portion relating to the Lepidoptera Rho- palocera). 17. At the conclusion of the discussion summarised in the preceding paragraph, the Commission agreed (Lisbon Session, 4th Meeting, Conclusion 11 ®) :— (a) that, for so long as generic names published by authors using a binary, though not a binominal, system of nomenclature were recognised as complying with the requirements of Article 25 of the International Code,’ the generic names published by Scopoli in 1777 in his Intvoductio ad Historiam natuvalem should be accepted as available nomenclatorially, but that the position should be re- examined if later it were decided to reject generic names published by authors not applying the binominal system ; (b) that no case had been established for the “‘ suspension of the rules ”’ for the purpose of :— (i) invalidating either Anguina Scopoli, 1777, or that name and Anguillulina Gervais and Beneden, 1859, and (i) validating Anguillulina Gervais and Beneden or Tylenchus Bastian, 1865, as the case might be; (c) to render an Opinion in the sense of (a) and (b) above, § See 1943, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 1 : 37-38. * At the time that this decision was taken by the Commission, the action to be taken in regard to the meaning to be attached to the term “ binary nomenclature,’ on-which a resolution had been voted upon at the Eleventh International Congress of Zoology at Padua in 1930, was still under con- sideration by the Permanent Committee of the International Zoological Congresses. As stated in paragraph 14 of the Report submitted by the Commission to the Twelfth International Congress of Zoology at Lisbon (for the text of which see Bull. zool. Nomencl. 1-: 55), the Permanent Committee finally decided to refer the question dealt with in the resolution referred to above to the Chairman of the Section on Nomenclature of the (Lisbon) Congress. The Chairman of that Section, in turn, submitted it to the Commission for deliberation and report. This invitation was accepted by the Commission (Lisbon Session, 5th Meeting, Conclusion 3(b)) (for the text of which see Bull. zool. Nomencl. 1:45). In accordance with that decision, a report on this subject will therefore be submitted by the Commission to the International Congress of Zoology at its next meeting. At the present time, therefore, the question of the meaning of the expression “‘ binary nomenclature’’ (‘“‘nomenclature binaire’’) is sub qudice. COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 160. 303 18. At their meeting held at Lisbon on the morning of Tuesday, 17th September 1935 (Lisbon Session, 4th Meeting, Conclusion 17), Commissioner Francis Hemming, who, in the absence through ill-health of Dr. C. W. Stiles, Secretary to the Commission, had been charged with the duty of preparing the report to be submitted by the Commission to the Twelfth International Congress of Zoology, reported that, in accordance with the request made by the Commission on the previous day (Lisbon Session, 3rd Meeting, Conclusion 3(b)), he had made a start with the drafting of the Commission’s report; that he had made considerable progress in spite of being hampered by the lack of standard works of reference ; and that he did not doubt that he would be in a position to lay a draft report before the Commission at their next meeting, though in the time available it would be quite impracticable to prepare the drafts of paragraphs relating to all the matters on which decisions had been reached during the Lisbon meetings of the Commission. As agreed upon at the meeting referred to above (Lisbon Session, 3rd Meeting, Conclusion 3(a) (iii)), he was there- fore concentrating upon those matters that appeared to be the more important. Commissioner Hemming proposed that those matters which it was found impossible to include in the report, owing to the shortness of the time available, should be dealt with after the Congress on the basis of the records in the Official Record of Proceedings of the Commission during their Lisbon Session. For this purpose, Commissioner Hemming proposed that all matters unanimously agreed upon during the Lisbon Session should be treated in the same manner, whether or not it was found possible to include references to them in the report to be submitted to the Congress, and therefore that every such decision should be treated as having been participated in by all the Commissioners and Alternates present at Lisbon. The Commission took note of, and approved, the statement by Com- missioner Hemming, and adopted the proposals submitted by him, as recorded above, in regard both to the selection of items to be included in their report to the Twelfth International Congress of Zoology and to the procedure to be adopted after the Congress in regard to those matters with which, for the reasons explained, it was found impossible to deal in their report. 19. The question dealt with in the present Opinion was one of the matters to which it was found impossible, in the time available, to include a reference in the report submitted by the Commission to the Twelfth International Congress of Zoology at Lisbon. It 304 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL is therefore one of the matters which falls to be dealt with under the procedure agreed upon by the Commission as set out in para- graph 18 above. 20. The present Ofinion was concurred in by the twelve (12) Commissioners and Alternates present at the Lisbon Session of the International Commission, namely :— Commissioners :—Calman; Hemming; Jordan; Pellegrin; Peters ; and Stejneger. Alternates :—do Amaral vice Cabrera; Ohshima vice Esaki ; Bradley vice Stone; Beier vice Handlirsch; Arndt vice Richter ; and Mortensen vice Apstein. 21. The present Opinion was dissented from by no Commniecinmey or Alternate present at the Lisbon Session. The following five (5) Commissioners who were not present at Lisbon nor represented thereat by Alternates did not vote on the present Opinion :— Bolivar y Pieltain; Chapman; Fantham; Silvestri; and Stiles. 22. At the time when the vote was taken on the present Opimion, there was one (1) vacancy in the Commission consequent upon the death of Commissioner Horvath. IV._AUTHORITY FOR THE ISSUE OF THE PRESENT OPINION. WHEREAS the By-Laws of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature provide that, except in cases involving the suspension of the rules, an Ofinion is to be deemed to have been adopted by the said International Commission as soon as a majority of the Members of the Commission, that is to say ten (10) Members of the said Commission, have recorded their votes in favour thereof, provided that, where any proposed Opinion involves a reversal of any former Opinion rendered by the Com- mission, such proposed Opinion shall obtain the concurrence of at least fourteen (14) Members of the Commission voting on the same before such Opinion is to be deemed to have been adopted by the Commission; and WHEREAS the present Ofimion, as set out in the summary thereof, neither requires, in order to be valid, the suspension of the rules, nor involves a reversal of any former Opa rendered by the Commission ; and — COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION I60. 305 WHEREAS twelve (12) Members of the Commission have signified their concurrence in the present Opinion either in person or - through Alternates at the Session of the Commission held in Lisbon in September 1935; | Now, THEREFORE, J, Francis HEMMING, Secretary to the International Com- mission on Zoological Nomenclature, acting in virtue of all and every the powers conferred upon me in that behalf by reason of holding the said Office of Secretary to the International Com- mission, hereby announce the said Ofimion on behalf of the International Commission, acting for the International Congress of Zoology, and direct that it be rendered and printed as Opinion Number One Hundred and Sixty (Opinion 160) of the said Com- mission. In faith whereof I, the undersigned FRANCIS HEMMING, Secre- tary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature, have signed the present Opinion. Done in London, this twentieth day of May, Nineteen Hundred _and Forty Three, in a single copy, which shall remain deposited in the archives of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. FRANCIS HEMMING THE PUBLICATIONS OF THE COMMISSION. (obtainable at the Publications Office of the Commission at 41, Queen’s Gate, London, 5.W.7.) Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. — This journal has been established by the International Commission as their Official Organ in order to provide a medium for the publication of :— (a) proposals on zoological nomenclature submitted to the International Commission for deliberation and decision ; (b) comments received from, and correspondence by the Secretary with, zoologists on proposals published i in the Bulletin under (a) above ; and (c) papers on nomenclatorial implications of developments in taxonomic theory and practice. The Bulletin was established in 1943, in which year three Parts were published. Part 4 was pallens. in 1944. Parts 5 and 6 are in the press. Opinions and Declarations Rendered by the International Com- mission on Zoological Nomenelature. The above work is being published in three volumes concurrently. namely :— Volume 1. This volume will contain Declarations 1-9 (which have never previously been published) and Opinions 1-133 (the original issue of which is now out of print). Parts 1-20 (containing Declavations 1-9 and Opinions 1-11) have now been published. Further Parts will be published shortly. ane 2. This volume will be issued in 52 Parts, comprising all the decisions taken by the International Commission at their meeting at Lisbon in 1935, namely Declarations 10-12 (with Roman pagination) and Opinions 134-181 (with Arabic pagination). Part 52 will contain the index and title page of the volume. Parts I-30, containing Declarations to-12 and Opinions 134-160, have now been published. Further Parts will be published shortly. Volume 3. This volume, which commenced with Opinion 182, will contain the Opinions adopted by the International Commission since their meeting at Lisbon in 1935. Parts 1-5 (containing Opinions 182-186) have now been published. Further Parts will be published as soon as possible. APPEAL FOR FUNDS | The International Commission appeal earnestly to all institutions and individuals interested in the development of zoological nomen- clature to contribute, according to their means, to the Commission’s Special (Publications) Fund. Of the total sum of £1,800 required to enable the Commission to issue all the publications now awaiting printing, donations amounting to £819 8s. 7d. were received up to 31st December 1944. Additional contributions are urgently needed in order to enable the Commission to continue their work without interruption. Contributions of any amount, however small, will be most gratefully received. Contributions should be sent to the International Commission at their Publications Office, 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W. 7, and made payable to the “ International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature or Order ’’ and crossed ‘* Account payee. Coutts — & Co.’’. PRINTED IN GREAT BRITAIN BY RICHARD CLAY AND Company, Ltp., BUNGAY, SUFFOLK. Re +. 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 2. Part 30A. Pp. (1)-(44). (TP-[I1]-lMI-XVI of Section A of volume 2 also published with this Part) CONTENTS Supplementary Notes on Opinions 137, 148, and 149; Addenda and Corrigenda; Alphabetical List of the names of authors who have either contributed, or have furnished comments on, proposals dealt with in Section A of volume 2; Index to Section A of volume 2; Dates of publication of the several portions of Section A of volume 2; and Instructions to Binder. (Also published with this Part: Title Page to Section A, Foreword, Table of Contents and Introductory Note) LONDON: Printed by Order of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature Sold at the Publications Office of the Commission 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7 1945 Price eight shillings and twopence (All rights reserved) Issued 5th December, 1945 _LeaaIAN INST ES JAN 311946 “ATIONAL WUSESS— INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE COMPOSITION OF THE COMMISSION The Officers of the Commission President: Dr. Karl Jordan, Ph.D., F.R.S. (United Kingdom). Vice-President : Dr. James L. Peters (U.S.A.). Secretary : Mr. Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. (United Kingdom). The Members of the Commission Class 1946 Herr Professor Dr. Walter ARNDT (Germany). Dr. William Thomas CALMAN (United Kingdom). Professor Teiso ESAKI (Japan). Professor Béla von HANKO (Hungary). Dr Tadeusz JACZEWSKI (Poland). Dr. Norman R. STOLL (U.S.A.). Class 1949 Senor Dr. Angel CABRERA (Argentina). Mr. Francis HEMMING (United Kingdom) (Secretary to the Commission). Dr. Karl JORDAN (United Kingdom) (President of the Commission). Dr. Joseph PEARSON (Australia). Monsieur le Docteur Jacques PELLEGRIN (France). Herr Professor Dr. Rudolf RICHTER (Germany). Class 1952 Senhor Dr. Afranio do AMARAL (Brazil). Professor James Chester BRADLEY (U.S.A.). Professor Ludovico di CAPORIACCO (Italy). Professor J. R. DYMOND (Canada). Dr. James L. PETERS (U.5.A.) (Vice-President of the Commission). Dr. Harold E. VOKES (U:S.A.). Secretariat of the Commission : British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London, S.W. 7. Publications Office of the Commission : 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W. 7. Personal address of the Secretary : 83, Fellows Road (Garden Flat), London, N.W. 3. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES ON OPINIONS 137, 148, AND 149 Opinion 137 (pp. 21-28) Addition to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology of Morpho Fabricius, 1807, Helicopis Fabricius, 1807, and Pontia Fab- vicius, 1807 (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera) The object of the petition dealt with by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature in Opinion 137 was to obtain a definitive ruling on the question of which of pairs of names of almost exactly equal date were the oldest available (and, there, the valid) names for three genera in the Order Lepidoptera (Class Insecta). The pairs of names in question were :— (1) Morpho Fabricius, 1807, and Potamis Hubner, [1807] Of the above genera, Morpho Fabricius, 1807, has, as its type, Papilio achilles Linnaeus, 1758 (that species having been so selected by Westwood, [1851], 77 Double- day, Gen. diurn. Lep. (2): 341), and Potams Hiibner, [1807] has, as its type, Potamis leonte Hiibner, [1807], by monotypy. : (2) Heltcopis Fabricius, 1807, and Rusticus Hiibner, [1807] The type of Helicopis Fabricius, 1807, is Papilio cupido Linnaeus, 1758 (that species having been so selected by Scudder, 1875, Proc. Amer. Acad. Arts Sct., Boston 10: 186). At the time when the case dealt with in Opinion 137 was submitted to the International Com- mission, the petitioner accepted Rusticus Hiibner as an available name as from 1807, having Papilio gnidus Fabricius, 1787, as type (that species having been so selected by Hemming, 1934, Entomologist 67 : 156).1 1 Personal Note by Commissioner Francis Hemming: As it was by myself that the case dealt with in Opinion 137 was submitted to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, I wish to take this opportunity of correcting what I now see was an error in the portion of the ‘‘ statement of the case’ relating to the names Helicopis Fabricius, 1807, and Rusticus Hubner, [1807]. As explained in the “ statement of the case,” the name Rusticus first appeared in Hiibner’s Tentamen, but in view of Opinion 97 it acquired thereby no rights under the Law of Priority. As explained in that Opinion, rejected Tentamen names take status under the Law of Priority as from the first subsequent occasion on which they are published in conditions which satisfy Article 25 of the Régles Internationales. The (6) OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL (3) Pontia Fabricius, 1807, and M ancipium Hubner, [1807] The type of Pontia Fabricius, 1807, is Papilio daplidice first occasion after the Tentamen on which the name Rusticus was published was in 1807 when in volume 1 of his Sammlung exotischer Schmeiterlinge Hiibner (on plates [102] and [104]) applied this name to two species, namely Papilio aetolus Sulzer, 1776, and Papilio gnidus Fabricius, 1787. The last-named species was selected by myself (1934, Entomologist 67 : 156) as the type of Rusticus Hubner, [1807], and was treated as such when I submitted this case to the International Commission. 2. What I did not realise at the time when I submitted this case was iHiat, under the interpretation of Article 25 of the Régles Internationales given by the International Commission in Opinion 1 (see 1944, Opinions and Declarations rendered by the International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clatuve 1 : 73-86), a generic name is published without an “ indication ” (and possesses, therefore, no rights under the Law of Priority as from the date of such publication), if the original author, without giving any “‘ de- scription’’ or ‘‘ definition,’ merely assigned two or more species to the genus and did not cite or designate one of the included species as the type of the genus. 3. If in 1934 I had correctly realised the position under Article 25, I should not have troubled the International Commission with this case, for I should have seen that in no circumstances could the name Helicopis Fabricius, 1807, have been invalidated on grounds of priority in favour of Rusticus Hiibner, [1807], since the name Rusticus was published by Hiibner in 1807 with two included species and without a cited or designated type and in consequence was published without an “ indication.’’ The name Rusticus Hiibner possesses, therefore, no rights under the Law of Priority (Article 25) as from the date on which it was published by Hiibner in 1807. It is, therefore, necessary to find the next occasion on which this name was published. This is found to have been in 1808 (see Hemming, 1937, Hiibner 2: 251), when (on plate [105] of volume 1 of the Sammlung exot- ischer Schmeiterlinge) Hiibner applied it to the single species Papilio cupido Linnaeus, 1758. The International Commission have laid it down in Opinion 30 (which was published in 1911, Smithson. Publ. 2013 : 69-72, and dealt with certain generic names for birds published by Swainson in 1827) that, where, by reason of the relative dates of publication of two papers by a given author, that author accidentally includes only a single species in a new genus, that genus is to be regarded as a monotypical genus with the sole included species as its type, even where later the original author makes it clear that he never intended to found.a monotypical genus and that he intended some other species to be the type. 4. The position is, therefore, (1) that on each of the first two occasions on which the name Rusticus Hiibner appeared in print (1.e. in 1806 in the Tentamen and in 1807 on two plates in vol. 1 of the Samml. exot. Schmett.), it appeared in conditions which conferred upon it no rights under the Law of Priority, and (2) that on the next occasion on which this name was published (7.e. in 1808 on a single plate in vol. 1 of the Sammi. exot. Schmett.) it was published in conditions, in which, under Opinion 30, it must be accepted as the name of a monotypical genus and, therefore, as being, under Opinion I, a name which, when so published, was accompanied by an “indication ” and thereby acquired rights under the Law of Priority as from that date (1808). Accordingly, Rusticus Hibner is, for nomen- clatorial purposes, a name published by Hiibner in 1808 for a monotypical genus, having Papilio cupido Linnaeus, 1758, as its type. 5. It can now, therefore, be seen that’ Rusticus Hiibner, [1808], is an objective synonym of Helicopis Fabricius, 1807, since Papilio cupido Linnaeus, 1758, is the type of both these genera. COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. (7) Linnaeus, 1758 (that species having been so selected by Curtis, 1824, Brat. Entom. 1: expl. pl. 48). The type of Mancipium Hubner, [1807], is Papilio hellica Linnaeus, 1767, by monotypy. 2. Confusion rather than uniformity would certainly have arisen if it had been necessary on nomenclatorial grounds to suppress, as synonyms, the names Morpho Fabricius, 1807, Helicopis Fabri- cius, 1807, and Pontia Fabricius, 1807, in favour respectively of the names Potamis Hubner, [1807], Rusticus Hiibner, [1807], and Mancipium Hibner, [1807], since each of the last three names originally appeared in Hiibner’s Tentamen in senses entirely different from those indicated above. These names acquired considerable currency in the sense required by the Tentamen, prior to the publication in 1926 of Opinion 97,2 in which the Interna- tional Commission on Zoological Nomenclature decided that the generic names which first appeared in the Tentamen in 1806 have no nomenclatorial status as from that date but rank as from the next occasion on which they were published. The use of these names in the sense indicated in paragraph 1 above would therefore have caused great confusion and it was for this reason that the International Commission were invited to use their plenary powers to obviate this danger. The confusion so arising would have been particularly marked in the case of Potamis Hiibner, [1807], for it would have involved also the suppression of the family name MORPHIDAE and the introduction of the new family name POTAMIDAE. 3 3. At their Lisbon Session, the International Commission decided to dispose of this problem once and for all by validating the names Morpho Fabricius, 1807, Helicopis Fabricius, 1807, and Pontia Fabricius, 1807, under their plenary powers. 4. The Official List of Generic Names in Zoology was finally brought into existence in 1913 by the Ninth International Congress of Zoology at the same meeting as that at which the Congress conferred upon the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature plenary powers to suspend the rules as applied to any given case, where, in the judgment of the Commission, the strict application of the rules in that case would clearly result in greater confusion than uniformity. The object of the Congress 2 See 1926, Smithson. misc. Coll. 73 (4) : 19-30. 3 See Declaration 5 (1943, Opinions and Declarations rendered by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 1 : 31-40). (8) OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL in taking these decisions was to promote the stabilisation of zoological nomenclature and it was always intended that the power granted to the Commission to suspend the rules under the plenary powers then granted to them should be used, where necessary, to supplement and develop the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. Accordingly, ever since the establishment of the Oficial List, the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature have made it their practice automatically to place on the Official List every generic name which they have found it necessary to validate under their plenary powers. 5. It was therefore part of the decision taken by the Interna- tional Commission at their Lisbon Session that the names Morpho Fabricius, 1807, Helicopis Fabricius, 1807, and Pontia Fabricius, 1807, which they then validated under their plenary powers, should thereupon be added to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. Unfortunately, as the result of the small amount of time available at Lisbon and the great pressure under which, in consequence, it was necessary to work, the International Com- mission on Zoological Nomenclature, in preparing the paragraph (paragraph 19) of their report to the Twelfth International Con- gress of Zoology, in which they recorded their decision to validate under their plenary powers the three generic names discussed above, inadvertently omitted to add that, in consequence of that decision, they had decided also to add the three names, so vali- dated, to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. 6. The foregoing omission was first detected in 1943 when, as Secretary to the International Commission, I made a systematic examination of all the Opinions so far rendered by the Interna- tional Commission, with the object of ascertaining what names had so far been placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. I at once reported the position to Commissioner Karl Jordan, President of the Commission, who replied (2nd December 1943) as follows :—“‘ All generic names which have been validated by Opinion of the Commission are thereby placed on the Official List, whether the List has been mentioned in the Opinion or not. It would inevitably lead to confusion, if some names were left out, for zoologists might conclude that names so omitted had not the same standing as that of names placed on the List. It will be advisable in future to state in any Opinion validating a generic name that the name so validated is thereby ‘ placed on the Oficial List.’ ” | 7. In these circumstances, Opinion 137 is to be read as though COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. (9) it contained an express direction that the under-mentioned names are thereby added to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology as Names Nos. 564 to 566 :— Name of genus Type of genus Morpho Fabricius, 1807, Mag. f. Papilio achilles Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Insektenk. (iliger) 6 : 280 Nat. (ed. 10) 1 3 463 (type selected by Westwood, [1851], im Doubleday, Gen. diurn. Lep. (2) : 341) Helicopis Fabricius, 1807, Mag. f. Papilio cupido Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Insektenk. (Illiger) 6 : 285 Nat. (ed. 10) 1 3 482 (type) selected’) by ) Scudder, 1875; Proc. Amer. Acad. Avis Sci., Boston 10 : 186) Pontia Fabricius, 1807, Mag. f. Papilio daplidice Linnaeus, 1758, Insehtenk. (Illiger) 6 : 283 Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 3 468 (type selected by Curtis, 1824, Brit. Entom. 1 : expl. pl. 48) SIGNED ON BEHALF OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE FRANCIS HEMMING Secretary to the Commission Secretariat of the Commission, at the British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, LONDON, S.W.7. 11th August 1945. mK | ae Oe INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. (11) Opinion 148 (pp. 133-144) On the status of a generic name proposed as an emendation of a previously published generic name, where the earlier published of the two generic names 1s later found to be invalid by reason of being a homonym or otherwise Opinion 148 lays down certain principles to be observed in interpreting Articles 25 and 34 of the International Code in relation to the availability of generic names proposed as emenda- tions of, or as substitutes for, earlier generic names of the same origin and meaning. 2. This problem was considered by the International Com- mission on Zoological Nomenclature at their Session held at Lisbon in 1935, when they agreed that, in view of the importance of the principle involved, the decision embodied, but not clearly enunciated, in Ofinion 120 (which was concerned expressly only with the relative status of the names Achatinus de Montfort, 1810, and Achatina Lamarck, 1799) should be re-stated in general terms for the information of students in all branches of zoology. 3. The “ summary ” of Opinion 148 was drafted with the object of giving effect to the foregoing decision, but on further examina- tion it is now Clear that the effort then made to secure brevity in the wording of the examples given in Sections (1) and (3) of the “ summary ’’ unfortunately led to the use of phraseology which in certain respects is ambiguous and which might in certain cir- cumstances be misleading. The responsibility for the drafting of this ‘‘ summary ” rests with myself as Secretary to the Interna- tional Commission and I take this opportunity of expressing my regret that the wording employed was not absolutely clear. The present note is inserted here for the purpose of removing any doubts which may have arisen as to the nature and scope of the decision reached by the International Commission at Lisbon in 1935. References to this note have been included in the Foreword to the present volume and in the Table of Contents and the Index at those points at which reference is made to Opinion 148. It is hoped that in this way the attention of any zoologist who consults Opimion 148 will automatically be drawn to the explanation given in the present note. 4. The point which it is here particularly desired to stress is that it never was the intention of the International Commission (12) OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL to suggest that once a generic name published as an emendation of an earlier generic name of the same origin and meaning has been rejected as a synonym of that earlier name (as laid down in Section. (I) of the “summary” of Ofinion 148), the name so rejected remains unavailable for all time, irrespective of any changes in the status of the earlier name which may later occur, either as the result of the receipt of additional information in regard thereto or for any other cause. Any such suggestion would be manifestly contrary to the provisions of Article 25 of the International Code. 5. Section (1) of the “ summary’ of Opinion 148: The problem dealt with in this Section is that of the status of a generic name (say, Achatinus) published as an emendation of a previously published generic name (say, Achatina) of the same origin and meaning, where the earlier published of the two names is itself an available name under the Code. On this subject, Section {1) of the “summary ”’ of Opinion 148 states that: “ Achatinus de Montfort, 1810, being an emendation of Achatina Lamarck, 1799, is to be rejected as a synonym of Achatina Lamarck.” 6. Nothing was said—nor was it considered necessary that anything should be said—in Section (zr) of the “summary ” of Opinion 148 in regard to what would be the status of the emenda- tion Achatinus de Montfort, 1810, if it were found that the name Achatina Lamarck, 1799, was for any reason itself a nomenclatori- ally unavailable name. As Section (1) was drafted, it would, however, be possible to interpret it as meaning that in such a case the emendation Achatinus de Montfort, 1810, could not be brought out of synonymy and used as the name for the genus hitherto known as Achatina Lamarck, 1799, but now found to be without a nomenclatorially available name. As already explained (in paragraph 4 above), the International Commission at no time had any intention of laying down any such proposition. Clearly, under Article 25 of the International Code the oldest name for a genus is the correct name for that genus if that name was pub- lished in accordance with the several provisions of that Article and if that name is otherwise available (for example, if that name is not itself invalid as a homonym under Article 34 of the Code). It follows, therefore, that, if for any reason it was necessary to reject a generic name (say, Achatina) (for example, because it was published without an indication, definition or description, or because it was published by an author who did not accept the principles of binary nomenclature) and if the senior synonym of COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. (13) Achatina was the emendation Achatinus (and that name was not invalid by reason—for example—of being a homonym), then the emendation Achatinus, being the oldest available name for the genus, would become its correct generic name from the nomen- clatorial standpoint. 7. In order to remove any possibility of misunderstanding regarding the meaning of Section (1) of the “summary”’ of Obimion 148, it has been decided :— (a) in line 3, after the words “ earlier name,’ to insert the words where that name is itself an available name’’; and (b) in line 6, at the beginning of the sentence following the word “‘ Example,’ to insert the words “ Assuming that the name Achatina Lamarck, 1799, is itself an available name.” 66 8. Section (3) of the “ summary ’”’ of Opinion 148: This Section deals with the status of a generic name published as a substitute for a previously published name of the same origin and meaning, but the subject dealt with in Section (1) of the “ summary ”’ is alluded to in the last sentence of the example given in Section (3). As drafted, that sentence, which commences with the word “ If ”’ at the end of the 1st line but one on page 135 and concludes with the words “ not available ”’ in line 2 on page 136, is both obscure and in some respects definitely misleading. It has, therefore, been decided to cancel and withdraw the last sentence of Section (3) of the “ summary ”’ of Opinion 148.4 SIGNED ON BEHALF OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE FRANCIS HEMMING Secretary to the Commission Secretariat of the Commission, at the British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, LONDON, S.W.7. 12th August 1945. 4 The names selected to illustrate the principle laid down in Section (3) of Opinion 148 were Protodryas and Prodryas, which were there stated to be of the same origin and meaning. It should here be noted that the pre- fixes “‘ Proto-”’ and ‘‘ Pyo-’’ are not of the same origin and meaning as one another, although, when used in conjunction with the word “ dryas,’’ the meaning of these words is substantially similar, each indicating that the generic name so compounded is a substitute for an earlier generic name yas.’ INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. (15) Opinion 149 (pp. 145-160) On the question whether ““ Sphingonothus ”’ or “ Sphingonotus ”’ zs the correct spelling of the name originally published as Sphingo- nothus Feber, 1852 (Class Insecta, Order Orthoptera) One of the generic names placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology by Opinion 149 was the name originally pub- lished as Sphingonothus Fieber, in Kelch, Grundl. Orth. Obersches. : 2 (type by monotypy: Gryllus caerulans Linnaeus, 1767, Syst. mee. Ned. £2) 1 (2) ? 701). 2. Ihe proposal that the above name should be added to the Official List was originally submitted to the International Com- mission on Zoological Nomenclature by Commissioner Karl Apstein in 1915. In that list this generic name was spelt “ Sphin- gonotus.’’ The proposals relating to this and other names of genera of the Order Orthoptera included in Commissioner Apstein’s list were referred to Dr. A. N. Caudell, United States National Museum, for advice (see paragraphs 1 & 2 of Opinion 149). In the copy of Dr. Caudell’s report submitted to the International Commission for consideration at their Lisbon Session in September 1935 this name was spelt “ Sphingonothus.” Accordingly, this was the spelling used in the report then submitted by the Inter- national Commission to the Twelfth International Congress of Zoology (see 1943, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 1 : 58). 3. At their Lisbon Session the International Commission were much handicapped by lack of works of reference and they accord- ingly agreed (Lisbon Session, 5th Meeting, Conclusion r(c), for the full text of which see 1943, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 1: 44) “to authorise Commissioner Hemming to examine the report after the close of the Congress when works of reference were available to him for the purpose of checking the accuracy of the biblio- graphical and other references cited therein, and to correct any errors that might be found before the text of the report was officially published.’ 4. In accordance with the foregoing decision all the names included in the Commission’s report to the Lisbon Congress were checked by myself on my return to London. In the case of the generic name here under consideration, I found that “ Sphingo- nothus’’ was the spelling used by Kelch when in 1852 ie first * (16) OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL published this name, which had been devised by, but at that time had not been published by, Fieber. I accordingly concluded that the spelling “ Sphingonotus *’ in Commissioner Apstein’s original application was a slip for “ Sphingonothus,’ the original spelling of this name, and therefore that, as respects this name, no cor- rection of the Lisbon report was required. It was for this reason that, in preparing Opinion 149 to give effect to the Commission’s decision in this matter, I used the spelling “ SAhingonothus”’ and not the spelling “* Sphingonotus.” 5. Following the publication of Opinion 149, I received a letter (dated 26th April 1944) from Dr. B. P. Uvarov, British Museum (Natural History), drawing attention to the fact that the spelling “ Sphingonothus ’”’ should be corrected to “ Sphingonotus.” Dr. Uvarov furnished the following note explaining the position :— The name Sphingonothus Fieber was published for the first time by Kelch (1852, Grundl. Orth. Obersches. : 2), with Gryllus caerulans Linnaeus, 1767, as the only included species which made the genus monotypical and the name nomenclatorially valid (vide Opinion 1 of the International Com- mission on Zoological Nomenclature).® In 1853, Fieber himself published (Lofos 3 : 124) a diagnosis of the genus, the name of which was then given as Sphingonotus. Thus, the spelling Sphingonothus has a priority over Sphingonotus. The spelling Sphingo- nothus, however, should be regarded as due to a printer’s error, for the following reasons :— (1) The list which Fieber supplied to Kelch for publication was stated (Kelch, loc. cit.: 3) to have been extracted from a manuscript work by Fieber entitled :—‘‘ Die Ovthoptera Euvropas.” Fieber’s own paper (1853, loc. cit. 3 : 90) had the title :—‘‘ Synopsis der euro- paischen Orthopteren mit besonderer Berticksichtigung auf die im Bohmen vorkommenden Arvten als Auszug aus dem zum Drucke vorliegenden Werke ‘ Die europaischen Orthopteren.’’’ It is clear that in both cases extracts were made from the same manuscript (which has never been published). (2) It appears highly probable that Fieber did not take any direct part in the publication of Kelch’s list, and certainly did not read its proofs, since the list contains several obvious misprints in the names of groups and genera described by Fieber, e.g. Campylosteivae instead of Campylostivae, Euthyteivae instead of Euthystivae and Psopha instead of Psophus.® (3) In Fieber’s own publication (1853) the Greek derivation of the name Sphingonotus was given as “ omuyyéw schniiven und votog Riicken,”’ making it quite clear that Fieber could not have used the spelling Sphingonothus as printed by Kelch. (4) Not a single one of all subsequent writers on Orthoptera have used the spelling Sphingonothus, all ignoring it as a misprint. Conclusion. ‘The spelling of the name Sphingonothus contains a proven > See 1944, Opinions and Declarations vendered by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 1 : 73-86. § For a further discussion of the names Psopha Fieber, 1852, in Kelch, and Psophus Fieber, 1853, see sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 9 of Opinion 149 (pp. 154-155 above). COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. 5 (7) typographical error and this case falls therefore within the provisions of Article 19 of the International Code. Under the Code, therefore, the correct spelling of this name is Sphingonotus Fieber, 1852, and this spelling should be adopted for this name in the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. 6. The evidence brought forward by Dr. Uvarov shows con- clusively that, having regard to the derivation of the name, the spelling ‘“‘Sphingonothus’’ is erroneous and that the correct spelling is “* Sphingonotus.”’ 7. Dr. Uvarov further claims that the spelling “ Sphingono- thus”’ is an evident typographical error for “ Sphingonotus ”’ and therefore that, under Article 19 of the Régles Internationales (International Code), the corrected spelling “ Sphingonotus ”’ is automatically the spelling which should be used. As in case of dispute the sole substantive text of the Régles Internationales is the French text (the English, German and Italian texts being only translations of that text), it is necessary at this point to examine the French text of Article 19, in order to determine whether the present case falls within the scope of that Article. 6. Article 19 im the substantive French text of the Régles Internationales reads as follows :— 19.—L’orthographe originelle d’un nom doit étre conservée, a moins qu'il ne soit évident que ce nom renferme une faute de transcription, d’orthographe ou d’impression. g. It may very well be the case, as Dr. Uvarov suggests, that the spelling “ Sphingonothus ”’ used by Kelch in 1852 is due to a ‘“faute d’impression ’’ made during the printing of Kelch’s work. It is equally possible, however, that the error of spelling may have been due to a miscopying by Kelch of the list furnished to him by Fieber, in which case the spelling “ Sphingonothus’’ is to be rejected, under Article 19, as a “ faute de transcription.” How- ever this may be, it is perfectly clear from the evidence brought forward by Dr. Uvarov, that the spelling “ Sphingonothus ”’ represents an error of orthography and, therefore, that, under Article 19, that spelling is to be rejected as a “ faute d’ortho- graphe ” in favour of the spelling “ Sphingonotus.”’ 10. I very much regret that I was not aware of the subsequent history of this name at the time when, in accordance with the duty imposed upon me by the International Commission at their Lisbon Session,’ I examined the report which they then submitted to the Twelfth International Congress of Zoology, with a view to cor- recting any errors on questions of fact which, through lack of 7 See paragraph 3 above (p. (15) ). (18) OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL works of reference at that Session, might inadvertently have been included in that document. The present opportunity is, there- fore, taken to place on record that, wherever the spelling ‘‘ Sphin- gonothus ”’ occurs in Opinion 140, it should be corrected to “ Sphin- gonotus.’ The correct spelling of the generic name placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology by that Opinion is, there- fore, Sphingonotus Fieber, 1852. SIGNED ON BEHALF OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE FRANCIS HEMMING Secretary to the Commission Secretariat of the Commission, at the British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, LONDON, S.W.7. 15th August 1945. COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. (r9) ADDENDA ET CORRIGENDA | Opinion 134 Page 5, eleventh line from foot of page: Substitute ‘‘ Ninth ”’ for peoixth. Page 6, line 8: Substitute “ Ninth ”’ for “ Sixth.” Opinion 135 Page i1, thirteenth line from foot of page: Substitute “ Ninth ” fon orth.” Page 12, line 6: Substitute ‘ Ninth ”’ for “ Sixth.”’ Opinion 136 Page 15, ninth line from foot of page: At end of sentence after the date “1810,” insert the words “should be accepted as designation of types of the genera in question.”’ Opinion 137 Page 21, last line of ““Summary’’: At end insert the following sentence: “ The names Morpho Fabricius, 1807 (type: Papilio achilles Linnaeus, 1758), Helicopis Fabricius, 1807 (type: Papilio cupido Linnaeus, 1758), and Ponta Fabricius, 1807 (type: Papilio daplidice Linnaeus, 1758) are hereby added to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology as Names Nos. 564 to 566.”’ Opinion 148 Page 135, line 3 of Section (1) of ‘‘ Summary’: After the words “earlier name,” insert the words “ where that name is itself an available name.” 6 Page 135, line 6 of Section (1) of ““ Summary’: At the beginning (20) OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL of the sentence following the word “ Example,” insert the words ‘““ Assuming that the name Achatina Lamarck, 1799, is an available name.” Page 135, last line but one: Delete the sentence commencing with the word “ If ’’ and ending (on line 2 oH page 136) with the words “ not-available.”’ ‘Opinion 149 Page 147, last line but one of ““ Summary” : Substitute “ Sphin- gonotus ”’ for “ Sphingonothus.” Page 147, paragraph 1, last line but two: Substitute ‘‘ Sphingo- notus Fieber’’ for ‘‘Sphingonothus Fieber (as Sphingonotus).”” - Page 150, line 25: Substitute “ Sphingonotus”’ for “ Sphingo- nothus.’’ Page 157, line 2: Substitute “ SAhingonotus’”’ for ‘ Sphingo- nothus.”’ Opinion 160 Page 291, title of Opinion, line 2: Between the word “ Gervais ”’ and the word “ van,’ insert the word “ and.” Page 297, paragraph 6, line 1: Substitute “ Stekhoven ”’ for pobeckhovenas aa Page 2098, paragraph 8, line 9: Substitute “ Anguillula”’ for “ Anguillulina.”’ | PO is," Page 299, paragraph 11, line 1: Substitute “ Ditlevsen ”’ for “ Ditlevson.”’ Page 299, paragraph 14, line 2: Substitute “ Alma-Ata, Kazakhstan ”’ for “‘ Almata, Krazekstau.”’ COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. (21) ALPHABETICAL LIST OF THE NAMES OF AUTHORS WHO HAVE EITHER CONTRI- BUTED, OR HAVE FURNISHED COMMENTS ON, PROPOSALS DEALT WITH IN THE DECLARATIONS AND OPINIONS INCLUDED IN SECTION A OF VOLUME 2. Alfken, J. D., 38-40, 91-92, 171-172, I99-201, 229-230, 253-255, 277-279 Allgen, C., 207 Apstein, K., 147, 211, 216, 265 Arnold, G., 38-40, 91-92, I71-172, 199-201, 229-230, 253-255, 277-279 Babiy, P. P., 38—40, OR oe. I7I-172, 199-201, 229-230, 253-255, 277-279 Baker, A. C., 83, 214-215 Balouf, W. V., 38-40, QI-92, I7I-172, 199-201, oe 253- 255, 277-280 Bather, F. A., 216 Baylis, H. A., 297-298 Bell, E., 114, 243-244 Benoist, R., 38-40, 91-92, I7I-172, 199-201, 229-230, 253-255, 277-279 : Benson, R. B., 38-40, 91-92, 171-172, 199-201, 229-230, 253- 255, 277-280 Bequaert, J., 38-40, 91-92, I7I-172, 199-201, 229-230, 253-255, 277-279 Berland, L:, 38-40, 91-92, I7I-172, 199-201, 229-230, 253-255, 277-279 Betrem, J. G., 38-40, 91-92, I7I-172, 199-201, 229-230, 253- 255, 277-279 Bischoff, H., 38-40, 91-92, I7I-172, I99-20I, 229-230, 253-255, 277-280 (22) OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL Bradley, J. C., 38-40, 91-92, I7I-172, 199-201, 229-230, 253-255, 277-279 , Brauns, H., 38-40, 91-92, I7I-172, 199-201, 229-230, 253-255, 277-279 Brues, C. T., 38-40, 91-92, I7I-172, 199-201, 229-230, 253-255, 277-279 Caudell, A. N., 148, 212-213, 266 Chitwood, B. G., 293-296 Christie, J. R., 293-296 Comstock, J. A., 114, 243-244 Crevecoeur, A., 38-40, 91-92, 171-172, 199-201, 229-230, 253- 255» 277-279 Curran, C. H., 114, 243-244 Cushman, R. A., 38-40, 91-92, 171-172, 199-201, 229-230, 253- 255» 277-279; 285-286 Ditlevsen, H., 299 dos Passos, C. F., 114, 243-244 Dusmet, J. M., 38-40, 91-92, 171-172, 199-201, 229-230, 253-255, 277-279 Elliott, E. A., 38-40, 91-92, I7I-172, 199-201, 229-230, 253-255, 277-279 Enderlein, G., 38-40, 91-92, I7I-172, 199-201, 229-230, 253-255, WN ll eee) Enslin, E., 38-40, QI-92, I7I-172, I9Q-20I, 229-203, 253-255, 277-279 Filipjev, I. N., 299-300 Forbes, W. T. M., 114, 243-244 Fouts, R., 38-40, 91-92, I7I-I72, IgQg-20I, 229-230, 253-255, 277-279 COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. (23) Friese, R., 38-40, 91-92, I7I-172, 199-201, 229-230, 253-255, 277-279 Frison, T. H., 38-40, 91-92, I7I-172, 199-201, 229-230, 253-255, 277-279 Gahan, A. B., 38-40, 91-92, 171-172, 199-201, 229-230, 253-255, 277-279 Goffart, H., 299 Goodey, T., 298 Grandi, G., 38-40, 91-92, I7I-172, 199-201, 229-230, 253-255, 277-279 Gunder, J. D., 114, 243-244 Habermehl, H., 38-40, 91-92, 171-172, 199-201, 229-230, 253- 255» 277-279 | Hacker, H., 38-40, 91-92, 171-172, 199-201, 229-230, 253-255, — 277-279 Hall, M. C., 293-296 Handlirsch, A., 38-40, 91-92, 148, I7I-172, 199-201, 216, 229- 230, 253-255, 206, 277-279 Handschin, E., xix Haupt, H., 38-40, a I7I-172, 199-201, 229-230, 253-255, 277-279 Hedicke, H., 38-40, 91-92, 17I- 172, 199-201, 229-230, 253-255, 277-280 Heinrich, C., 214-215 Hellen, W., 38-40, 91-92, 171-172, 199-201, 229-230, 253-255, _ 277-279 Hemming, F., 15-16, 23-25, 69, 70-71, 73-74, II2-I13, 125-126, 136-138, 241-242, (5)-(9), (x1)-(13), (15)-(18) Horvath, G., 216 Huntington, E. R., 114, 243-244 (24) OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL Ihering, H. von, 38-40, 91-92, 171-172, 199-201, 229-230, 253- 255, 277-280 Jordan, K., 216, 300, (8) Kinsey, A. C., 38-40, eae I7I-172, 199-201, 229-230, Sy aS) Klots, A. B., 114, 243-244 Kolhew Heal. 216 Krausse, A., 38-40, QI-92, I7I-172, 199-201, 229-230, 277-279 Kruger, E., 38-40, 91-92, I7I-172, 199-201, 229-230 277-279 Kuznezov-Ugamtsky, N. N., 38-40, De I7I-172, 229-230, 253-255, 277-280 Lautner, G.; xx Lutz, F. E., 38-40, 91-92, 171-172, 199-201, 229-230, 277-280 ‘Lyle, G. T., 38-40, 91-92, 171-172, 199-201, 229-230, ANS McDunnough, J., 113-114, 243-244 Maidl, F., 38-40, 91-92, I7I-172, 199-201, 229-230, 271279 Mann, W. M., 38-40, 91-92, 171-172, 199-201, 229-230, 277-279 Marriott, H. de W., 38-40, 91-92, 171-172, 199-201, 253-255, 277-279 Masi, L., 38-40, 91-92, 171-172, 199-201, 229-230, 277-280 Micha, I., 38-40, 91-92, I7I-172, I99-201, 229-230, 2775479 Monticelli, F. S., 216 253-255; 253-255, >: 2 ogee, 199-201, 253-255, 253-255; 253-255; 253-255; 2290-230, 253-255; 253-255) COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. ime E25) Oglobin, A. A., 38-40, 91-92, I7I-172, 199-201, 229-230, 253- ASD SA Timea le), Park, A. R., 38-40, onae, 171-172, 199-201, 229-230, 253-255, 277-279 Pate, V.S. L., 38-40, 91-92, 171-172, 199-201, 229-230, 253-255, 277-279 Pirlot, J. M., 58 Richards, O. W., 38-40, vee I7I- Te foo 229-230, 253- 255, 277-279 - Riley, N. D., 69 Rohwer, S. A., 214-215, 221, 233, 270-271, 284-285 ‘Ross, ele Ed, 38-40, QI-92, 171-172, 199-201, 229-230, 253-255, 277-279 | ‘Roth, P., 38-40, 91-92, te. 199-201, 229-230, 253-255, aD Bea delnecht, O., 38-40, 91-92, I7I-172, 199-201, 229-230, - 253-255, 277-280 | Schneider, W., 299 Schulthess, A. von, 38-40, 91-92, 171-172, poo een, 229-230, 253-255, 277-280 % Schwarz, H. F., 38-40, 91-92, 171-172, 199-201, 229-230, 253- 255, 277-280 Silvestri, ae 61-62 Skinner, H., 216 Steiner, G., 293-296 Stekhoven, J. H. Schurmans, 297 Stiles, C. W., 213-214, 216 Stone, W., 61 Thorne, G., 293-206 (26) OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL Ticehurst, C. B., 31 Uchida, T., 38-40, 91-92, I7I-172, 199-201, 229-230, 253-255, 277-279 Ugamtsky, N. N. Kuznezov-, see Kuznezov-Ugamtsky, N. N. Uvarov, B. P., (16)—(17) Vogt, O., 38-40, 91-92, I7I-172, I99—-201, 220-230, 253-255, 277-279 Wagner, A. C. W., 38-40, 91-92, I7I-172, 199-201, 229-230, 253-255, 277-280 Watson, F. E., 114, 243-244 Weld, L. H., 38-40, 91-92, 171-172, 199-201, 229-230, 253-255; 277-280 Wheeler, W. M., 38-40, 91-92, I7I-172, 199-201, 229-230, 253- 255, 277-279 | Wilkinson, D. S., 38-40, 91-92, es 199-201, 229-230, 253- ae Bi ae Willams, F. X., 38-40, 91-92, 171-172, 199-201, 229-230, 253- 255, 277-279 Williams, Jr., R. C., 114, 243-244 Wolff, M., 38-40, 91-92, 171-172, 199-201, 229-230, 253-255, 277-279 —$<—— COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. INDEX TO SECTION A OF VOLUME 2 (Declarations 10-12, Opinions 134-160) abdominalis Panzer, [1798], ae ‘ype of Astata Latreille, 1796 acervorum Panzer, [1799], Blatia, ‘ype of Myrmeco- philus Berthold, 1827 Achatinus de Montfort, 1810 (=emendation of Achatina Lamarck, 1799) To be rejected as a synonym of Achatina Lamarck, (27) PAGE 37-44 147-158 1799, if that name is available . 135-140, (11)—(13) Type of, is automatically the same species as the type of Achatina Lamarck, 1799 achilles Linnaeus, ree ae pe of Morpho Fabri- 135-140 eis, 1807 . 23, (5), (9), (19) actaea Esper, [1780], Papilio, designated as the type of Satyrus Latreille, 1810, under suspension of the rules . Anguillulina Gervais and van Beneden, 1859 No case established for the suppression of, under suspension of the rules, in favour of Tylenchus Bastian, 1865 . No case established for the validation of, under suspension of the rules, by the suppression of Anguina Scopohi, 1777 Anguina Scopoli, 1777 Name to be regarded as available under the Régles Internationales pending a decision on the meaning of the expression “ binary nomen- clature ”’ No case established for the suppression of, under suspension of the rules, in favour of either Anguil- lulina Gervais and van Beneden, 1859, or Tylen- chus Bastian, 1865 . 69-78 293-395 293-395 293-395 293-395 (28) OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL Anthophora Latreille, 1803, placed on Official List of Generic Names in Zoology under suspension of the ile aptera Charpentier, 1825, ee DEE of Chelidura Berthold, 1627 39. Arge Schrank, 1802, placed on ee List a Generic Names in Zoology ; Astata Latreille, 1796, placed on ee List o i Generic Names in Zoology ASTATIDAE, replacement of the family name by the family name CEPHIDAE Astatus Jurine, 1801, invalidation of, by the suppres- sion of Jurine’s “Erlangen List ’’ under suspension of the rules . atalanta Linnaeus, 1758, Papilio, type of Vanessa Fabricius, 1807 Bacillus Le Peletier de Saint-Fargeau and Serville, 1825, placed on the ere List ue Generic Names in Zoology bedeguaris Linnaeus, 1758, [chneumon, designated as the type of Torymus Dalman, 1820, under suspension of the rules Bethylus Latreille, [1802-1803], placed on the ca List of Generic Names in Zoology “ binary nomenclature,’ meaning of the expression, as used in Article 25 of the Régles Internationales at present sub judice Borus Albers, 1850 (Phylum Mollusca), to be rejected as a homonym of Borus Agassiz, 1846 (= emendation of Boros Herbst, 1797) (Class Insecta, Order Coleo- ptera) : 2 : : : : I7I-177 147-158 253-260 37-44 42 37-44 241-248 147-158 229-236 199-206 301-302 135-140 COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. caerulans Linnaeus, 1767, oe type of hg tus Fieber, 1852 caerulescens Linnaeus, 1758, ci — of age Latreille, 1829 j Callimome Spinola, 1811, suppression of, under suspen- sion of the rules . cardui Linnaeus, 1758, ae ie of Cie Fabri- cius, 1807 CEPHIDAE, re-instatement of, as a family name in the Order Hymenoptera (Class Insecta) in place of the name ASTATIDAE . ! ’ Cephus Latreille, [1802-1803], placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology . : Chelidura Berthold, 1827, placed on the ee List o Generic Names in Zoology Cimbex Olivier, 1790, placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology under suspension of the mules: Code of Ethics, question of breaches of Code of Zoological Nomenclature, International (see Régles Internationales de la Nomenclature Zoologique) Colias Fabricius, 1807, placed on the Official List of Generic Names 1n Zoology under suspension of the mules) Crabro Fabricius, 1775, placed on the Official List of Generic Names 1n Zoology under suspension of the mules. Crabro Geoffroy, 1762, suppression of, under suspension of the rules . cribrarva Linnaeus, 1758, Vespa, designated as the type of Crabro Fabricius, 1775, under suspension of the rules . Cryptus Fabricius, [1804-1805], placed on the Offczal List of Generic Names in Zoology (29) PAGE 147-158 147-158 229-236 241-248 42 37-44 147-158 gI—96 1 MEX CXET ICICI eS} gI—96 g1—96 gI—96 253-260 (30) OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL cupido Linnaeus, 1758, Papilio, type of Helicopis on ‘Fabricius, 1807. ; 2A, (5), (0) po) Cynthia Fabricius, 1807, not to be used in preference to Vanessa Fabricius, 1807, on grounds of page priority 241-248 daplidice Linnaeus, ee ee type of Pontia Fabri- cius, 1807. 0.) a4 (Soe Declaration 1 (Code of Ethics), Declaration supple- mentary to, adopted by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature . : X1X—XXil1 description of new genera and species, need for giving in the, a'clear indication of the Order and Family | concerned . : : : , » | Xai, digitata Coquebert, 1804, Acheta, a synonym of T7- dactylus paradoxus Latreille, [1802-1803 | i 155 Diprion Schrank, 1802, placed on the Hs List y Generic Names in Zoology. 253-260 Dryinus Latreille, [1804], placed on the a List of Generic Names in Zoology . 199-206 enodis Linnaeus, ie Tenthredo, a hye of es Schrank, RO OZ . 253-260 Epmaltes Gravenhorst, 1829, placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology under suspension of themes). . 277-289 Epaltes Schrank, 1802, suppression of, under suspen- sion of the rules . : : . 277-289 ertphyle Freyer, 1836, Hipparchia, not to be treated as having been published as a species of the genus Papilio Linnaeus, 1758 . : i 3-6 “Erlangen List’ of Jurine (L.) published anonymously by Panzer in 1801, suppression of, under suspension of the rules . : pte ee : d ; Q-12 COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. Ethics, question of breaches of Code of Eumastax Burr, 1899, placed on the a st Of Generic Names in Zoology extensorius Linnaeus, 1758, Ichneumon, designated as the type of Ichneumon Linnaeus, 1758, under sus- pension of the rules Fabricius (J. C.), precedence to be accorded to certain generic names in the Order Lepidoptera (Class Insecta) published by, in 1807, in relation to other names published for the same genera in the same year by Hubner (J.) falcata Poda, 1761, Gryllus, designated as the type of Phaneroptera Serville, 1831, under suspension of the fanles) Family, need for giving a clear indication of the, in the description of new genera and species formicarius Latreille, [1804-1805], ie: ‘ype of Dryinus Latreille, [1804] Freyer (C. F.), Neuere Beitrage zur Schmetterlingskunde, 1833-1858, method to be adopted in interpreting the generic names assigned in, to species there described for the first time . fuscicornis Jurine, 1807, Omalus, designated as the type of Bethylus Latreille, oe on under sus- pension of the rules i Gampsocleis Fieber, 1852, placed on the ee ist : Generic Names in Zoology gigantea Klug, 1820, A aka ls of ae Klug, 1820 . glaber Fieber, 1852, Dectlicus] maculatus var. (= Lo- custa glabra Herbst, 1786) (31) DEAGE XIX—XX111 147-158 277-289 23-28 211-224 X1—X1V 199-206 3-6 199-206 147-158 147-158 152 (32) OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL glabra Herbst, 1786, Locusta, type of Gampsoclets Fieber, 1852 x : ‘ H : 4 Gryllacris Serville, 1831, placed on the Cnn List Generic Names in Zoology Gryllotalpa Latreille, [1802-1803], placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology : gryllotalpa Linnaeus, 1758, Gryllus, oe of pee Latreille, [1802-1803 | Helicopis Fabricius, 1807, placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology under suspension of the PAGE 147-158 147-158 147-158 147-158 rules . : } , : 5 ; . 23-28, (5)-(9) Hemimerus Walker, 1871, placed on the ee. List of Generic Names in Zoology Jebclonaers |()|.) Precedence to be accorded to certain generic names in the Order Lepidoptera (Class Insecta) published . by, in 1807, in relation to other names published for the same genera in the same year by Fabricius (sn@2) ey ie Verzeichniss bekannter Schmettlinge [sic], dates of publication of the several portions of . hyale Linnaeus, 1758, Papilio, designated as the type of Colias Fabricius, 1807, under suspension of the rules Ichneumon Linnaeus, 1758, placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology under suspension of the mules)”: instigator Fabricius, 1793, Ichneumon, designated as the type of Pimpla Fabricius, ee a, under sus- pension of the rules Jurine (L.), 1801, “ Erlangen List,’ suppression of, under suspension of the rules 147-158 23-28 163-167 T1I-118 277-289 277-289 Q-I2 COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. Labia Leach, 1815, placed on the oe List Me Generic Names in Zoology : _Lasius Fabricius, [1804-1805], placed on the ce List of Generic Names in Zoology under suspension of the rules Lasius Panzer, [1801-1802], suppression of, under sus- pension of the rules Latreille (P. A.), 1810, Considérations générales sur V ordre naturel des Animaux composant les classes des Crustacés, des Avachnides et des Insectes avec un tableau méthodique de leurs genres disposés en famulles, method to be adopted in determining whether the type of a genus included in the Table méthodique is there selected in accordance with the provisions of Article 30 of the Régles Internationales Leptophyes Fieber, 1852, placed on the TEE: List of Generic Names in Zoology lilifolia Fabricius, 1793, Locusta, type of Tylopsis Fieber, 1853 : : . : Locusta Linnaeus, 1758 7 Name of a Linnean subdivision of a genus (Gryllus Linnaeus, 1758) and therefore not of subgeneric value as from date of being so published (1758) (Opinion 124), validated under iy of the rules Placed on the Official List hag Cae Names in Zoology under suspension of the rules . lutea Linnaeus, 1758, Tenthredo, designated as the type of Cimbex Olivier, 1790, under suspension of the miles’): maculicollis Serville, 1831, hie oe of ee Serville, 1831 Mancipium Hibner, [1807], suppression of, under suspension of the rules . (33) PAGE . 147-158 Le 707, Lely 15-19 147-158 211-224 265-273 205-273 gI—96 147-158 23-28 (34) OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL r p 5 PAGE mantfestator Linnaeus, 1758, Ichneumon, designated as the type of Ephialtes Gravenhorst, 1829, under sus- Pension of the mules 77 . ! . 277-289 Mantis Linnaeus, 1767, placed on the es List of Generic Names in Zoology. . 147-158 Meigen (J. W.), 1800, Nouvelle Classification des Mouches a deux ailes, status of generic names pub- lished anyay |). : : : : : : . 183-193 Merope Newman, 1838 (Class Insecta), method of forming the family name for . : - 49-51 MEROPEIDAE, correct form of family name for Merope Newman, 1838 . ; : : : » 49-51 MEROPIDAE, correct form of family name for Merops Linnaeus, 1758 ; : i : : - 49-51 Merops Linnaeus, 1758 (Class Aves), method of forming the family name for . ‘ : : ; - 49-51 migratoritus Linnaeus, 1758, Gryllus, designated as the type of Locusta Linnaeus, 1758, under suspension of ues : ‘ : : : : . 265-273 minor Linnaeus, ay JP, ee ‘ype of Labia Leach, HOH 5). 4 . 147-158 Misocampe Latreille, 1818, suppression of, under sus- pension of the rules. ; : . 229-236 monstrosus Drury, 1773, ee ‘ype of a Brullé, 1835 ! 147-158 Morpho Fabricius, 1807, placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology under suspension of the Roleswe : } i ; i . 23-28, (5)-(9) MUSCIDAE, type of the family, automatically Musca Linnaeus, 1758, by reason of the stem of the generic name being used in the formation of the family name . : : : : : - 57-65 Myrmecophilus Berthold, 1827, placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. ; : E47 eS COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. Neuere Bettrége zur Schmetterlingskunde, 1833-1858, method to be adopted in interpreting the generic names assigned by Freyer (C. F.) in, to species there described for the first time : new genera and species, need for giving a clear indica- tion of the Order and Family involved migra Linnaeus, 1758, Formica, designated as the type of Lasius Fabricius, [1804-1805], under suspension orehe rules : : Nomenclature, International Code of (see Régles Internationales de la Nomenclature Zoologique) nomenclature of particular divisions of the Animal Kingdom, importance of forming specialist groups for the study of Nouvelle Classification des Mouches a deux ailes, status of generic names introduced by Meigen (J. W.) in obscura Walker, 1869, Tarraga, oo. of eas sis Walker, 1871 oculata Klug, 1820, Proscopia, shown not to be the type Proscopia Klug, 1820 : Oedipoda Latreille, 1829, placed on the ofa. List 2 Generic Names in Zoology Official List of Generic Names in Zoology, addition to, of :— Anthophora Latreille, 1803 (Name No. 695) . Arge Schrank, 1802 (Name No. 603) Astata Latreille, 1796 (Name No. 568) Bacillus Le Peletier de Saint Fargeau and Serville, 1825 (Name No. 573) Bethylus Latreille, [1802-1803] (Name No. 6) Cephus Latreille, [1802-1803] (Name No. 567) Chelidura Berthold, 1827 (Name No. 574) (35) 3-6 XI—X1V 7, 1l1—-V 183-193 147-158 154 147-158 I7I-177 253-260 37-44 147-158 199-206 37-44 147-158 (36) OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL Cimbex Olivier, 1790 (Name No. 571) . Colias Fabricius, 1807 (Name No. 572) Crabro Fabricius, 1775 (Name No. 570) Cryptus Fabricius, [1804-1805] (Name No. 602) Diprion Schrank, 1802 (Name No. 604) Dryinus Latreille, [1804] (Name No. 597) Eplualtes Gravenhorst, 1829 (Name No. 608) Eumastax Burr, 1899 (Name No. 575) Gampsocleis Fieber, 1852 (Name No. 576) Gryllacris Serville, 1831 (Name No. 577) Gryllotalpa Latreille, [1802-1803] (Name No. 578) 91-96 111-118 91-96 253-260 253-260 199-206 277-289 147-158 147-158 147-158 147-158 Helicopis Fabricius, 1807 (Name No. 565) 23-28, (5)—(9), (19) Hemimerus Walker, 1871 (Name No. 579) Ichneumon Linnaeus, 1758 (Name No. 606) . Labia Leach, 1815 (Name No. 580) Lasius Fabricius, [1804-1805] (Name No. 594) Leptophyes Fieber, 1852 (Name No. 581) Locusta Linnaeus, 1758 (Name No. 605) Mantis Linnaeus, 1767 (Name No. 582) 147-158 277-289 147-158 171-177 147-158 205-273 147-158 Morpho Fabricius, 1807 (Name No. 564) 23-28, (5)—(9), (19) Myrmecophilus Berthold, 1827 (Name No. 583) Oedipoda Latreille, 1829 (Name No. 584) Phaneroptera Serville, 1831 (Name No. 598) Phyllium Mlliger, 1798 (Name No. 585) Pimpla Fabricius, [1804-1805] (Name No. 607) 147-158 147-158 211-224 147-158 277-289 Pontia Fabricius, 1807 (Name No. 566) 23-28, (5)-(Q), (19) Prophalangopsis Walker, 1871 (Name No. 586) Proscopia Klug, 1820 (Name No. 587) Psophus Fieber, 1853 (Name No. 588) Saga Charpentier, 1825 (Name No. 589) Satyrus Latreille, 1810 (Name No. 569) 147-158 147-158 147-158 147-158 69-78 COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. (37) PAGE Schizodactylus Brullé, 1835 (Name No. 590) . 147-158 Sphingonotus Fieber, 1852 (Name No. 591) 147-158, (15)—(18), (20) Stenopelmatus Burmeister, 1838 (Name No. 592) 147-158 Torymus Dalman, 1820 (Name No. 600) 2290-236 Tridactylus Olivier, 1789 (Name No. 593) 147-158 Tylopsis Fieber, 1853 (Name No. 599) 211-224 Vanessa Fabricius, 1807 (Name No. 601) 241-248 Opinion 11 (interpretation of type designations by Latreille (P. A.), 1810, Consid. gén.) supplemented and amplified by Opinion 136 : : - I5-19 Opinion 124 (status of Linnean subdivisions of genera), status of Locusta Linnaeus, 1758, determined in accordance with provisions of : 265-273 Order, need for giving a clear indication of, in descrip- tions of new genera and species X1—X1V Bey adons Latreille, [1802-1803], ne ne of Tridactylus Olivier, 1789 147-158 Phaneroptera Serville, 1831, placed on the Official List -of Generic Names in Zoology under suspension of the mulesh 211-224 Phylliium Mlliger, 1798, placed on the eae List : Generic Names in Zoology 147-158 pilipes Fabricius, 1775, Apis, designated as the type of Anthophora Latreille, ee under suspension of the mules! . 171-177 Pimpla Fabricius, [1804-1805], placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology under suspension of the rules 277-289 pim Linnaeus, 1758, Tenthredo, Schrank, 1802 ; ‘ type of Diprion 253-260 (38) OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL PAGE Podalirius Latreille, 1802, suppression of, under sus- pension of the rules. ; 2 Lge Pontia Fabricius, 1807, placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology under suspension of the TUES) is : : - 23-28, (5)-(9) POTAMIDAE not to replace MORPHIDAE ; (7) Potamis Hiibner, [1807], suppression of, under sus- pension or the tolesnan : : anh Zens Prophalangopsis Walker, 1871, placed on the Officzal List of Generic Names in Zoology . : . 147-158 Proscopia Klug, 1820, placed on the te List of Generic Names in Zoology. ‘ . 147-158 Protodryas Reuss, 1928 (substitute for Prodryas Reuss, 1926, invalid because a homonym of Prodryas Scudder, 1878) not to be rejected as a homonym of Prodryas Reuss, 1926, on the ground that it is of the same origin and meaning . . 135-140, (13) Psopha Fieber, oes a en of ee a O20) 154 Psophus Fieber, 1853 (nom. nov. pro Psopha Fieber, 1852) placed on the ee List : Generic Names in Zoology . : : . 147-158 punctatissima Bosc, 1792, Locusta, type of Lepto- : phyes Fieber, 1852 : : : . 147-158 pyemaeus Linnaeus, 1767, Suirex, SYP E of Cephus Latreille, [1802-1803] . : A Ae ey 4k Régles Internationales de la Nomenclature Zoologique Article 4, principles to be observed in interpreting provisions relating to the naming of families and subfamilies . f : : : : » 57-605 Article 25, method to be adopted in interpreting the amendment in, relating to the need for the citation of a “ definite bibliographic reference ”’ COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. in the publication of any substitute name, adopted by the Tenth International Congress of Zoology at Budapest in 1927 . Article 25, rejection under, as a synonym of a pre- viously published name, of a generic name published as an emendation of that name, where the two names are of the same origin and meaning and the earlier name is available (39) PAGE 31-34 40, (Ua (is), (iO), (20) Article 25, status under, of a name first published in a work rejected for nomenclatorial purposes and subsequently re-published _ Article 34, a generic name published as a substitute (nom. nov.) for a name which is unavailable by reason of being a homonym, not to be rejected on the ground that it is of the same origin and meaning as the name for even it is ee as a substitute . Article 34, principles of Ulan to . ob- served in relation to the rejection, as homonyms, of generic and subgeneric names of the same origin and meaning as names previously pub- lished Article 34, rejection under, as a homonym, of a generic name, where the same name has pre- viously been published as an emendation of some other previously published generic name IOI-I05 135-140 125-129 which is itself available . 135-140, (11)—(13), (19)—(20) Article 35, paragraph of, relating to the conditions in which the trivial name of a species is to be re- jected as a homonym of the trivial name of some other species of the same origin and meaning applicable, under Article 34, to generic and sub- generic names “ definite bibliographic Cee meaning of the expression, aS used in proviso (c) to Article 25 Family, an author establishing a, free to select as the type genus of that Family whatever taxono- mic unit he considers the most appropriate 125-129 31-34 5709 (40) OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL Family, authors establishing a, advised to select as the type genus, the best-known and common- est taxonomic unit concerned . Family, name of, necessarily based upon the name of its type genus Family name not based on the name of its type genus should be referred to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature with a view to its being conserved as an exception, under suspension of the rules, where the Family name in question was proposed by an early author and is now well established . Family, type of, definitely and unambiguously designated by the selection of the stem of an included genus for the formation of the Family name Family, type of, need not be the genus having the oldest available generic name in the Family Generic name published as an emendation of a previously published generic name, type of a, automatically the same species as the type of the earlier name so proposed to be emended homonym, conditions in which a generic or sub- generic name is to be rejected as a, when the name is of the same origin and meaning as a previously published generic or subgeneric name homonym, name first published in a work rejected for nomenclatorial purposes not to be treated as a, when next re-published but to rank for priority as from date of such re-publication veligiosus Linnaeus, 1758, Gryllus, type of Mantis Linnaeus, 1767 , : : rossia Rossi, 1790, Mantis, type of Bacillus Le Peletier de Saint-Fargeau and Serville, 1825 PAGE 57-65 57-65 57-65 57-65 57-65 135-140 125-129 IOI-I05 147-158 147-158 COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. Rusticus Hiibner, [1807], suppression of, under sus- pension of the rules : ‘ : _ Saga Charpentier, 1825, placed on the oe List y Generic Names in Zoology : Satyrus Latreille, 1810, placed on the Official List of Generic Names in 00) under suspension of the rules . Schizodactylus Brullé, 1835, placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology . Scopoli (G. A.), 1777, Introductio ad Historiam natura- lem, status of, not finally determined, pending de- cision regarding meaning of the expression “ binary nomenclature ’’ as used in Article 25 of the Régles Internationales, but new names published therein to be accepted as being available until the above question is decided serrata Fabricius, 1793, Locusta, ype of Saga Char- pentier, 1825 : siccifolius Linnaeus, 1758, oe mS of Phyllium Illiger, 1798 ; Sphingonothus Fieber, a < he ae Fieber, 1852) . : Sphingonotus (= emendation of Sphingonothus) Fieber, 1852, placed on the aoe List of Generic Names in Zoology . ‘ : HAZ US) (5) Stenopelmatus Burmeister, 1838, placed on the Official List of Generic Names 1n Zoology stridulus Linnaeus, 1758, Gryllus, type of Psophus Fieber, 1853 ; : : : talpa Burmeister, 1838, Stenopelmatus, ne of Steno- pelmatus [re se 1838 : (41) PAGE 23-28 147-158 69-78 147-158 293-395 147-158 147-158 8), (20) 147-158 147-158 147-158 (42) talpoides Walker, 1871, Hemimerus, type of ode Walker, 1871 , | tenuis Perty, 1832, Mastax, obs of Eumastax Burr, 1899 ; : : TINGIDAE, correct form of family name fon Tingis Fabricius, 1803 Tingis Fabricius, 1803 (Class Insecta), method of forming family name for Torymus Dalman, 1820, placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology under suspension of the mulls} Trnidactylus Olivier, 1789, placed on the Te Last of Generic Names in Zoology : touchena Mathews, 1934, Tvochalopteron, not published In accordance with the provisions of Article 25 of the Régles Internationales as a substitute for the name 7. yunnanensis La Touche, 1922 Tylenchus Bastian, 1865, no case established for valida- tion of, under suspension of the rules, by suppression of Anguwina Scopoli, 1777, and Anguillulina Gervais and van Beneden, 1859 Tylopsis Fieber, 1853, placed on the ee List a Generic Names in Zoology Vanessa Fabricius, 1807, placed on the Official List of Generic Names 1n Zoology under suspension of the Tesi. Verzeichniss bekannter Schmettlinge |sic], dates on which the several portions were published by Hiibner (J.) viduatorius Fabricius, [1804-1805], ee pe of Cryptus Fabricius, [1804-1805] OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL PAGE 147-158 147-158 83-87 83-87 229-236 147-158 oes 293-395 QII-224 241-248 163-167 253-260 COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. ~ (43) DATES OF PUBLICATION OF THE SEVERAL PORTIONS OF SECTION A OF THE PRESENT VOLUME ® Title Page, Foreword, Table of Contents and Introductory Note (pp. fa atay (published with Part 30A) 5th December 1945 a5 i-xvi (Parts 18 & 19) XVli-xxiv (Part 22) . 1-20 (Parts 1-3) 21-34 (Parts 4 & 5) 35-66 (Parts 6-8) 67-88 (Parts 9 & 10) 89-98 (Part 11) 99-132 (Parts 12-14) 133-144 (Part 15) 145-168 (Parts 16 & 17) . 169-196 (Parts 20 & 21) . 197-238 (Parts 23-25) 251-290 (Parts 27-29) ( ( ( 239-250 (Part 26) ( ( 291-306 (Part 30) ()-(44) (Part 30 A). 24th May 1944 12th July 1944 28th August 1939 30th October 1942 30th January 1943 25th March 1943 30th March 1943 30th September 1943 26th October 1943 gth December 1943 24th May 1944 12th July 1944 17th October 1944 21st February 1945 17th April 1945 5th December 1945 8 These particulars are given on the last page of the present volume in accordance with the requirements of Declaration 8 (1943, Opinions and Declarations rendered by the International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature 1 : 57-64). (44) INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. INSTRUCTIONS TO BINDER The pages comprised in Section A of volume 2 of Opinions and Declarations rendered by the International Commission on Zoo- logical Nomenclature are to be arranged for binding in the follow- ing order :—TP-[II|-III-XVI, i—xxiv, 1-306, (1)-(44). OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS rendered by the | INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Edited by FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E. Secretary to the International Commission on Koological Nomenclature VOLUME 2, SECTION B (comprising Opinions 161—181 and Directions 2 and 4—9) LONDON : Printed by Order cf 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 LB DS All Rights Reserved “_ biy -= F e 5 : stk rs A 1 hes 7 B. Ul FOREWORD It was decided in 1945 to divide the present volume into two continuously-paged Sections. Section A was closed after the publication of Part 30 and accordingly included Declarations 10 to 12 and Opinions 134 to 160. The present Section (Section B) contains the remainder of the Opinions adopted by the Commission at its Session held at Lisbon in 1935 (Opinions 161 to 181). It contains also seven Directions (Directions 2, and 4 to 9) adopted by the Commission in 1954. These Directions contain supplementary decisions which were required in order to complete not only the Opinions included in Section B but also those included in Section A in respect of those matters specified in the General Directives in regard to the form and content of Opinions issued to the Commission by the Thirteenth and Fourteenth International Congresses of Zoology held respectively at Paris in 1948 and at Copenhagen in 1953. The subjects covered by these Directives have been explained in the general Foreword to the present volume (: (VII)—(X])). FRANCIS HEMMING Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 25th January 1955 nae ean ge 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 2. Part 31. Pp. 307-318. OPINION 161. Suspension of the rules for Argynnis Fabricius, 1807 (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera) LONDON : Printed by Order of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature Sold at the Publications Office of the Commission 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7 1945 Price three shillings (All rights reserved) Issued 21st June, 1945 INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE COMPOSITION OF THE COMMISSION The Officers of the Commission President : Dr. Karl Jordan, Ph.D., F.R.S. (United Kingdom). Vice-President : Dr. James L. Peters (U.S.A.). Secretary : Mr. Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. (United Kingdom). The Members of the Commission Class 1946 Herr Professor Dr. Walter ARNDT (Germany). Dr. William Thomas CALMAN (United Kingdom). Professor Teiso ESAKI (Japan). Professor Béla von HANKO (Hungary). Dr. Tadeusz JACZEWSKI (Poland). Dr. Norman R. STOLL (U.5.A.). Class 1949 Senor Dr. Angel CABRERA (Argentina). Mr. Francis HEMMING (United Kingdom) (Secretary to the Commission). Dr. Karl JORDAN (United Kingdom) (President of the Commission). Dr. Joseph PEARSON (Australia). Monsieur le Docteur Jacques PELLEGRIN (France). Herr Professor Dr. Rudolf RICHTER (Germany). Class 1952 Senhor Dr. Afranio do AMARAL (Brazil). Professor James Chester BRADLEY (U.S.A.). Professor Ludovico di CAPORIACCO (Italy). Professor J. R. DYMOND (Canada). Dr. James L. PETERS (U.S.A.) (Vice-President of the Commission). Dr. Harold E. VOKES (U.S.A.) Secretariat of the Commission : British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London, S.W. 7. Publications Office of the Commission : 4I, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W. 7. Personal address of the Secretary : 83, Fellows Road (Garden Flat), London, N.W. 3. v SLAY mY eps / = ‘ Uj; ‘, * Tz* + ) Yi yes a) ~o oth Nou 2D 1949 ™, NVA r es ~~ Lh, iif iN Al OPINION 161. SUSPENSION OF THE RULES FOR ARGYNNIS FABRICIUS, 1807 (CLASS INSECTA, ORDER LEPIDOPTERA). SUMMARY.—Under suspension of the rules it is hereby declared (i) that Argyreus Seopoli, 1777 (type: Papilio niphe Linnaeus, 1767 = Papilio hyperbius Linnaeus, 1763) is not to be substituted for Argynnis Fabricius, 1807 (type: Papilio paphia Linnaeus, 1758) ; (ii) that Argynnis Fabricius, 1807, is therefore valid ; but (iii) that this decision will not affect! the validity of Argyreus Scopoli, 1777, in so far as that name is otherwise available,? in the event of it being found desirable on taxonomic grounds to place Papilio niphe Linnaeus and Papilio paphia Linnaeus in different genera. The name Argynnis Fabricius, 1807 (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera), with type Papilio paphia Linnaeus, 1758, is hereby added to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology as Name No. 609. fe EE STATEMENT OF THE CASE: This case was submitted to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature in a letter dated 23rd February 1934, in which the Council of the Royal Entomological Society of London drew attention to the conclusions reached by the Lepidoptera Sub- Committee * of the Society’s Committee on Generic Nomencla- ture,’ regarding the generic names of certain of the British Lepidoptera, in regard to which both the Lepidoptera Sub- Committee and the Committee on Generic N omenclature were of the opinion that the strict application of the rules would clearly result in greater confusion than uniformity. The Society enclosed a copy of the Report of the Lepidoptera Sub-Committee (published that day as Part 2 of the Generic Names of British Insects), to which was attached a paper by Commissioner Francis Hemming, in which was given a full statement in regard to each of the names 1 On the question of the availability of Scopoli’s Introductio ad Historiam natuvalem, in which Aygyreus Scopoli was first published, see Opinion re (summary and paragraphs 16(d) and (e) and 17 0n pp. 293 and 301-302 : > This Sub-Committee was then composed as follows :—Mr. Francis Hemming (Chairman), Mr. N. D. Riley, and Mr. W. H. T. Tams. _* This Committee was then composed as follows :—Sir Guy Marshall (Chairman), Dr. K. G. Blair, Mr. Francis Hemming, Dr. O. W. Richards, Mr. N. D. Riley, and Professor W. A. F. Balfour-Browne (Secretary). 310 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL in question. One of these names was Avgynmis Fabricius, 1807 (Mag. f. Insektenk. (Illiger) 6 : 283). 2. The following is an extract from the paper referred to above of the passage relating to this genus :— ARGYNNIS Fabricius Fabricius, 1807, Mag. f. Insektenk. (Illiger) 6 : 283 Latreille, 1810, Consid. gén. Anim. Crust. Avach. Ins. : 440 TYPE (fixed by Latreille) = Papilio paphia Linnaeus, 1758 Note 1.—The name Argynnis Fab., 1807 (type Papilio paphia Linn.) is a perfectly valid name in the sense (a) that it is not a homonym of any older generic name Arvgynnis and (b) that there is no older valid generic name having the same species as its type. Unfortunately in 1928 Reuss selected (Int. ent. Z. 22:146) Papilio niphe Linn., 1767 (= Papilio hyperbius Linn., 1763) as the type of Argyreus Scop., 1777 (Intr. Hist. nat. : 431). This fixation is valid under the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature and it follows therefore that if, as most systematists agree, Papilio paphia Linn. (the type of Argynnis Fab.) is congeneric with Papilio niphe Linn., the name Argynnis Fab. should be sunk as a synonym of Argyveus Scop. ee} During the whole of the nineteenth century, the “ Fritillaries ’’ were universally known by the generic name Avgynnis Fab., and the great majority both of the Palaearctic and Nearctic species were originally described under that name. It is only in recent years that an effort has been made to substitute the name Dryas Hb., 1806, for Avgynnis Fab., 1807, but this effort never won any considerable degree of support in view of the unsatisfactory character of the Tentamen of Hibner in which this name appeared. Since the publication of Opinion 97 of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature declaring against the validity of the Tentamen, the name Dryas Hb. (as applied to Papilio papmia Linn., which would have been its type, if the Tentamen had been valid) has been dropped and the name Argynnuis Fab. has again been universally applied both in Europe and America to Papilio paphia Linn. and the species congeneric therewith. No attention has been paid by systematists to Reuss’s effort to bring forward the name Arvgyreus Scop., on the ground, no doubt, that to use this name in place of Avgynnis Fab. would cause an entirely unnecessary disturbance in existing practice and would create far more confusion than would a suspension of the rules in this case. The matter should not, how- ever, be allowed to rest where it is, and the present universal, but tacit and irregular, acceptance of Avgynnis Fab. in preference to the older Argyreus Scop. should be regularised as soon as possible. 6 _ 3. The paper from which the foregoing passage is an extract concluded with the hope that the Lepidoptera Sub-Committee would join in reporting to the Committee on Generic Nomenclature of the Royal Entomological Society of London that it was highly desirable that in the exercise of the plenary power conferred upon them by the International Congress of Zoology, the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature should as soon as possible take the steps laid down by the Congress for the promulgation of an Opinion to the following effect :— COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION I6I. 311 The name Arvgynnis Fab., 1807 (type Papilio paphia Linn., 1758) is hereby added to the Official List of Generic Names. The name Argyreus Scop., 1777 (type Papilio niphe Linn., 1767) is, therefore, not to be sub- stituted for Avgynnis Fab., 1807, though it is available for use for Papilio niphe Linn., 1767, by such systematists as regard that species as generically distinct from Papilio papa Linn. 4. These conclusions were concurred in by the Lepidoptera Sub-Committee by whom they were submitted to the Committee on Generic Nomenclature. The latter body endorsed the view of the Sub-Committee and recommended the Council of the Royal Entomological Society of London to approach the International Commission in the sense indicated. It was in accordance with this recommendation that the Council of the Society addressed to the Commission the letter referred to in paragraph 1 above. P—THE SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF THE CASE. 5. Before the International Commission had time to take any action on this case, they received a letter on the same subject (dated 17th May 1934) from Dr. J. McDunnough, Chief of the Division of Systematic Entomology, Entomological Branch, Department of Agriculture, Ottawa, from which the following is : an extract :— I am enclosing signed copies of a short note which is appearing in the current number of the ‘“ Canadian Entomologist.’”’ You will see by this that the large majority of active systematic Lepidopterists advocate the fixing of certain genotypes for the four genera mentioned in the note and I am sure also that the large proportion of continental entomologists are in favour of such procedure. . . _ 6. The following is an extract from the note furnished by Dr. McDunnough :— ON THE STABILIZING OF FOUR GENERIC NAMES (Lepid. Rhopalocera) To students of the involved generic nomenclature of the Palaearctic and Nearctic Diurnal Lepidoptera, the recent publication of the ‘‘ Generic Names of British Rhopalocera ’’ will prove of great interest. This pam- phlet has been prepared by Mr. Francis Hemming at the request of the Royal Entomological Society of London, and includes full details regarding type fixation and synonymy. Appended to the list is the first report of the Lepidoptera. Sub-committee to the main committee, and following Mr. Hemming’s suggestions, the suspension of the Law of Priority in four cases is advocated by this sub-committee, the ground being that strict application of the rules would cause serious, and quite unnecessary, dis- turbance in existing practice. 312 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL The genera involved, with their proposed genotypes, are as follows :— Argynnis Fabr. (P. paphia Linn.) ; Welcoming any action that would assist in stabilizing generic Nomen- clature, the undersigned lepidopterists express their full agreement with the recommendations of the above sub-committee and would urge the adoption of this report. J. McDunnough, Entom. Br. Dept. of Agriculture, Ottawa, Canada. May 15, 1934. Jessie D. Gunder, 310 Linda Vista Ave., Pasadena, Calif. Apr. 13, 1934. John A. Comstock, Los Angeles Museum, Exposition Park, Los Angeles, > Calui]SApr. 20).hoOs4r Wane. V0. Forbes, Dept. of Entomology, Cornell U., Ithaca, N.Y. APESi7, TOR4. Roswell C. AWilliarns, Jr., Acad. Nat. Sciences, 19th & Race Sts., Philadel- plia, Par Apr 7 lose E. Irving Huntingdon, 115 East 90th St., New York, N.Y. April 21, 1934. Cyril F. dos Passos, Washington Corners, Mendham, N.J. Apr. 23, 1934. Frank E. Watson, Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist. N.Y. City. Apr. 23, 1934. C. H. Curran, Amer. Mus. Nat. Bist. NY. City. Apr: 23 ;se37e Ernest Bell, 150-17 Roosevelt Ave., Flushing, N.Y. Apr. 24, 1934. Alyach B. Klots, College of the City of New York, Dept. of Biology. Apr. 24, 1934. 7. Asa first step, the International Commission decided to invite the International Committee on Entomological Nomenclature to report on the present application. This case was accordingly considered by the International Committee at their meeting held at Madrid in the second week of September 1935 during the Sixth International Congress of Entomology. After careful considera- tion, the International Committee agreed to recommend the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to take such action under their plenary powers as might be necessary: to secure that in no circumstances should the name Avgyreus Scopoli, 1777 (type Papilio mphe Linnaeus, 1767) replace the wmanie Argynmis Fabricius, 1807 (type Papilio papa Linnaeus, 1758). This, and other, recommendations adopted by the International Committee on Entomological Nomenclature at their Madrid meeting were confirmed by the Sixth International Congress of Entomology at the Concilium Plenum held on 12th September 7935: a III —THE CONCLUSION REACHED BY. THE INTERNA- : TIONAL COMMISSION. “UB When the International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature.met at Lisbon immediately. after the close of the Sixth International Congress of Entomology in September 1935, they COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION IOI. B53 found themselves confronted with a large number of cases involv- ing proposals for the suspension of the rules, in respect of some of which advertisements had not been published or, if published, had not been published for the prescribed period, owing to the illness - of Dr. C. W. Stiles, Secretary to the Commission, or for other causes. In these circumstances, the Commission decided at their meeting held on the morning of Monday, 16th September 1935 (Lisbon Session, 2nd Meeting, Conclusion 9), that immediate con- sideration should be given to all cases submitted to the Com- mission that, in their judgment, had reached the stage at which a decision could properly be taken; that the By-Laws of the Com- mission should be suspended during the Lisbon Session to such extent as might be necessary to give effect to this decision; and that, in so far as this procedure involved taking decisions “‘ under suspension of the rules ”’ in cases where the prescribed advertise- ment procedure had not been complied with, the cases in question should be duly advertised as soon as might be practicable after the conclusion of the Lisbon Congress and that no Ofimion should be rendered and published thereon until after the expiry of a period of one year from the date on which the said advertisement was despatched to the prescribed journals for publication. The case of the generic names Avgynnis Fabricius, 1807, and Argyreus Scopoli, 1777, was one of the cases in question and was accordingly dealt with by the Commission under the above procedure. g. This case was considered by the International Commission later in the course of the meeting referred to above (Lisbon Session, 2nd Meeting, Conclusion 22), when the Commission agreed * :— | (a).t0* ies the rules ”’ in the case of the following generic names :— _ (d) to declare that the generic name Avgyveus Scopoli, 1777, Intr. Hist. fae W431 (type: Papilio niphe Linnaeus, 1767, Syst. Nat. (ed. 12) 1 (2) : 785) (= Papiho hyperbius Linnaeus, 1763, Amoen. Acad. : 408) is not to be substituted for Avgynnis Fabricius, 1807 (type : Papilio paphia Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) : 481); that the name Argynnis Fabricius, 1807, is therefore valid; but that this decision would not affect the validity of the name Avgyveus Scopoli, 1777, in so far as it is otherwise available,® in the event of it being found desirable on taxonomic grounds to place Papilio niphe Lin- + Only those portions of Conclusion 22 which refer to the present case are here quoted. For the full text of Conclusion 22, see 1943, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 1 : 20-23. 5 See footnote 1. 314 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED .,BY THE INTERNATIONAL naeus (= Papilio hyperbius Linnaeus) and Papilio piohes Linnaeus in different genera; a @ ‘eee (© (i) to add the genericnames . . . Avgynnis Fabricius, 1807, . . . tothe Official List of Generic Names, with the type as indicated above; e (¢ ©: \@ a “ie (1) to render Opinions in the sense of (a) to (1) above. 10. The foregoing decisions were embodied in paragraph 28 of the report which at their meeting held on the morning of Wednes- day, 18th September 1935, the Commission (Lisbon Session, 5th Meeting, Conclusion 6) unanimously agreed to submit to the Twelfth International Congress of Zoology. That report was unanimously approved by the Section on Nomenclature at its joint meeting with the International Commission held on the afternoon of the same day. It was thereupon submitted to the Twelfth International Congress of Zoology by which it was unanimously approved and adopted at the Concilium Plenum held on the afternoon of Saturday, 21st September 1935, the last day of the Congress. _ 11. In accordance with the decision taken by the Commission | at Lisbon in regard to their procedure at that Session (paragraph 8 above), this case was duly advertised in 1936 in two or more of the journals named in the Resolution adopted by the Ninth International Congress of Zoology at its meeting held at Monaco in March 1913, by which the said International Congress conferred upon the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature plenary power to suspend the rules as applied to any given case - where, in the judgment of the Commission, the strict application of the rules would clearly result in greater confusion than. uni- formity.° In the period that has elapsed since the advertisement, in the said journals of the proposed suspension of the rules in the present case,.no communication of any kind has been addressed to the International Commission objecting to the issue of an Opinion in the terms proposed. 12. The present Opinion was concurred in by the tele (12) Commissioners and Alternates present at the Lisbon Session of the International Commission, namely :— Commissioners :—Calman; Hemming; Jordan; — Pellegrin; Peters; and Stejneger. 6 See Declaration 5 (1943, Opinions and Declarations vendered by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 1 : 31-40). COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION IOI. 315 Alternates :—do Amaral vice Cabrera; Ohshima vice Esaki; Bradley vice Stone; Beier vice Handlirsch; Arndt vice Richter; and Mortensen vice Apstein. 13. The present Opinion was dissented from by no Commissioner or Alternate present at the Lisbon Session. Nor since that Session has any Commissioner who was neither present on that occasion nor represented thereat by an Alternate indicated dis- agreement with the conclusions then reached by the Commission in this matter. 14. The following five (5) Commissioners who were not present at Lisbon nor represented thereat by Alternates did not vote on the present Opinion :— Bolivar y Pieltain ; Chapman; Fantham; Silvestri; and Stiles. 15. At the time when the vote was taken on the present Opinion, there was one (1) vacancy in the Commission consequent upon the death of Commissioner Horvath. IV.—AUTHORITY FOR THE ISSUE OF THE PRESENT | OPINION. WueErEAs the Ninth International Congress of Zoology at its meeting held at Monaco in March 1913, adopted a Resolution conferring upon the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, acting for the International Congress of Zoology, plenary power to suspend the rules as applied to any given case, where, in the judgment of the Commission, the strict application of the rules would clearly result in greater confusion than uni- formity, provided that not less than one year’s notice of the possible suspension of the rules as applied to the said case should be given in two or more of five journals named in the said Resolu- tion, and provided that the vote in the Commission was unani- -mously in favour of the proposed suspension of the rules; and ’ WHEREAS the suspension of the rules is required to give valid force to the provisions of the present Opinion as set out in the summary thereof; and WHEREAS not less than one year’s notice of the possible sus- pension of the rules as applied to the present case has been given to two or more of the journals referred to in the Resolution adopted by the Ninth International Congress of Zoology at its meeting held at Monaco in March 1913; and 316 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL WHEREAS the vote in the Commission at their Lisbon Session was unanimously in favour of the issue of an Opinion in the terms of the present Opinion ; Now, THEREFORE, I, FRANCIS HEMMING, Secretary to the International Com- mission-on Zoological Nomenclature, acting in virtue of all and every the powers conferred upon me in that behalf by reason of holding the said Office of Secretary to the International Com- mission, hereby announce the said Opinion on behalf of the Inter- national Commission, acting for the International Congress of Zoology, and direct that it be rendered and printed as Opinion Number One Hundred and Sixty One (Opinion 161) of the said Commission. In faith whereof I, the undersigned FRANCIS HEMMING, ‘Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature, have signed the present Opinion. _ DonE in London, this twenty third day of May, Nineteen Hundred and Forty Three, in a single copy, which shall remain deposited in the archives of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. FRANCIS HEMMING COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION IOI. BIU7/ THE PUBLICATIONS OF THE COMMISSION. (obtainable at the Publications Office of the Commission at 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7.) Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. This journal has been established by the International Com- mission as their Official Organ in order to provide a medium for the publication of :— (a) proposals on zoological nomenclature submitted to the International Commission for deliberation and decision ; (b) comments received from, and correspondence by the Secretary with, zoologists on proposals published in the Bulletin under (a) above; and (c) papers on nomenclatorial implications of developments in taxonomic theory and practice. The Bulletin was established in 1943, in which year three Parts were published. Part 4 was published in 1944. Parts 5 and 6 are in the press. Opinions and Declarations Rendered by the International Com- mission on Zoological Nomenclature. The above work is being published in three volumes con- currently, namely :— Volume 1. This volume will contain Declarations 1-9 (which have never previously been published) and Opinions 1-133 (the original issue of which is now out of print). Parts 1-20 (contain- ing Declarations 1-9 and Opinions 1-11) have now been published. Further Parts will be published shortly. Volume 2. This volume will be issued in 52 Parts, comprising all the decisions taken by the International Commission at their meeting at Lisbon in 1935, namely Declarations 10-12 (with Roman pagination) and Opinions 134-181 (with Arabic pagina- tion). Part 52 will contain the index and title page of the volume. Parts I-35, containing Declarations 10-12 and Opinions 134-165, have now been published. Further Parts will be published shortly. Volume 3. This volume, which commenced with Opinion 182, will contain the Opinions adopted by the International Commis- sion since their meeting at Lisbon in 1935. Parts 1-5 (containing Opinions 182-186) have now been published. Further Parts will be published as soon as possible. 318 INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE, APPEAL FOR FUNDS The International Commission appeal earnestly to all institutions and individuals interested in the development of zoological nomen- clature to contribute, according to their means, to the Commission’s Special (Publications) Fund. Of the total sum of £1,800 required to enable the Commission to issue all the publications now awaiting printing, donations amounting to £819 8s. 7d. were received up to 31st December 1944. Additional contributions are urgently _needed in order to enable the Commission to continue their work without interruption. Contributions of any amount, however small, will be most gratefully received. Contributions should be sent to the International Commission at their Publications Office, 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W. 7, and made payable to the ‘‘ International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature or Order ’’ and crossed °** Account payee. Coutts & Co.’’. PRINTED IN GREAT BRITAIN BY RICHARD CLAY AND COMPANY, LTD., BuNGAY, SUFFOLK. OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTER- NATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Edited by FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C. B. EE Secretary to the Commission VOLUME 2. Part 32. Pp. 319-334. OPINION 162 Suspension of the rules for Bracon Fabricius, [1804-1805] (Class Insecta, Order Hymenoptera) LONDON: Printed by Order of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature Sold at the Publications Office of the Commission 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7 1945 Price four shillings (Ali rights reserved) Issued 21st June, 1945 INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE COMPOSITION OF THE COMMISSION The Officers of the Commission President : Dr. Karl Jordan, Ph.D., F.R.S. (United Kingdom). Vice-President : Dr. James L. Peters (U.S.A.). Secretary : Mr. Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. (United Kingdom). The Members of the Commission Class 1946 Herr Professor Dr. Walter ARNDT (Germany). Dr. William Thomas CALMAN (United Kingdom). Professor Teiso ESAKI (Japan). Professor Béla von HANKO (Hungary). Dr. Tadeusz JACZEWSKI (Poland). Dr. Norman R. STOLL (U.53.A.). Class 1949 Senor Dr. Angel CABRERA (Argentina). ' Mr. Francis HEMMING (United Kingdom) (Secretary to the Commission). Dr. Karl JORDAN (United Kingdom) (President of the Commission). Dr. Joseph PEARSON (Australia). Monsieur le Docteur Jacques PELLEGRIN (France). Herr Professor Dr. Rudolf RICHTER (Germany). Class 1952 Senhor Dr. Afranio do AMARAL (Brazil). Professor James Chester BRADLEY (U.S.A.). Professor Ludovico di CAPORIACCO (Italy). Professor J. R. DYMOND (Canada). Dr. James L. PETERS (U.S.A.) (Vice-President of the Commission). Dr. Harold E. VOKES (U.S.A.) Secretariat of the Commission : British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London, S.W. 7. Publications Office of the Commission : 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W. 7. Personal address of the Secretary : 83, Fellows Road (Garden Flat), London, N.W. 3. OPINION 162. SUSPENSION OF THE RULES FOR BRACON FABRICIUS, [1801-1805] (CLASS INSECTA, ORDER HYMENOPTERA). SUMMARY.—Under suspension of the rules (i) all existing type designations for Bracon Fabricius, [1804—1805], are set aside, and (ii) Ichneumon minutator Fabricius, 1798, is hereby designated as the type of that genus. The name Bracon Fabricius, [1804— 1805] (Class Insecta, Order Hymenoptera), with the type indicated above, is hereby added to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology as Name No. 610. I.—THE STATEMENT OF THE CASE. As the result of consultations initiated by Professor James Chester Bradley with the leading systematic workers in the Order Hymenoptera in all countries, the following petition signed by Professor Chester Bradley and 59 other hymenopterists was submitted to the International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature :— THE CASE OF THE GENUS BRACON The genus Bracon Jurine (“ Evlangen List,” 1801) was assigned by its author two species, [chneumon desertor and denigrator. In the Systema Piezatorum Fabricius (1803 1) adopted Jurine’s genus for the same two species and others. Spinola (1808, Insect. Liguriae, v. 2 p. 97 & 101) indicated that what Fabricius meant by desertor was different from the Linnaean desertor, and renamed the Jatiey species (although it had priority) deflagratory. Subse- quent authors have accepted this distinction, but by reason of the fact that they have all placed the Fabrician species in a different genus from the Linnaean, they have used the name desertor for each. Bradley, however, (1919) has renamed the Fabrician Species desectus. Overlooking the “ Erlangen List,” authors have ascribed the genus Bracon to Fabricius, 1803,! instead of to Jurine, 1801. In including desevtor in Bracon, Fabricius cites Ichneumon desertor of Linnaeus. It follows * that the Linnaean species and not what Fabricius actually had before him is the included species, and Curtis (1829, Brit. Ent. 2, Expl. pl. 69) definitely cites it, Ichneumon desertor Linnaeus, as type of Bracon. This si ulee is therefore type regardless oy whether we ascribe Bracon to Fabr., 1803,1 or Jurine, 1801. 1 Fabricius’s Syst. Piezat. was probably published in the early part of 1805 but may have been published at the end of 1804. It was not published as early as 1803 (see Griffin, 1935, 1m Richards, Tvans. R. ent. Soc. Lond. 83 :144). It should be dated 1804-1805, the date being cited in square brackets. * This deduction is subject to certain qualifications. See Opinions 65 and 168, 322 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL But all authors for three fourths of a century, until 1914, have used Bracon in a sense as though another originally included species, Bracon minutator were type, and this was (incorrectly) designated type by Foerster, 1862. In this sense it has been used for the name of an enormous and abundant genus of parasitic Hymenoptera, and as type of the subfamily BRACONINAE and the great family BRACONIDAE. Viereck (1914) pointed out that desevior L., the true type of Bvracon, is type of the genus Cvemnops which belongs to a different subfamily. The subfamily name BRACONINAE has accordingly been transferred by some writers from its accustomed sense to the group that is ordinarily termed AGATHINAE OF AGATHIDINAE. Correspondingly the name VIPIONINAE has been applied to the subfamily previously known as BRACONINAE (see Bradley, 1919, p. 57), raised by Viereck (1916) to the rank of a family. In view of the confusion resulting from the transfer of names among these common, well-known genera, one of them of enormous size, and in view of the fact that important subfamily names are involved (and accord- ing to Viereck, 1916, family names), the undersigned respectfully request the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to take such action as it may see fit to relieve the situation, recommending the following :— (rt) to suspend the rules in the case of the genus Bracon; (2) to permanently reject the genus Bracon Jurine, 1801, type Ichneumon desevtoy Linnaeus; and all type designations of desevtoy Linnaeus or of desertor Fabr. as type of Bracon Fabr. ; (3) to validate Bracon Fabr., 1803,1 and the designation by Foerster, 1862, of Bvacon minutator Fabr. as its type; (4) to place on the Official List of Generic Names Bracon Fabr., 1803,+ type Bracon minutator Fabr., for the genus of parasitic wasps ordinarily known by that name. 2. The following is the list of signatures attached to the above petition at the time of its submission to the International Commission :— C. T. Brues R. Benoist * H. Haupt Jos. Bequaert J. D. Alfken * H. Brauns f G. Grandi A. Krausse L. Berland A, BGahan * M. Wolff A. A. Oglobin — Et erison:= J. G. Betrem O. W. Richards Pena eel eee R. Fouts Pee Bali H. H. Ross * G. Arnold Vo 5. Pace J. M. Dusmet A. Handlirsch J. C. Bradley W. M. Wheeler * I. Micha G. Enderlein G. I. Lyle H. Hacker T. Uchida + R. A. Cushman * mn ©. Kanseys * O. Vogt Ff E. A. Elhott H. de W. Marriott H. Habermehl + A. Crevecoeur F. Maidl E. Kruger f W. M. Mann F, Roth W. Hellen + R. Friese E. Ensln F. X. Williams f H. von Lhering t A. von Schulthess O. Schmiedeknecht f A. C. W. Wagner R. B. Benson * N. N. Kuznev- H. Hedicke H. F. Schwarz Ugamtsky tT H. Bischoff W. V. Balduf * F, E. Lutz L. Masi - D. S. Wilkinson * L. H. Weld * * JIn accord with results sought by the petition without having studied the points involved in the particular case. + Evidently intended to subscribe to this petition, but sheet bearing his signature was not included in his reply. t Deceased. COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 162. 323 te tHE SUBSEQUENT HISTORY. OF THE CASE. 3. This case was circulated to the members of the International Commission in January 1935, when it was arranged that it and the other Hymenoptera cases submitted at the same time should be dealt with at the meeting of the Commission due to be held at Lisbon in September of that year, by which time the recom- mendations of the International Committee on Entomological Nomenclature would be available. 4. This case was considered by the International Committee on Entomological Nomenclature at its meeting held at Madrid in the second week of September 1935 during the Sixth International Congress of Entomology. After careful consideration, the Committee decided to frame its recommendations to the Inter- national Commission on Zoological Nomenclature on the following basis: (i) it was highly desirable that the plenary powers should be used to prevent a transfer of the genus Bracon Fabricius from its present position to an entirely different subfamily; (ii) the most convenient course to secure this end would be for the Com- mission, acting under their plenary powers, to designate I[chneumon minutator Fabricius as the type of Bracon Fabricius; (iii) if, as the International Committee had already decided to recommend, the “ Erlangen List ’’ was suppressed by the International Com- mission under their plenary powers, no other action would be required, but, if the Commission could not see their way to adopt that recommendation, it would be necessary for them to suppress Bracon Jurine, 1801 (Erlangen List) in order to validate Bracon Fabricius, [1804-1805]. 5. [hese and other resolutions adopted by the International Committee at its meeting held at Madrid were confirmed by the Sixth International Congress of Entomology at the Concilium Plenum held at Madrid on 12th September 1935. III.—THE CONCLUSION REACHED BY THE INTERNA- TIONAL COMMISSION. 6. When the International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature met at Lisbon immediately after the close of the Sixth International Congress of Entomology in September 1935, they found themselves confronted with a large number of cases involv- ‘Ing proposals for the suspension of the rules, in respect of some of which advertisements had not been published or, if published, had 324 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL not been published for the prescribed period, owing to the illness of Dr. C. W. Stiles, Secretary to the Commission, or for other causes. In these circumstances the Commission decided at their meeting held on the morning of Monday, 16th September 1935 | (Lisbon Session, 2nd Meeting, Conclusion g) that immediate consideration should be given to all cases submitted to the Com- mission that, in their judgment, had reached the stage at which a decision could properly be taken; that the By-Laws of the Com- mission should be suspended during the Lisbon Session to such extent as might be necessary to give effect to this decision; and that, in so far as this procedure involved taking decisions “ under suspension of the rules’ in cases where the prescribed advertise- ment procedure had not been complied with, the cases in question should be duly advertised as soon as might be practicable after the conclusion of the Lisbon Congress and that no Ofimion should be rendered and published thereon until after the expiry of a period of one year from the date on which the said advertisement was despatched to the prescribed journals for publication. The case of Bracon Fabricius, [1804-1805], was among the cases in question and was accordingly dealt with under the above procedure. 7. At the same meeting as that referred to above (Lisbon Session, 2nd Meeting, Conclusion 13), the International Com- mission unanimously agreed to use the plenary powers conferred upon them by the Ninth International Congress of Zoology at Monaco in 1913, in order to suppress the “‘ Erlangen List.’’ 3 When, therefore, at their meeting held on the afternoon of the same day the Commission came to consider the present case, they found that there was no need to make use of their plenary powers to validate Bracon Fabricius, [1804-1805], since the earlier name Bracon Jurine, 1801, had ceased to be available on the suppression of the “ Erlangen List.’’ After careful consideration, the Com- mission came to the conclusion that, in view of the circumstances set out in the petition, the name Brvacon Fabricius presented one of the “ transfer ’’ problems of the kind specifically contemplated in Article 3 of the ‘“‘ Plenary Powers ’’ Resolution adopted by the Ninth International Congress of Zoology at Monaco in 1913.4 Further, the Commission were unanimously of the opinion that 3 See Opinion 135 (1939, Opinions and Declarations rendered by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 2: 7-12). 4 For the text of the Resolution adopted by the Ninth International Congress of Zoology at Monaco in 1913, see Declaration 5 (1943, Opinions and Declarations rendered by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 1 : 31-40). COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 162. 325 the strict application of the rules as applied to the name Bracon Fabricius would clearly result in greater confusion than uniformity. Having thus decided in principle that the proper course in this case was to make use of their plenary powers, the Commission discussed how best those powers could be used to meet the requirements of the present case. After a full discussion, the Commission reached the conclusion that the most satisfactory procedure would be to set aside all existing type designations for this genus and to designate Ichnewmon minutator Fabricius as its type. The Commission accordingly agreed (Lisbon Session, 3rd Meeting, Conclusion 2) > :— 7 2 2 © @ © (c) under ‘“‘ suspension of the rules ”’ to set aside all type designations for the undermentioned genera and to declare their types to be the species indicated below :— Name of genus Type of genus (26) Bracon Fabricius, [1804— Ichneumon minutator Fabricius, 1805], Syst. Piezat. : 102 1798, Suppl. Ent. syst. : 225 (d) under “ suspension of the rules”’ to place on the Official List of Generic Names the sixteen generic names enumerated in (c) above (names (19) to (34)), each with the type species there indicated ; (e) to render Opinions in the sense of (a) to (d) above. 8. The foregoing decision was embodied in paragraph 27 of the report® which at their meeting held on Wednesday, 18th September 1935, the Commission (Lisbon Session, 5th Meeting, Conclusion 6) unanimously agreed to submit to the Twelfth International Congress of Zoology. g. At the same meeting’ the Commission agreed (Lisbon Session, 5th Meeting, Conclusion 10) that Commissioner Karl Jordan (President of the Commission) and the new Secretary to the Commission, when elected, should be authorised to make such arrangements, and to take such other action, as might appear to them to be necessary or expedient :— (i) to establish the Secretariat of the Commission at its new head- quarters ; (11) to secure the due publication of the Opinions agreed upon from time to time by the Commission ; 5 Only those portions of Conclusion 2 of the znd Meeting of the Lisbon Session, which relate to the present case, are here quoted. For the full text of Conclusion 2, see 1943, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 1 : 27-30. § See 1943, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 1 : 59-60. 7 See 1943, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 1: 48. : 326 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL (iii) to give effect to the decisions reached by the Commission at their Lisbon Session ; (iv) to obtain the finance required for the due functioning of the Com- mission; and generally (v) to secure the effective continuance of the work of the Commission. 10. The report adopted by the Commission on the morning of Wednesday, 18th September 1935, was unanimously approved by — the Section on Nomenclature at its joint meeting with the Inter- national Commission held on the afternoon of the same day. It was thereupon submitted to the Twelfth International Congress of Zoology by which it was unanimously approved and adopted at the Concilium Plenum held on the afternoon of Saturday, 21st September 1935, the last day of the Congress. ir. In accordance with the decision taken by the Commission at Lisbon in regard to their procedure at that Session (paragraph- 6 above), this case was duly advertised in 1936 in two or more of the journals named in the Resolution adopted by the Ninth International Congress of Zoology at its meeting held at Monaco in March 1913, by which the said International Congress conferred upon the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature plenary power to suspend the rules as applied to any given case where, in the judgment of the Commission, the strict application of the rules would clearly result in greater confusion than uni- formity.® In the period that has elapsed since the advertisement in the said journals of the proposed suspension of the rules for Bracon Fabricius, one communication only has been addressed to the Commission raising objection to the suspension of the rules in this case. This communication, which was dated 1st March 1937, and bore the signature of Dr. S. A. Rohwer, was addressed to the Commission in the name of the Committee on Nomen- clature of the Entomological Society of Washington. 12. The passage in the document received from the Committee on Nomenclature of the Entomological Society of Washington relating to the present case reads as follows :— THE CASE OF BRACON F., 1804 ® Bracon was first published by Jurine, 1801, in the so-called Erlangen List,!° with two included species, Ichneumon desertor L. and I. denigvator L. Fabricius, 1804,9 used the name Bracon for those two species and added 8 See footnote 4. ® For the correct date of this name, see footnote 1. 10 For the suppression of the “ Erlangen List,” see Opinion 135 (1939, Opinions and Declarations rendered by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 2: 7-12). COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 162. 327 several more, including minutator F. The first valid type designation Was by Curtis, 1825 (Brit. Ent. 2, Exp. pl. 69), who named desertor L. type of Bracon. ‘The suppression of the ‘“‘ Erlangen List,’’ which we have recom- mended,?° will not, therefore, affect this case. Until it was shown by Viereck, 1914 (Bull. 83, U.S. Nat. Mus.) that the true desertor L. is also the type of Cremnops Foerster, 1862, the name Bracon was generally misapplied. By reason of this information it became necessary to transfer Bracon, and the subfamily name BRACONINAE, from the cyclostomine groups of BRACONIDAE, to which they had been applied, to the subfamily previously known as the AGATHININAE; and through isogenotypy Cvemnops became a synonym of Bracon. Foerster, 1862 (Verh. Naturh. Ver. preuss. Rheinl., vol. 19, p. 235) either disregarded or overlooked the previous type fixation by Curtis and named B. minutator F. type of Bracon. This species is congeneric with Micro- bracon sulcifrons Ashm., type of the monobasic genus Microbracon Ashm., 1900. The literature of the past twenty years treating this group under the name Muicrobracon has been rather extensive, this name having been employed much more consistently in this proper sense than. has Bracon in the correct sense of Cremnops. Certain specialists in BRACONIDAE, while correctly using Muicrobracon for Bracon in the Foersterian concept, are at the same time employing Cvemnops instead of Bracon for the genus typified by Ichneumon desertor L., thus not recognizing any group under the name Bracon, the type genus of the family. It cannot be maintained that placement of Bracon F., with minutator F. as type, on the Official List of Generic Names will avoid or lessen con- fusion arising from the long-continued misapplication of Bracon. We insist, on the contrary, that greater confusion would result from such action. Microbracon is being correctly employed by most of the active workers in the BRACONIDAE for the group to which minutator belongs. Using the name Bracon in the sense demanded by the Rules Morrison, 1917 (Proc. U.S. Nat. Mus. v. 52 : 305-343) published a revision of the North American species of this genus. Likewise following the dictates of the Code, Muesebeck, 1925 (Proc. U.S. Nat. Mus. v. 67, Art. 8, pp. 1-85) revised the large group of N. American species belonging to Mucrobracon and in 1927 (Proc. U.S. Nat. Mus. vol. 69, Art. 16, pp. I-73) published a revision of the sub- family BRACONINAE. Countless determinations of specimens have been made on this basis and the records published in numerous lists and in biological and other papers in all parts of the world. Undoubtedly more critical taxonomic work has been conducted in these groups during the past twenty years, under a nomenclature entirely in accord with the Rules, than in any similar period. To overturn this nomenclature now, as has been proposed, would throw all this work into serious confusion. We respectfully urge, therefore, that, in the interest of stability, the Com- mission refuse to suspend the Rules in the case of Bracon F. 13. Immediately upon its receipt by the Commission, copies of the document from which the passage quoted in paragraph 12 above has been extracted were communicated (April 1937) to each member of the Commission, but since that date no member of the Commission has expressed himself as being in agreement with the objections raised in the document quoted in paragraph 12. 14. The only other communication received by the International Commission on this subject is a letter (dated 11th June 1939). from Dr. O. W- Richards (London), in which he expressed the following view :— 328 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL In itself there would probably be no hardship in using Microbracon, though it means changing the name of a large subfamily. I think there would be grave disadvantages however in transferring the generic name Bracon and the subfamily name to another subfamily in the group. I think the best courses are either :— (a) adopt Microbracon for Bracon auct. and Cremnops for Bracon Fab. and make Bracon Fab. a synonym of Cremnops by suspension of the rHles OL (b) suspend the rules completely, i.e. Bracon Fab. = Bracon auct. Microbracon ; or (c) definitely less desirable, uphold the rules entirely. 15. The representations set out in paragraph 12 above were considered at the Plenary Conference between the President of the Commission and the Secretary to the Commission convened in London on 19th June 1939 under the authority of the Resolution adopted by the Commission at their meeting held at Lisbon on 18th September 1935 (for the text of which see paragraph 9 above). The Plenary Conference (Plenary Conference, Ist Meeting, Conclusion g) 14 :— (b) examined the communications that had been received during the prescribed period in regard to the undermentioned names :— (iv) Bracon Fabricius, [1804-1805] from the Committee on Nomenclature of the Entomological Society of Washington (c) took note that, although copies of the communications referred to © in (b) above had been transmitted to each member of the Com- mission immediately after their receipt, no member of the Commis- sion had expressed himself as being in agreement with any of the representations contained therein ; (d) agreed that the communications referred to in (b) above brought forward no data and adduced no considerations that had not been before the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature ' when at Lisbon in 1935 they approved the recommendations in favour of the suspension of the rules in these cases submitted to them by the International Committee on Entomological Nomenclature in resolutions adopted during the meeting of the Sixth International Congress of Entomology at Madrid in the same year; (e) agreed that, in view of (c) and (d) above, the proper course for the present Conference in the discharge of the duties entrusted to it by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (Lisbon Session, 5th Meeting, Conclusion 10) was to give effect to the decisions in this matter reached by the International Commission at their Lisbon Session (3rd Meeting, Conclusion 2) and therefore that — Opinions should be issued as soon as possible in the sense indicated in paragraph 27 of the report submitted by them to the Twelfth Inter- national Congress of Zoology and approved and adopted by that Congress at the Concilium Plenum held at Lisbon on 21st September 1935. 11 Only those portions of Conclusion 9 which relate to the present case are here quoted. For the full text of Conclusion 9, see 1943, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 1 : 76-77. ae > COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 162. 329 16. The present Ofimion was concurred in by the twelve (12) Commissioners and Alternates present at the Lisbon Session of the International Commission, namely :— Commissioners :—Calman; Hemming; Jordan; Pellegrin; Peters; and Stejneger. Alternates oe Amaral vice Cabrera: Ohshima vice Esaki; leradiey vice stone; Beier vce Handlirsch : Arndt vice Richter; and Mortensen vice Apstein. 17. The present Opinion was dissented from by no Commissioner or Alternate present at the Lisbon Session. Nor since that Session _has any Commissioner who was neither present on that. occasion nor represented thereat by an Alternate indicated disagreement with the conclusions then reached by the Commission in this matter. 18. The following five (5) Commissioners who were not present at Lisbon nor represented thereat by Alternates did not vote on the present Opinion :— Bolivar y Pieltain ; Chapman ; Fantham; Silvestri; and Stiles. ig. At the time when the vote was taken on the present Opinion, there was one (1) vacancy in the Commission consequent upon the death of Commissioner Horvath. IV.—AUTHORITY FOR THE ISSUE OF THE PRESENT OPINION. WHEREAS the Ninth International Congress of Zoology at its meeting held at Monaco in March 1913, adopted a Resolution conferring upon the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, acting for the International Congress of Zoology, _ plenary power to suspend the rules as applied to any given case, _where, in the judgment of the Commission, the strict application of the rules would clearly result in greater confusion than uni- formity, provided that not less than one year’s notice of the possible suspension of the rules as applied to the said case should be given in two or more of five journals named in the said Resolution, and provided that the vote in the Commission was unanimously in favour of the proposed suspension of the rules; and | WHEREAS the suspension of the rules is required to give valid force to the provisions of the present Opinion as set out in the summary thereof; and 330 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL WHEREAS not less than one year’s notice of the possible suspen- sion of the rules as applied to the present case has been given to two or more of the journals referred to in the Resolution adopted by the Ninth International Congress of Zoology at its meeting held at Monaco in March 1913; and WHEREAS the vote in the Commission at their Lisbon Session was unanimously in favour of the issue of an Opinion in the terms of the present Opinion ; Now, THEREFORE, I, FrRANcIs HEMMING, Secretary to the International Com- mission on Zoological Nomenclature, acting in virtue of all and every the powers conferred upon me in that behalf by reason of holding the said Office of Secretary to the International Com- mission, hereby announce the said Opfznion on behalf of the Inter- national- Commission, acting for the International Congress of Zoology, and direct that it be rendered and printed as Opinion Number One Hundred and Sixty Two (Ofinion 162) of the said Commission. In faith whereof I, the undersigned FRANCIS HEMMING, Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature, have signed the present Ofznion. Done in London, this first day of June, Nineteen Hundred and Forty Three, in a single copy, which shall remain deposited in the archives of the International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature. Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. FRANCIS HEMMING COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 162. 331 THE PUBLICATIONS OF THE COMMISSION. (obtainable at the Publications Office of the Commission at 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7.) Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. This journal has been established by the International Com- mission as their Official Organ in order to provide a medium for the publication of :— (a) proposals on zoological nomenclature submitted to the International Commission for deliberation and decision ; (b) comments received from, and correspondence by the Secretary with, zoologists on proposals published in the Bulletin under (a) above; and (c) papers on nomenclatorial implications of developments in taxonomic theory and practice. The Bulletin was established in 1943, in which year three Parts _were published. Part 4 was published in 1944. Parts 5 and 6 are in the press. Opinions and Declarations Rendered by the International Com- mission on Zoological Nomenclature. The above work is being mene in three volumes con- currently, namely :— Volume t. This volume will contain Declarations I-g (which have never previously been published) and Opinions 1-133 (the original issue of which is now out of print). Parts 1-20 (contain- ing Declarations 1-9 and Opinions I-11) have now been published. Further Parts will be published shortly. Volume 2. This volume will be issued in 52 Parts, comprising all the decisions taken by the International Commission at their meeting at Lisbon in 1935, namely Declarations 10-12 (with Roman pagination) and Ofimions 134-181 (with Arabic pagina- tion). Part 52 will contain the index and title page of the volume. Parts I-35, containing Declarations 10-12 and Opinions 134-165, have now been published. Further Parts will be published shortly. Volume 3. This volume, which commenced with Opinion 182, will contain the Opinions adopted by the International Commis- sion since their meeting at Lisbon in 1935. Parts 1-5 (containing Opimons 182-186) have now been published. Further Parts will be published as soon as possible. 332 INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. APPEAL FOR FUNDS The International Commission appeal earnestly ‘to all institutions and individuals interested in the development of zoological nomen- clature to contribute, according to their means, to the Commission’s Special (Publications) Fund. Of the total sum of £1,800 required to enable the Commission to issue all the publications now awaiting printing, donations amounting to £819 8s. 7d. were received up to 31st December 1944. Additional contributions are urgently needed in order to enable the Commission to continue their work without interruption. Contributions of any amount, however small, will be most gratefully received. . Contributions should be sent to the International Commission at their Publications Office, 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W. 7, and made payable to the ‘°‘ International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature or Order ’’ and crossed ‘* Account payee. Coutts & Co.’’. PL a es ae TO At RL OG) et pot ec ee : is aye - 7 ' . ‘ ‘ j ii : X } 43 « es = Ae ; y % j - 4 / 1 \ E Bi ad , : : . ; y > : i \ i 5 B 8 ' : : Z 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 2. Part 33. Pp. 335-346. OPINION 163 Suspension of the rules for Euploea Fabricius, 1807 (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera) LONDON : Printed by Order of the International Commission on Zoological ‘Nomenclature Sold at the Publications Office of the Commission 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7 1945 Price three shillings (All rights reserved) i i el Issued 21st June, 1945 INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE COMPOSITION OF THE COMMISSION The Officers of the Commission President: Dr. Karl Jordan, Ph.D., F.R.S. (United Kingdom). Vice-President : Dr. James L. Peters (U.S.A.). ‘ Secretary : Mr. Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. (United Kingdom). The Members of the Commission Class 1946 Herr Professor Dr. Walter ARNDT (Germany). Dr. William Thomas CALMAN (United Kingdom). Professor Teiso ESAKI (Japan). Professor Béla von HANKO (Hungary). Dr. Tadeusz JACZEWSKI (Poland). Dr: Norman R. SPOLL (U.S.A): Class 1949 Senor Dr. Angel CABRERA (Argentina). Mr. Francis HEMMING (United Kingdom) (Secretary to the Commission). Dr. Karl JORDAN (United Kingdom) (President of the Commission). Dr. Joseph PEARSON (Australia). - Monsieur le Docteur Jacques PELLEGRIN (France). Herr Professor Dr. Rudolf RICHTER (Germany). Class 1952 Senhor Dr. Afranio do AMARAL (Brazil). Professor James Chester BRADLEY (U.S.A.). Professor Ludovico di CAPORIACCO (Italy). Professor J. R. DYMOND (Canada). Dr. James L. PETERS (U.5S.A.) (Vice-President of the Commission). Dr. Harold E. VOKES (U.S.A.). Secretariat of the Commission : British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London, $.W. 7. | Publications Office of the Commission : 4I, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W. 7. Personal address of the Secretary : 83, Fellows Road (Garden Flat), London, N.W. 3. VA OPINION 163. SUSPENSION OF THE RULES FOR EUPLOEA FABRICIUS, 1807 (CLASS INSECTA, ORDER LEPIDOPTERA). SUMMARY.—Under suspension of the rules Papilio corus Fabricius, 1793, is hereby designated as the type of Euploea Fabri- cius, 1807 (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera). The name Euploea Fabricius, with the type indicated above, is hereby added to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology as Name No. 611. I.—THE STATEMENT OF THE CASE. This case was submitted to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature in a letter dated 24th October 1934, in which Commissioner Francis Hemming and Mr. N. D. Riley, Keeper of the Department of Entomology, British Museum (Natural History), jointly invited the Commission to render Opinions in regard to this, and certain other, generic names in the Order Lepidoptera (Class Insecta). The passage in that letter relating to the name Ewploea Fabricius reads as follows :— We recommend that the following names should be added by the International Commission to the Official List of Generic Names. Our reasons for so recommending are fully set out in the statements, the terms of which we have jointly agreed, contained in Hemming’s Generic Names of the Holarctic Butterflies on the pages noted below :— Euploea Fab., 1807 (Hemming, Joc. cit. 1 : 23-25) oe © © @ © 2. The following is an extract, from the work referred to above, of the passage relating to this genus :— EUPLOEA Fabricius Fabricius, 1807, Mag. f. Insektenk. (Illiger) 6 : 280 Crotch, 1872, Cistula ent. 1 : 66 Scudder, 1875, Proc. Amer. Acad. Arts Sci., Boston 10: 172 Butler, 1878, J. linn. Soc. Lond. (Zool.) 14: 291 Moore, 1883, Pvoc. zool. Soc. London 1888 : 288 Hampson, 1918, Novit. Zool., Tring 25 : 385 TYPE: Papilio corus Fab., 1793 Fabricius said that there were thirty-two species in this genus and men- tioned three by name, viz. plexippus Linn., similis Linn. and corus Fab. Crotch’s selection of ewnice God. as the type is invalid, as that is not one of 338 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL the Fabrician species. The type was validly fixed by Scudder as similis Linn. In 1878 Butler selected as the type cove Cram., 1780, but quite apart from Scudder’s earlier selection of similis Linn., this selection by Butler would have been invalid, as cove Cram. is not one of the three species originally given by Fabricius, though Butler thought that it was, as he wrongly considered that covus Fab. (one of the original species) was a synonym of cove Cram. In 1883, Moore rectified this misidentification and selected covus Fab. as the type. This selection falls to the ground, as does that by Hampson in 1918 of plexippus Linn., in view of Scudder’s earlier selection of samilis Linn. Thus, under a strict interpretation of the International Code, the name Euploea Fab., though nomenclatorially valid, is not required, as it is a synonym of Danaus Kluk, 1802, the types of the two genera (similis Linn. and plexippus Linn.) being congeneric. The species hitherto referred to Euploea Fab. would require to be transferred to Tvepsichvois Hiibn. It is difficult to imagine a more unsatisfactory result or one less acceptable to lepidopterists generally. The genus Euploea Fab., as usually understood (i.e. the generic name of corus Fab. and its allies) is one of the largest and best known of all the genera of Rhopalocera. The immense majority of the species concerned, some 150 in number, was originally described as belonging to the genus Euploea Fab., and an enormous literature has grown up around this name. To upset all this for the sake of maintaining the fixation, as type, of similis Linn. by Scudder in 1875, in preference to the selection of corus Fab. by Moore in 1883, would, in my view, serve no useful purpose whatever, I should, indeed, regard it as a definitely retrograde step. The position is, therefore, that a strict application of the International Code would :— (a) sink Euploea Fab. as a synonym of Damaus Kluk, a genus with which the name has hardly ever been associated, although in 1875 Scudder unfortunately selected a Danaine (Papilio similis Linn., 1758) as its type; and : (b) deprive Papilio corus Fab., 1793, and its very numerous congeners of the generic name Euploea Fab., by which they have almost universally been known since its establishment by Fabricius in 1807 and under which the great majority were first described. I am of the opinion :— (i) that it would be highly undesirable to disturb the universally accepted use of the name Euploea Fab., 1807, for Papilio corus Fab., 1793, and its congeners, by transferring them to the genus Tvepsichrois Hiibn., 1816; and (ii) that the strict application of the rules of the International Code in this case would clearly result in greater confusion than uniformity. 3. In the work from which the foregoing is an extract, Com- missioner Hemming went on to say that, jointly with Mr. N. D. Riley, he was submitting to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature a recommendation that, in the exercise of the plenary power conferred upon them by the International Zoological Congress, the Commission should as soon as possible take the steps laid down by the Congress for the promulgation of an Opinion to the following effect :— COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 163. 339 The name Euploea Fab., 1807, is hereby added to the Official List of Generic Names. In view of the sense in which this name has been almost universally used ever since its publication by Fabricius, the type of Euploea Fab. shall be deemed to be Papilio corus Fab., 1793, which was specified as such by Moore in 1883 (Proc. zool. Soc. London 1888 : 288), notwithstanding the earlier selection of Papilio similis Linn., 1758, by Scudder in 1875 (Proc. Amer. Acad. Avis Sci., Boston 10 : 172). 4. Commissioner Hemming added that he was so impressed with the importance of this matter that he had thought it desirable in the work from which the above passages have been extracted to anticipate what he hoped would be the decision of the Interna- tional Commission. He therefore treated Papilio corus Fabricius, 1793, as the type of Euploea Fabricius, 1807. iE SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF THE CASE. 5. As a first step the Commission decided to invite the Inter- national Committee on Entomological Nomenclature to report on the present application. This case was accordingly considered by the International Committee at their meeting held at Madrid in the second week of September 1935 during the Sixth International Congress of Entomology. After careful consideration, the Com- mittee agreed to recommend that the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature should take such action under their plenary powers as might be necessary to secure that the type of Euploea Fabricius, 1807, should be Papilio corus Fabricius, 1793. 6. This, and other, recommendations adopted by the Interna- tional Committee on Entomological Nomenclature at their Madrid meeting were confirmed by the Sixth International Congress of Entomology at the Concilium Plenum held on 12th September 1935- Ill.—THE CONCLUSION REACHED BY THE INTERNA- TIONAL COMMISSION. 7. When the International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature met at Lisbon immediately after the close of the Sixth International Congress of Entomology in September 1935, they found themselves confronted with a large number of cases involv- ing proposals for the suspension of the rules, in respect of some of _ which advertisements had not been published or, if published, had not been published for the prescribed period, owing to the illness of Dr. C. W. Stiles, Secretary to the Commission, or for other 340 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL causes. In these circumstances, the Commission decided at their meeting held on the morning of Monday, 16th September 1935 (Lisbon Session, 2nd Meeting, Conclusion 9) that immediate con- sideration should be given to all cases submitted to the Com- mission that, in their judgment, had reached the stage at which a decision could properly be taken; that the By-Laws of the Commission should be suspended during the Lisbon Session to such extent as might be necessary to give effect to this decision ; and that, in so far as this procedure involved taking decisions “under suspension of the rules ’’ in cases where the prescribed advertisement procedure had not been complied with, the cases in question should be duly advertised as soon as might be practicable after the conclusion of the Lisbon Congress and that no Opinion should be rendered and published thereon until after the expiry of a period of one year from the date on which the said advertisement was despatched to the prescribed journals for publication. The case of the name Euploea Fabricius, 1807, was one of the cases in question and was accordingly dealt wi by the COTM buyers the above procedure. 8. This case was considered by the International Commission later in the course of the meeting referred to above (Lisbon Session, 2nd Meeting, Conclusion 22 1), when it was agreed :— (a) to “ suspend the rules ”’ in the case of the following generic names :— (i) Euploea Fabricius, 1807, Mag. f. Insektenk. (Illiger) 6 : 280 (b) to declare that the type of Euploea Fabricius, 1807, is Papilio corus Fabricius, 1793, Ent. syst. 3 (1) : 41; (i) to add the generic names Euploea Fabricius, 1807, ... to the Official List of Generic Names, with the types indicated above; (1) to render Opinions in the sense of (a) to (1) above. g. The foregoing decisions were embodied in paragraph 28 of the report ? which at their meeting held on the morning of Wednesday, 18th September 1935, the Commission (Lisbon Session, 5th Meeting, Conclusion 6) unanimously agreed to submit to the Twelfth International Congress of Zoology. That report was unanimously approved by the Section on Nomenclature at its joint meeting with the International Commission held on the afternoon of the same day. It was thereupon submitted to the 1 Only those portions of Conclusion 22 which refer to the present case are here quoted. For the full text of Conclusion 22, see 1943, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 1 : 20-23. 2 See 1943, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 1 : 60-61. COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 163. 341 Twelfth International Congress of Zoology by which it was unanimously approved and adopted at the Concilium Plenum held on the afternoon of Saturday, 21st September 1935, the last day of the Congress. 10. In accordance with the decision taken by the Commission at Lisbon in regard to their procedure at that Session (paragraph 7 above), this case was duly advertised in 1936 in two or more of the journals named in the Resolution adopted by the Ninth International Congress of Zoology at its meeting held at Monaco in March 1913, by which the said International Congress conferred upon the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature plenary power to suspend the rules as applied to any given case where, in the judgment of the Commission, the strict application of the rules would clearly result in greater confusion than uni- formity.? In the period that has elapsed since the advertisement in the said journals of the possible suspension of the rules in the present case, no communication of any kind has been addressed to the International Commission objecting to the issue of an Opinion in the terms proposed. 11. The present Ofimion was concurred in by the twelve (12) Commissioners and Alternates present at the Lisbon Session of the International Commission, namely :— Commissioners :—Calman; Hemming; Jordan; Pellegrin; Peters; and Stejneger. Alternates :—do Amaral vice Cabrera: Ohshima vice Esaki; Bradley vice Stone; Beier vice Handlirsch; Arndt vice Richter; and Mortensen vice Apstein. 12. The present Opinion was dissented from by no Commissioner or Alternate present at the Lisbon Session. Nor since that Session has any Commissioner Who was neither present on that occasion or represented thereat by an Alternate indicated dis- agreement with the conclusions then reached by the Commission in this matter. : 13. The following five (5) Commissioners who were not present at Lisbon nor represented thereat by Alternates did not vote on the present Opinion :— Bolivar y Pieltain; Chapman; ieaciian - Silvestri ; and Stiles. 3 See Declaration 5 (1943, Opinions and Declarations rendered by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 1 : 31-40). 342 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL 14. At the time when the vote was taken on the present Opinion, there was one (I) vacancy in the Commission consequent upon the death of Commissioner Horvath. IV.—AUTHORITY FOR THE ISSUE OF THE PRESENT OPINION. WHEREAS the Ninth International Congress of Zoology at its meeting held in Monaco in March 1913, adopted a Resolution con- ferring upon the International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature, acting for the International Congress of Zoology, plenary power to suspend the rules as applied to any given case, where, in the judgment of the Commission, the strict application of the rules would clearly result in greater confusion than uniformity, pro- vided that not less than one year’s notice of the possible suspension of the rules as applied to the said case should be given in two or more of five journals named in the said Resolution, and provided that the vote in the Commission was unanimously in favour of the proposed suspension of the rules; and WHEREAS the suspension of the rules is required to give valid force to the provisions of the present Opinion as set out in the summary thereof; and 3 WHEREAS not less than one year’s notice of the possible sus- pension of the rules as applied to the present case has been given to two or more of the journals referred to in the Resolution adopted by the Ninth International Congress of Zoology at its meeting held in Monaco in March 1913; and WHEREAS the vote in the Commission at their Lisbon Seasen was unanimously in favour of the issue of an Opinion in the terms of the present Opinion ; Now, THEREFORE, ue I, Francis HemminG, Secretary to the International Com- mission on Zoological Nomenclature, acting in virtue of all and every the powers conferred upon me in that behalf by reason of holding the said Office of Secretary to the International -Com- mission, hereby announce the said Opimion on behalf of the Inter- national Commission, acting for the International Congress of Zoology, and direct that it be rendered and printed as Opinion Number One Hundred and Sixty Three (Opinion 3) of the said Commission. COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 163. 343 In faith whereof I, the undersigned FRANcISs HEMMING, Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature, have signed the present Opinion. Done in London, this tenth day of June, Nineteen Hundred and Forty Three, in a single copy, which shall remain deposited in the archives of the International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature. | Secretary to the International Commission . on Zoological Nomenclature. FRANCIS HEMMING 344 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL THE PUBLICATIONS OF THE COMMISSION. (obtainable at the Publications Office of the Commission at 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7.) Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. This journal has been established by the International Com- mission as their Official Organ in order to provide a medium for the publication of :— (a) proposals on zoological nomenclature submitted to the International Commission for deliberation and decision ; (b) comments received from, and correspondence by the Secretary with, zoologists on proposals published in the Bulletin under (a) above; and (c) papers on nomenclatorial implications of developments in taxonomic theory and practice. The Bulletin was established in 1943, in which year three Parts - were published. Part 4 was published in 1944. Parts 5 and 6 are in the press. Opinions and Declarations Rendered by the International Com- mission on Zoological Nomenclature. The above work is being published in three volumes con- currently, namely :— Volume 1. This volume will contain Declarations 1-9 (which have never previously been published) and Ofinions 1-133 (the ~ original issue of which is now out of print). Parts 1-20 (contain- ing Declarations 1-9 and Opinions I-11) have now been published. Further Parts will be published shortly. Volume 2. This volume will be issued in 52 Parts, comprising all the decisions taken by the International Commission at their meeting at Lisbon in 1935, namely Declarations 10-12 (with - Roman pagination) and Opinions 134-181 (with Arabic pagina- tion). Part 52 will contain the index and title page of the-volume. Parts I-35, containing Declarations 10-12 and Opinions 134-165, have now been published. Further Parts will be published shortly. Volume 3. This volume, which commenced with Ofinion 182, will contain the Opinions adopted by the International Commission since their meeting at Lisbon in 1935. Parts 1-5 (containing Opinions 182-186) have now been published. Further Parts will be published as soon as possible. / COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 163. 345 APPEAL FOR FUNDS _ The International Commission appeal earnestly to all institutions and individuals interested in the development of zoological nomen- clature to contribute, according to their means, to the Commission’s Special (Publications) Fund. Of the total sum of £1,800 required to enable the Commission to issue all the publications now awaiting printing, donations amounting to £819 8s. 7d. were received up to 31st December 1944. Additional contributions are urgently needed in order to enable the Commission to continue their work without interruption. Contributions of any amount, however small, will be most gratefully received. Contributions should be sent to the International Commission at their Publications Office, 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W. 7, and made payable to the “ International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature or Order ’’ and crossed ‘‘ Account payee. Coutts & Co.’’. as 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 2. Part 34. Pp. 347-358. OPINION 164 On the principles to be observed in interpreting Article 30 of the International Code in relation to the types of genera when two or more genera are united on taxonomic grounds LONDON : Printed by Order of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature Sold at the Publications Office of the Commission 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7 1945 Price three shillings (All rights reserved) Issued 21st June, 1945 INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE COMPOSITION OF THE COMMISSION The Officers of the Commission President: Dr. Karl Jordan, Ph.D., F.R.S. (United Kingdom). Vice-President: Dr. James L. Peters (U.S.A.). Secretary : Mr. Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. (United Kingdom). The Members of the Commission Class 1946 Herr Professor Dr. Walter ARNDT (Germany). Dr. William Thomas CALMAN (United Kingdom). Professor Teiso ESAKI (Japan). Professor Béla von HANKO (Hungary). Dr. Tadeusz JACZEWSKI (Poland). Dr. Norman R. STOLL (U.S.A). Class 1949 Senor Dr. Angel CABRERA (Argentina). Mr. Francis HEMMING (United Kingdom) (Secretary to the Commission). Dr. Karl JORDAN (United Kingdom) (President of the Commission). Dr. Joseph PEARSON (Australia). Monsieur le Docteur Jacques PELLEGRIWN (France). Herr Professor Dr. Rudolf RICHTER (Germany). Class 1952 Senhor Dr. Afranio do AMARAL (Brazil). Professor James Chester BRADLEY (U.S.A.). Professor Ludovico di CAPORIACCO (Italy). Professor J. R. DYMOND (Canada). Dr. James L. PETERS (U.S.A.) (Vice-President of the Commission). Dr. Harold E. VOKES (U.5.A.). Secretariat of the Commission : British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London, S.W. 7. Publications Office of the Commission : 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W. 7. Personal address of the Secretary : 83, Fellows Road (Garden Flat), London, N.W. 3. OPINION 164. ON THE PRINCIPLES TO BE OBSERVED IN INTERPRETING ARTICLE 30 OF THE INTERNATIONAL CODE IN RELATION TO THE TYPES OF GENERA WHEN TWO OR MORE GENERA ARE UNITED ON TAXONOMIC GROUNDS. SUMMARY.—tThe following principles are to be observed in interpreting Article 30 of the International Code in relation to the types of genera when two or more genera are united on taxonomic grounds :—(1) When two or more genera are united on taxonomie grounds, such action in no way affects the types of the genera concerned ; (2) the broader genus thus formed takes as its name the oldest available name based on any ineluded species; (3) the genus bearing that name retains as its type the species pre- viously so established. I.—THE STATEMENT OF THE CASE. on 27 February 1934, Dr. Thomas Mortensen (Universitetets Zoclogiske Museum, Copenhagen) addressed a communication to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature asking for an Opinion regarding the type of the genus Tvomikosoma Mortensen, 1903 (Dan. Ingolf-Exped. 4:62, 64) (Class Echinoidea). In his covering letter Dr. Mortensen wrote :— . By the present I beg to submit to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature a little matter which I do not find covered by any of the rules or Opinions. It is not of great importance, but I think that it would be worth while to have it made the object of an Opinion, which would cover similar cases in the future. 2. The portion of Dr. Mortensen’s petition relating to the type of Tvomikosoma Mortensen has since been dealt with by the Commission in Opinion 131, where the text of his petition is given in full. As the present Ofinion is concerned only with the general principle involved in that petition, only those parts of Dr. Morten- sen’s petition that relate to that principle are sug on this occasion. The extracts in question are the following : —- Pomel in his paper ‘* Classification méthodique et Genera des Echinides vivants et fossiles,”’ 1883, p. 108, established a genus Echinosoma, naming the species Phorymosoma uranus A. Agassiz and Phormosoma tenuis A. 350 . OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL Agassiz as belonging to that genus, without designating any of them as the genotype. In my work Echinoidea I. The Danish Ingolf Expedition. Vol. TN irate 1903. p. 62, I adopted the said genus of Pomel, referring to it the same two species as did Pomel, but no genotype was designated. In the same work I established the genus Tvomikosoma, with the single species Tvomikosoma koehlert n.sp.,, which is accordingly the genotype of that genus. A. Agassiz and H. L. Clark, in their work “‘ Hawaiian and other Pacific Echini”’ . . . designate Phormosoma tenue A. Agassiz as the genotype of Echinosoma, which is made to include also my genus Tvomikosoma—which I agree to be correct. The name Echinosoma, however, was preoccupied, no less than three times cs Accordingly, it cannot be used for the Echinoids, and the name Tvomikosoma must take its place. 3. The particular question submitted by Dr. Mortensen was therefore whether Phormosoma tenue Agassiz (the type of the nomenclatorially unavailable Echinosoma Pomel) or Tromikosoma koehlert Mortensen (the type of Tvomtkosoma Mortensen) should be regarded as the type of the genus Tvomikosoma Mortensen now that on taxonomic grounds the genus with the earlier but nomen- clatorially unavailable name Echinosoma Pomel was united therewith. The question of principle involved in Dr. Mortensen’s petition concerned the identity of a genus comprising two or more - genera united with one another on taxonomic grounds. Was the type of the combined genus the species designated as the type of the genus so united which possessed the oldest available generic name or was it the species designated as the type of the genus so united which possessed the oldest name even if that name was unavailable nomenclatorially ? Il—THE SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF THIS’ CASE: 4. Dr. Mortensen’s petition was communicated to the members of the Commission in April 1934 with a request for their views. In his covering note, Dr. Stiles expressed his own view of the matter as follows :— The Secretary sees no difficulty whatever in this case, namely koehlert is the type species of Tvomikosoma, and this point is not influenced by any restriction or by any broadening of the generic concept. 5. In February 1935 Dr. Stiles furnished to the Commission a summary of the replies received to this inquiry :— (a) Eight Commissioners (Apstein, Chapman, Fantham,! Jordan, Peters, Silvestri, Stiles, and Stone) had expressed themselves as of the view 1 Through some oversight, Dr. Stiles omitted Dr. Fantham’s name from this list and included that of Dr. Bather, who had died (on zoth March 1934) prior to the issue of the questionnaire. COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 164. 351 that Tvomikosoma koehlert remained the type of Tvomikosoma Mortensen, 1903, after the incorporation in that genus of the genus possessing the (older but nomenclatorially unavailable) name Echinosoma Pomel, 1883. (b) One Commissioner (Pellegrin) had taken the opposite view but had given no reasons for so doing.- 6. At.some date subsequent to the preparation of the report summarised above, Commissioner Ishikawa also replied that he considered that, in the circumstances set out in the premises, the type of Tvomikosoma Mortensen became Phormosoma tenue Agassiz, but he added a note in which he explained that he took this view because “ the older name‘has the right of priority in the present case where the names koehler1 and tenue are used for one and the same species.’’ In giving this vote, Commissioner Ishikawa expressed, therefore, no opinion on the question of principle raised by Dr. Mortensen. 7. In the light of this preliminary exchange of views, Dr. Stiles invited the Commission to give a formal vote on a draft Opinion, the “summary ’’ of which was confined to the statement that “ The type of Tvomikosoma Mortensen, 1903, is koehlert.’”’ In the following month (March 1935) Dr. Stiles included the case raised by Dr. Mortensen among those which he suggested should be considered by the International Commission when it met at Lisbon later that year. IIl1—THE CONCLUSION REACHED BY THE INTERNA- | TIONAL COMMISSION. 8. The case submitted by Dr. Mortensen was considered by the International Commission at their meeting held at Lisbon on Tuesday, 17th September 1935. On the general question involved, the Commission agreed (Lisbon Session, 4th Meeting, Conclusion 8) 2 :— (a) that, when two or more genera are united on taxonomic grounds, such action in no way affects the types of the genera concerned; that the broader genus thus formed takes as its name the oldest available name based on any includéd species; and that the genus bearing that name retains as its type the species previously so established ; (c) to render Opinions in the sense of (a) and (b) above. 2 Only those portions of Conclusion 8 which relate to the question dealt with in the present Opinion are here quoted. The remaining portion deals with the type of Pvomikosoma Mortensen, for which see Opinion 131. For the full text of Conclusion 8, see 1943, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 1 : 35-36. 352 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL -g. Later-in the same meeting as that referred to above (Lisbon Session, 4th Meeting, Conclusion 17), Commissioner Francis Hemming, who, in the absence through ill-health of Dr. C. W. Stiles, Secretary to the Commission, had been charged with the duty of preparing the report to be submitted by the Commission to the Twelfth International Congress of Zoology, reported that, in accordance with the request made by the Commission on the previous day (Lisbon Session, 3rd Meeting, Conclusion 3(b)), he had made a start with the drafting of the Commission’s report ; that he had made considerable progress in spite of being hampered by the lack of standard works of reference; and that he did not doubt that he would be in a position to lay a draft report before the Commission at their next meeting, though in the time available it would be quite impracticable to prepare the drafts of paragraphs relating to all the matters on which decisions had been reached during the Lisbon Session of the Commission. As agreed upon at the meeting referred to above (Lisbon Session, 3rd Meeting, Conclusion 3(a) (i11)), he was therefore concentrating upon those matters that appeared to be the more important. Commissioner Hemming proposed that those matters which it was found im- possible to include in the report, owing to the shortness of the time available, should be dealt with after the Congress on the basis of the records in the Official Record of the Proceedings of the Com- mission during their Lisbon Session. For this purpose, Com- missioner Hemming proposed that all matters unanimously agreed upon during the Lisbon Session should be treated in the same way, whether or not it was found possible to include refer- ences to them in the report to be submitted to the Congress, and therefore that every such decision should be treated as having been participated in by all the Commissioners and Alternates present at Lisbon. The Commission took note of, and approved, the state- ment by Commissioner Hemming, and adopted the proposals submitted by him, as recorded above, in regard both to the selec- tion of items to be included in their report to the Twelfth Inter- national Congress of Zoology and to the procedure to be adopted after the Congress in regard to those matters with which, for the reasons explained, it was found impossible to deal in the report. 10. The question dealt with in the present Opinion was one of the matters to which it was found impossible, in the time available, to include a reference in the report submitted by the Commission to the Twelfth International Congress of Zoology at Lisbon. It is therefore one of the matters which falls to be dealt with under the COMMISSION ON’ ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE.. OPINION I64. 353 procedure agreed upon by the Commission as set out in paragraph 9 above. 11. The present Opinion was concurred in by the twelve (12) Commissioners and Alternates present at the Lisbon Session of the International Commission, namely :— Commissioners :—Calman; Hemming; Jordan; Pellegrin; Peters; and Stejneger. Alternates :—do Amaral vice Cabrera; Ohshima vice Esaki; 3 Bradley vice Stone; Beier vice Handlirsch; Arndt vice _ Richter; and Mortensen vice Apstein. 12. The present Ofinion was dissented from by no Commissioner or Alternate at the Lisbon Session. 13. The following five (5) Commissioners who were not present at Lisbon nor represented thereat by Alternates did not vote on the present Opinion :— Bolivar y Pieltain; Chapman; Fantham; Silvestri; and Stiles. 14. At the time when the vote was taken on the present Opinion, there was one (I) vacancy in the Commission consequent upon the death of Commissioner Horvath. IV.—THE AUTHORITY FOR THE ISSUE OF THE PRESENT OPINION. WHEREAS the By-Laws of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature provide that, except in cases involving the suspension of the rules, an Opinion is to be deemed to have been adopted by the said International Commission as soon as a majority of the Members of the Commission, that is to say ten (10) ‘Members of the said Commission have recorded their votes in favour thereof, provided that, where any proposed Opinion involves a reversal of any former Opinion rendered by the Com- mission, such proposed Opinion shall obtain the concurrence of at least fourteen (14) Members of the Commission voting on the same before such Ofinion is to be deemed to have been adopted by the Commission; and . WHEREAS the present Opinion, as set out in the summary thereof, neither requires, in order to be valid, the suspension of the rules, nor involves a reversal of any former Opinion rendered by the Commission; and \ 354 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL WHEREAS twelve (12) Members of the Commission have signi- fied their concurrence in the present Opinion either in person or through Alternates at the Session of the Commission held at Lisbon in September 1935; Now, THEREFORE, I, FrRANcIS HEMMING, Secretary to the International Com- mission on Zoological Nomenclature, acting in virtue of all and every the powers conferred upon me in that behalf by reason of holding the said Office of Secretary to the International Com- mission, hereby announce the said Ofinion on behalf of the Inter- national Commission, acting for the International Congress of Zoology, and direct that it be rendered and printed as Opinion Number One Hundred and Sixty Four (Ofinion 164) of the said Commission. In faith whereof I, the undersigned FRANCIS HEMMING, Secre- tary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, have signed the present Opinion. Done in London, this twelfth day of June, Nineteen Hundred and Forty Three, in a single copy, which shall remain deposited in the archives of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. FRANCIS HEMMING COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 164. 355 THE PUBLICATIONS OF THE COMMISSION. (obtainable at the Publications Office of the Commission at 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7.) Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. This journal has been established by the International Com- mission as their Official Organ in order to provide a medium for the publication of :— (a) proposals on zoological nomenclature submitted to the International Commission for deliberation and decision ; (b) comments received from, and correspondence by the Secretary with, zoologists on proposals published in the Bulletin under (a) above; and (c) papers on nomenclatorial ee of developments in taxonomic theory and practice. The Bulletin was established in 1943, in which year three Parts were published. Part 4 was published in 1944. Parts 5 and 6 are in the press. Opinions and Declarations Rendered by the International Com- mission on Zoological Nomenclature. The above work is being published in three volumes con- currently, namely :— Volume 1. This volume will contain Declarations 1-9 (which have never previously been published) and Opzmions 1-133 (the original issue of which is now out of print). Parts 1~20 (contain- ing Declarations 1-9 and Opinions I-11) have now been published. Further Parts will be published shortly. Volume 2. This volume will be issued in 52 Parts, comprising all the decisions taken by the International Commission at their meeting at Lisbon in 1935, namely Declarations 10-12 (with Roman pagination) and Ofinions 134-181 (with Arabic pagina- tion). Part 52 will contain the index and title page of the volume. Parts I-35, containing Declarations 10-12 and Opinions 134-165, have now been published. Further Parts will be published shortly. Volume.3. This volume, which commenced with’ Opinion 182, will contain the Opinions adopted by the International Commis- sion since their meeting at Lisbon in 1935. Parts 1-5 (containing Opinions 182-186) have now been published. Further Parts will be published as soon as possible. 356 INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. APPEAL FOR FUNDS The International Commission appeal earnestly to all institutions and individuals interested in the development of zoological nomen- clature to contribute, according to their means, to the Commission’s Special (Publications) Fund. Of the total sum of £1,800 required to enable the Commission to issue all the publications now awaiting printing, donations amounting to £819 8s. 7d. were received up to 31st December 1944. Additional contributions are urgently needed in order to enable the Commission to continue their work without interruption. Contributions of any amount, however small, will be most gratefully received. ~ Contributions should be sent to the International Commission at — their Publications Office, 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W. 7, and made payable to the ‘“ International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature or Order ’’ and crossed ‘‘ Account payee. Coutts & Co.’’. -RINTED IN GREAT BRITAIN BY ER cHARD CLAY AND Company, Lrp 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 2. Part 35. Pp. 359-374. OPINION 165 Need for the suspension of the rules for Strymon Htibner, 1818 (Class Insecta, Order Lepido- ptera) not established LONDON : Printed by Order of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature Sold at the Publications Office of the Commission 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7 1945 Price four shillings (All rights reserved) Issued 21st June, 1945 INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE COMPOSITION OF THE COMMISSION The Officers of the Commission President: Dr. Karl Jordan, Ph.D., F.R.S. (United Kingdom). Vice-President : Dr. James L. Peters (U.S.A.). Secretary : Mr. Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. (United Kingdom). The Members of the Commission Class 1946 Herr Professor Dr. Walter ARNDT (Germany). Dr. William Thomas CALMAN (United Kingdom). Professor Teiso ESAKI (Japan). Professor Béla von HANKO (Hungary). Dr Tadeusz JACZEWSKI (Poland). Dr. Norman R. STOLL (U.5S.A.). Class 1949 Senor Dr. Angel CABRERA (Argentina). Mr. Francis HEMMING (United Kingdom) (Secretary to the Commission) Dr. Karl JORDAN (United Kingdom) (President of the Commission). Dr. Joseph PEARSON (Australia). Monsieur le Docteur Jacques PELLEGRIWN (France). Herr Professor Dr. Rudolf RICHTER (Germany). Class 1952 Senhor Dr. Afranio do AMARAL (Brazil). Professor James Chester BRADLEY (U.S.A.). Professor Ludovico di CAPORIACCO (Italy). Professor J. R. DYMOND (Canada). Dr. James L. PETERS (U.S.A.) (Vice-President of the Commission). Dr. Harold E. VOKES (U.S.A.). Secretariat of the Commission : British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London, S.W. 7. Publications Office of the Commission : 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W. 7. Personal address of the Secretary : 83, Fellows Road (Garden Flat), London, N.W. 3. Ves Ss. Ar \ 1403 1945 j er iy e. OPINION 165. NEED FOR THE SUSPENSION OF THE RULES FOR STRYMON HUBNER, 1818 (CLASS INSECTA, ORDER LEPIDOPTERA) NOT ESTABLISHED. SUMMARY.—The need for the suspension of the rules for Strymon Hiibner, 1818 (type : Strymon melinus Hubner, 1818) (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera) is not established. Le, Stat PMENT OF THE CASE. This case was submitted to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature in a letter dated 23rd February 1934, in which the Council of the Royal Entomological Society of London drew attention to the conclusions reached by the Lepido- ptera Sub-Committee + of the Society’s Committee on Generic Nomenclature,? regarding the generic names of certain of the British Lepidoptera, in regard to which both the Lepidoptera Sub-Committee and the Committee on Generic Nomenclature were of the opinion that the strict application of the rules would clearly result in greater confusion than uniformity. The Society enclosed a copy of the Report of the Lepidoptera Sub-Committee (published that day as Part 2 of the Generic Names of British Insects) to which was attached a paper by Commissioner Francis Hemming, in which was given a full statement in regard to each of the names in question. One of these names was Strymon Hiibner, 1818 (Zutr. z. Samm. exot. Schmett. 1 3 22). 2. The following is an extract from the paper referred to above of the passage relating to this genus :— STRYMON Hiibner Hibner, 1818, Zutvdge z. Samml. exot. Schmett. 1 : 22 Riley, 1922, J. Bombay nat. Hist. Soc. 28 : 472 Type (fixed by Riley) = Sirymon melinus Hiibn., 1818 On a strict application of the rules in the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature the name Bithys Hiibn., 1818, should take precedence of Sitvymon Hiibn. Nomenclatorially both Stvymon Hiibn. and Bithys Hiibn. 1 This Sub-Committee was then composed as follows :—Mr. Francis Hemming (Chairman), Mr. N. D. Riley, and Mr. W. H. T. Tams. 2 This Committee was then composed as follows :—Sir Guy Marshall (Chaiyman), Dr. K. G. Blair, Mr. Francis Hemming, Dr. O. W. Richards, Mr. N. D. Riley, and Professor W. A. F. Balfour-Browne (Secretary). 362 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL are valid names, but one must sink as a synonym of the other, as their respective types (Stvymon melinus Hiibn. and Bithys leucophaeus Hiibn.) are congeneric * or at least must be regarded as being so, until the very large group of species at present assigned to Stvymon Hibn. is next revised. Both names were published simultaneously by Hiibner in the same work (vol. 1 of his Zutrage z. Samml. exot. Schmett.). The name Bithys Hiibn. was published on page 18 and the name Stvymon Hiibn. on page 22. Thus on the principle of page priority, Stvyymon Hubn. should (at any rate for the present) fall to Bithys Hiibn. There are, however, very strong reasons against such an arrangement. The name Stvymon Hiibn. has been applied without challenge to melinus Hiibn. and its numerous allies for many years. These species have, in fact, been so called both by European and American systematists ever since it was realised that they could not be called (as they were in earlier days) by the name Thecla Fab. On the other hand, the name Bithys Hiibn. has been very little used at any time, and when it has been used, it has usually been employed for species of the other large group of “‘ hairstreaks ”’ (Papilio quercus Linn., 1758, etc.) which properly belong to the genus Thecla Fab. 3. The paper from which the foregoing passage is an extract concluded with the hope that the Lepidoptera Sub-Committee would join in reporting to the Committee on Generic Nomenclature of the Royal Entomological Society of London that it was highly desirable that in the exercise of the plenary powers conferred upon them by the International Zoological Congress, the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature should as soon as possible take the steps laid down by the Congress for the pro- mulgation of an Opinion to the following effect :— The name Sivymon Hibn., 1818 (type Stvymon melinus Hiibn., 1818) is hereby added to the Official List of Generic Names. The name Bithys Hiibn., 1818, is, therefore, not to be substituted for Sitvymon Hibn., 1818, on the ground that it has page priority over that name, though it is available for use for Bithys leucophaeus Hibn., 1818, by such systematists as may regard that species as generically distinct from Sivymon melinus Hibn. 4. The foregoing conclusions were concurred in by the Lepido- ptera Sub-Committee, by whom they were submitted to the Committee on Generic Nomenclature. The latter body endorsed the view of the Sub-Committee and recommended the Council of the Society to approach the International Commission in the sense indicated. It was in accordance with this recommendation that the Council addressed to the Commission the letter referred to in paragraph I above. IIl.—THE SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF THE CASE. 5. Before the International Commission had time to take any action on this case, they received a letter on the same subject * For a supplementary note on this question, see paragraph 7 below. COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 165. 363 (dated 17th May 1934) from Dr. J. McDunnough, Chief of the Division of Systematic Entomology, Entomological Branch, Department of Agriculture, Ottawa, from which the following is alexiiact ;—— I am enclosing signed copies of a short note which is appearing in the current number of the “ Canadian Entomologist.’? You will see by this that the large majority of active systematic Lepidopterists advocate the fixing of certain genotypes for the four genera mentioned in the note and I am sure also that the large proportion of continental entomologists are in favour of such procedure. The following is an extract from the note referred to above :— ON THE STABILIZING OF FOUR GENERIC NAMES» (Lepid. Rhopalocera) To students of the involved generic nomenclature of the Palaearctic and Nearctic Diurnal Lepidoptera, the recent publication of the ‘‘ Generic Names of British Rhopalocera ’’ will prove of great interest. This pam- phlet has been prepared by Mr. Francis Hemming at the request of the Royal Entomological Society of London, and includes full details regarding type fixation and synonymy. Appended to the list is the first report of the Lepidoptera Sub-Committee to the main committee, and following Mr. Hemming’s suggestions, the suspension of the Law of Priority in four cases is advocated by this sub-committee, the ground being that strict applica- tion. of the rules would cause serious, and quite unnecessary, disturbance in existing practice. The genera involved, with their Sa a genotypes, are as follows :— ; Stvymon Hbn. (S. melinus Hbn.); . " “Welcoming any action that would assist in stabilizing generic nomen- clature, the undersigned lepidopterists express their fullagreement with the recommendations of the above sub-committee and would urge the adoption of this report. J. McDunnough, Entom. Br., Dept. of Agriculture, Ottawa, Canada. May 15, 1934. Jessie D. Gunder, 310 Linda Vista Ave., Pasadena, Calif. Apr. 13, 1934. John A. Comstock, Los Angeles Museum, Exposition Park, Los Angeles, Calif.) Apr 20, 1934: Wm. T. M. Forbes, Dept. of Entomology, Cornell U., Ithaca, N.Y. April 17, 1934. Roswell C. Williams, Jr., Acad. Nat. Sciences, r9th & Race Sts., Phila- Gekpiia, a. Apr 17, 1934. E. Irving Huntington, 115 East 90th St., New York, N.Y. April 21, 1934. Cyril F. dos Passos, Washington Corners, Mendham, N.J. Apr. 23, 1934. Frank E. Watson, Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist. N.Y. City. Apr. 23, 1934. Gy” Curran, Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist. N.Y. City... Apr. 23, 1934. Ernest Bell, 150-17 Roosevelt Ave., Flushing, N.Y. Apr. 24, 1934. Alyach B. Klots, College of the City of New York, Dept. of Biology. Apr. 24, 1934. 6. As a first step the International Commission decided to invite the International Committee on Entomological Nomenclature to report on the present application. This case was accordingly considered by the International Committee at their meeting held at Madrid in the second week of September 1935 during the Sixth 364 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL International Congress of Entomology. During the preliminary discussion of this case, it was apparent that the International Committee were in sympathy with the objects sought by the petitioners in this case. At the same time attention was drawn to the statement in the petition that the genus Stvymon Hiibner, 1818, was overdue for revision. That genus as at that time understood would certainly be divided into a number of genera and there was therefore no longer any ground for fearing that on a strict application of the rules it would be necessary to substitute the name Bithys Hiibner, 1818, for Stvymon Hiibner as the generic name for the very large assemblage of species at present assigned to the last-named genus. In these circumstances, was there any need to ask the International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature to render an Ofinion in the terms proposed in the petition ? Commissioner Francis Hemming, who was present at this dis- cussion as a member of the International Committee, indicated that for the reasons that had been advanced he no longer desired to press his original proposal, and at the request of the Committee he undertook to prepare.a supplementary note setting out the grounds on which he had reached this conclusion. 7. The following is the text of the supplementary note on this case prepared by Commissioner Hemming during the Madrid meeting for the consideration of the International Committee on Entomological Nomenclature :— THE CASE OF THE NAMES BITHYS HUBNER, 1818, AND STRYMON HUBNER, 1818 (Lepidoptera LYCAENIDAE) Supplementary statement prepared by Commissioner Francis Hemming for submission to the International Committee on Entomological Nomen- clature at they meeting held at Madrid in September 1935 (1) In accordance with the request of the International Committee on Entomological Nomenclature I submit herewith for their considera- tion the following note on the names Bbithys Hiibner, 1818, and Stvymon Hiibner, 1818 (Order Lepidoptera, Family LYCAENIDAE). This note is in continuation of the petition submitted in 1934 and the proposals now submitted are in substitution for those submitted on that occasion. (2) The relevant considerations in this case are the following :— (a) The names Bithys Hiibner, 1818 (type: Buthys leucophaeus Hiibner, 1818) and Stvymon Hibner, 1818 (type: Sitvymon melinus Hibner, 1818) were published by Hibner in 1818 in the same work (vol. 1 of the Zutr. z. Sammi. exot. Schmett.). (b) The name Bithys Hibner was published on page 18 and the name Sivymon on page 22. (c) On the principle of page precedence the name Bithys Hiibner therefore has priority over the name Stvymon Hiibner. COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 165. 365 (3) (4) (5) (6) (8) (9) (d) The types of these two genera are today commonly regarded as being congeneric both with one another and with the Palaearctic species of this group represented in the British fauna (i.e. Papilio pruni Linnaeus, 1758, and Papilio w-album Knoch, 1782). For the reasons explained in the petition submitted in 1934, there would be very strong objections to the substitution of the name Bithys Hiibner for Stvyymon Hibner as the generic name for the very large number of species at present assigned to the genus Stvymon Hiibner. If no other way of avoiding such a substitution were available, it would certainly be highly desirable that the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature should make use of their plenary powers to secure that end. The genus Stvymon Hiibner, as at present understood, contains many highly diverse species an iti is overdue for generic revision. There is no doubt that as the result of any such revision it would be necessary to separate generically the large group of Neotropical species from those found in the Nearctic and Palaearctic Regions and it is likely that it would be necessary in turn to separate the Palae- arctic species from the Nearctic species or at least from most of them. It follows therefore that, when the genus Sivymon Hibner is revised, it will be found :— (i) that in view of the fact that its type (Bithys leucophaeus Hiibner) is confined to the Neotropical Region, the name Bithys Hiibner (as the oldest nomenclatorially available name) will become the name of a Neotropical genus of LYCAENIDAE and as such will cease to be of direct concern to students of the species of this family occurring in the Nearctic and Palaearctic Regions ; (ii) that in view of the fact that its type is Stvymon melinus Hiibner, the name Stvymon Hubner will become the oldest nomenclatorially available name for some at least of the Nearctic species involved ; and it is likely that it will be found :— (iii) that the Palaearctic species are not congeneric with Stvymon melinus Hibner and therefore that the name Stvymon Hiibner will cease to be of direct concern to students of the Palaearctic species of this group. In these circumstances the meaning to be attached to the name Bithys Hibner has no longer any bearing on the nomenclature of the Palaearctic species at present assigned to the genus Stvymon Hibner. From this point of view, therefore, the grounds on which the petition submitted to the International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature in 1934 was based have lost their force. Accordingly, I no longer consider that from the foregoing point of view it is necessary that the International Commission should render an Opinion in order to ensure that the name Bithys Hubner is not substituted for the name Stvymon Hiibner. There remains the question whether in view of past usage the employment of the name Bithys Hiibner as the generic name for a group of Neotropical LyCAENIDAE would be likely to result in greater confusion than uniformity. Personally, I should expect this to be the result of sucha transfer. I agree however that this question can conveniently be deferred for consideration until it is possible to judge the size and importance of the genus Bithys Hiibner when that name is applied in the sense required by the rules. I hope, however, that, if the International Commission decide to take no action on the petition of 1934, they will at the same time make it clear that the 366 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL door is left open for the submission of a revised petition in regard to the name bithys Hibner when the position of that genus is more clearly understood. (10) I have discussed this problem with Mr. Riley 4 and other lepido- pterists now present in Madrid and with Professor James Chester Bradley who 1s in possession of the views on this subject of representa- tive lepidopterists in the United States. All whom I have consulted are in agreement with the conclusions set out above. 8. On further consideration of this case, the International Committee on Entomological Nomenclature agreed to recommend the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to render an Ofimion declaring that the need for the suspension of the rules for Stvymon Hubner had not been established, but that it was desirable that the way should be left open for further con- sideration of the case of Bithys Hiibner at a later date when fuller particulars were available. This and other recommendations adopted by the International Committee on Entomological Nomenclature at their Madrid meeting were confirmed by the Sixth International Congress of Entomology at the Concilium Plenum held on 12th September 1935. III.—THE CONCLUSION REACHED BY THE INTERNA- TIONAL COMMISSION. g. This case was considered by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature at their meeting held on the morning of Monday, 16th September 1935. In view of the recommendation submitted by the International Committee on Entomological Nomenclature, the International Commission agreed (Lisbon Session, 2nd Meeting, Conclusion 22) > :— (j) that the need for the suspension of the rules for Stvymon Hubner, 1818, Zutr. z. Sammi. exot. Schmett. 1 : 22, had not been established ; (l) to render Opinions in the sense of (a) to (k) above. 10. No reference was made in the foregoing Conclusion to the name Bithys Hiibner, 1818, since, in the view of the Commission, the question of that name as such was not then before them. 4 For a supplementary note on the issues raised by this case, prepared jointly by Commissioner Francis Hemming and Mr. N. D. Riley, see the peed to the present Opinion (pp. 370-373 below). 5 Only those portions of Conclusion 22 which refer to the present case are here quoted. For the full text of Conclusion 22, see 1943, Bull. Zool. Nomencl. 1 : 20-23. COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 165. 367 iz. At the meeting of the Commission held on Tuesday, 17th September 1935 (Lisbon Session, 4th Meeting, Conclusion 17), Commissioner Francis Hemming, who, in the absence through ill-health of Dr. C. W. Stiles, Secretary to the Commission, had been charged with the duty of preparing the report to be sub- mitted by the Commission to the Twelfth International Congress of Zoology, reported that, in accordance with the request made by the Commission on the previous day (Lisbon Session, 3rd Meeting, Conclusion 3(b)), he had made a start with the drafting of the Commission’s report; that he had made considerable progress in spite of being hampered by the lack of standard works of reference; and that he did not doubt that he would be in a position to lay a draft report before the Commission at their next meeting, though in the time available it would be quite impractic- able to prepare the drafts of paragraphs relating to all the matters on which decisions had been reached during the Lisbon Session of the Commission. As agreed upon at the meeting referred to above (Lisbon Session, 3rd Meeting, Conclusion 3(a)(it1)), he was therefore concentrating upon those matters that appeared to be the more important. Commissioner Hemming proposed that those matters which it was found impossible to include in the report, owing to the shortness of the time available, should be dealt with after the Congress on the basis of the records in the Oficial Record of the Proceedings of the Commission during their Lisbon Session. For this purpose, Commissioner Hemming _ proposed that all matters unanimously agreed upon during the Lisbon Session should be treated in the same manner, whether or not it was found possible to include references to them in the report to be submitted to the Congress, and therefore that every such decision should be treated as having been participated in by all the Commissioners and Alternates present at Lisbon. The Commission took note of, and approved, the statement by _ Commissioner Hemming, and adopted the proposals submitted by him, as recorded above, in regard both to the selection of items to be included in their report to the Twelfth International Congress of Zoology and to the procedure to be adopted after the Congress in regard to those matters with which, for the reasons explained, it was found impossible to deal in the report. 12. The question dealt with in the present Opinion was one of the matters to which it was found impossible, in the time avail- able, to include a reference in the report submitted by the Com- mission to the Twelfth International Congress of Zoology at Lisbon. 368 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL It is therefore one of the matters which falls to be dealt with under the procedure agreed upon by the International Commission as set out in paragraph 11 above. 13. [The present Opinion was concurred in by the twelve (12) Commissioners and Alternates present at the Lisbon Session of the International Commission, namely :— Commissioners :—Calman; Hemming; Jordan; Pellegrin; Peters; and Stejneger. Alternates :—do Amaral vice Cabrera; Ohshima wice Esaki; Bradley vice Stone; Beier wee Mandlirsch india cere Richter ; and Mortensen vice Apstein. 14. The present Opinion was dissented from by no Commissioner or Alternate present at the Lisbon Session. 15. The following five (5) Commissioners who were not present at Lisbon nor represented thereat by Alternates did not vote on the present Opinion :— Bolivar y Pieltain; Chapman; Fantham; Silvestri; and Stiles. 16. At the time when the vote was taken on the present Opinion, there was one (1) vacancy in the Commission consequent upon the death of Commissioner Horvath. IV.—AUTHORITY FOR THE ISSUE OF THE PRESENT OPINION. WHEREAS the By-Laws of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature provide that, except in cases involving the suspension of the rules, an Opinion is to be deemed to have been adopted by the said International Commission as soon as a majority of the Members of the Commission, that is to say ten (10) Members of the said Commission, have recorded their votes in favour thereof, provided that, where any proposed Opinion involves a reversal of any former Opinion rendered by the Com- mission, such proposed Opinion shall obtain the concurrence of at least fourteen (14) Members of the Commission voting on the same before such Opinion is to be deemed to have been adopted by the Commission; and’ WHEREAS the present Ofinion as set out in the summary thereof neither requires, in order to be valid, the suspension of the rules, nor involves a reversal of any former Opimion rendered by the Commission, and COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 165. 369 WHEREAS twelve (12) Members of the Commission have signi- fied their concurrence in the present Opinion either in person or through Alternates at the Session of the Commission held at Lisbon in September 1935, Now, THEREFORE, I, FRANCIS HEMMING, Secretary to the International Com- mission on Zoological Nomenclature, acting in virtue of all and every the powers conferred upon me in that behalf by reason of holding the said Office of Secretary to the International Com- mission, hereby announce the said Opinion on behalf of the International Commission, acting for the International Congress of Zoology, and direct that it be rendered and printed as Opinion Number One Hundred and Sixty Five (Opinion 165) of the said Commission. In faith whereof I, the undersigned FRANCIS HEMMING, Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature, have signed the present Opinion. Downe in London, this twentieth day of June, Nineteen Hundred and Forty Three, in a single copy, which shall remain deposited in the archives of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. : Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. FRANCIS HEMMING 370 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL APPENDIX TO OPINION 165 The status of generic names first published by Jacob Hubner in his Zutrage zur Sammlung exotischer Schmettlinge [sic], with special reference to the names Strymon Hubner, Bithys Hubner and Chrysophanus Hubner (Order Lepidoptera, Family LYCAENIDAE), By Francis HemmMine, C.M.G., C.B.E. (Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) and INS SDA Rae Ey (Keeper of the Depariment of Entomology, British Museum (Natural History).) In 1934, we drew up, jointly with our colleague Mr. W. H. T. Tams, a recommendation on behalf of the Lepidoptera Sub-Committee of the Committee on Generic Nomenclature of the Royal Entomological Society of London that the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature should be asked to use their plenary powers to secure that the name Bithys Hubner should not be substituted by reason of page priority for the name Sivymon Hiibner as the name for the very large assemblage of species of the family LYCAENIDAE (Order Lepidoptera) usually placed in that genus. We made this recommendation because the name biihys Hubner, when pre- viously used, had almost invariably been used for the allied but entirely distinct group of species belonging to the same tribe (THECLINI), represented by Papilio betulae Linnaeus, 1758, the type of Thecla Fabricius, 1807. The transfer of a generic name from one well-established group of species to another equally well-established group within a single tribe of a family would undoubtedly give rise to greater confusion than uniformity and for this reason would be open to strong objection. In this connection, it will be recalled that the avoidance of confusing transfers of this kind was expressly stated by the Ninth International Congress of Zoology to be one of the purposes for which at their meeting held at Monaco in 1913 they decided to confer upon the International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature plenary power to suspend the rules as applied to any given case, where, in the judgment of the Commission, the strict application of the rules as applied to that case would clearly result in greater confusion than uniformity (see Declaration 5, published in 1943, Opinions and Declarations vendered by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 1 : 31- 40). Accordingly, we considered that the case of the names Sivymon Hubner and Bithys Hubner was one for which the use by the International Commission of their plenary powers would be peculiarly appropriate. The recent re-publication by the International Commission of Opinion I (1944, Opinions and Declarations rendered by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 1 : 73-86) has drawn renewed attention to the definition given in that Opinion of the expression “‘ indication ’”’ as used in proviso (a) to Article 25 of the Régles Internationales. From this Opinion it is clear that a generic name can only be accepted as having been published with an “‘ indication,”’ if at the time of its publication it was accompanied (1) with a bibliographic reference to a previously published description or definition or (2) with a definite citation of an earlier name for which a new name is proposed (applicable to nomina nova only) or (3) with a “ definite citation or designation of a type species.’’ The same Opinion makes it COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 165. 371 clear also that the last-quoted phrase covers the case where a generic name is published without description or definition but with only one included species cited by name, that species being, therefore, the type by monotypy (see rule (c) in Article 30 as interpreted by Opinion 47). The generic names Stvymon and Bithys were first published by Hiibner in 1818 in volume 1 of his Zutrage zur Sammlung exotischer Schmettlinge [sic]. That work consists essentially of a series of plates illustrating new or little-known species and the text, which is very short, is confined to a brief description of the species figured. In most cases, the species in question are assigned in the text to new genera, the plates themselves bearing no legends apart from the number allotted to each figure for the purpose of linking it with the text. No description or definition of any kind is given for the new genera published in this work. The description given is entirely confined to the species illustrated. If, as was formerly thought to be the case, these genera had been monotypical, the generic names in question would have been available nomenclatorially, since they would have been published with an “ indication ’’ within the meaning of that expression as defined in Opinion 1. Unfortunately, a close study of the Zutvage has shown that, in addition to describing the species figured, Hiibner in each case cited for comparative purposes the name of a second species, thereby making each of these genera a genus containing two originally included species instead of a monotypical genus as previously supposed. The result is that the generic names first published in Hiibner’s Zutvage zur Sammlung exotischer Schmetilinge [sic] do not satisfy the requirements of proviso (a) to Article 25 of the frégles Internationales, since those names were published not only without a description or a definition but also without an “‘indication.’’ Contrary, therefore, to what we believed when we prepared our application to the International Com- mission in regard to the names Stvymon Hiibner and Bithys Hiibner, those names were not published in volume 1 of Hibner’s Zuivage in conditions which satisfy the Régles Internationales. They are, therefore, not available as from their publication in that work. The next occasion on which the names Sitvymon and Bithys were pub- lished was by Hubner in 1819 ® in his Verzeichniss bekannter Schmettlinge [sic]. In that work Hubner gave a definition for each of, the genera there adopted. The names Stvymon and Bithys are, therefore, available as from the date of their publication in the Verzeichniss. The only species available for selection by subsequent authors as the types of these genera are the species included in those genera in the Verzeichniss. In the case both of Stvymon Hibner and Bithys Hibner (and also of Chrysophanus Hubner, which, though not referred to in our original application to the Commission, is nevertheless bound up with the case of Stvymon Hiibner), the species included in those genera by Hiibner in the Verzezchniss and first selected as the types of those genera by authors acting under rule (g) in Article _ 30 are not the species which would have been the types if the earlier publica- tion in the Zutrvdge of the generic names in question had complied with the Régles Internationales and had therefore conferred availability upon those names as from that work. Inthecase of each of these genera it is, therefore, necessary to accept as the type a species other than that which was so accepted at the time when in 1934 we submitted this case to the Inter- national Commission. We have, accordingly, re-examined the position as regards each of the generic names in question, in order to determine whether the change in the 6 The dates adopted in the present paper for the publication of the various signatures in which Htibner’s Verzeichniss bekannter Schmettlinge [sic] are those worked out by Hemming in the light of the surviving Hiibner manuscripts (see paragraph 8 of Opinion 150, pub- lished in 1943, Opinions and Declarations rendered by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 2; 165-166). 372 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL type species of these genera introduces any new factors into this case and, in particular, to ascertain whether in the new situation so created there is still a risk that, when the genus Sivymon Hiibner is next revised, the name Bithys Hiibner may need to be applied to a species of the Strymonid group, with the consequent likelihood of confusion, unless action is taken by the International Commission under their plenary powers to prevent this from happening. The result of our re-examination of the position as regards these names is given below :— Chrysophanus Hubner, [1819] Hiibner, [1819], Verz. bekannt. Schmett. (5) : 72 [Hiibner, 1818, Zutr. z. Samml. exot. Schmetit. 1: 24 no. 68 pl. [24] figs. 135, 136 (invalid because published without an “‘ indication ’’)] Scudder, 1872, 4th Ann. Rep. Peabody Acad. Sci. 1871 : 56 Riley, 1922, J. Bombay nat. Hist. Soc. 28 : 467 TYPE: Papilio hyllus Cramer, [1775], Uitl. Kapellen 1 (4) : 67 pl. 43, figs. B, C. The first author to select as the type of this genus one of the species included in it in the Verzeichniss was Scudder (1872), who selected Papilio hyllus Cramer, [1775]. Thatspecies is, therefore, the type and not Rusticus mopsus Hubner, [1809-1813], Erste Zutr.: 6 (ref. figs. 135, 136 on pl. [24] in volume 1 of the Zur. z. Samml. exot. Schmett.), which would have been the type of this genus if the name Chrysophanus Hubner had first been validly published in volume 1 of the Zutr. z. Sammi. exot. Schmett. (Riley, 1922). So long as it was thought that Rusticus mopsus Hubner was the type of this genus, there was a prospect of great confusion arising if, upon the next revision of the genus Sivymon Hiibner (of which Rusticus melinus Hubner, [1809-1813], was then thought to be the type), the species Rusticus mopsus Hiibner had been separated generically from Rusticus melinus Hubner, for this would have meant that the name Chrysophanus Hiibner would have been transferred from the group of ‘‘ Coppers ’’ belonging to the group represented by Lycaena Fabricius, 1807 (type: Papilio phlaeas Linnaeus, 1761) to the Strymonid group of ‘‘ Hairstreaks.’’ This risk entirely disappears now that it is seen that the type of Chrysophanus Hiibner is Papilio hyllus Cramer, for that species, if not actually con- generic with Papilio phlaeas Linnaeus, is closely allied thereto. The correct use of the name Chrysophanus Hubner is, therefore, also the accustomed use. Strymon Hiibner, [1819] Hibner, [1819], Verz. bekannt. Schmeit. (5) : 74 [Huibner, 1818, Zutr. 2. Samml. exot. Schmett. 1: 22 no. 61 pl. [21] figs. 121, 122 (invalid because published without an “‘ indication ’’)] Scudder, 1872, 4th Ann. Rep. Peabody Acad. Sci. 1871 : 53 Riley, 1922, J. Bombay nat. Hist. Soc. 28 : 472 TYPE: Rusticus mopsus Hibner, [1809-1813], Erste Zutr. : 6 (reference to figs. 121, 122 on pl. [24] in volume 1 of the Zutr. z. Samml. exot. Schmeitt.) The first author to select as the type of this genus one of the species included in it in the Verzeichniss was Scudder (1872), who selected Rusticus mopsus Hiibner, [1809-1813]. That species is, therefore, the type and not Rusticus melinus Hiibner, [1809-1813], which would have been the type of this genus if the name Stvymon Hubner had first been validly published in volume 1 of the Zutr. 2. Samml. exot. Schmett. The substitution of Rusticus mopsus Hiibner for Rusticus melinus Hubner as the type of Stvymon Hiibner has, in existing circumstances, no practical effect whatever, since these two species are commonly regarded as being congeneric. Further, there is no prospect of confusion arising even if, on the next revision of the genus Sivymon Hiibner, it is found advisable to place these two species in different genera, since Rusticus melinus Hiibner will certainly remain in the Strymonid group of genera. As will be seen from the immediately following note, the generic name Bithys Hiibner was published in the Verzeichniss on a later page than Strymon Hiibner. Accordingly, there is no longer any risk of confusion arising through the substitution on grounds of page priority of the name Bithys Hibner for the name Sivymon Hubner. Bithys Hubner, [1819] Hiibner, [1819], Verz. bekannt. Schmett. (5) : 75 [Hiibner, 1818, Zutr. z. Samml. exot. Schmett. 1: 18 no. 44 pl. [16] figs. 87, 88 (invalid because published without an “‘ indication ’’)] Scudder, 1875, Proc. Amer. Acad. Arts Sct., Boston 10 : 127 Riley, 1922, J. Bombay nat. Hist. Soc. 28 : 466 TYPE: Papilio strephon Fabricius, 1775, Syst. ent. : 522 COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 165. SHS The first author to select as the type of this genus one of the species included in it in the Verzeichniss was Scudder (1875), who selected Papilio strephon Fabricius, 1775. That species is, therefore, the type and not Rusticus leucophaeus Hubner, [1809— 1813], Erste Zutr. : 5 (ref, figs. 87, 88 on pl. [16]in volume I of the Zutr. z. Samml. exot. Schmett. Ms which. would have been the type of this genus if the name Bithys Htibner had first been validly published in volume 1 of the Zutr. 2. Samml. exot. Schmett. (Riley, 1922). The substitution of Papilio strephon Fabricius for Rusticus leucophaeus Hiibner as the type of Bithys Hiibner has no immediate effect, since at present both species are commonly referred to the genus Sitvymon Hubner, of which, therefore, Bithys Hubner is now sunk asasynonym. Whennext the genus Stvymon Hiibner comes to be revised, it may certainly be expected that Papilio strephon Fabricius will be separated generically from Rusticus mopsus Hibner (the type of Strymon Hiibner) and that, in consequence, the name Bithys Hubner will need to be brought into use for Papilio strephon Fabricius and its allies. For the reasons explained at the beginning of the present paper, the application to a Strymonid genus of the name Bithys Hubner would certainly result in greater confusion than uni- formity, in view of the fact that, whenever used in the past, this name has been applied to an entirely different group in the tribe THECLINI. The foregoing analysis shows that, although there is now no risk of confusion arising through the substitution of the name Bithys Hiibner for the name Stvymon Hubner, there remains a serious risk of confusion arising, on the next revision of the genus Strymon Hubner, as the result of the application of the name bithys Hibner to a genus of the Strymonid group of the tribe THECLINI, for this name has invariably been associated in the literature with the group of genera represented by Thecla Fabricius. It is very satisfactory, therefore, that, when at Madrid in September 1935 the International Committee on Entomological Nomenclature decided to advise the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to defer taking action under their plenary powers in regard to the application which we had submitted in the present case, they expressly intimated that this action should not, in their view, be held to prejudice the consideration by the International Commission at a later date of a renewed application for the suspension of the rules as respects the name Bithys Hiibner.”? As this recommendation was accepted by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature,* the way is open for the submission of a revised application as respects Bithys Hubner, whenever the revision of the genus Stvymon Hibner renders that course desirable. British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, LONDON, S.W.7. 5th March 1945. ? See paragraph 8 of Opinion 165 (p. 366 above) 8 See paragraph 10 of Opinion 165 (p. 366 above). - 374 INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. THE PUBLICATIONS OF THE COMMISSION. (obtainable at the Publications Office of the Commissign at 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7.) Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. This journal has been established by the International Commission as their Official Organ in order to provide a medium for the publication of :— (a) proposals on zoological nomenclature submitted to the International Commission for deliberation and decision ; (b) comments received from, and correspondence by the Secretary with, zoologists on proposals published in the Bulletin under (a) above; and d (c) papers on nomenclatorial implications of developments in taxonomic theory and practice. ‘The Bulletin was established in 1943, in which year three Parts were published. Part 4 was published in 1944. Parts 5 and 6 are in the press. Opinions and Declarations Rendered by the International Com- mission on Zoological Nomenclature. The above work is being published in three volumes concurrently, namely :— Volume 1. This volume will contain Declavations 1-9 (which have never previously been published) and Opinions 1-133 (the original issue of which is now out of print). Parts 1-20 (containing Declarations 1-9 and Opinions I-11) have now been published. Further Parts will be published shortly. Volume 2. This volume will be issued in 52 Parts, comprising all the~-- decisions taken by the International Commission at their meeting at Lisbon in 1935, namely Declarations 10-12 (with Roman pagination) and. Opinions 134-181 (with Arabic pagination). Part 52 will contain the index and title page of the volume. Parts 1-35, containing Declarations Io-12 and Opinions 134-165, have now been published. Further Parts will be published shortly. Volume 3. This volume, which commenced with Opinion 182, will contain the Opinions adopted by the International Commission since their meeting at Lisbon in 1935. Parts 1-5 (containing Opinions 182-186) have now been published. Further Parts will be published as soon as possible. APPEAL FOR FUNDS The International Commission appeal earnestly to all institutions and individuals interested in the development of zoological nomen- clature to contribute, according to their means, to the Commission’s Special (Publications) Fund. Of the total sum of £1,800 required to enable the Commission to issue all the publications now awaiting printing, donations amounting to £819 8s. 7d. were received up to 31st December 1944. Additional contributions are urgently needed in order to enable the Commission to continue their work without interruption. Contributions of any amount, however small, will be most gratefully received. Contributions should be sent to the International Commission at their Publications Office, 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W. 7, and made payable to the “ International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature or Order ’’ and crossed “ Account payee. Coutts & Co.”’. er PRINTED IN GREAT BRITAIN BY RICHARD CLAY AND COMPANY, LTD., BUNGAY, SUFFOLK. 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 2. Part 36. Pp. 375-398. OPINION 166 On the status of the names Pompilus Fabricius, 1798, and Psammochares Latreille, 1796 (Class Insecta, Order Hymenoptera) and of the alleged generic name Pompilus Schneider, 1784 (Class Cephalopoda, Order Nautiloidea) LONDON : Printed by Order of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature Sold at the Publications Office of the Commission 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7 1945 Price six shillings (All rights reserved) Issued 21st August, 1945 INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE COMPOSITION OF THE COMMISSION The Officers of the Commission President: Dr. Karl Jordan, Ph.D., F.R.S. (United Kingdom). Vice-President : Dr. James L. Peters (U.S.A.). Secretary : Mr. Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. (United Kingdom). The Members of the Commission Class 1946 Herr Professor Dr. Walter ARNDT (Germany). Dr. William Thomas CALMAN (United Kingdom). Professor Teiso ESAKI (Japan). Professor Béla von HANKO (Hungary). Dr. Tadeusz JACZEWSKI (Poland). Dr Normmaniikey slOwe (Wis 7s"): Class 1949 Senor Dr. Angel CABRERA (Argentina). Mr. Francis HEMMING (United Kingdom) (Secretary to the Commission). Dr. Karl JORDAN (United Kingdom) (President of the Commission). Dr. Joseph PEARSON (Australia). , Monsieur le Docteur Jacques PELLEGRIN (France). Herr Professor Dr. Rudolf RICHTER (Germany). Class 1952 Senhor Dr. Afranio do AMARAL (Brazil). Professor James Chester BRADLEY (U.S.A.). Professor Ludovico di CAPORIACCO (Italy). Professor J. R. DYMOND (Canada). : Dr. James L. PETERS (U.S.A.) (Vice-President of the Commission). Dr: Harold E VOKES (U.SiA\): - Secretariat of the Commission : British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London, S.W. 7. Publications Office of the Commission : AI, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W. 7. Personal address of the Secretary : 83, Fellows Road (Garden Flat), London, N.W. 3. ; mom ACYL AY YOR IOAK Ss v) eo ee OPINION 166. ON THE STATUS OF THE NAMES POMPILUS FABRICIUS, 1798, AND PSAMMOCHARES LATREILLE, 1796 (CLASS IN- SECTA, ORDER HYMENOPTERA) AND OF THE ALLEGED GENERIC NAME POMPILUS SCHNEIDER, 1784 (CLASS CEPHALOPODA, ORDER NAUTILOIDEA). | SUMMARY.—Under suspension of the rules (i) the name Psammochares Latreille, 1796 (Class Insecta, Order Hymenoptera) is hereby suppressed : (ii) the name Pompilus is hereby suppressed as a generic name in so far as it may have been so used prior to the publication of the name Pompilus Fabricius, 1798 ; (iii) the name Pompilus Fabricius, 1798, is hereby validated ; (iv) all type designations for Pompilus Fabricius, 1798, made prior to the date of the present Opinion, are hereby set aside ; and (v) Pompilus pulcher Fabricius, 1798, is hereby designated as the type of Pom- pilus Fabricius, 1798. There is no such generic name as Pompilus Schneider, 1784 (Class Cephalopoda, Order Nautiloidea), the name ** Pompilus ”’ having been published by Schneider as the specific trivial name of a species assigned by him to the genus Octopodia Schneider, 1784. The name Pompilus Fabricius, 1798, validated as above and with Pompilus pulcher Fabricius, 1798, as type, is hereby added to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology as ' Name No. 612. “L—THE STATEMENT OF THE CASE. As the result of consultations initiated by Professor James Chester Bradley with the leading systematic workers in the Order Hymenoptera (Class Insecta) in all countries, the following petition signed by Professor Chester Bradley and 59 other hymenopterists was submitted to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature :— THE CASE OF POMPILUS VERSUS PSAMMOCHARES Psammochares Latr., 1796, was proposed without included species. In 1802 1 (Hist. Nat. vol. III), Latreille adopted the Fabrician name Pompilus for his Psammochares for reasons of euphony. 1 The full reference is Latreille, [1802-1803] (2m Sonnini’s Buffon), Hist. nat. gén. partic. Crust. Ins. 3: 334. For the authority for the date here assigned to this volume, see Griffin, 1938, J. Soc. Bibl. nat. Hist. e157. 378 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL Although subsequently cited by Latreille as a synonym of Pompilus, and once by Westwood (1840) Psammochares after Latreille’s adoption of Pompilus to replace it escaped the attention of catalogers. It does not appear in Dalla Torre’s Catalogus Hymenopterorum. It did not again come into use until Banks (Journ. N.Y. ent. Soc., 1910, 18 : 114) pointed out the facts above stated, and showed that under the rules Psammochares and PSAMMOCHARIDAE must replace Pompilus and POMPILIDAE. Supporting the adoption of Psammochares in lieu of Pompilus was the supposed fact pointed out by Fox (1901) that Pompilus was preoccupied in Cephalopoda. But it now appears that Pompilus is not preoccupied. Dr. H. A. Pilsbry kindly informs us that Schneider’s pompilus was a specific, not a generic name.? The undersigned respectfully request the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to take the following action :— (1) to suspend the rules in the cases of the genera Psammochares Latr. and Pompilus Fabr.; (2) to permanently reject Psammochares Latreille (originally proposed without included species) ; (3) to validate Pompilus Fabr., 1798, type Sphex viaticus L. (by designa- tion of Latreille, 1810) ; (4) to place on the Official List of Generic Names, Pompilus Fabr., type Sphex viaticus L., for the genus of fossorial wasps ordinarily known by that name. 4 2. The following is the list of signatures attached to the above petition at the time of its submission to the International Com- mission :— C. T. Brues R. Benoist * H. Haupt Jos. Bequaert J. D. Alfken * H. Brauns { G. Grandi A. Krausse L. Berland A. B. Gahan * H. Wolff A. A. Oglobin T. H. Frison * J. G. Betrem O. W. Richards A. R. Park * R. Fouts P. P. Babiy H. H. Ross * G. Arnold VS. LsBate J. M. Dusmet A. Handlirsch - J. C. Bradley W. M. Wheeler * I. Micha G. Enderlein Gi Ty yle H. Hacker T. Uchida 7 R. A. Cushman * ALC, Kansey, * O. Vogt + E. A. Elliott H. de W. Marriott H. Habermehl + A. Crevecoeur F, Maidl R. Kruger f W. M. Mann P. Roth W. Hellen + R. Friese E. Enslin F, X. Williams + H. von Ihering { A. C. W. Wagner H. Hedicke H. Bischoff L. Masi A. von Schulthess R. B. Benson * H. F. Schwarz W. V. Balduf * D. S. Wilkinson * O. Schmiedeknecht 7 N. N. Kuznezov- Ugamtsky + * In accord with results sought by the petition without having studied the points involved in the particular case. + Evidently intended to subscribe to this petition, but sheet bearing his signature was not included in his reply. i Deceased: 2 See paragraph 14 below. COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 160. 379 ere SUB SRhOURND HISTORY OF THE CASE: 3. This case was circulated to the members of the International Commission in January 1935, when it was arranged that it and the other Hymenoptera cases submitted at the same time should be dealt with at the meeting of the Commission due to be held at Lisbon in September of that year, by which time the recom- mendations of the International Committee on Entomological Nomenclature would be available. 4. This case was considered by the International Committee on Entomological Nomenclature at their meeting held at Madrid in the second week of September 1935, during the Sixth International Congress of Entomology. After careful consideration, the Inter- national Committee formed the conclusion that it was desirable that the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature should use their plenary powers in order to preserve the long- established name Pompilus Fabricius, 1798, with the family name POMPILIDAE, since, having regard to the literature as a whole, confusion rather than uniformity would result from the super- session of these names by the names Psammochares Latreille, 17096, and PSAMMOCHARIDAE. The International Committee agreed, therefore, to recommend that the name Psammochares Latreille and also Pompilus Schneider, 1784 (Class Cephalopoda, Order Nautiloidea), if that name had in fact been published as a generic name, should be suppressed. As regards the genus Pompilis Fabricius, the International Committee were of the opinion that the most satisfactory course would be for the International Com- mission to designate Pompilus pulcher Fabricius, 1708, as its type. 5. The above and other recommendations adopted by the International Committee at their meeting held at Madrid were confirmed by the Sixth International Congress of Entomology at the Concilium Plenum held at Madrid on 12th September 1935. Mi—THE CONCLUSION REACHED BY THE INTER- NATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMEN- CREATURE. 6. When the International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature met at Lisbon immediately after the close of the Sixth International Congress of Entomology in September 1935, they found themselves confronted with a large number of cases involv- 3 See paragraph 14 below. * 380 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL ing proposals for the suspension of the rules, in respect of some of which advertisements had not been published or, if published, had not been published for the prescribed period, owing to the illness of Dr. C. W. Stiles, Secretary to the Commission, or for other causes. In these circumstances, the Commission decided at their meeting held on the morning of Monday, 16th September 1935 (Lisbon Session, 2nd Meeting, Conclusion 9) that immediate consideration should be given to all cases submitted to the Com- _ mission that, in their judgment, had reached the stage at which a decision could properly be taken; that the By-Laws of the Commission should be suspended during the Lisbon Session to such extent as might be necessary to give effect to this decision ; and that, in so far as this procedure involved taking decisions “under suspension of the rules’”’ in cases where the prescribed advertisement procedure had not been complied with, the cases in question should be duly advertised as soon as might be practic- able after the conclusion of the Lisbon Congress and that no Opinion should be rendered and published thereon until after the expiry of a period of one year from the date on which the said advertisement was despatched to the prescribed journals for publication. The case of Pompilus Fabricius, 1798, Psammochares Latreille, 1796, and Pompilus Schneider, 1784, was one of the cases in question and was accordingly dealt with by the Com- mission under the above procedure. 7. This case was considered by the International Commission at their meeting held on the afternoon of Monday, 16th September 1935 (Lisbon Session, 3rd Meeting, Conclusion 2), when the Commission agreed 4 :— (b) under “‘ suspension of the rules ’’ permanently to reject the following generic names :— (11) Psammochares Latreille, 1796, Précis Caract. Ins. : 115 (18) Pompilus Schneider, 1784, Sammi. verm. Abh. : 128 (if intended as a generic name °) (c) under “‘ suspension of the rules ”’ to set aside all type designations for the undermentioned genera and to declare their types to be the species indicated below :— 4 Only those portions of conclusion 2 which refer to the present case are here quoted. For the full text of Conclusion 2, see 1943, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 1 : 27-30. ° See paragraph 14 below. COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 166. 381 Name of genus Type of genus (27) Pompilus Fabricius, Pompilus pulcher Fabricius, 1798, 1798, Suppl. Ent. syst.: Suppl. Ent. syst. : 249 212 (d) under ‘‘ suspension of the rules ”’ to place on the Oficial List of Generic Names the sixteen generic names enumerated in (c) above (names (19) to (34)), each with the type species there indicated ; (e) to render Opinions in the sense of (a) to (d) above. 8. The foregoing decision was embodied in paragraph 27 of the report, which at their meeting held on the morning of Wednesday, 18th September 1935, the Commission unanimously agreed (Lisbon Session, 5th Meeting, Conclusion 6) to submit to the Twelfth International Congress of Zoology. _g. At the same meeting the Commission agreed (Lisbon Session, 5th Meeting, Conclusion 10) that Commissioner Karl Jordan (President of the Commission) and the new Secretary to the Com- mission, when elected, should be authorised to make such arrange- ments and to take such other action, as might appear to them to be necessary or expedient :— (1 ) to establish the Secretariat of the Commission at its new head- quarters ; (11) to secure the due publication of the Opinions agreed upon from time to time by the Commission ; (iii) to give effect to the decisions reached by the Commission at their Lisbon Session ; (iv) to obtain the finance required for the due functioning of the Com mission; and generally (v) to secure the effective continuance of the work of the Commission. 10. The report adopted by the Commission on the morning of Wednesday, 18th September 1935, was unanimously approved by the Section on Nomenclature at its joint meeting with the International Commission held on the afternoon of the same day. It was thereupon submitted to the Twelfth International Congress of Zoology by which it was unanimously approved and adopted at the Concilium Plenum held on the afternoon of Saturday, 21st September 1935, the last day of the Congress. ir. In accordance with the decision taken by the Commission at Lisbon in regard to their procedure at that Session (paragraph 6 above), this case was duly advertised in 1936 in two or more of the journals specified in the Resolution adopted by the Ninth International Congress of Zoology at its meeting held at Monaco in March 1913, by which the said International Congress conferred upon the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 382 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL plenary power to suspend the rules as applied to any given case where, in the judgment of the Commission, the strict application of the rules would clearly result in greater confusion than uni- formity.6 In the period that has elapsed since the advertisement in the said journals of the proposed suspension of the rules in the case of the names dealt with in the present Opinion, the Com- mission have received two communications objecting to the suspension of the rules in this case. These communications are as follows :— (a) Document forwarded under cover of a letter dated 1st March 1937 by Dr. S. A. Rohwer in the name of the Committee on Nomenclature of the Entomological Society of Washington THE CASE OF POMPILUS FABR., 1798 The genus Psammochares was proposed by Latreille, 1796 (Précis Caract. Gen. Insect., p. 115), without included species. In 1802 7 (Hist. Nat. Crust. & Insect., vol. 3: 335) the same author cited Pompilus viaticus F. as an example of Pompilus and in his discussion of this genus remarked “ J’avois etabli le premier ce genre sous le nom de psammochare.’’®& In 1803 (Nouv. Dict. Hist. Nat., vol. 5: 158) Latreille definitely cited Sphex fusca (L.), which was one of the 37 species originally included in Pompilus by Fabricius, as type of Psammochares. ‘This type fixation is in accordance with present usage. In 1810 (Consid. gén., p. 437) he designated ‘ Pom- pilus viaticus Fab.’’ = Sphex viatica L. genotype of Pompilus. Recent examination of the type of viatica has shown (Haupt, Deut. Ent. Zeit., 1927, Beiheft p. 308; Richards, Tvans. ent. Soc. Lond. 88 : 165, 1935) that, based on viatica, Pompilus must be considered identical with Podalonia Spinola, 1853.° Furthermore it has not yet been conclusively shown that Pompilus Fabr., 1798, 1s not preoccupied by Pompilus Schneider, 1784.19 Both are recognized aS generic names in Sherborn’s Index Animalium and in the Nomen. Animatium Gen. et. Subgen. now being issued. ' Since Banks, 1910 (Jour. N.Y. Ent. Soc. vol. 18 : 114), called attention to the fact that Psammochares Latr., has priority over Pompilus Fabr. the principal workers in the family have employed the name Psammochares for this genus. Included among these are Banks, Haupt,1! Arnold,1? Gussakovsky, Nielsen, Grandi,!! Turner, Williams,!! Bréthes, Bernard, Maréchal, Richards,11 and Sustera. During this period the name Pompilus has virtually appeared only in connection with scattered biological notes. To reject now the prior Psammochares Latr. in favor of the subsequent Pompilus Fabr. would result in overturning the nomenclature of the group 6 See Declaration 5 (1943, Opinions and Declarations rendered by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 1 : 31-40). 7 The correct date is [1802-1803]. See footnote I. 8 The remainder of Latreille’s observation here quoted reads as follows : —‘‘ J’abandonne volontiers cette dénomination pour prendre celle de pompile, qui est plus douce a Ioreille.”’ ® The correct date for this name is [1851]. The reference is Mem. Accad Sei. Lorimo (2) 13840) 3 53. 10 See paragraph 14 below. 11 Tt will be seen from paragraph 2 of the present Opinion that this author’s name is one of those included in the list of signatories of the petition submitted to the International Commission in favour of the sus- pension of the rules in this case. COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 166. 383 which has been nearly uniform for the past twenty-five years, during which time more progress has been made in the taxonomy of this family than in any other similar period. In this case only confusion can result from the proposed action under suspension of the rules. (b) Extract from a letter dated 28th March 1937 from Dr. Charles D. Michener, Berkeley, California Psammochares is the name now in general use, and is correct without a suspension of the rules. 12. Immediately upon their receipt by the Commission, copies of the documents from which the passages quoted in paragraph 11 have been extracted were communicated (April 1937) to each member of the Commission, but since that date no member of the Commission has expressed himself as being in agreement with the representations contained therein. 13. The representations set out in paragraph rr above were considered at the Plenary Conference between the President of the Commission and the Secretary to the Commission convened in London on 19th June 1939 under the authority of the Resolution adopted by the Commission at their meeting held at Lisbon on 18th September 1935 (for the text of which see paragraph 9g apeve Phe Plenary Conterence (Plenary Conference, 1st Meeting, Conclusion g) 1* :— : (b) examined the communications that had been received during the prescribed period in regard to the undermentioned names :— (viii) Pompilus Fabricius, 1798 from the Committee on Nomenclature of the Entomological Society of Washington; and from Charles D. Michener, Berkeley, California. e e e e ee @ (c) took note that, although copies of the communications referred to in (b) above had been transmitted to each member of the Commission immediately upon their receipt, no member of the Commission had expressed himself as being in agreement with any of the representa- tions contained therein ; (d) agreed that the communications referred to in (b) above brought forward no data and adduced no considerations that had not been before the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature when at Lisbon in 1935 they approved the recommendations in favour of the suspension of the rules in these cases submitted to them by the International Committee on Entomological Nomenclature in resolu- tions adopted during the meeting of the Sixth International Congress of Entomology at Madrid in the same year ; 12 Only those portions of Conclusion 9 which relate to the present case are here quoted. For the full text of Conclusion 9, see 1943, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 1 : 76-77. 384 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL (e) agreed that, in view of (c) and (d) above, the proper course for the present Conference in the discharge of the duties entrusted to it by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (Lisbon Session, 5th Meeting, Conclusion 10) was to give effect to the decisions in this matter reached by the International Commission at their Lisbon Session (3rd Meeting, Conclusion 2) and therefore that Opinions should be issued as soon as possible in the sense indicated in paragraph 27 of the report submitted by them to the Twelfth International Congress of Zoology and approved and adopted by that Congress at the Concilium Plenum held at Lisbon on 21st September 1935: 14. At the meeting held at Lisbon on Wednesday, 18th Septem- ber 1935, at which the International Commission agreed upon their report to the Twelfth International Congress of Zoology (Lisbon Session, 5th Meeting, Conclusion 6), the Commission agreed also “ to authorise Commissioner Hemming to examine the report after the close of the Congress when works of reference were available to him, for the purpose of checking the accuracy of the bibliographical and other references cited therein, and to correct any errors that might be found before the text of the report was officially printed”’ (Lisbon Session, 5th Meeting, Conclusion 1(c)). One of the questions which was left for subsequent deter- mination in this way was whether, as alleged by certain authors, there existed a generic name Pompilus Schneider, 1784, and whether, in consequence, the name Pompilus Fabricius, 1708, dealt with in the present Opinion, would be a homonym, unless the earlier name Pompilus Schneider was suppressed by the Commission under their plenary powers. This question was accordingly investigated jointly by Commissioner Hemming and Commissioner Karl Jordan (President of the Commission), when in the spring of 1943 Commissioner Hemming began the preparation of the present Opinion. A careful study was made of the work entitled Sammlung vermischter Abhandlungen zur Aufklarung der Zoologie und der Handlungsgeschichte published by Schneider (J. G.) in 1784,18 the work in which, as it was alleged, that author had published the word Pompilus as a generic name. This examination showed conclusively :— (i) that Schneider used the word “‘ Pompilus ”’ not as a generic name but as the trivial name of one of the species there included by him in the genus Octopodia Schneider (then diagnosed for the first time on page 108 of the Sammlung) ; 13 The copy of Schneider’s Sammlung examined was the copy which formerly belonged to the late Dr. C. D. Sherborn, which is now preserved in the Zoological Library of the British Museum (Natural History). COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 166. 385 (ii) that the mistaken view that the name Pompilus and certain other similarly placed names had been used by Schneider as generic names was due probably to the fact (a) that the specific trivial name Pompilus and the other specific trivial names concerned were printed in large conspicuous type and with a capital initial letter, while (b) the name of the genus (Octopodia Schneider) to which these species were referred was printed inconspicuously and in the same type as that used for the immediately following diagnosis given for that genus; } (iii) that the species to which Schneider applied the specific trivial name “ Pompilus”’ (i.e. the species to which he applied the (binominal) specific name Octopodia Pompilus Schneider) is the species previously named Nautilus pompilius by Linnaeus in 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1: 709, this being clearly shown by the reference thereto cited by Schneider ; (iv) that the reason why Schneider applied the specific trivial name pompilus to the species previously named Nautilus pompilius by Linnaeus was that, as a scholar and the editor of many classical works, he considered that the scientific names of animals should, so far as possible, be the “‘ original Greek or Latin names ”’ for those species. 14 15. The results (summarised above) of the examination of Schneider's Sammlung thus made it perfectly clear that the valida- tion of the generic name Pom*pilus Fabricius, 1798 (Class Insecta, Order Hymenoptera) decided upon by the International Com- mission at Lisbon in 1935 *° does not involve (as it was then thought that it might) the suppression (under the Commission’s plenary powers) of an earlier generic name, Pompilus Schneider, 1784, since, in fact, Schneider never published any such generic. name. There is no evidence of any kind to suggest that any author used the word “ Pompilus”’ asa generic name in any other work prior to the publication of the name Pompilus by Fabricius in 1798, but, in order to provide against this remote contingency, it remains desirable that provision should be made in the Ofinion validating Pompilus Fabricius, 1798, for the suppression of any such use of the name Pompilus. 16. The present Opinion was concurred in by the twelve (12) Commissioners and Alternates present at the Lisbon Session of the International Commission, namely :— Commissioners:—Calman; Hemming; Jordan; Pellegrin; Peters; and Stejneger. Alternates :—do Amaral vice Cabrera; Ohshima vice Esaki: Bradley vice Stone,; Beier vice Handlirsch; Arndt vice Richter; and Mortensen vice Apstein. 14 For the text of the report prepared by Commissioner Hemming in conjunction with Commissioner Jordan, see the Appendix to the present Opinion. 15 See paragraph 7 of the present Opinion. 386 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL 17. The present Opinion was dissented from by no Commissioner or Alternate present at the Lisbon Session. Nor since that Session has any Commissioner who was neither present on that occasion nor represented thereat by an Alternate indicated dis- agreement with the conclusions then reached by the Commission in this matter 18. The following five (5) Commissioners who were not present at Lisbon nor represented thereat by Alternates did not vote on the present Opinion :— Bolivar y Pieltain; Chapman 7 Fantham; Silvestri; and Stiles. 1g. At the time when the vote was taken on the present Opinion, there was one (I) vacancy in the Commission consequent upon the death of Commissioner Horvath. IV.—AUTHORITY FOR THE ISSUE OF THE PRESENT OPINION. WHEREAS the Ninth International Congress of Zoology at its meeting held at Monaco in March 1913, adopted a Resolution conferring upon the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, acting for the International Congress of Zoology, plenary power to suspend the rules as applied to any given case, where, in the judgment of the Commission, the strict application of the said rules would clearly result in greater confusion than uniformity, provided that not less than one year’s notice of the possible suspension of the rules as applied to the said case should be given in two or more of five journals specified in the said Resolu- tion, and provided that the vote in the Commission was unani- mously in favour of the proposed suspension of the rules; and WHEREAS the suspension of the rules is required to give valid force to the provisions of the present Opinion as set out in the summary thereof; and WHEREAS not less than one year’s notice of the possible sus- pension of the rules as applied to the present case has been given to two or more of the journals specified to in the Resolution adopted by the Ninth International Congress of Zoology at its meeting held at Monaco in March 1913; and WHEREAS the vote in the Commission at their Lisbon Session was unanimously in favour of the issue of an Opinion in the terms of the present Opinion ; COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 166. 387 Now, THEREFORE, I, FRANCIS HEMMING, Secretary to the International Com- mission on Zoological Nomenclature, acting in virtue of all and every the powers conferred upon me in that behalf by reason of holding the said Office of Secretary to the International Com- mission, hereby announce the said Opinion on behalf of the Inter- national Commission, acting for the International Congress of Zoology, and direct that it be rendered and printed as Opinion Number One Hundred and Sixty Six (Opinion 166) of the said Commission. In faith whereof I, the undersigned FRANCIS HEMMING, Secre- tary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, have signed the present Opinion. DoNnE in London, this twenty second day of June, Nineteen Hundred and Forty Three, in a single copy, which shall remain deposited in the archives of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. FRANCIS HEMMING 388 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL APPENDIX TO OPINION 166 On the status of the name Pompilus and certain other names commonly alleged to have been published as generic names by Schneider (J. G.) in 1784, Sammlung vermischter Abhandlungen zur Aufklarung der Zoo- logie und der Handlungsgeschichte, and on matters incidental thereto. . By Francis HEMMING, CMG. Ciba (Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature.) At their Session held at Lisbon in 1935 the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature agreed to use their plenary powers for the purpose of validating the generic name Pompilus Fabricius, 1798, Suppl. Ent. syst. : 212 (type: Pompilus pulchey Fabricius, 1798, Suppl. Ent. syst. : 249) (Lisbon Session, 3rd Meeting, Conclusion 2(b)(18) and (c)(27), published in 1943, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 1: 28, 29). The principal question involved in that case was the situation created by the existence of the older name Psammochares Latreille, 1796, for this genus. There was, however, a secondary problem arising from the alleged publication of the name Pompilus as a generic name by Schneider (J. G.) in 1784, Sammlung vermischter Abhandlungen zur Aufklavung der Zoologie und der Handlungs- _ geschichte : 128, since, if there had been such a generic name as Pompilus Schneider, 1784, the name Pompilus Fabricius, 1798, would have been ~ invalid as a homonym, quite apart from the difficulties created by the existence of the name Psammochares Latreille, 1796. After careful con- sideration, the International Commission unanimously agreed to overcome these difficulties (i) by suppressing the name Psammochares Latreille, 1796, under their plenary powers and (ii) by suppressing under the same powers the name Pompilus Schneider, 1784, ‘‘ if intended as a generic name.”’ 2. It was not possible at Lisbon to consult a copy of Schneider’s Samm- lung and, in order to provide for this and certain similar cases, the Interna- tional Commission at their meeting held at Lisbon on 18th September 1935 agreed “‘ to authorise Commissioner Hemming to examine the report after the close of the Congress when works of reference. were available to him, for the purpose of checking the accuracy of the bibliographical and other references cited therein, and to correct any errors which might be found before the text of the report was officially printed ’’ (Lisbon Session, 5th Meeting, Conclusion (1c), published in 1943, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 1: 44). Accordingly, the problem created by the alleged existence of the generic name Pompilus Schneider, 1784, was examined by Commissioner Francis Hemming, Secretary to the Commission, jointly with Commissioner Karl Jordan, President of the Commission, in the early part of 1943, when the text of Opinion 166, containing the Commission’s decision in regard to Pompilus Fabricius, 1798, was in course of preparation. 3. The results of the examination of Schneider’s Sammlung of 1784 may be summarised as follows :— (a) The title of the article in Schneider’s Sammlung in which the name “ Pompilus’’ appears is: ‘‘ Charakteristik des ganzen Geschlechts und der einzelnen Arten von Blakfischen,”’ the article in question extending from page 103 to page 134. COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 166. 389 (b) In the above article, Schneider :— (i) referred (:105) to the roth edition of the Systema Naturae of Linnaeus and quoted the diagnosis there given by Linnaeus for the genus Sepia Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 658 (though he did not cite the date of the roth edition or give the page reference) ; (ii) referred to the above diagnosis by the expression ‘ Ges- chlechtskarakter ”’ ; (iii) said that he could not retain in its entirety and without altera- _ tion the ‘“‘ Geschlechtskarakter ”’ (diagnosis) given by Linnaeus for the genus Sepia Linnaeus ; (iv) gave a new “ Geschlechtskarakter’’ for this genus covering all the species (“‘ Arten’’) which he regarded as referable thereto; (v) set out (: 108) the revised ‘“‘ Geschlechtskarakter ’”’ in Latin accompanied with a version in German, thus :— Octopodia. Caput cum oculis inter pedes et ventrem.. . (and so on) Blakfisch. Kopf und Augen zwischen Leib und Fiissen . (and so on); | (vi) stated that he had selected as the name of the “‘ Geschlecht ”’ the word “‘ Octopodia ’» employed in late Greek, in place of the ancient name Polypus (‘Ich habe zum allgemeinen Geschlechts- namen ein Wort gewahlt, welches die neuern Griechen statt des alten Polypus brauchten’’), and accordingly placed the name Ocitopodia at the head of the Latin text of the ““Geschlechtskarakter’’ (quoted in (v) above) of this genus, the counterpart in the German version being “ Blakfisch’’ (that name being derived from the German word “ blaken,’’ used to denote the “ smoking ”’ of a candle or lamp) ; (vil) divided the ‘“‘ Geschlecht ”’ Octopodia Schneider into two groups (“ Classen ’’), to which, however, he applied no names; (vili) stated that he gave to each species its old Greek or Latin name (“ damit ich hernach einer jeden Art ihren alten griechischen . oder lateinischen Namen wieder geben méchte ”’). (ix) enumerated under the names shown in (c) below the eight species which he referred to the genus Octopodia Schneider. (c) The following are the species referred by Se RT eer to the genus Octopodia Schneider :— Note :—The following points should be noted: (a) Schneider cited the generic name Octopodia Schneider only on page 108 and did not repeat it in combination with the specific trivial names of the eight species referred by him to that genus, each of those species being cited by him only by its specific trivial name, that name being printed with a capital initial letter (as “ Sepia,” “ Loligo,” etc.); (b) As explained in (b)(viii) above, Schneider did not regard as new names the specific trivial names which he employed, but looked on them as old names revived, though in fact five of them are new names nomenclatorially, since Schneider was the first author to publish them after 1757 as the specific trivial components of binominal names formed in accordance with the system instituted by Linnaeus in 1758. | ERSTE CLASSE (: 100) (i) Octopodia sepia Schneider, 1784 Schneider showed that his ‘ Sepia ’’ was the same species | as Sepia officinalis Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 658, MOw2e wi Diese Art: halt sich in Meer naher am Strande auf.’’) 390 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL (ii) Octopodia loligo (Linnaeus, 1758) This species is Sepia loligo Linnaeus 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. ro) 1:659, no. 4. (~ Dies soll nach Linnee [sic] die grosse Art des Rondelet und Needham sein.”’’) (ili) Octopodia teuthis Schneider, 1784 This species is the same as Sepia media Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10))1 3059, no: 3.) Dies ist die tant melemc Linnee [sic] Media nennt.’’) (iv) Octopodia sepiola (Linnaeus, 1758) This species is Sepia sepiola Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. ro) 1: 659, no! 5. (Schneider ‘says of) thiss species): ' Diese Art ist bunt.’22) ZWEYTE [Sic] CLASSE (: 116) (v) Octopodia polypus Schneider, 1784 This species is the same as Sepia octopodia Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1:658,no.1. Schneider used the specific trivial name polypus because it was the old Greek name for this and, therefore, preferable, in his opinion, to the name octo- podia used by Linnaeus in 1758. (Schneider says of this species: ‘‘ Die Hauptschriftsteller von dieser Art, welche in dem angefiihrten Kennzeichen mit einander iibereinstim- , men, sind Herr Hasselquist und Koelreuter.’’) (vi) Octopodia moschites Schneider, 1784 The name moschites does not appear in the roth edition of Linnaeus. ‘The description given by Schneider was based on classical and later accounts. The name moschites is derived from modern Greek: ‘“ Die neuern Griechen sollen ihn wooxttyg nennen.”’ (vil) Octopodia nautilus Schneider, 1784 Schneider made it clear that this species is the same as Argonauta argo Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 708, no. 231. Schneider added: ‘‘ Diese Art hat Aristoteles mit Recht zu dem Geschlechte der Meerpolypen gezahlt.”’ (vili) Octopodia pompilus [[recte] pompilius | (Linnaeus, 1758) This is the species named Nautilus pompilius by Linnaeus In 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1: 700, no. 233. Whe spellimevor the specific trivial name as “ pompilus’’ instead of “ pompilius ’’ was due either to an error of transcription on the part of Schneider or to a deliberate return to classical spelling. Schneider said of this species: ‘‘ Ich gebe dieser Art den Namen, welchen Linnee [sic] aus dem Plinius beigelegt hat, ob er ihr gleich nicht zukommt.”’ (d) In view of the fact that Linnaeus erroneously placed the genera Argonauta Linnaeus, 1758, and Nautilus Linnaeus, 1758, among the univalve mollusca, Schneider, when uniting these genera with Sepia Linnaeus, 1758, to form the genus Octopodia Schneider, 1784, was quite justified in using the expression ‘““ des ganzen Geschlechts ”’ in the title of his article and in saying, as regards his own diagnosis COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 166. 391 (‘‘ Geschlechtskarakter ’’) of the genus Octopodia Schneider, that it covered all the species referred by him to that genus. 4. It will be seen from the foregoing analysis of Schneider’s Sammlung of 1784 that there is no such generic name as Pompilus Schneider, 1784, and in consequence that the name Pompilus Fabricius, 1798, has at no time been a homonym. Accordingly, no difficulty arises under this head in connection with Opinion 166. 5. Certain nomenclatorial issues, unconnected with Opinion 166, are, however, disclosed by the examination of Schneider’s Sammlung. As it is clearly most desirable that, where it is necessary in a given Opinion (as in Opinion 166) to examine the status of a particular name (as Octopodia pompilus Schneider, 1784), account should be taken of the effects of the conclusions reached not only as regards the particular name in question but also as regards any other name or names, the status of which is identical with that of the name examined. In the present case it is desirable, therefore, to examine the status of the other names used by Schneider in the article in which he described the species Octopodia pompilus [sic] (Lin- naeus, 1758). The following notes are accordingly added, in order to show how the conclusions reached in regard to the specific trivial name “ pompilus ’’ used by Schneider for species no. 8 in his genus Octopodia affect the other names used by him in the same article. Finally, a note is added in regard to the position of the generic name Octopodia Schneider, 1784. 6. The position as regards the specific trivial names used by Schneider in 1784 for species placed by him in the genus Octopodia Schneider may be summarised as follows :— (1) There is no force in either of the two arguments which at different times have been advanced against accepting as available under the Régles Internationales the names first published by Schneider in his Sammlung in 1784, namely :— (a) that it is not clear that he used the expression ‘“‘ Geschlecht ”’ as the equivalent of the expression “ genus ’’ of Linnaeus; and (b) that he divided the “ Geschlecht ’’ Octopodia into ‘‘ Classen,”’ thereby departing from the binary system of nomenclature. (2) As regards objection 1(a) above, it has already been shown conclu- sively in Section (b) of paragraph 3 of the present paper that Schneider’s expression “‘ Geschlecht’”’ is identical with the expression “genus ’”’ as used by Linnaeus. Further, it should be noted that in various forms the expression “‘ Geschlecht ’’ has often been used by other authors as the equivalent of the expression “‘ genus’’ and, therefore, that Schneider’s use of this expression in this sense, though now not usual, is far from being unique. For example, towards the end of the XVIIIth century and at the beginning of the XIXth century, the word “ Geschlecht ’’ was in quite common use as the designation for the systematic category next above the category of “species”? and as the equivalent, therefore, of the expressions meeciusssudeatin)) “eenre, = (erench), “(Gattune:’” (German); “ ges- lacht’’ (Dutch), and “ slagt’’ (Swedish). Moreover, these words are all still in use to the present day in works on systematic zoology. The following are examples of such usage at various dates :— (a) Fuessli, 1778, Mag. Ent.1:2 & ff. (Review of Voet’s Catalogus systematicus Coleoptervorum) : ‘Genus primum: Scarvabaeus. Von diesem Geschlechte sind bis S. 34 iberhaubt 153 Arten beschrieben und abgebildet. 5S. 35 folgt: Genus secundum, Copris, Von diesem Geschlechte sind erst 1o Arten be- Schmeben) .).5., (and soon): 392 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL (b) Helmuth, 1808, Naturgeschichte 5. ‘‘ Das Geschlecht der Kolbenkafer, Scavabaeus’’ (:24); ‘‘ Das Geschlecht der Bockkafer, Cervambyx’’ (: 41); ‘‘ Das Geschlecht der Wasser- kafer. Dytiscus *’ (= 48). : «(and soon). (c) A. van Bemmelen, in Herklots, 1858, Bouwstoffen voor eene Fauna van Nederland 2:140. ‘“‘ Ons land is rijk an soorten van het geslacht Cyprinus; de best bekende zijn:’’ (Here follows a list of 6 species: Cyprinus rutilus, Cyprinus brama, etc.). (d) Reuter, 1380,1n Bat. Mdsky 1). 117. Slagtoiversicc: sare: ‘survey (or key) of genera ’’). (3) Objection (1)(b) above rests on the argument that Schneider was not an author who applied the principles of binary nomenclature and, therefore, that names published by him do not satisfy the require- ments of proviso (b) to Article 25 of the Régles Internationales. The only evidence brought forward in support of this contention is that Schneider divided the “‘ Geschlecht ”’ Octopodia Schneider, 1784, into two groups (which he called “ Classen ’’), intermediate in rank be- tween genus and species. This objection is ill-founded, (a) because Schneider did not give names to his “‘ Classen ’’ and (b) because, even if he had given names to his ‘‘ Classen,’’ such action would still not have constituted a departure from the principles of binary nomenclature. Quite apart from the fact that the FRégles Interna- tionales recognise (Articles 6-10) the subgenus as a category inter- mediate between the genus and the species, it should be noted that many strictly binominal authors from the time of Linnaeus onwards have established groups within a genus identical with the ‘“‘ Classen ” established by Schneider and that many of these authors have given Latin names (in the nominative plural) to the groups so established. See, for example, the six named groups established by Linnaeus within the genus Gryllus Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 3 425-— 433 (Class Insecta, Order Orthoptera). In actual fact, as will be seen from paragraph 3(c) of the present paper, Schneider in his Sammlung of 1784 employed a strictly binominal system of nomen- clature. Since a binominal system of nomenclature is ex hypothest a binary system of nomenclature, it is not necessary here to consider whether Schneider used a system of nomenclature, which, though not binominal, was nevertheless a binary system in the sense in which that expression is interpreted in Opinion 20. This is fortunate, since the validity of the interpretation of the expression “‘ binary nomenclature ’’ as given in that Opinion is at present sub judice (see 1943, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 1 : 45, 55). (4) In view of (2) and (3) above, no grounds exist on which either the generic or the specific trivial names first published by Schneider in his Sammlung of 1784 can be rejected as not satisfying the require- ments of the frégles Internationales. All such names possess, there- fore, rights under the Law of Priority as from 1784. (5) The only new generic name published by Schneider in the article under discussion was Octopodia Schneider, 1784 (see paragraph 7 below). All the other generic names alleged to have been published by Schneider in that article are cheironyms (being based upon a mis- reading of the trivial names used by Schneider for species of the genus Octopodia Schneider) and should, therefore, be deleted from all zoological Nomenclators. The cheironyms in question are :— Loligo Schneider, 1784, Samml. verm. Abhandl. Aufklar. Zool. : 110 Moschites Schneider, 1784, ibid. : 118 Polypus Schneider, 1784, ibid. : 116 COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 166. 3093 Pompilus Schneider, 1784, 1bid. : 128 16 Sepiola Schneider, 1784, ibid. : 116 Teuthis Schneider, 1784, ibid. : 113 In consequence of the elimination of the first five of the above cheironyms, the following names are no longer invalid by reason of being homonyms :— Loligo Lamarck, 1798, Bull. Sci. Soc. philomat., Paris 17 : 130 Moschites Hoyle, 1901, Mem. Proc. Manchester lit. phil. Soc. 45 INOS) 25 ae Leach, 1817, Zool. Miscell. 3 : 139 Pompilus Fabricius, 1798, Suppl. Ent. syst. : 212 Sepiola Leach, 1817, Zool. Miscell. 3 : 140 The elimination of the cheironym Teuthis Schneider, 1784 (and of the cheironyms Nautilus Schneider, 1784, and Sepia Schneider, 1784, if either of these names have been cited in scientific publications) can have no effect upon the nomenclature of the groups concerned, since, even if such generic names had been published by Schneider in 1784, they would have been invalid as homonyms under Article 34 of the Régles Internationales, in view of the existence of the prior names Teuthis Linnaeus, 1766, Nautilus Linnaeus, 1758, and Sepia Linnaeus, 1758. ve The position as regards the generic name Octopodia Schneider, 1784, may be summarised as follows :— (I) (2) The generic name Octopodia Schneider, 1784, Samml. verm. Abhandl. Aufkidy. Zool. : 108, is a nomenclatorially available name, since :— (a) it was published with a definition (see paragraph 3(b)(v) above), thereby satisfying the requirements of proviso (a) to Article 25 of the Régles Internationales; and (b) was published by an author who applied a strictly binominal system of nomenclature, and, therefore, ex hypothesi a binary system of nomenclature (see paragraphs 3(c) and 6(3) above), thereby satisfying the requirements of proviso (b) to Article 25. In view of (1) above, all uses of the word Octopodia as a new generic name by later authors are invalid, since the generic name Octopodia as used by such authors is a homonym of Octopodia Schneider, 1784. Accordingly, the names Octopodia Gray, 1847, Proc. zool. Soc. Lond. 15 (178) : 205, and Octopodia Grimpe, 1925, Wiss. Meervesuntersuch., Abh. Helgoland 16 (3) : 13, are invalid under Article 34 of the Régles Internationales. At the time when the generic name Octopodia Schneider, 1784, was published, Octopodia polypus Schneider, 1784 (one of the included species) already possessed a name (Sepia octopodia Linnaeus, 1758), of which the specific trivial component consisted of the same word (octopodia) as that selected by Schneider as the name for his new genus (Octopodia). In view of (3) above and of the fact that Schneider did not designate a type for the genus Octopodia Schneider, 1784, the type of that genus is Octopodia polypus Schneider, 1784, by absolute tautonymy under rule (d) in Article 30 of the Régles Internationales. 16 The name Pompilus Fabricius, 1798, which, apart from being con- sidered a homonym of Pompilus Schneider, 1784, was invalid as a synonym of Psammochares Latreille, 1796, has been validated by the Internationa Commission in Opinion 166 (see pp. 377-387 above). 394 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL 8. Now that it is seen that Octopodia Schneider, 1784, is an available generic name and that Octopodia polypus Schneider, 1784 (= Sepia octo- podia Linnaeus, 1758) is the type of this genus, it will be necessary to consider the position of the name Octopus Cuvier, [1797], Tabl. elem. : 380 (= Octopus Lamarck, 1798, Bull. Soc. Sci. philomat., Paris 17 : 130), since clearly greater confusion than uniformity would result from the substitution of the name Octopodia Schneider, 1784, for the name Octopus Cuvier, [1797]. Specialists interested in this question are accordingly invited to communi- cate with the International Commission. FRANCIS HEMMING. Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature Secretariat of the Commission, at the British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, LONDON, S.W.7. 25th July 1943. COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 166. 395 THE PUBLICATIONS OF THE COMMISSION. (obtainable at the Publications Office of the Commission at 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7.) Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. This journal has been established by the International Com- mission as their Official Organ in order to provide a medium for the publication of :— (a) proposals on zoological nomenclature submitted to the International Commission for deliberation and decision ; (b) comments received from, and correspondence by the Secretary with, zoologists on proposals published in the Bulletin under (a) above; and (c) papers on nomenclatorial implications of developments in taxonomic theory and practice. The Bulletin was established in 1943. So far, six Parts have been published. Further Parts are in the press. Opinions and Declarations Rendered by the International Com- mission on Zoological Nomenclature. The above work is being published in three volumes con- currently, namely :— Volume 1. This volume will contain Declarations 1-9 (which have never previously been published) and Opinions 1-133 (the original issue of which is now out of print). Parts 1-20 (contain- ing Declarations 1-9 and Opinions 1-11) have now been published. Further Parts will be published shortly. Volume 2. This volume will be issued in 52 Parts, comprising all the decisions taken by the International Commission at their meeting at Lisbon in 1935, namely Declarations 10-12 (with Roman pagination) and Ofimions 134-181 (with Arabic pagina- tion). Part 52 will contain the index and title page of the volume. Parts 1-37, containing Declarations 10-12 and Opinions 134-167, have now been published. Further Parts will be published shortly. Volume 3. This volume, which commenced with Opinion 182, will contain the Opinions adopted by the International Commis- sion since their meeting at Lisbon in 1935. Parts 1-11 (containing Opinions 182-192) have now been published. Further Parts will be published as soon as possible. 396 INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. APPEAL FOR FUNDS The International Commission appeal earnestly to all institutions and individuals interested in the development of zoological nomen- clature to contribute, according to their means, to the Commission’s Special (Publications) Fund. Of the total sum of £1,800 required to enable the Commission to issue all the publications now awaiting printing, donations amounting to £969 16s. 1d. were received up to 30th June 1945. Additional contributions are urgently needed in order to enable the Commission to continue their work without interruption. Contributions of any ee however small, will be most gratefully received. Contributions should be sent to the International Commission at their Publications Office, 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W. 7, and made payable to the “ International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature or Order ’’? and crossed ‘‘ Account payee. Coutts & Co.’’. | PRINTED IN GRI T BRITAIN BY Cray . NY, Li ompaNy, Lrtp., a 8 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 2. Part 37. Pp. 399-410. OPINION 167 Suspension of the rules for Euthalia Hubner, [1819] (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera) LONDON : Printed by Order of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature Sold at the Publications Office of the Commission 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7 1945 Price three shillings (All rights reserved) Issued 21st August, 1945 INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE COMPOSITION OF THE COMMISSION The Officers of the Commission President: Dr. Karl Jordan, Ph.D., F.R.S. (United Kingdom). Vice-President : Dr. James L. Peters (U.S.A.). Secretary : Mr. Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. (United Kingdom). The Members of the Commission Class 1946 | Herr Professor Dr. Walter ARNDT (Germany). Dr. William Thomas CALMAN (United Kingdom). Professor Teiso ESAKI (Japan). Professor Béla von HANKO (Hungary). Dr. Tadeusz JACZEWSKI (Poland). Dr. Norman R. STOLL (U:S.A.), Class 1949 Senor Dr. Angel CABRERA (Argentina). Mr. Francis HEMMING (United Kingdom) (Secretary to the Commission). Dr. Karl JORDAN (United Kingdom) (President of the Commission). Dr. Joseph PEARSON (Australia). Monsieur le Docteur Jacques PELLEGRIN (France). Herr Professor Dr. Rudolf RICHTER (Germany). Class 1952 Senhor Dr. Afranio do AMARAL (Brazil). Professor James Chester BRADLEY (U.S.A.). Professor Ludovico di CAPORIACCO (Italy). Professor J. R. DYMOND (Canada). Dr. James L. PETERS (U.5.A.) (Vice-President of the Commission). Dr. Harold 2: VOKES (U:S.A:) Secretariat of the Commission : British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London, S.W. 7. Publications Office of the Commission : 41, Queen’s Gate, London, 5.W. 7. Personal address of the Secretary : 83, Fellows Road (Garden Flat), London, N.W. 3. Wis OPINION 167. SUSPENSION OF THE RULES FOR EUTHALIA HUBNER, [1819] (CLASS INSECTA, ORDER LEPIDOPTERA). | SUMMARY.—Under suspension of the rules it is hereby declared that page priority shall not be invoked to secure precedence for Symphaedra Hubner, [1819] (type: Symphaedra alcandra Hiibner, [1819]), over Euthalia Hiibner, [1819] (type: Papilio lubentina Cramer, [1777]), and the name Euthalia Hiibner is therefore valid. This decision does not affect the validity of the Symphaedra Hiibner, if and when it may be desired on taxonomic grounds to place Symphaedra alcandra Hubner and Papilio lubentina Cramer in different genera. The name Euthalia Hiibner, [1819] (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera), with the type indicated above, is hereby added to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology as Name No. 613. IL—THE STATEMENT OF THE CASE. This case was submitted to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature in a letter dated 24th October 1934, in which Commissioner Francis Hemming and Mr. N. D. Riley, Keeper of the Department of Entomology, British Museum (Natural History), jointly invited the Commission to render Opimons in regard to this, and certain other, generic names in the Order Lepidoptera (Class Insecta). The passage in that letter relating to the name Euthalia Hiibner reads as follows :— (a) We recommend that the following names should be added by the International Commission to the Official List of Generic Names. Our reasons for so recommending are fully set out in the statements, the terms of which we have jointly agreed, contained in Hemming’s Generic Names of the Holarctic Butterflies on the pages noted below:— * At the time that this application was made to the International Com- mission, there was much uncertainty regarding the dates of publication of the entomological works of Jacob Hubner, and in particular of his Verzeich- niss bekannter Schmettlinge [sic]. These doubts have since been put to rest by the discovery of Hiibner’s original manuscripts. The correct date for Euthaha Hibner is [1819]. See Opinion 150 (1943, Opinions and Declara- tions rendered by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 1 ; 161-168). 402 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY. THE INTERNATIONAL 2. The following is an extract from the work referred to above of the passage relating to this genus : EUTHALIA Hiibner Hiibner, [1818],? Verz. bekannt. Schmett. (3) : 41 Scudder, 1875, Proc. Amer. Acad. Arts Sc1., Boston 10 : 176 TYPE: Papilio lubentina Cramer, 1777 3 Of the two species given by Hiibner, Scudder selected /ubentina Cram. as the type. On a strict application of the rules in the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature the name Symphaedva Hiibner, [1818],? should take prece- dence of Euthalia Hiibner, [1818].2, Nomenclatorially, both Euthalia Hiibner and Symphaedva Hiibner are valid names, but one must sink as a synonym of the other, as their respective types (Papilio lubentina Cram., 1777° and Symphaedva alcandva Hubner, [1818] ?) are congeneric. Both names were published simultaneously by Hubner in the Verz. bekannt. Schmett. The name Symphaedra Hibner was published on p. 40 and the name Euthala Hiibner on p. 41. Thus on the principle of page priority, Euthaha Hibner should fall as to Symphaedra Hibner. There are, however, very strong reasons against such an arrangement. The name Euthaha Hibner has been applied without challenge to lubentina Cram. and its numerous allies ever since the establishment of the name by Hiibner one hundred and sixteen years ago. On the other hand, the name Symphaedva Hubner has hardly ever been used except to distinguish a single species, alcandva Hiibner (= nais Forster), from the other species of Euthaha Hibner. Bingham (1905, Fauna Brit. Ind. Butt. 13271) and Fruhstorfer (1913, 7” Seitz, Gvossschmett. Erde 9 : 680) have, however, shown that there are no structural characters by which alcandva Hibner (= nats Forster) can be distinguished from lubentina Cram. The position is, therefore, that a strict application of the Code would :— (i) deprive Papilo lubentina Cram., 1777,? and its numerous congeners of the generic name Euthalia Hubner by which they have been known universally ever since its establishment by Hibner in 1818; ? (ii) transfer those species to the genus Symphaedva Hubner, a name which has hardly ever been used except (mistakenly) to distinguish alcandra Hiibner (= nais Forster) generically from lubentina Cram. and its congeners. I am of the opinion :— (a) that it would be highly undesirable to disturb the universally accepted use of the name Euthalia Hibner, [1818],? for Papilio lubentina Cram., 1777,° and its congeners, by transferring them to the genus Sym- phaedra Hubner, [1818],? and (b) that the strict application of the rules of the International Code in this case would clearly result in greater confusion than uniformity. 3. Commissioner Hemming went on to say that, jointly with Mr. N. D. Riley, he was submitting to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature a recommendation that, in the ? 2 The correct date of this name is [1819]. See footnote 1. 3 As the dates of publication of the Parts in which Cramer’s Uitlandsche Kapellen was published can only be determined by the inspection of a copy still in original wrappers, the dates of names published in this work should be cited in squares brackets. COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 167. 403 exercise of the plenary power conferred upon them by the Inter- national Zoological Congress, the Commission should as soon as possible take the steps laid down by the Congress for the pro- mulgation of an Opinion to the following effect : — The name Euthalia Hiibner, [1818]? (type Papilio lubentina Cram., 1777) ® is hereby added to the Official List of Generic Names. The name Symphaedra Hubner, [1818] 21s, therefore, not to be substituted for Euthalia ‘Hiibner, [1818],2 on the ground that it has page priority over that name, . though it is available for use for Symphaedva alcandva Hibner, [1818] ? (= Papilio nais Forster, 1771), by such systematists as may regard that species as generically distinct from Papilio lubentina Cram., 1777.° me wah SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF THE CASE. 4. Asa first step the International Commission decided to invite the International Committee on Entomological Nomenclature to report on the present application. This case was accordingly considered by the International Committee at their meeting held at Madrid in the second week of September 1935 during the Sixth International Congress of Entomology. After careful consideration, the International Committee on Entomological Nomenclature agreed to recommend the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to take such steps as they might consider necessary under their plenary powers to secure that the name Symphaedra Hiibner, [1819], should not replace the name Euthalia Hibner, [1819], as the generic name for Papilio lubentina Cramer, [1777], and the large number of species congeneric therewith. 5. This and other recommendations adopted by the Interna- tional Committee on Entomological Nomenclature at their Madrid meeting were confirmed by the Sixth International Con- gress of Entomology at the Concilium Plenum held at Madrid on 12th September 1935. IiJ.—THE CONCLUSION REACHED BY THE INTERNA- TIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. 6. When the International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature met at Lisbon immediately after the close of the Sixth International Congress of Entomology in September 1935, they found themselves confronted with a large number of cases involv- ing proposals for the suspension of the rules, in respect of some of which advertisements had not been published or, if published, had 404. OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL not been published for the prescribed period, owing to the illness of Dr. C. W. Stiles, Secretary to the Commission, or for other causes. In these circumstances, the Commission decided at their meeting held on the morning of Monday, 16th September 1935 (Lisbon Session, 2nd Meeting, Conclusion 9), that immediate consideration should be given to all cases submitted to the Com- mission that, in their judgment, had reached the stage at which a decision could properly be taken; that the By-Laws of the Com- mission should be suspended during the Lisbon Session to such extent as might be necessary to give effect to this decision; and that, in so far as this procedure involved taking decisions “‘ under suspension of the rules ’’ in cases where the prescribed advertise- ment procedure had not been complied with, the cases in question should be duly advertised as soon as might be practicable after the conclusion of the Lisbon Congress and that no Opinion should be rendered and published thereon until after the expiry of a period of one year from the date on which the said advertisement was despatched to the prescribed journals for publication. The case of the name Euthalia Hiibner, [1819], was one of the cases in question and was accordingly dealt with under the above pro- cedure. : | 7. This case was considered by the International Commission later in the course of the meeting referred to above (Lisbon Session, 2nd Meeting, Conclusion 22), when it was agreed :—* (a) to ‘‘ suspend the rules ”’ in the case of the following generic names :— (f) to declare that page precedence shall not be invoked to secure pre- cedence for Symphaedva Hibner, [1819], Verz. bek. Schmett. (3) : 40 (type: Symphaedra alcandva Hibner, [1819], 1zbid. (3) : 40) over Euthaha Hiibner, [1819], Verz. bek. Schmett. (3) : 41 (type: Papilio lubentina Cramer, [1777]); that the name Euthalia Hubner is there- fore valid; but that this decision would not affect the validity of Symphaedra Hiibner, [1819], if and when it may be desired on taxono- mic grounds to place Symphaedra alcandva Hubner, [1819], and Papilio lubentina Cramer, [1777], in different genera ; (i) to add the generic names . . . Euthalia Hubner, [1819], . . . to the Official List of Generic Names, with the types indicated above; a Va (ies ‘a, le (l) to render Opinions in the sense of (a) to (k) above. — 4 Only those portions of Conclusion 22 which refer to the present case are here quoted. For the full text of Conclusion 22, see 1943, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 1 : 20-23. : ve COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 167. 405 ) 8. The foregoing decisions were embodied in paragraph 28 of the report which at their meeting held on the morning of Wednes- day, 18th September 1935, the Commission (Lisbon Session, 5th Meeting, Conclusion 6) unanimously agreed to submit to the Twelfth International Congress of Zoology. That report was unanimously approved by the Section on Nomenclature at its joint meeting with the International Commission held on the afternoon of the same day. It was thereupon submitted to the Twelfth International Congress of Zoology by which it was unanimously approved and adopted at the Concilium Plenum held on the afternoon of Saturday, 21st September 1935, the last day of the Congress. g. In accordance with the decision taken by the Commission at Lisbon in regard to their procedure at that Session (paragraph 6 above), this case was duly advertised in 1936 in two or more of the journals specified in the Resolution adopted by the Ninth International Congress of Zoology at its meeting held at Monaco in March 1913, by which the said International Congress con- ferred upon the International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature plenary power to suspend the rules as applied to any given case where, in the judgment of the Commission, the strict application of the rules would clearly result in greater confusion than uniformity.° In the period that has elapsed since the advertisement in the said journals of the possible suspension of the rules as applied to the present case, no communication of any kind has been addressed to the Commission objecting to the issue of an Opinion in the terms proposed. 10. The present Opinion was concurred in by the twelve (12) Commissioners and Alternates present at the Lisbon Session of the International Commission, namely :— Commissioners:—Calman; Hemming; Jordan; Pellegrin; Peters; and Sinners. Alternates : 86 Amaral vice Caner Ohshima vice Esaki; Bradley vice Stone; Beier vice Handlirsch; Arndt vice Richter ; and Mortensen vice Apstein. 11. Fhe present Opinion was dissented from by no Commissioner or Alternate present at the Lisbon Session. Nor since that Session has any Commissioner who was neither present on that 5 See Declaration 5 (1943, Opinions and Declarations rendered by ee nternational Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 1 : 31-40). 406 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL occasion nor represented thereat by an Alternate indicated dis- agreement with the conclusions then reached by the Commission in this matter. 12. The following five (5) Commissioners who were not present at Lisbon nor represented thereat by Alternates did not vote on the above Opinion : — Bolivar y Pieltain; Chapman; Fantham; Silvestri; and Stiles. 13. At the time that the vote was taken on the present Opinion there was one (1) vacancy in the Commission consequent upon the death of Commissioner Horvath. IV.—AUTHORITY FOR THE ISSUE OF THE PRESENT OPINION. WHEREAS the Ninth International Congress of Zoology at its meeting held at Monaco in March 1913, adopted a Resolution conferring upon the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, acting for the International Congress of Zoology, plenary power to suspend the rules as applied to any given case where, in the judgment of the Commission, the strict application of the rules would clearly result in greater confusion than uni- formity, provided that not less than one year’s notice of the possible suspension of the rules as applied to the said case should be given in two or more of five journals specified in the said Resolu- tion, and provided that the vote in the Commission was unani- mously in favour of the proposed suspension of the rules; and WHEREAS the suspension of the rules is required to give valid force to the provisions of the present Opinion as set out in the summary thereof; and WHEREAS not less than one year’s notice of the possible sus- pension of the rules as applied to the present case has been given to two or more of the journals specified in the Resolution adopted by the Ninth International Congress of Zoology at its meeting held at Monaco in March 1913; and WHEREAS the vote in the Commission at their Lisbon Session was unanimously in favour of the issue of an Ofzmion in terms of the present Opinion ; COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 167. 407 Now, THEREFORE, I, FRANCIS HEMMING, Secretary to the International Com- mission on Zoological Nomenclature, acting in virtue of all and every the powers conferred upon me in that behalf by reason of holding the said Office of Secretary to the International Com- mission, hereby announce the said Ofinion on behalf of the Inter- national Commission, acting for the International Congress of Zoology, and direct that it be rendered and printed as Opinion Number One Hundred and Sixty Seven (Opinion 167) of the said Commission. In faith whereof I, the undersigned FRANCIS HEMMING, Secre- tary to the International Commission .on Zoological Nomencla- ture, have signed the present Opinion. DonE in London, this first day of July, Nineteen Hundred and Forty Three, in a single copy, which shall remain deposited in the archives of the International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature. Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. FRANCIS HEMMING 408 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL THE PUBLICATIONS OF THE COMMISSION. (obtainable at the Publications Office of the Commission at 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7.) Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. This journal has been established by the International Com- mission as their Official Organ in order to provide a medium for the publication of :— (a) proposals on zoological nomenclature submitted to the International Commission for deliberation and decision ; (b) comments received from, and correspondence by the Secretary with, zoologists on proposals published in the Bulletin under (a) above; and 3 (c) papers on nomenclatorial implications of developments in taxonomic theory and practice. The Bulletin was established in 1943. So far, six Parts have been published. Further Parts are in the press. Opinions and Declarations Rendered by the International Com- mission on Zoological Nomenclature. The above work is being published in three volumes con- currently, namely :— Volume 1. This volume will contain Declarations 1-9 (which have never previously been published) and Opinions 1-133 (the original issue of which is now out of print). Parts 1-20 (contain- ing Declarations 1-9 and Opinions 1-11) have now been published. Further Parts will be published shortly. Volume 2. This volume will be issued in 52 Parts, comprising all the decisions taken by the International Commission at their meeting at Lisbon in 1935, namely Declarations 10-12 (with Roman pagination) and Ofimions 134-181 (with Arabic pagina- tion). Part 52 will contain the index and title page of the volume. Parts I-37, containing Declarations 10-12 and Opimions 134-167, have now been published. Further Parts will be published shortly. Volume 3. This volume, which commenced with Opinion 182, will contain the Opinions adopted by the International Commis- sion since their meeting at Lisbon in 1935. Parts 1-11 (containing Opinions 182-192) have now been published. Further Parts will be published as soon as possible. COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 167. 409 APPEAL FOR FUNDS The International Commission appeal earnestly to all institutions and individuals interested in the development of zoological nomen- clature to contribute, according to their means, to the Commission’s Special (Publications) Fund. Of the total sum of £1,800 required to enable the Commission to issue all the publications now awaiting printing, donations amounting to £969 16s. 1d. were received up to 30th June 1945. Additional contributions are urgently needed in order to enable the Commission to continue their work without interruption. Contributions of any amount, however small, will be most gratefully received. Contributions should be sent to the International Commission at their Publications Office, 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W. 7, and made payable to the ‘* International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature or Order ’’ and crossed ‘‘ Account payee. Coutts & Co.’’. PRINTED IN GREAT BRITAIN BY RICHARD CLAY AND COMPANY, LTD., BUNGAY, SUFTOLK. Ket, 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 2. Part 38. Pp. 411-430. OPINION 168 On the principles to be observed in interpreting Article 30 of the International Code in relation to the names of genera based upon erroneously determined species (Opinion supplementary to Opinion 65) LONDON: Printed by Order of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature Sold at the Publications Office of the Commission 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7 1945 Price five shillings (All rights reserved) Issued 25th September, 1945 INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE COMPOSITION OF THE COMMISSION The Officers of the Commission President: Dr. Karl Jordan, Ph.D., F.R.S. (United Kingdom). Vice-President : Dr. James L. Peters (U.S.A.). Secretary : Mr. Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. (United Kingdom). The Members of the Commission Class 1946 Herr Professor Dr. Walter ARNDT (Germany). Dr. William Thomas CALMAN (United Kingdom). Professor Teiso ESAKI (Japan). Professor Béla von HANKO (Hungary). Dr. Tadeusz JACZEWSKI (Poland). Dr. Norman R. STOLL (U.S.A.). Class 1949 Senor Dr. Angel CABRERA (Argentina). Mr. Francis HEMMING (United Kingdom) (Secretary to the Commission). Dr. Karl JORDAN (United Kingdom) (President of the Commission). Dr. Joseph PEARSON (Australia). Monsieur le Docteur Jacques PELLEGRIN (France). Herr Professor Dr. Rudolf RICHTER (Germany). Class 1952 Senhor Dr. Afranio do AMARAL (Brazil). Professor James Chester BRADLEY (U.S.A.). Professor Ludovico di CAPORIACCO (Italy). Professor J. R. DYMOND (Canada). Dr. James L. PETERS (U.S.A.) (Vice-President of the Commission). Dr. Harold E. VOKES (U.S.A.) Secretariat of the Commission : British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London, S.W. 7. Publications Office of the Commission : 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W. 7. Personal address of the Secretary : 83, Fellows Road (Garden Flat), London, N.W. 3. RQSOMAN INS Tiigy arionar wwe OPINION 168. ON THE PRINCIPLES TO BE OBSERVED IN INTERPRETING ARTICLE 30 OF THE INTERNATIONAL CODE IN RELATION TO THE NAMES OF GENERA BASED UPON ERRONEOUSLY DETERMINED SPECIES (OPINION SUPPLEMENTARY TO OPINION 65). SUMMARY.—Article 30 of the International Code is to be inter- preted as meaning that, as a specimen is the type of a species, so a species is the type of a genus. Opinion 65 is to be interpreted as directing (i) that, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, it is to be assumed that the original author of a genus correctly identi- fied the species assigned by him thereto, whether the species in question was designated as the type of the genus by that author or, no species having been so designated, is a species selected as the type by a later author acting under rule (g) in Article 30 of the Code, and (ii) that in the latter event it is to be further assumed that the later author correctly identified the species so selected, but (iii) that, where there is evidence that either or both of these assump- tions is at variance with the facts, the case should be submitted with full details to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, and (iv) that, pending their decision thereon, the genus should be regarded as of doubtful status. I.—THE STATEMENT OF THE: CASE. In 1935 Commissioner Francis Hemming prepared for the consideration of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature a paper dealing with certain difficulties which had arisen in the interpretation of Opimion 65 (which relates to the determination of the types of genera based upon erroneously determined species) and asking for a clarification of that Opinion, with special reference to the status of certain genera in the Order Lepidoptera (Class Insecta). 2. The portion of the foregoing paper relating to the interpre- tation of Opinion 65 reads as follows ? :— 1 The text of Part 2 of this paper dealing with individual generic names in the Order Lepidoptera is not reproduced in the present Opinion, which is ° concerned only with the general principles discussed in Part 1. The several portions of Part 2 dealing with individual generic names are, however, ** 4I4 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL ON THE PROBLEM OF GENERA BASED UPON ERRONEOUSLY DETERMINED SPECIES, WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO CERTAIN GENERA IN THE LEPIDOPTERA RHOPALOCERA By Francis Hemming, C.B.E. Introductory While preparing my Generic Names of the Holarctic Butterflies, the first volume of which appeared last year,* I found myself confronted with the names of a number of genera based upon erroneously determined species. When I turned to Opinion 65, I found that, although the title of that Opinion (‘‘ Case of a genus based upon an erroneously determined species ’’) is of a general character, thus indicating that the International Commission: intended it to cover all the classes of genera involved, the actual subject matter dealt with by the Commission in the ““ summary ”’ is very limited. It is confined indeed to one only of the classes of case concerned, and that one of the least frequent, although a second class of case is discussed in the “statement of the case ’’ on which that Opinion is founded. On the other hand, Opinion 65 gives implicit guidance regarding the principles to be applied in dealing with the other classes of case. Moreover, that Opinion lays down the important general proposition that, where any specialist encounters a genus which appears to be based upon an erroneously deter- mined species, he should submit full particulars to the Commission. 2. In view of the relatively large number: of cases which I have en- countered in a single Sub-Order (Rhopalocera) of one Order (Lepidoptera) of insects, it cannot be doubted that in the Animal Kingdom as a whole the number of genera based upon erroneously determined species must be considerable. For this reason alone it is clearly desirable that the Inter- national Commission should now elucidate the principles laid down im-. plicitly in Opinion 65. The lack of such guidance is already causing real inconvenience to those whose business it is to determine the types of genera in various groups and is retarding the development of classification. 3. The preparation of such an Opinion would not involve the Commission in any substantial amount of additional work, since it will in any case be necessary for the Commission to formulate for their own guidance the principles involved before they can reach decisions on the particular cases in the Order Lepidoptera now submitted. Once those principles have been formulated, there is clearly everything to be gained by their being set out in a special Opinion supplementary to Opinion 65 in a form readily accessible to all systematic workers. 4. The primary object of the present application is to secure decisions from the International Commission on the identity of the types of those genera in the Order Lepidoptera which I have found to be based upon er- roneously determined species. For the reasons explained above, the secondary object of this application is to ask the International Commission, once they have settled those cases, to render an Opinion setting out the principles that have guided them in so doing. 5. Part 1 of the present paper is therefore concerned with the general problem of the different classes of genera based upon erroneously determined species. In this Part, I indicate the solution which appears to me to follow from the principles implicit in the Opinion rendered by the Commission as Opinion 65. quoted in the Opinions dealing with those names, namely Opimions 169 (Lycaeides Hiibner) (pp. 431-442 below), 173 (Agviades Hubner), 175 (Polyommatus Latreille), 177. (Euchloé Hiibner), 179 (Princeps Hiibner), and 181 (Cavchavodus Hibner). * This volume was published by the Trustees of the British Museum (Natural History) on 28th July 1934. COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 168. 415 6. Part 2 deals with the particular cases in the Order Lepidoptera on which I am asking for decisions from the International Commission. A full statement of the relevant facts is given for each of the genera concerned, together with suggestions for the solution of the problems involved. Part 1. The Problems Raised by Genera Based upon Erroneously Determined Species 7. The problems associated with genera based upon erroneously deter- mined species were discussed by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature at their meeting held in 1910 at Graz during the Eighth International Congress of Zoology. As the result of that discussion, Dr. C. W. Stiles, as Secretary to the Commission, opened a public debate on this question in a paper which appeared in Science in April 1911 under the title ‘“ What is the genotype of X-us Jones 1900, based upon a species erroneously determined as albus Smith 1890?’ The statement of the case as given in that paper read as follows :— Statement of case—Jones proposes the new genus X-us, 1900, type species albus Smith, go. It later develops that albus Smith, 1890, as determined by Jones, 1900, is an erroneous determination. What is the genotype of X-us, 1900; albus Smith, 1890, or the form erroneously identi- fied by Jones as albus in 1900? 8. As the result of the publication of this paper extensive correspondence ensued between the Secretary to the Commission and specialists in various groups, and this correspondence was laid before the Commission at their meeting held at Monaco in 1913 during the meeting of the Ninth Interna- tional Congress of Zoology. The Commission then decided, on Dr. Stiles’s proposal, to refer the whole of the documents of the case to a specially constituted Committee consisting of Commissioners Hartert, Allen and Hoyle ‘‘ for recommendation as to action.” ; 9g. The Report submitted by the Hartert—Allen—Hoyle Committee was as ollows :— Case of a genus based upon a wrongly determined species The Committee is of the opinion that as a specimen is the type of a species, so a species is the type of a genus, and hence that when an author names a particular species as the type of a new genus it is to be assumed that it has been correctly determined. Ifa case should present itself in which it appears that an author has based his genus updn certain specimens rather than upon a species, it should be submitted to the Commission for consideration. 10. The foregoing Report was accepted by the Commission who thereupon adopted it and ordered it to be published as their Opinio on this subject.+ Effect was given to this decision in March 1914 on the publication of Opinion 65. The title and “ summary ”’ (i.e. the operative portion) of that Opinion are as follows :— Case of a genus based upon erroneously determined species. SUMMARY .—If an author designates a certain species as genotype, it is to be assumed that his determination is correct; if a case presents itself in which it appears that an author has based his genus upon certain definite specimens, rather than upon a species, it would be well to submit the case, with full details, to the Commission. At the present moment, it is difficult to lay down a general rule. 11. It will be noted that the ‘‘ summary ”’ of Opinion 65 deals in terms only with the special case where a genus is based upon particular speci- mens rather than a particular species although the “‘ statement of the case”’ Tt See Stiles, 1914, Smithson. miscel. Publ. 2256 : 169. t Published in rorg, ibid. 2256 ; 152-160. 416 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL upon which this Opinion is founded is concerned with the case of a genus based upon an erroneously determined species. Only for the first of such types of case does the “‘summary ’’ lay down clearly the action to be taken. Unlike the “‘ summary,” the title to this Opinion is quite general, thereby indicating that the Commission intended that this Opinion should apply to all the types of case in which a genus may be based upon an erroneously determined species. It was undoubtedly to these other types of case that the observation in the last sentence of the “summary,” that “ at the present moment, it is difficult to lay down a general rule’’ was directed. Twenty-one years have gone by since Opinion 65 was published by the Commission and no further guidance has been issued to zoologists on this subject. Throughout this period it has therefore been necessary for systematists to deal with the various classes of case, other than the single one expressly covered in the “summary ”’ of the above Opinion, as best they could in the light of the general principles deducible from that Opinion. Results obtained by such means are obviously liable to challenge until the International Commission as the final judicial authority gives a clear and unequivocal decision on the points of principle involved. 12. The lack of such a decision has not so far caused as much incon- venience as might have been expected since in the case of many groups the war of 1914-1918 materially delayed the detailed study of generic names in the light of the present Code, which in 1914 was only nine years old.* In recent years, however, a great deal of work has been done in this field and a stage has been reached where in some groups almost the only genera, the types of which are open to challenge, are genera, the names of which fall in one or other of the classes covered by Opinion 65. It is manifest therefore that if the Commission is to assist specialists to secure stability of nomen- clature in their respective groups, one of their most urgent tasks is the elucidation of those parts of Opinion 65 which in 1914 they left to be dealt with by implication. 13. Most but not all of the problems involved will be settled automatically by the International Commission when they give decisions on the names in the Order Lepidoptera dealt with in Part 2 of the present paper. There are seven principal classes of case involved, including the class (class ““C”’), on which a definitive ruling was given in the ‘“‘summary ” of Opinion 65, and the class (class “‘ A ’’) dealt with in the “‘ statement of the case ”’ upon which that Opinion is based. ‘The classes in question are the fol- lowing :— CLASS ‘‘ A ”’ :—a genus of which the type was designated by the original author but there is doubt regarding the identity of the species so designated. CLASS ‘‘ B”’ :—a genus of which the type was not designated by the original author of the genus and both that author and the author who subsequently designated the type referred to the species under an erroneously determined name. CLASS ‘‘C”’ :—a genus based upon certain specimens rather than upon a species. CLASS “‘ D ”’ :—a genus of which the type was designated by the original author but the species so designated was a “‘ composite species.” CLASS ‘‘ E”’ :—a genus of which the type was not designated by the original author of the genus and the originally included species first designated as the type by a later author was a “‘ composite species.” CLASS “‘ F ”’ :—a genus of which the type was not designated by the original author of the genus and the species first designated as the type by a later author is a component species of a ‘‘ composite species ”’ included in the genus by the original author of the genus. CLASS ‘‘G”’ :—a genus of which the type was not designated by the original author of the genus and there is doubt whether the species first designated as the type by a later author is an originally included species. * The present Code was adopted by the International Congress of Zoology at Berlin in 1901. The editing of the texts was not completed until 1904 and the report of the Comité de Rédaction, containing the text of the Code adopted at Berlin, was not published until 1905. | COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 168. 417 14. At this point it is necessary to refer briefly to two interpretations of Opinion 65, each of which is based, as it seems to me, upon a complete misunderstanding of the intention of the International Commission. These interpretations are :— (i) If the original author of a genus when designating its type or, if the type is not so designated, the later author when selecting the type, uses a wrongly determined trivial name for the species so designated or so selected, the type of the genus is in all circumstances the species to which properly belongs the specific trivial name erroneously so used. Note :—In its most extreme form this interpretation claims that the type of a genus is not a species but the name of a species. (ii) The type of a genus is not and cannot be a species, since that is an abstract conception quite inappropriate for this purpose. The type of a genus, like the type of a species, must therefore be the actual specimen from which the first published description of the genus was drawn up. : Note :—This argument implies that a given specimen might be the holotype both of a species (see the second part of Section A of the Appendix to the International Code) and of a genus. It implies also that, if the author of a genus based his description upon two or more specimens, each of those specimens would be a paratype of the genus, if at the same time he designated a holotype, and in other cases would be a co-type of the genus. 15. Of these interpretations, interpretation (i) would be valid only if the International Commission had declared in Opinion 65 that in all circum- stances the type of.a genus is, and must remain, the species to which properly belongs the specific trivial name cited at the time when the type of the genus was designated by its author or selected by a subsequent author, irrespective of any evidence that may be available regarding the intentions of the author by whom the type was designated or selected as the case may be. But quite clearly this interpretation is the opposite of the intention of Opinion 65, for in the “summary ”’ of that Opinion the International Commission expressly provided for the recognition of a mistake having been made by the author in one class of case and clearly implied that in suitable instances they were prepared to accord a similar recognition in other classes of case. Except on this basis, no explanation is possible of the request made in the “ summary ”’ that doubtful cases should be submitted “ with full details ’’ to the Commission. 16. The origin of interpretation (ii) is no doubt to be found in the refer- ence in the ‘“‘summary’”’ of Opinion 65 to the possibility that a genus might be founded upon “ certain definite specimens rather than upon a species.”’ The context clearly shows however that these words were inserted in the “summary ’’ not for the purpose of upholding, still less for enjoining, such a method of founding a genus but for the purpose of condemning it and of pointing out that, where the reviser of a genus encounters such a case, he must regard the identity of the type as open to doubt until the question has been referred to, and settled by, the International Commission. Like interpreta- tion (i), interpretation (ii) must be rejected as fallacious. 17. The general question of what is the type of a genus is made perfectly clear both in Article 30 of the International Code, the opening words of which refer expressly to the “‘ type species of genera ’’ and in the addition to Article 25 approved by the International Zoological Congress at its meeting at Budapest in 1927, which in referring to the type of a genus, refers to the ‘““ type species ’’ and to nothing else. Moreover, as pointed out in paragraph g above, the same proposition is stated with even greater precision in Opimion 65 itself, for in the Resolution adopted by the Commission at Monaco upon which that Opinion is founded and from which it derives its authority, it is expressly laid down that “‘as a specimen is the type of a 418 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL species, So a species is the type of a genus.’”’ The contention involved in interpretation (ii) that the type of a genus is or may be not a species but a specimen is therefore wholly untenable. 18. The foregoing, however, is not the question with which Opinion 65 is concerned. What the Commission had set themselves to consider—and what they therefore dealt with—in that Opinion was an entirely different problem and one concerned with procedure only. It was to define the action which the reviser of a genus should take when he finds (or thinks that he finds) evidence showing that that genus is based upon an erroneously determined species. The action enjoined upon revisers in that Opinion was that they should guide themselves by the preliminary assumption that the author who designates the type of a genus correctly identified the species so designated. The Commission went on however to qualify this injunction by the proviso that, if in the opinion of the reviser there are grounds for believing that the foregoing preliminary assumption is at variance with the facts, he should submit the case, with full details, to the International Commission. 19. Opinion 65 is imperfect not because its meaning is obscure but because the wording of the ‘“‘summary’”’ and therefore the explicit, as contrasted with the implicit, scope of that Opinion is narrower than the title of the Opinion which (as already observed) is quite general and covers the whole range of genera based upon erroneously determined species. The position in regard to this Opinion is somewhat similar to that which has arisen with regard to Opinion 11 (relating to the interpretation of Latreille’s Considévations générales of 1810). The title of that Opinion indicated that it was intended to define the extent to which Latreille designated genotypes in that work, but the “‘ summary ’’ dealt only with part of the problems involved and left the remainder to be inferred. To remedy this situation, the Commission are now being asked to render an Opinion supplementary to Opinion 11 dealing in express terms with those parts of the subject which were not clearly defined in that Opinion. Both Opinion 11 and Opinion 65 give valuable guidance on the subjects with which they are respectively concerned but neither Opinion covers the whole of the ground. The difficulties in regard to Opinion 11 will be overcome if the Commission now agree to render the proposed supplementary Opinion.2 So also will the difficulties which have arisen in regard to Opinion 65 if in that case also the Commission agree to render a supplementary Opinion dealing with those parts of the subject which were not expressly covered when that Opinion was drafted over twenty years ago. 20. I accordingly recommend that the International Commission should render an Opinion supplementary to Opinion 65 :— (i) re-affirming the proposition laid down by the Commission at Monaco { that “‘as a specimen is the type of a species, so a species is the type Ola Seuusins (ii) declaring that an author when considering a genus should start with the assumption that the original author of the genus correctly identi- fied both the type species, if he designated a species as such, and also the other species placed by him in that genus, and further that, where the original author did not designate a type, the first author t See paragraphs 9 and 10 above. * The proposal to render an Opinion supplementary to Opinion I1 was approved by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature at their meeting held at Lisbon on the afternoon of 16th September 1935 (Lisbon Session, 3rd Meeting, Conclusion 1). : That decision has since been embodied in Opinion 136 (see 1939, Opinions and Declarations rendered by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 2 : 13-20). COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. ‘OPINION 168. 419 to select one of the originally included species as the type also correctly identified the species so selected ; (iii) indicating that, where in the opinion of the reviser of a genus there is evidence that either or both of the foregoing assumptions are at variance with the facts, the identity of the type of the genus must for the time being be regarded as doubtful and that accordingly a reviser encountering such a case should submit it with full details to the International Commission for decision. 21. These are the principles which appear to me to be inherent in Opinion 65 and which I have adopted in formulating for the consideration of the International Commission the recommendations in regard to the genera in the Order Lepidoptera set out in Part 2 of the present paper. It follows therefore that, if the Commission approve those proposals, it will be because they have accepted the foregoing interpretation of Opinion 65. Equally, if the Commission approve this interpretation of that Opinion, they will find no difficulty in approving the proposals submitted in regard to the individual cases dealt with in Part 2. 22. The object of the International Commission in indicating in Opinion 65 that doubtful cases should be referred to them with full details can only have been to secure absolute finality regarding the identity of the type of any genus so submitted. If this object is to be secured, decisions in such cases will need to be taken by the Commission not under their ordinary powers but under the plenary powers conferred upon them by the Ninth International Zoological Congress at Monaco in 1913, for it is only by this means that their decision in such a matter can be placed beyond the reach of subsequent dispute. 23. To sum up this part of the case, the object of the present application is to request the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to render an Opinion supplementary to Opinion 65, re-affirming the principle quoted in sub-paragraph (i) of paragraph 20 above and prescribing the method of procedure indicated in sub-paragraphs (ii) and (iii) of that paragraph. ; Il._THE SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF THE CASE. 3. The questions raised in Commissioner Hemming’s application were considered by the International Committee on Entomological Nomenclature at their meeting held at Madrid in September 1935 during the Sixth International Congress of Entomology. The International Committee unanimously agreed to recommend the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to render an Opinion clarifying the meaning of Ofinion 65 in the manner proposed and, as regards the genera in the Order Lepidoptera (Class Insecta) dealt with in Part 2 of that application, to render Opimons declaring that the types of those genera were the species indicated in that paper, 7.e. the species intended by the original authors concerned and not the species to which properly belong the trivial names erroneously used for those species by the authors concerned. 3 For the numbers of the Opinions subsequently rendered by the Inter- national Commission on Zoological Nomenclature in regard to the generic names here referred to, see footnote I. 420 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL 4. The above and other resolutions adopted by the Interna- tional Committee at their meeting held at Madrid were confirmed by the Sixth International Congress of Entomology at the Con- cilium Plenum held at Madrid on 12th September 1935. IIIl.—THE CONCLUSION REACHED BY THE INTER- NATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMEN- CLATURE. 5. The question of the interpretation of Opinion 65 and the associated question of the types of the genera in the Order Lepido- ptera (Class Insecta) dealt with in Commissioner Hemming’s application were considered by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature at their meeting held at Lisbon on the morning of Monday, 16th September 1935. In the course of the discussion on the general principles involved, attention was drawn to the following considerations : — (a) The difficulties that had arisen in regard to the interpretation of Opinion 65 were largely due to technical faults in that Opinion due to the fact that the ‘“‘summary ”’ of that Opinion was drawn in much narrower terms than those of the decision taken by the International Commission when at Monaco in March 1913 they had agreed to render an Opinion on this subject. (b) The ‘“‘summary ”’ of Opinion 65 was restricted to the special case where the author of a genus designated its type but in reality based his genus upon certain definite specimens rather than on a species and where it was later found that the specimens so used by the author of the genus were not referable to the species designated by that author as the type. On the other hand, the decision to render this Opinion was in form a decision to accept, adopt, and publish the report of a special Committee of Three Commissioners (the Hartert— Allen—Hoyle Committee). The proposition in that report (and therefore in the decision taken by the Commission at Monaco in 1913) was that “‘ as a specimen is the type of a species, so a species is the type of a genus.”’ For some (now unascertainable) reason this proposition had been omitted from the “ summary ”’ of Opinion 65. The result had been unfortunate, since this omission, coupled with the reference in the Monaco decision and (consequently) in the “summary ”’ to Opinion 65 to the Possibility of an author basing a genus upon “ certain definite specimens,’’ had lent some apparent support to the proposition that the type ot a genus was or might be a Specimen rather than a species. (c) Further, the decision taken at Monaco cowie a narrower field than did the documents attached to the “ statement of the case” on which the discussion leading up to that decision was based, for the case so stated was not confined to the class of case where the mis- identified species had been designated as the type by the original author but was applicable also to the case where the misidentified species became the type by being selected as such by a later author. The title of the Opinion “‘ Case of a genus based upon erroneously determined species ’’’ was wider even than the “ statement of the case’’ and clearly covered every type of case in which a genus could be based upon an erroneously determined species. COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 168. 421 (d) What was now required was an Opinion setting out in the clearest and most unambiguous manner possible exactly what was the scope of the decision intended to be conveyed by Opinion 65 and the procedure that should be adopted by zoologists when confronted with cases falling within the scope of that Opinion as so defined. Only by this means would an end be put to the doubts and perplexities caused by Opinion 65 in its present form. 6. In view of the fact that a decision on either part of the present application would inevitably determine also the decision to be taken on the other part, the International Commission considered the two parts together. Their decision thereon was as follows (Lisbon Session, 2nd Meeting, Conclusion 23) :— (a) to re-affirm the decision taken at their Monaco Session in 1913 that Article 30 of the International Code is to be interpreted as meaning that, as a specimen is the type of a species, so a species is the type of a genus; to interpret Opinion 65 as directing (1) that, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, it is to be assumed that the original author of a genus correctly identified the species assigned by him thereto, whether the species in question was designated as the type of the genus by that author or, no species having been so designated, is a species selected as the type by a later author acting under Article 30(g) of the Code, and (ii) that in the latter event it is to be further assumed that the later author correctly identified the species so selected, but (111) that, where there is evidence that either or both of these assumptions is at variance with the facts, the case should be submitted with full details to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, and (iv) that, pending their decision thereon, the genus should be regarded as of doubtful status; (b) in the light of (a) above, to suspend the rules in the case of the undermentioned genera and to declare the types of the genera in question to be the species indicated below :— Name of genus Type of genus (1) Lycaeides Hubner, [1819],4 Papilio argyrognomon Bergstrasser, Verz. beh. Schmett. (5) : 69 [1779], Nom. Ins. 2 : 76 (the species misidentified as Papilio argus Linnaeus, 1758, by Schiffer- mutlem oc Denis. 1775.) and by Hubner and later authors) (2) Agriades Hubner, [1819], Papilio glandon Prunner, 1708, Verz. bek. Schmett. (5): 68 Lepid. pedemont. : 76 and (the species misidentified as Papilio Latiorina Tutt, 1900, Ent. orbitulus Prunner, 1798, by Esper, Rec. 21 : 108 i 7o0lh, by) Eliioner, | and.) other authors) ; 4 As explained in note (33) on page 68 of vol. 1 of Bull. zool. Nomencl., it was believed at the time of the Lisbon Session that signatures 5 to 15 of Hiibner’s Verz. bek. Schmett. were published in 1823. With the discovery and examination of Hiibner’s surviving manuscripts, it has since been ascertained that of these signatures nos. 5 to 11 were published in 1819 (see Opinion 150 in 1943, Opinions and Declarations rendered by the Interna- tional Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 2%: 161-168). The dates were corrected in the Official Record of the Proceedings of the International Commission at their Lisbon Session as agreed upon at the Fifth Meeting of the Commission at that Session (Conclusion 1(c)). 422 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL Name of genus (3) Polyommatus _ Latreille, 1804, Nouv. Dict. Hist. nat. 24 (Tab.) : 185, 200 (4) Euchloé Hibner, [1819], Verz. bek. Schmett. (6) : 94 (5) Princeps Hubner, [1807], Samml. exot. Schmett. 1: pl. [116] and Orpheides Hubner, [1819], Verz. bek. Schmett. (6) : 86 (6) Carcharodus Hibner, [1819], Verz. bek. Schmett. (7) : 110 and Spilothyrus Duponchel, 1835, 7m Godart, Hist. nat. Lépid. France Suppl. 1 Type of genus Papilio i1carus Rottemburg, 1775, Naturforscher 6 : 21 (the species misidentified as Papilio argus Linnaeus, 1758, by Latreille, 1804) Euchloé ausonia Hiibner var. espe Kirby, 1871, Syn. Cat. diurn. Lep.: 506 (the species misidentified as Papilio belia Linnaeus, 1767, by Stoll (zn Cramer), and by Esper and Hiibner) Papilio demodocus Esper, [1798], Ausl. Schmett. (14) : 205 (first described by Linnaeus in 1764 as Papilio demoleus, a name given by him in 1758 to another species ; Similarly misidentified by Hubner) Papilio alceae Esper, [1780], Die Schmett. 1 (Bd. 2) Forts. Tagschmeit. : 4 Dl 51 86.39 ee (the species misidentified as Papilio malvae Linnaeus, 1758, by Denis and Schiffermtller, 1775, and by Hubner and Duponchel) (Diurnes) : 415 (c) to render Opinions in the sense of (a) and (b) above.® 7. At the meeting of the Commission held on Tuesday, 17th September 1935 (Lisbon Session, 4th Meeting, Conclusion 17), Commissioner Francis Hemming, who, in the absence through ill- health of Dr. C. W. Stiles, Secretary to the Commission, had been charged with the duty of preparing the report to be submitted by the Commission to the Twelfth International Congress of Zoology, reported that, in accordance with the request made by the Commission on the previous day (Lisbon Session, 3rd Meeting, Conclusion 3(b)), he had made a start with the drafting of the Commission’s report; that he had made considerable progress in spite of being hampered by the lack of standard works of reference ; and that he did not doubt that he would be in a position to lay a draft report before the Commission at their next meeting, though in the time available it would be quite impracticable to prepare the drafts of paragraphs relating to all the matters on which decisions had been reached during the Lisbon Session of the Commission. As agreed upon at the meeting referred to above (Lisbon Session, 3rd Meeting, Conclusion 3(a)(iii)), he was there- 5 The above is an extract from the Official Record of Proceedings of the International Commission at their Session held at Lisbon in 1935 (see 1943, Bull, zool. Nomencl. 1 : 23-25). COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 168. 423 fore concentrating upon those matters that appeared the more important. Commissioner Hemming proposed that those matters which it was found impossible to include in the report, owing to the shortness of the time available, should be dealt with after the ‘Congress on the basis of the records in the Official Record of the Proceedings of the Commission during their Lisbon Session. For this purpose, Commissioner Hemming proposed that all matters unanimously agreed upon during the Lisbon Session should be treated in the same way, whether or not it was found possible to include references to them in'the report to be submitted to the Congress, and therefore that every such decision should be treated as having been participated in by all the Commissioners and Alternates present at Lisbon. The Commission took note of, and approved, the statement by Commissioner Hemming, and adopted the proposals submitted by him, as recorded above, in regard both to the selection of items to be included in their report to the Twelfth International Congress of Zoology and to the procedure to be adopted after the Congress in regard to those matters with which, for the reasons explained, it was found impossible to deal in the report. : 8. The decisions involving suspension of the rules in the case of the names dealt with in paragraph (b) of Conclusion 23 of the Second Meeting of the Lisbon Session (quoted in paragraph 6 above) were embodied in paragraph 29 of the report which at their meeting held on the morning of Wednesday, 18th September 1935, the Commission (Lisbon Session, 5th Meeting, Conclusion 6) unanimously agreed to submit to the Twelfth International Con- gress of Zoology. It was not found possible in the time available to include in the report the decision recorded in paragraph (a) of Conclusion 25, which was therefore left to be dealt with under the procedure referred to in paragraph 7 above. The Com- mission's report was unanimously approved by the Section on Nomenclature at its joint meeting with the International Com- mission held on the afternoon of the same day. It was thereupon submitted to the Twelfth International Congress of Zoology by which it was unanimously approved and adopted at the Concilium Plenum held on Saturday, 21st September 1935, the last day of the Congress. g. In accordance with the decision taken by the Commission at Lisbon in regard to their procedure at that Session, the action proposed in regard to the generic names specified in paragraph (b) of Conclusion 23 of the Second Meeting of that Session was duly 424 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL advertised in 1936 in two or more of the journals specified in the Resolution adopted by the Ninth International Congress of Zoology at their meeting held at Monaco in March 1913, by which the said International Congress conferred upon the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature plenary power to suspend the rules as applied to any given case where, in the judgment of the Commission, the strict application of the rules would clearly result in greater confusion than uniformity.® In the period that has elapsed since the advertisement in the said journals of the proposed suspension of the rules in the case of the names specified in paragraph (b) of Conclusion 23 of the znd Meeting of the Lisbon Session of the International Commission, no communication of any kind has been received by the International Commission objecting to the suspension of the rules in the manner proposed. 10. The present Opinion was concurred in by the twelve (12) Commissioners and Alternates present at the Lisbon. Session of the International Commission, namely :— Commissioners :—Calman; Hemming; Jordan; Pellegrin; Peters; and Stejneger. Alternates :—do Amaral vice Cabrera; Ohshima vice Esaki; Bradley vice Stone; Beier vice Handlirsch; Arndt wice Richter; and Mortensen vice Apstein. 11. The present Opinion was dissented from by no Commissioner or Alternate present at the Lisbon Session. 12. The following five (5) Commissioners who were not present at Lisbon nor represented thereat by Alternates did not vote on the present Opinion : — Bolivar y Pieltain; Chapman; Fantham; Silvestri; and Stiles. 13. At the time when the vote was taken on the present Opinion, there was one (I) vacancy in the Commission consequent upon the death of Commissioner Horvath. IV.—AUTHORITY FOR THE ISSUE OF THE PRESENT OPINION. WHEREAS the Ninth International Congress of Zoology at its meeting held at Monaco in March 1913, adopted a Resolution conferring upon the International Commission on Zoological ® See Declaration 5 (1943, Opinions and Declarations rendered by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 1 : 31-40). COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 168. 425 Nomenclature, acting for the International Congress of Zoology, plenary power to suspend the rules as applied to any given case where, in the judgment of the Commission, the strict application of the rules would clearly result in greater confusion than uni- formity, provided that not less than one year’s notice of the possible suspension of the rules as applied to the said case should be given in two or more of five journals specified in the said Resolu- tion, and provided that the vote in the Commission was unani- mously in favour of the proposed suspension of the rules; and WHEREAS the By-Laws of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature provide that, except in cases involving the suspension of the rules, an Opinion is to be deemed to have been adopted by the said International Commission as soon as a majority of the Members of the Commission, that is to say ten (10) Members of the said Commission, have recorded their votes in favour thereof, provided that, where any proposed Opinion involves a reversal of any former Opinion rendered by the Com- mission, such proposed Opinion shall obtain the concurrence of at least fourteen (14) Members of the Commission voting on the same before such Opinion is to be deemed to have been adopted by the Commission, and WHEREAS the first portion of the Twenty Third Conclusion of the Second Meeting of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature at their Lisbon Session held in September 1935, that is to say the portion set out in the summary to the present Opimion, neither requires, in order to be valid, the suspension of the rules nor involves a reversal of any former Opinion rendered by the Commission, while the second portion of the said Conclusion does require such suspension of the rules; and WHEREAS not less than one year’s notice of the possible sus- pension of the’rules as applied to the second portion of the said Twenty Third Conclusion has been given to two or more of the journals specified in the Resolution adopted by the Ninth Inter- national Congress of Zoology at its meeting held at Monaco in March 1913; and WHEREAS the vote in the Commission at their Lisbon Session was unanimously in favour of the decision recorded in the said Twenty Third Conclusion and at that Session twelve (12) Members of the Commission signified their concurrence therein either personally or through Alternates ; 426 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL. Now, THEREFORE, I, FRANcIS HEMMING, Secretary to the International Com- mission on Zoological Nomenclature, acting in virtue of all and every the powers conferred upon me in that behalf by virtue of holding the said Office of Secretary to the International Com- mission, hereby announce on behalf of the International Com- mission, acting for the International Congress of Zoology, the present Opinion relating to the matters dealt with in the first portion of the Twenty Third Conclusion of the Second Meeting of the International Commission at their Session held at Lisbon in September 1935, and direct that it be rendered and printed as. Opinion Number One Hundred and Sixty Eight (Opimion 168) of the said Commission. In faith whereof I, the undersigned FRANCIS HEMMING, Secre- tary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, have signed the present Opinion. DonE in London, this fifteenth day of July, Nineteen Hundred and Forty Three, in a single copy, which shall remain deposited in the archives of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Secretary to the I nternational Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. FRANCIS HEMMING COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 168. 427 THE PUBLICATIONS OF THE COMMISSION. (obtainable at the Publications Office of the Commission at 41, Queen’s Gate, London, 5.W.7.) Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. This journal has been established by the International Com- mission as their Official Organ in order to provide a medium for the publication of :— (a) proposals on zoological nomenclature submitted to the International Commission for deliberation and decision ; (b) comments received from, and correspondence by the Secretary with, zoologists on proposals published in the Bulletin under (a) above; and (c) papers on nomenclatorial implications of developments in taxonomic theory and practice. The Bulletin was established in 1943. Seven Parts of volume 1 have now been published. Further Parts are in the press. Opinions and Declarations Rendered by the International Com- mission on Zoological Nomenelature. The above work is being published in three volumes con- currently, namely :— Volume 1. This volume will contain Declarations 1-9 (which have never previously been published) and Opinions 1-133 (the original issue of which is now out of print). Parts 1-20 (contain- ing Declarations 1-9 and Opinions 1-11) have now been published. Further Parts will be published shortly. Volume 2. This volume will be issued in 52 Parts, comprising all the decisions taken by the International Commission at their meeting at Lisbon in 1935, namely Declarations 10-12 (with Roman pagination) and Opimions 134-181 (with Arabic pagina- tion). Part 52 will contain the index and title page of the volume. Parts 1-40, containing Declarations 10-12 and Opinions 134-170, have now been published. Further Parts will be published shortly. Volume 3. This volume, which commenced with Opinion 182, will contain the Ofimions adopted by the International Com- mission since their meeting at Lisbon in 1935. Parts 1-11 (con- taining Opinions 182-192) have now been published. Further Parts will be published as soon as possible. 428 INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE, APPEAL FOR FUNDS The International Commission appeal earnestly to all institutions and individuals interested in the development of zoological nomen- elature to contribute, according to their means, to the Commission’s Special (Publications) Fund. Of the total sum of £1,800 required to enable the Commission to issue all the publications now awaiting printing, donations amounting to £969 16s. 1d. were received up to 30th June 1945. Additional contributions are urgently needed in order to enable the Commission to continue their work without interruption. Contributions of any amount, however small, will be most gratefully received. Contributions should be sent to the International Commission at their Publications Office, 44, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W. 7, and made payable to the “ International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature or Order ’’ and crossed ‘* Account payee. Coutts & Co.’’. 5 nas ie OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTER- NATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Edited by FRANCIS HEMMIN G, C.M.G., C.B.E. Secretary to the Commission VOLUME 2. Part 39. Pp. 431-442. OPINION 169 On the type of the genus Lycaeides Hubner, [1819] (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera), a genus based upon an erroneously determined species LONDON : Printed by Order of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature Sold at the Publications Office of the Commission 41, Queen’s Gate, London, $.W.7 1945 Price three shillings (All rights reserved) INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE COMPOSITION OF THE COMMISSION The Officers of the Commission President : Dr. Karl Jordan, Ph.D., F.R.S. (United Kingdom). Vice-President : Dr. James L. Peres (U.S.A.). Secretary : Mr. Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. (United Kingdom). The Members of the Commission Class 1946 Herr Professor Dr. Walter ARNDT (Germany). Dr. William Thomas CALMAN (United Kingdom). Professor Teiso ESAKI (Japan). Professor Béla von HANKO (Hungary). Dr Tadeusz JACZEWSKI (Poland). Dr. Norman R. STOLL (U.S.A.). Class 1949 Senor Dr. Angel CABRERA (Argentina), Mr. Francis HEMMING (United Kingdom) (Secretary to the Commission), Dr. Karl JORDAN (United Kingdom) (President of the Commission). Dr. Joseph PEARSON (Australia). | Monsieur le Docteur Jacques PELLEGRIN (France). Herr Professor Dr. Rudolf RICHTER (Germany). Class 1952 Senhor Dr. Afranio do AMARAL (Brazil). Professor James Chester BRADLEY (U.S.A.). Professor Ludovico di CAPORIACCO (Italy). Professor J. R. DYMOND (Canada). Dr. James L. PETERS (U.58.A.) (Vice-President of the Commission). Dr. Harold E. VOKES (U.5.A.). Secretariat of the Commission : British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London, S.W. 7. Publications Office of the Commission : 4I, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W. 7. Personal address of the Secretary : 83, Fellows Road (Garden Flat), London, N.W. 3. SONIA INoy, i, o o NOV 131 er “Arrona Huse OPINION 169. ON THE TYPE OF THE GENUS LYCAEIDES HUBNER, [1819] (CLASS INSECTA, ORDER LEPIDOPTERA), A GENUS BASED UPON AN ERRONEOUSLY DETERMINED SPECIES. SUMMARY.—Under suspension of the rules Papilio argyro- gnomon Bergstrasser, [1779], is hereby designated as the type of Lycaeides Hiibner, [1819] (Class Inseeta, Order Lepidoptera). I.—_THE STATEMENT OF THE CASE. In 1935 Commissioner Francis Hemming prepared for the consideration of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature a paper dealing with the interpretation of Opinion 65 relating to the determination of the types of genera based upon erroneously determined species, with special reference to certain genera in the Order Lepidoptera (Class Insecta). One of the genera in question was Lycaeides Hubner, [1819], in the family LYCAENIDAE. : 2. The portion of the foregoing paper ! relating to the generic name Lycaeides Hiibner reads as follows :— | (1) LYCAEIDES Hibner, [1819] 2 Hibner, [1819], Verz. bek. Schmett. (5) : 69 Scudder, 1872, 4th Ann. Rep. Peabody Acad. Sci. 1871 : 54 id., 1875, Proc. Amer. Acad. Arts Sci., Boston 10 : 208 25. Hiibner established this genus for four species, of which the first two (nos. 670 and 671) have suffered from great confusion in their nomenclature. 1 The text of the first part of this paper (paragraphs 1-23) relating to the interpretation of Opinion 65 is quoted in full in Opinion 168 (see pp. 411-430 above). The portions of the second part relating to the types of the other genera there discussed are quoted in Opinions 173 (Agriades Hubner), 175 (Polyommatus Latreille), 177 (Euchloé Hiibner), 179 (Princeps Hiibner), and 181 (Carchavodus Hiibner). : 2 At the time when the paper from which this is an extract was written, it was thought (Hemming, 1934, Gen. Names hol. Butt. 1 : 16-17) that pp. 65-240 of Hiibner’s Verz. bekannt. Schmett. were published in 1823. That date was accordingly assigned to the present name. The examination of Hiibner’s surviving manuscripts has since shown that the correct date is 1819 (see Opinion 150 published in 1943, Opinions and Declarations rendered by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 2 : 161-168). This correction has accordingly been made, wherever necessary, in the extract from Commissioner Hemming’s application quoted in the present Opinion. 434 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL The entries given by Hubner for the four nominal species placed by him in. this genus are as follows :— 670. Lycaeides Argus Linn. Syst. Pap. 232. Hibn. Pap. 316-318. 671. L. Aegon Schiff. Verz. Pap. N. 15. Hiibn. Pap. 313-315. 672. L. Optilete Knoch, Beytr. I. Pap. 3. Hiibn. Pap. 310-312. 673. L. Cyparissus Hiibn. Pap. 654-657. Nanus Herbst. 312, 1, 2. 26. Hubner never designated types. In consequence, the types for all his genera (other than the monotypical genera) require to be determined under Article 30 of the Code. The first author to select a type for the present genus was Scudder (1872) who designated Papilio argus Linnaeus, 1758. This selection was repeated by that author in his great “‘ Historical Sketch of the Generic Names proposed for Butterflies ’’ published in 1875. 27. In view of the fact that Hiibner included Papilio argus Linnaeus in the genus Lycaeides Hiibner, the first assumption to be made in accordance with the directions given in Opinion 65 3 is that Hiibner correctly identified Papilio avgus Linnaeus when he placed it in this genus. The second assumption to be made in accordance with the same directions is that Scudder in selecting that species as the type also correctly identified it. 28. The next stage is to determine whether either or both of these assumptions are correct :— (a) Huibner’s identification of Papilio argus Linnaeus, 1758 29. The nomenclature of the species included by Hiibner in the genus Lycaeides Hubner as Papilio argus Linnaeus, 1758 (Hiibner’s species no. 670) is difficult to disentangle owing to the existence of two other very similar palaearctic species, with which Papilio argus Linnaeus has frequently been confused. The first of these species to be named (species no. 1) was the one to which in 1758 (Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1: 483) Linnaeus gave the name Papilio avgus. This is the species which occurs in Great Britain where it is known as the “ Silver-studded Blue.’’ Species no. 2, which does not occur in Great Britain but is widely distributed in Continental Europe, was first named Papilio idas (from a blue female) by Linnaeus in 1761 (Faun. svec. (ed. 2) : 284). But that name is invalid, since it is a homonym of Papilio idas Linnaeus, 1758 (Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1: 488). The first authors to give structural differences distinguishing these two species from one another were Schiffermiller & Denis (1775, Schmett. Wien. : 184). Most unfortun- ately, however, those authors made the mistake of renaming species no. I, to which they applied the new name Papilio aegon, and of identifying species no. 2 with Papilio arvgus Linnaeus. This error was undetected for nearly 100 years until in 1871 Kirby (Syn. Cat. diurn. Lep. : 357) pointed out that the name Papilio avgus Linnaeus belonged to species no. 1 and not to species no. 2. Kirby therefore quite correctly adopted the name Papilio avgus Linnaeus for species no. 1, to which he sank the name Papilio aegon [Schiffermiller & Denis]4 as a synonym. Kirby realised that in these circumstances it would be necessary to find a name for species no. 2, which he had just deprived of the name Papilio argus Linnaeus, to which it had never been entitled. Kirby therefore looked round the old literature and applied to species no. 2 the name Papilio avgyrognomon Bergstrasser, [1779] 3 Since the passage here quoted was written, the International Com- mission have confirmed and amplified the decision given in Opinion 65. This later decision has been embodied in Opinion 168 (see pp. 411-430 above). 4 The Schmett. Wien. of Denis & Schiffermiller, which appeared in 1775 (a year before the issue of the same work under the title Verzeichniss der Schmetterlinge der Wiener Gegend), was published anonymously. The names of the authors are, therefore, here cited in square brackets. COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 169. 435 (Nom. Ins. 2: 76 pl. 46 figs. 1, 2 9), that being, as it seemed to him, the oldest available name for that species. 30. The third of the very similar species referred to above was not distinguished as such until in 1917 Chapman established its existence on structural characters and applied to it the new name Lycaena aegus Chapman (1917, 1m Oberthiir, Et. Lép. comp. 14 : 42-53 pl. 7 figs. 19-21 (genit.), pl. 8 figs. 22-24 (genit.), pl. 13 fig. 39 (genit.), pl. 19 fig. 57 (androconia), pl. 20 fig. 60). Later, it was discovered that names had already been applied to other subspecies of species no. 3 by authors who had been under the im- pression that they were dealing with subspecies of species no. 2. There is even the possibility ° that the name Papilio argyrvognomon Bergstrasser applies to the relatively scarce local species no. 3 and not to the commoner and more widely distributed species, species no2. The two species are very similar to one another and are undoubtedly congeneric; both occur in Germany, France, and Switzerland. It must be accepted that Hubner, when compiling the Verzeichniss bekannter Schmetilinge [sic], probably had before him specimens of both species. Be this as it may, Hiibner’s species no. 670 (Lycaeides argus) certainly covered both species no. 2 and species no. 3, since (as explained above) it was not until 1917 that the distinction between the two was recognised. 31. It will be seen from paragraphs 29 and 30 above :— (1) that Hiibner correctly identified Papilio aegon [Schiffermiller & Denis], 1775, with species no. 1 but was at fault in believing that that name was the oldest available name for species no. I; (11) that Hiibner misapplied the name Papilio argus Linnaeus, 1758 (which is properly applicable to species no. 1), and applied it to what can only be regarded as a composite of species no. 2 and species no. 3. (b) Scudder’s identification of Papilio argus Linnaeus, 1758 32. As pointed out in paragraph 26 above, Scudder designated Papilio avgus Linnaeus as the type of Lycaeides Hiibner. It is necessary therefore to determine the identity of the species so designated by Scudder. Did he correctly identify Papilio argus Linnaeus, 1758, with species no. I (i.e. did he select as the type Hiibner’s species no. 671 (Lycaeides aegon))? Or did he (like Hiibner) misidentify Papilio argus Linnaeus with species no. 2 (and the then unidentified species, species no. 3) (i.e. did he select as the type Hiubner’s species no. 670 (Papilio argus)) ? 33. This question would not be easy to answer with certainty if Scudder’s paper of 1872 had been the only source of information available, but for- tunately (as pointed out in paragraph 26 above) Scudder dealt with this subject again in 1875. This latter paper provides a categorical answer to this question. First, Scudder re-affirmed his action of 1872, thereby showing that he was using the name Papilio argus Linnaeus in the same sense as he had used it in his 1872 paper. Second, he used throughout the 1875 paper the nomenclature adopted in the (then tecently published) Syn. Cat. diurn. Lep. of Kirby (1871). Third, he made a practice throughout that paper of citing the name of each species as given by the author of each genus, followed (where that name differed from that used for that species by Kirby) by the name so used by Kirby. Fourth, in the case of Lycaeides 5 This possibility was at this time already under examination by Beuret, who in the Part of Lambillionea for August-September 1935 published a paper (Lambillionea 35 : 162-172) in which he definitely established that the species described and figured (from a blue female) by Bergstrasser as Papilio argyrognomon in 1779 was species no. 3 and not, as previously universally supposed, species no. 2. 436 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL Hiibner, he gave as the type “‘argus (argyvognomon),’’ thereby signifying that the species which he designated as the type was (i) the species to which Hubner had applied incorrectly the name Papilio argus Linnaeus and (ii) that the correct name was Papilio argyrognomon Bergstrasser, the name used for it by Kirby in 1871. In other words, Scudder intended to select as the type of this genus not species no. 1 (the true Papilio argus Linnaeus) but the species included by Hiibner in the genus Lycaeides Hiibner under the name Papilio argus Linnaeus, the true name of which was (in his and Kirby’s opinion) Papilio argyrognomon Bergstrasser. (c) Conclusion 34. The foregoing analysis shows beyond possibility of question :— (i) that, in the case of the genus Lycaeides Hiibner, Hiibner mis- identified Papilio avgus Linnaeus and that the preliminary assumption that his ‘‘ determination of the species is correct ’’ which is enjoined by Opinion 65,® is in this case unfounded; (ii) that, when selecting Hiibner’s ‘“‘ Papilio argus Linnaeus ”’ as the type of Lycaeides Hiibner, Scudder recognised that Hiibner had made a mistake in identification and that Scudder intended the type to be not the true Papilio avgus Linnaeus but the species misidentified therewith by Hubner ; (iii) that, in consequence of (i) above, this is a case which falls to be dealt with under the second part of Opinion 65,° i.e. that it isa case which should be submitted, ‘‘ with full details’’ to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. 35. If the wholly irrational course were followed of adopting as the type of Lycaeides Hubner not the species intended by Hiibner when he made the entry ‘“‘ Lycaeides Argus Linn.”’ but the species to which the name Papilio: argus Linnaeus properly belongs, the result would be :— (i) that Lycaeides Hiibner, [1819], would become an objective synonym of Plebeyus Kluk, 1802, Zwierz. Hist. nat. poez. gospod. 4; 89, of which also Papilio argus Linnaeus is the type; (ii) that Papilio argyrognomon Bergstrasser and its allies, which (in my view and that of most specialists who have studied the subject) are generically distinct from Papilio argus Linnaeus and which cannot therefore be referred to Plebeyus Kluk (of which Papilio argus Linnaeus is the type) would be deprived of the generic name Lycaeides Hiibner now commonly used for them; (iii) that, as there is no other generic name available, a new name would need to be proposed for Papilio argyrognomon Bergstrasser and its allies. (d) Action recommended 36. The consequences set out above would be an absurdly heavy price to pay for the sake of maintaining the thesis that it must be assumed that » an author’s determination of a species is correct, even where, as here, there is the clearest evidence to the contrary. No one can doubt that it was to meet this kind of case that the International Commission laid it down in Opinion 65 ® that cases of doubt should be submitted to them “ with full details.” 37. All these artificial difficulties would disappear if the International Commission would render an Opinion declaring that the type of Lycaeides Hubner is Papilio argyrognomon Bergstrasser, i.e. that the type of this 6 This proposition was later repeated and amplified in Opinion 168. See footnote 3. COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 169. 437 genus is the species selected by Scudder as the type from among the original species placed in this genus by Hubner under the erroneous deter- mination Papilio avgus Linnaeus. This is the course which I now ask the International Commission to take. For the reasons explained in paragraph 22 above,’ I consider that, in order to put an end to any possible contro- versy, this action should be taken by the International Commission under their ““ plenary powers.”’ IIl.—THE SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF THE CASE. 3. The questions raised in Commissioner Hemming’s application were considered by the International Committee on Entomological Nomenclature at their meeting held at Madrid in September 1935 during the Sixth International Congress of Entomology. The International Committee unanimously agreed to recommend the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to render an Ofimion clarifying the meaning of Opinion 65 in the manner proposed in the application. Having reached this conclusion on the general question involved, the International Committee examined the particular cases in the Order Lepidoptera submitted in the same paper. The International Committee considered that, if (as they had agreed to recommend) the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature agreed to render an Ofimion clarifying Opinion 65 in the manner proposed in the application, the only possible course as regards the genus Lycaezdes Hubner, [1819], would be for the International Commission to render an Opinion declaring that Papilio argyrognomon Berg- strasser, [1779], to be its type. The International Committee agreed therefore to recommend the International Commission to proceed in this way under their plenary powers. 4. The above and other resolutions adopted by the Interna- tional Committee at their meeting held at Madrid were confirmed by the Sixth International Congress of Entomology at the Con- cilium Plenum held at Madrid on 12th September 1935. Il].—THE CONCLUSION REACHED BY THE INTER- NATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMEN- CLATURE. 5. When the International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature met at Lisbon immediately after the close of the Sixth 7 The passage here referred to is quoted in the “statement of the case”’ embodied in Opinion 168 (see page 419 above). 8 For a full account of the subsequent history of the portion of this petition relating to the interpretation of Opinion 65 and the decision of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature thereon, see Opinion 168 (pp. 411-430 above). 438 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL International Congress of Entomology in September 1935, they found themselves confronted with a large number of cases in- volving proposals for the suspension of the rules, in respect of some of which advertisements had not been published or, if published, had not been published for the prescribed period, owing to the illness of Dr. C. W. Stiles, Secretary to the Commission, or for other causes. In these circumstances the Commission decided at their meeting held on the morning of Monday, 16th September 1935 (Lisbon Session, 2nd Meeting, Conclusion 9), that immediate consideration should be given to all cases submitted to the Com- mission that, in their judgment, had reached the stage at which a decision could properly be taken; that the By-Laws of the Commission should be suspended during the Lisbon Session to such extent as might be necessary to give effect to this decision ; and that, in so far as this procedure involved taking decisions “under suspension of the rules’’ in cases where the prescribed advertisement procedure had not been complied with, the cases in question should be duly advertised as soon as might be practic- able after the conclusion of the Lisbon Congress and that no Opinion should be rendered and published thereon until after the expiry of a period of one year from the date on which the said advertisement was despatched to the prescribed journals for publication. The case of Lycaevdes Hiibner, [1819], was among the cases in question and was accordingly dealt with under the above procedure. 6. At the same meeting as that referred to above (Lisbon Session, 2nd Meeting, Conclusion 23), the International Com- mission agreed upon certain clarifications of Opinion 65 in regard to the status of genera based upon erroneously determined species (Lisbon Session, 2nd Meeting, Conclusion 23 (a) and (c)).9 Having thus cleared the ground regarding the principles involved, the Commission proceeded to consider the present and certain other cases in the Order Lepidoptera and the resolutions in regard thereto submitted by the International Committee on Entomological Nomenclature. After careful consideration of the present case, the International Commission agreed (Lisbon Session, 2nd Meeting, Conclusion 23 (b) and (c)) 1°:— ® See footnote 8. *© Only those portions of Conclusion 23 which relate to the present case are here quoted. For the full text of Conclusion 23, see 1943, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 1 : 23-25. COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 169. 439 (b) in the light of (a) above, to suspend the rules in the case of the under- mentioned genera and to declare the types of the genera in question to be the species indicated below :— Name of genus Type of genus (1) Lycaeides Hiibner, Papilio argyvognomon Berg- esroj),tt Verz. Oelza wan serasser, (it7 Zoi) Nom) 175.) 2 2/76 Schmeit. (5) : 69 (the species misidentified as Papilio argus Linnaeus, 1758, by Schiffer- muller) iéa, Denis 1775.) and) by, Hubner and later authors) (c) to render Opinions in the sense of (a) and (b) above. 7. The foregoing decisions were embodied in paragraph 29 of the report which at their meeting held on the morning of Wednes- day, 18th September 1935 (Lisbon Session, 5th Meeting, Conclusion 6), the International Commission unanimously agreed to submit to the Twelfth International Congress of Zoology. That report was unanimously approved by the Section on Nomenclature at its joint meeting with the International Commission held on the afternoon of the same day. It was thereupon submitted to the Twelfth International Congress of Zoology, by which it was unanimously approved and adopted at the Concilium Plenum held on the afternoon of Saturday, 21st September 1935, the last day of the Congress. 8. In accordance with the decision taken by the Commission at Lisbon in regard to their procedure at that Session (paragraph 5 above), this case was duly advertised in 1936 in two or more of the journals specified in the Resolution adopted by the Ninth International Congress of Zoology at its meeting held at Monaco in March 1913, by which the said International Congress conferred upon the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature plenary power to suspend the rules as applied to any given case where, in the judgment of the Commission, the strict application of the rules would clearly result in greater confusion than unil- formity.!* In the period that has elapsed since the advertisement in the said journals of the proposed suspension of the rules in the present case, no communication of any kind has been addressed 11 As explained on page 68 of vol. 1 of Bull. zool. Nomencl., it was believed at the time of the Lisbon Session that this name was published in 1823. For the reasons explained in footnote 2, the date has been corrected to 1819, the year in which it is now known that this name was published. 12 See Declaration 5 (1943, Opinions and Declarations rendered by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 1 : 31-40). 440 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL to the International Commission objecting to the issue of an Opinion in the terms proposed. g. The present Opinion was concurred in by the twelve (12) Commissioners and Alternates present at the Lisbon Session of the International Commission, namely :— Commissioners :—Calman; Hemming; Jordan; Pellegrin; Peters and) Stejmecer | Alternates :—do Amaral vice Cabrera; Ohshima wice Esaki; Bradley vice Stone; Beier vice Handlirsch; Arndt wice Richter; and Mortensen vice Apstein. 10. The present Opinion was dissented from by no Commissioner or Alternate present at the Lisbon Session. Nor since that Session has any Commissioner who was neither present on that occasion nor represented thereat by an Alternate indicated dis- agreement with the conclusions then reached by the Commission in this matter. ; 11. The following five (5) Commissioners who were not present at Lisbon nor represented thereat by Alternates did not vote on the above Ofimion :— Bolivar y Pieltain; Chapman; Fantham; Silvestri; and Stiles. 12. At the time when the vote was taken on the present Opimion, there was one (I) vacancy in the Commission consequent upon the death of Commissioner Horvath. IV.—AUTHORITY FOR THE ISSUE OF THE VER onal OPINION. WHEREAS the Ninth International Congress of Zoology at its meeting held at Monaco in March 1913 adopted a Resolution conferring upon the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature plenary power to suspend the rules as applied to any given case where, in the judgment of the Commission, the strict application of the rules would clearly result in greater con- fusion than uniformity, provided that not less than one year’s notice of the possible suspension of the rules as applied to the said case should be given in two or more of five journals specified in the said Resolution, and provided that the vote in the Commission was unanimously in favour of the proposed suspension of the rules; and COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 169. 441 WHEREAS the suspension of the rules is required to give valid force to the provisions of the present Opinion as set out in the summary thereof; and WHEREAS not less than one year’s notice of the possible sus- pension of the rules as applied to the present case has been given to two or more of the journals specified in the Resolution adopted by the Ninth International Congress of Zoology at its meeting held at Monaco in March 1913; and WHEREAS the vote in the Commission at their Lisbon Session was unanimously in favour of the issue of an Opinion in the terms of the present Opinion ; Now, THEREFORE, I, FRANcIS HEMMING, Secretary to the International Com- mission on Zoological Nomenclature, acting in virtue of all and every the powers conferred upon me in that behalf by reason of holding the said Office of Secretary to the International Com- mission, hereby announce the said Opinion on behalf of the Inter- national Commission, acting for the International Congress of Zoology, and direct that it be rendered and printed as Opinion Number One Hundred and Sixty Nine (Opinion 169) of the said Coramission. In faith whereof I, the undersigned FRANCIS HEMMING, Secre- tary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, have signed the present Opinion. Done at Aldeburgh in the County of Suffolk, this first day of September, Nineteen Hundred and Forty Three, in a single copy, which shall remain deposited in the archives of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Secretary to the I nternational Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. FRANCIS HEMMING 442 INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. THE PUBLICATIONS OF THE COMMISSION. (obtainable at the Publications Office of the Commission at 41, Queen’s © Gate, London, S.W.7.) Bulletin of Zoological Nomenelature. This journal has been established by the International Commission as their Official Organ in order to provide a medium for the publication of :— (a) proposals on zoological nomenclature submitted to the International Commission for deliberation and decision ; (b) comments received from, and correspondence by the Secretary with, zoologists on proposals published in the Bulletin under (a) above; and (c) papers on nomenclatorial implications of developments in taxonomic theory and practice. The Bulletin was established in 1943. Seven Parts of volume 1 have now been published. Further Parts are in the press. Opinions and Declarations Rendered by the International Com- mission on Zoological Nomenclature. The above work is being published in three volumes concurrently, namely :— Volume 1. This volume will contain Declarations 1-9 (which have never previously been published) and Opinions 1-133 (the original issue of which is now out of print). Parts 1-20 (containing Declarations 1-9 and Opinions I-11) have now been published. Further Parts will be published shortly. Vane 2. This volume will be issued in 52 Parts, comprising all the decisions taken by the International Commission at their meeting at Lisbon in 1935, namely Declarations 10-12 (with Roman pagination) and Opinions 134-181 (with Arabic pagination). Part 52 will contain the index and title page of the volume. Parts 1-40, containing Declarations 10-12 and Opinions 134-170, have now been published. Further Parts will be published shortly. Volume 3. This volume, which commenced with Opinion 182, will contain the Opinions adopted by the International Commission since their meeting at Lisbon in 1935. Parts 1-11 (containing Opinions 182-192) have now been published. Further Parts will be published as soon as possible. APPEAL FOR FUNDS The International Commission appeal earnestly to all institutions and individuals interested in the development of zoological nomen-— elature to contribute, according to their means, to the Commission’s Special (Publications) Fund. Of the total sum of £1,800 required to enable the Commission to issue ail the publications now awaiting printing, donations amounting to £969 16s. 1d. were received up to 30th June 1945. Additional contributions are urgently needed in order to enable the Commission to continue their work without interruption. Contributions of any amount, however small, will be most gratefully received. Contributions should be sent to the International Commission at their Publications Office, 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W. 7, and made payable to the ‘ International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature or Order ’’ and crossed ‘* Account payee. Coutts & Co.”’’. PRINTED IN GREAT BRITAIN BY RICHARD CLAY AND COMPANY, LTD., BUNGAY, SUFFOLK. liga 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 2. Part 40. Pp. 443-458. OPINION 170 Need for the suspension of the rules for Prosopis Jurine, 1807 (Class Insecta, Order Hymeno- ptera) not at present established LONDON: Printed by Order of the International Commission on | Zoological Nomenclature Sold at the Publications Office of the Commission 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7 1945 Price four shillings (All rights reserved) ssued 25th September, 1945 | | | INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE COMPOSITION OF THE COMMISSION The Officers of the Commission President; Dr. Karl Jordan, Ph.D., F.R.S. (United Kingdom). Vice-President: Dr. James L. Peters (U;S.A.),. Secretary : Mr. Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. (United Kingdom). The Members of the Commission Class 1946 Herr Professor Dr. Walter ARNDT (Germany). Dr. William Thomas CALMAN (United Kingdom). Professor Teiso ESAKI (Japan). Professor Béla von HANKO (Hungary). Dr. Tadeusz JACZEWSKI (Poland). Dr. Norman R. STOLL (U.S.A.). Class 1949 Senor Dr. Angel CABRERA (Argentina). . Mr. Francis HEMMING (United Kingdom) (Secretary to the Commission). Dr. Karl JORDAN (United Kingdom) (President of the Commission). Dr. Joseph PEARSON (Australia). Monsieur le Docteur Jacques PELLEGRIN (France). Herr Professor Dr. Rudolf RICHTER (Germany). Class 1952 Senhor Dr. Afranio do AMARAL (Brazil). Professor James Chester BRADLEY (U.S.A.). Professor Ludovico di CAPORIACCO (Italy). Professor J. R. DYMOND (Canada). Dr. James L. PETERS (U.S.A.) (Vice-President of the Commission). Dr. Harold E. Vokes (U.S.A.). Secretariat of the Commission : British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London, S.W. 7. Publications Office of the Commission : 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W. 7. Personal address of the Secretary : 83, Fellows Road (Garden Flat), London, N.W. 3. AASQNIAN A Al Th Sh = / An" ij fis fa” TN /2 df NOV 131945 MA TIONAL Muse SS OPINION 170. NEED FOR THE SUSPENSION OF THE RULES FOR PRO- SOPIS JURINE, 1807 (CLASS INSECTA, ORDER HYMENO- PTERA) NOT AT PRESENT ESTABLISHED. SUMMARY.—Consideration has been given to a proposal sub- mitted by the International Committee on Entomological Nomen- elature in favour of the use by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenelature of their plenary powers to suppress the names Hylaeus Fabricius, 1793, and Prosopis Fabricius, [1804— 1805], and to designate Sphex signata Panzer, [1798], as the type of Prosopis Jurine, 1807 (Class Insecta, Order Hymenoptera). This proposal was approved by the International Commission at their Session held at Lisbon in 1935, subject to its being advertised for a period of one year before an Opinion was rendered thereon. The representations received as the result of that advertisement have elicited certain data and considerations that had not been clearly brought out at the Commission’s Lisbon Session. In consequence, it has been decided to defer a final decision on this ease until after a thorough re-examination of all available evi- dence. Zoologists who either favour, or are opposed to, the sus- pension of the rules in this case are accordingly invited to communi- cate with the Commission. I.—THE STATEMENT OF THE CASE. ~ As the result of consultations initiated by Professor James Chester Bradley with the leading systematic workers in the Order Hymenoptera in all countries, the following petition signed by Professor Chester Bradley and 59 other hymenopterists was sub- mitted to the International Commission : — THE CASE OF HYLAEUS VERSUS PROSOPIS The genus Prosopis, type genus of the family of bees PROSOPIDAE, dates from Jurine, 1801 ? (Panzer: Erlangen List). The type is Sphex signata 1 See paragraph 13(a) of the present Opinion. 2 As explained in paragraph 7 below, the International Commission at Lisbon suppressed the “ Erlangen List ” (see Opinion 135, published in 1939, Opinions and Declarations vendered by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 2: 7-12). The suppression of the “ Erlangen List ’ eliminated the name Pvosopis Jurine, 1801, published in it. The next occasion on which the name Pyvosopis was published was in [1804— 1805], when it was published by Fabricius in his Syst. Piezat. : 293. 446 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL Panzer by designation of Morice and Durrant, 1914. That species is believed to be identical with bipunctata Fabr. Hylaeus Fabr., 1793, has for its type, by designation of Latreille, 1810, annulatus Fabr. = borealis Nylander. The types of Prosopis and Hylaeus being congeneric, the two genera are synonyms, and have always been so considered. But unfortunately Prosopis came into much more general use than Hylaeus. Leach in 1815 used Prosopis as type for a plural group name (PROSOPIDAE) and Kirby, 1837, introduced the family termination, PROSOPIDAE. Viereck, 1916, was the first to use Hylaeus as the basis for a plural name, HYLAEIDAE. In order to conserve the familiar generic and family names Pvosopis and PROSOPIDAE, the undersigned request the Commission of Zoological Nomenclature to take the following action : (1) suspend the rules in the case of the generic names Hylaeus and Prosopis ; ; (2) permanently reject the name Hylaeus Fabr., 1783; (3) validate Pvosopis Jurine, 1801 (or Jurine, 1807), type Sphex signata Panzer ; (4) add to the Official List of Generic Names 1n Zoology: Prosopis Jurine, type Sphex signata Panzer, for the genus of bees ordinarily known by that name. 2. The following is the list of signatures attached to the above petition at the time of its submission to the International Com- mission :— Cia Brues R. Benoist * H. Haupt Jos. Bequaert Dee atikenys H. Brauns t¢ G. Grandi A. Krausse L. Berland A. B. Gahan * H. Wolff A. A. Oglobin Tr risen * jG ybetrem O. W. Richards A. R. Park * R. Fouts Po Pe Bay, EE oss = G. Arnold Vii S| Paibave J. M. Dusmet A. Handlirsch Jj-4@, Bradley W. M. Wheeler * I. Micha G. Enderlein G. T. Lyle H. Hacker T. Uchida + Rea Cushman A.C. Kinsey * O. Vogt T BAY Elliott H. de W. Marriott H. Habermehl + A. Crevecoeur F. Maidl E. Kruger 7 W. M. Mann P. Roth W. Hellen + R. Friese E. Enslin F. X. Williams + H. von Ihering ¢ A. von Schulthess O. Schmiedeknecht ft A. C. W. Wagner R. B. Benson * N. N. Kuznezov- H. Hedicke H. F. Schwarz Ugamtsky fT H. Bischoff W. V. Balduf * EB. Be lat L. Masi D. S. Wilkinson * Eee NVelictes * In accord with results sought by the petition without having studied the points involved in the particular case. + Evidently intended to subscribe to this petition, but sheet bearing his signature was not included in his reply. t Deceased. COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION I70. 447 iene SUBSEQUENT HISTORY) OF THE (CASE. 3. This case was circulated to the members of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature in January 1935, when it was arranged that it and the other Hymenoptera cases submitted at the same time should be dealt with at the meeting of the Commission due to be held at Lisbon in September of that year, by which time the recommendations of the International Com- mittee on Entomological Nomenclature would be available. 4. This case was considered by the International Committee . on Entomological Nomenclature at their meeting held at Madrid in the second week of September 1935, during the Sixth Interna- tional Congress of Entomology. After careful consideration, the International Committee formed the conclusion that it was desirable that the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature should use their plenary powers in order to preserve the long-established name Prosopis Jurine, with the family name PROSOPIDAE, since, having regard to the literature as a whole, confusion rather than uniformity was likely to result from the supersession of these names by the names Hylaeus Fabricius and HYLAEIDAE. The International Committee agreed therefore to recommend that the name Hylaeus Fabricius should be suppressed. At the same time the International Committee agreed to recom- mend the suppression of the “ Erlangen List.’’3 In anticipation of the acceptance of this latter recommendation by the Interna- tional Commission, the International Committee agreed to submit the further recommendation that the name Prosopis Fabricius, [1804-1805], should be suppressed. The object of this supple- mentary recommendation was to secure that, if Prosopis Jurine, 1801, was suppressed, as it would be if the “‘ Erlangen List ”’ was suppressed,? the name Pyvosopis should continue to be attributed to Jurine, through ranking from Prosopis Jurine, 1807, rather than be attributed to Fabricius, through Prosopis Fabricius, [1804-1805], as would otherwise be the case. 5. The above and other recommendations adopted by the International Committee at their meeting held at Madrid were confirmed by the Sixth International Congress of Entomology at the Concilium Plenum held on 12th September 1935. 3 See footnote 2. 448 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL IIIl.—THE CONCLUSION REACHED BY THE INTER- NATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMEN- CLATURE. 6. When the International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature met at Lisbon immediately after the close of the Sixth International Congress of Entomology in September 1935, they found themselves confronted with a large number of cases involv- ing proposals for the suspension of the rules, in respect of some of which advertisements had not been published or, if published, had not been published for the prescribed period, owing to the illness of Dr. C. W. Stiles, Secretary to the Commission, or for other causes. In these circumstances, the Commission decided at their meeting held on the morning of Monday, 16th September 1935 (Lisbon Session, 2nd Meeting, Conclusion 9), that immediate consideration should be given to all cases submitted to the Com- mission that, in their judgment, had reached the stage at which a decision could properly be taken; that the By-Laws of the Com- mission should be suspended during the Lisbon Session to such extent as might be necessary to give effect to this decision; and that, in so far as this procedure involved taking decisions “‘ under suspension of the rules”’ in cases where the prescribed advertise- ment procedure had not been complied with, the cases in question should be duly advertised as soon as might be practicable after the conclusion of the Lisbon Congress and that no Opinion should be rendered and published thereon until after the expiry of a period of one year from the date on which the said advertisement was despatched to the prescribed journals for publication. The case of the names Hylaeus Fabricius, 1793, Prosopis Fabricius, [1804- 1805], and Prosopis Jurine, 1807, was one of the cases in question and was accordingly dealt with by the Commission under the above procedure. 7. At the same meeting, the Commission agreed to use their plenary powers to suppress the “Erlangen List’ (Lisbon Session, 2nd Meeting, Conclusion 13).4 Accordingly, when on the afternoon of the same day the Commission came to consider the present case, they did so in the light of the recommendation framed by the International Committee on Entomological Nomenclature on the assumption that the “ Erlangen List ’’ would be suppressed. After careful consideration, the Commission * See Opinion 135 (1939, Opinions and Declarations rendered by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 2% 7-12). COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 170. 4409 decided that the course recommended by the International Com- mittee was the one best calculated to deal with the problem here presented. The Commission accordingly agreed (Lisbon Session, 3rd Meeting, Conclusion 2) * :— (b) under “‘ suspension of the rules”” permanently to reject the following generic names :— ary Sy ie). cell ey) @ (17) Prosopis Fabricius, [1804-1805], Syst. Prezat. : 293 ee © © © @ (c) under “‘ suspension of the rules’”’ to set aside all type designations for the undermentioned genera and to declare their types to be the species indicated below :— Name of genus Type of genus (20) Prosopis Jurine, 1807, Sphex signata Panzer, [1798], Nouv. Méth. class. Hy- Faun. Ins. germ. (53) : Tab. 2 ménopt. : 218 i (d) under “suspension of the rules” to place on the Official List of , Generic Names the sixteen generic names enumerated in (c) above (names (19 to (34)), each with the type species there indicated ; (e) to render Opinions in the sense of (a) to (d) above. 8. The foregoing decision was embodied in paragraph 27 of the report which at their meeting held on the morning of Wednesday, 18th September 1935, the Commission unanimously agreed (Lisbon Session, 5th Meeting, Conclusion 6) to submit to the Twelfth International Congress of Zoology. 9g. At the same meeting the Commission agreed (Lisbon Session, 5th Meeting, Conclusion 10) that Commissioner Karl Jordan (President of the Commission) and the new Secretary to the Commission, when elected, should be authorised to make such arrangements and to take such action, as might appear to them to be necessary or expedient :— | (i) to establish the Secretariat of the Commission at its new head- quarters ; ) to secure the due publication of the Opinions agreed upon from time to time by the Commission ; (i11) to give effect to the decisions reached by the Commission at their Lisbon Session ; ) to obtain the finance required for the due functioning of the Com- mission; and generally (v) to secure the effective continuance of the work of the Commission. ® Only those portions of Conclusion 2 which refer to the present case are here quoted. For the full text of Conclusion 2, see 1943, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 1 3 27-30. * 450 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL 10. The report adopted by the Commission on the morning of Wednesday, 18th September 1935, was unanimously approved by the Section on Nomenclature at its joint meeting with the Inter- national Commission held on the afternoon of the same day. It was thereupon submitted to the Twelfth International Congress of Zoology by which it was unanimously approved and adopted at the Concilium Plenum held on the afternoon of Saturday, 21st September 1935, the last day of the Congress. Iz. In accordance with the decision taken by the Commission at Lisbon in regard to their procedure at that Session (paragraph 6 above), this case was duly advertised in 1936 in two or more of the journals specified in the Resolution adopted by the Ninth International Congress of Zoology at its meeting held at Monaco in March 1913, by which the said International Congress conferred upon the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature plenary power to suspend the rules as applied to any given case where, in the judgment of the Commission, the strict application of the rules would clearly result in greater confusion than uni- formity.® In the period that has elapsed since the advertisement in the said journals of the proposed suspension of the rules in the present case, the Commission have received three communications objecting to the suspension of the rules in this case. These communications are as follows :— (a) Letter received from Dr. E. Gorton Linsley, Umiversity of Califorma | I have recently noticed the possibility of suspension of the Rules of Nomenclature in the case of Prosopis Jurine, and would like to register my protest at this change for the following reasons :— (1) The priority of Hylaeus Fabr., 1793, over Prosopis Jurine, 1807, has been clearly recognized and accepted by the majority of Hymenopterists for the past seventeen years (beginning with Bridwell, 1919, Proc. Haw. ent. Soc. 4: 123). The name is now in current use and a change would necessitate the learning of another name for the group involved. (2) The genus and family concerned are minor groups of Apoidea both in number of species and in literature pertaining to them, hence there is not enough at stake to warrant such a change. (3) The only work which deals with this group from the world standpoint is Meade-Waldo, 1923, Geneva Insectorum, fasc. 181, in which the species are treated under Hylaeus. To restore Prosopis would greatly curtail the value of this great work. (4) The group is of no economic importance and does not appear in economic literature, either as Prosopis or Hylaeus. * § See Declaration 5 (1943, Opinions and Declarations rendered by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 1 : 31-40). COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 170. 451 (5) The name Pvosopis has long been used in botanical nomenclature,’ a fact which in at least one case has caused confusion between the bee and the plant genus. (Vide Cockerell and Sumner, 1931, Amer. Mus. Novit. 490 : 1, re the treatment of Prosopis glandulosa (mesquite) as one of the host bees of a group of parasitic Coleoptera). (b) Letter received from Dr. Charles D. Muchener, Berkeley, Califorma ‘In a number of journals I have noticed, under the title ‘‘ Notice of Possible Suspension of the Rules of Nomenclature in Certain Cases ’’ that Prosopis Jurine, 1807, may take the place of Hylaeus. The name Hylaeus has been recognized as having priority over Prosopis by Meade-Waldo (Geneva Insectorum) Scudder, and all (almost) authors since the publication of Meade-Waldo’s work. Hence, to change back to Prosopis would mean only a second confusion, which is absolutely unnecessary. Prosopis is a small genus of economically unimportant bees. The change in name would involve only a few specialists. Furthermore, there is a genus of common western desert plants called Pyrosopis.? I see no need: for increasing the number of cases in which generic names in botany and zoology are the same. (c) Document forwarded under cover of a letter dated 1st March 1937 by Dr. S. A. Rohwer 1n the name of the Committee on Nomen- _clature of the Entomological Society of Washington Prosopis Jurine, 1807, has as type Sphex signata Panz., by designation of Morice & Durrant, 1914. The type of Hylaeus Fabr., 1793, is annulatus F. by designation of Latreille, 1810. These types are congeneric and the two genera therefore synonyms. They have always been considered so but unfortunately both generic names have remained in use. However, to suppress the older name Hylaeus and place Prosopis on the Official List, under suspension of the rules, would overturn the nomenclature of the most recent comprehensive treatment of the European species (Foerster, 1871), of the African species (Bridwell, 1919), of the species of the world (Meade-Waldo, 1923) and is certain to produce confusion. It is urged that G as principle of priority as established in the Rules be allowed to apply in this case. 12. Immediately upon their receipt by the Commission, copies of the document from which the passages quoted in paragraph II have been extracted were communicated (November 1936 in the case of documents (a) and (b) and April 1937 in the case of document (c)) to each member of the Commission, but no member of the Commission then expressed himself as being in agreement with the representations contained therein, with the exception of Commissioner Hemming who, as Secretary to the Commission, * In reply to an inquiry by Commissioner Francis Hemming, Secretary to the Commission, Mrs. M. L. Sprague replied (on 1st May 1944): “‘ The botanical genus Prosopis Linnaeus, 1767, Mantissa Plant. (1) : 10 (Order Rosales, Family Leguminosae, Subfamily Mimosoideae) consists of between 30 to 40 species. It occurs in the tropical and subtropical regions of Asia, America and Africa.”’ 452 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL made a note in the records of the Commission that the evidence brought forward in the documents quoted in sections (a) and (b) of paragraph 11 above regarding the confusion that might arise from the use of the name Prosopis as a generic name in zoology as well as in botany was a matter which required careful considera- tion before a final decision was taken in this case. 13. The representations set out in paragraph Ir above were considered at the Plenary Conference between the President of the Commission and the Secretary to the Commission convened in London on 19th June 1939 under the authority of the Resolution adopted by the Commission at their meeting held at Lisbon on 18th September 1935 (for the text of which see paragraph 9 above). The Plenary’ Conterence (Plenary Conference, (ust hiecmmer Conclusion I0) : (a) took note that the communications received as the result of the advertisement in 1936, as prescribed by the International Com- mission at their Lisbon Session (znd Meeting, Conclusion 9), of the proposal to suspend the rules in the case of the names Hylaeus Fabricius, 1793, Pvosopis Fabricius, [1804-1805], and Prosopis Jurine, 1807, had brought forward the following data and had adduced the following considerations :— (1) the name Prosopis was in use for a ‘“‘ common desert plant ’’ 8 and there was therefore a risk of confusion if the name Prosopis was used both in zoology and botany; on at least one occasion the use of this name in this way had already led to confusion between the genus of bees and the plant genus; (ii) in the most recent treatment of the genus from a world stand- point (Meade-Waldo, 1923, Geneva Insectorwm 181) the name Hylaeus Fabricius had been used and not the name Prosopis Jurine ; (b) agreed that the data and considerations summarised in (a) above had not been clearly brought to the attention of the International Com- mission when at Lisbon in 1935 they had agreed to suspend the rules in the case of the names referred to above; (c) recalled that the ‘“‘ Recommendation ”’ attached to Article 1 of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature deprecated the intro- duction into zoology of generic names in use in botany ; (d) agreed that, in view of (c) above, very strong grounds would need to be advanced to justify the use of the plenary powers in a case such as the present where the name proposed to be validated in zoology was already in use as a generic name in botany; (e) considered that, in view of (a) to (d) above, the whole case required further consideration in the light of all available evidence before a final decision was taken; (f) agreed that the proper course for the present Conference in the dis- charge of the duties entrusted to it by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (Lisbon Session, 5th Meeting, Conclusion 10) was to arrange as soon as possible for the issue of an Opinion :— ST Dee MOOUMOLE) 7. COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 170. 453 4. (a) (b) nye) (1) having the following as its “‘ summary ”’ :— “ SUMMARY :—Consideration has been given to a proposal submitted by the International Committee on Entomological Nomenclature in favour of the use by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature of their plenary powers to suppress the names Hylaeus Fabricius, 1793, and Prosopis Fabricius, [1804-1805], and to designate Sphex signata Panzer, [1798], as the type of Prosopis Jurine, 1807 (Class Insecta, Order Hymenoptera). This proposal was approved by the International Commission at their Session held at Lisbon in 1935, subject to its being advertised for a period of one year before an Opinion was rendered thereon. The representations received as the result of that advertisement have elicited certain data and considerations that had not been clearly brought out at the Commission’s Lisbon Session. In consequence, it has been decided to defer a final decision on this case until after a thorough re-examination of all available evidence. Zoologists who either favour, or are opposed to, the suspension of the rules in this case are accordingly invited to communicate with the Commission. (2) setting out in the main body of the Opinion :— (i) the petition in favour of the suspension of the rules in this case; | (ii) the subsequent history of this case, including the recommendation in regard thereto submitted by the International Committee on Entomological Nomen- clature at Madrid in 1935 and the decisions taken by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature thereon (Lisbon Session, 3rd Meeting, Conclusion 2) later in the same year; (iii) the representations received as the result of the adver- tisement of this case in 1936 in accordance with the decision taken by the Commission at Lisbon (Lisbon Session, 2nd Meeting, Conclusion 9) ; (iv) the present decision by the Plenary Conference. The decisions :— to suspend the By-Laws so far as might be necessary to enable the International Commission to consider the present and other cases where the prescribed advertisement procedure had not been complied with, subject to the subsequent ad- vertisement of the said cases for a period of not less than one year before an Opinion was rendered thereon (paragraph 6) ; subject to the proviso to (a) above, under “ suspension of the rules’ to suppress the names Hylaeus Fabricius, 1793, and Prosopis Fabricius, [1804-1805], and to designate Spex signata Panzer, [1798], as the type of Prosopis Jurine, 1807, that name being thereupon added to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology (paragraph 7); and to authorise the President of the Commission and the new Secretary to the Commission, when elected, to make such 454 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL arrangements, and to take such other action, as might appear to them necessary or expedient, to . . . give effect to the decisions reached by the Commission at their Lisbon Session . . . and generally to secure the effective continu- ance of the work of the Commission (paragraph 9) were agreed to by all the Commissioners and Alternates present at , the Lisbon Session of the International Commission, namely :— Commissioners :—Calman; Hemming; Jordan; Pellegrin; Peters; and! Stejmeven: Alternates:—do Amaral vice Cabrera; Ohshima vice Esaki; Bradley vice Stone; Beier vice Handlirsch; Arndt vice Richter; and Mortensen vice Apstein. 15. The foregoing decisions were dissented from by no Com- missioner or Alternate present at the Lisbon Session. 16. The following five (5) Commissioners who were not present at Lisbon nor represented thereat by Alternates did not vote on the above matters :— Bolivar y Pieltain; Chapman; Fantham; Silvestri; and Stiles. 17. At the time when the vote was taken on the above matter, there was one (1) vacancy in the Commission consequent upon the death of Commissioner Horvath. .18. The decision that a further opportunity should be provided for the consideration of the issues involved in the proposal that the rules should be suspended for the purpose of validating the name Prosopis Jurine, 1807, was taken on behalf of the Interna- tional Commission by the President of the Commission and the Secretary to the Commission, acting jointly in virtue of the powers conferred upon them in that behalf by the twelve (12) Com- missioners and Alternates (paragraph 14 above) present at the Lisbon Session of the International Commission (Lisbon Session, 5th Meeting, Conclusion 10). IV.—AUTHORITY FOR THE ISSUE OF THE PRESENT OPINION. WHEREAS the Ninth International Congress of Zoology at its meeting held at Monaco in March 1913, adopted a Resolution conferring upon the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, acting for the International Congress of Zoology, COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION I70. 455 plenary power to suspend the rules as applied to any given case where, in the judgment of the Commission, the strict application of the rules would clearly result in greater confusion than uni- formity, provided that not less than one year’s notice of the possible suspension of the rules as applied to the said case should be given in two or more of five journals specified in the said Resolu- tion, and provided that the vote in the Commission was unani- ‘mously in favour of the proposed suspension of the rules; and WHEREAS the suspension of the rules would be required to give valid force to an Ofimion embodying a decision in the sense Tequested in the petition submitted in the present case; and WHEREAS at their Lisbon Session the International Commission unanimously agreed to suspend the rules for the purpose of validating the name Pyvosopfis Jurine, 1807, provided that the advertisement of the petition therefor in the manner prescribed in the Resolution adopted by the Ninth International Congress of Zoology at its meeting held at Monaco in 1913 elicited no data or considerations which had not been clearly brought out at the discussion of this case at the said Lisbon Session; and WHEREAS at their Lisbon Session the International Commission unanimously authorised the President of the Commission and the Secretary to the Commission to take such action after the close of that Session as might appear to them necessary or expedient to give effect to the decisions reached at the said Session; and WHEREAS the President of the Commission and the Secretary to the Commission, acting in virtue of the powers so conferred upon them, have agreed that the advertisement of the petition submitted in this case has elicited data and considerations which were not clearly brought out at the discussion of this case at the Lisbon Session of the Commission and that a further opportunity should, therefore, be provided for the consideration of the issues involved in the said case before final action is taken in regard thereto; and WHEREAS, in consequence of the said conclusions, the President of the Commission and the Secretary to the Commission, acting jointly in virtue of the powers conferred upon them in that behalf by the International Commission at their Lisbon Session, have agreed on behalf of the said International Commission that an Opimon should be rendered in the terms of the present Opinion ; ‘ 456 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL Now, THEREFORE, I, FRaNcIS HEMMING, Secretary to the International Com- mission on Zoological Nomenclature, acting in Virtue of all and every the powers conferred upon me in that behalf by reason of holding the said Office of Secretary to the International Com- mission, hereby announce the said Opinion on behalf of the Inter- national Commission, acting for the International Congress of Zoology, and direct that it be rendered and printed as Opinion Number One Hundred and Seventy (Opinion 170) of the said Commission. In faith whereof I, the undersigned FRANCIS HEMMING, Secre- tary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, have signed the present Opinion. DonE in London, this fourth day of September, Nineteen Hundred and Forty Three, in a single copy, which shall remain deposited in the archives of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. FRANCIS HEMMING COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 170. 457 THE PUBLICATIONS OF THE COMMISSION. (obtainable at the Publications Office of the Commission at 41, Queen’s Gate, London, 5.W.7.) Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature This journal has been established by the International Com- mission as their Official Organ in order to provide a medium for the publication of :— (a) proposals on zoological nomenclature submitted to the International Commission for deliberation and decision ; (b) comments received from, and correspondence by the Secretary with, zoologists on proposals published in the Bulletin under (a) above; and (c) papers on nomenclatorial implications of developments in taxonomic theory and practice. The Bulletin was established in 1943. Seven Parts of volume 1 have now been published. Further Parts are in the press. Opinions and Declarations Rendered by the International Com- mission on Zoological Nomenclature. The above work is being published in three volumes con- currently, namely :— Volume 1. This volume will contain Declarations 1-9 (which have never previously been published) and Opinions 1-133 (the original issue of which is now out of print). Parts 1-20 (contain- ing Declarations 1-9 and Opinions I-11) have now been published. Further Parts will be published shortly. Volume 2. This volume will be issued in 52 Parts, comprising all the decisions taken by the International Commission at their meeting at Lisbon in 1935, namely Declarations 10-12 (with Roman pagination) and Opinions 134-181 (with Arabic pagina- tion). Part 52 will contain the index and title page of the volume. Parts 1-40, containing Declarations 10-12 and Opimions 134-170, have now been published. Further Parts will be published shortly. Volume 3. This volume, which commenced with Opinion 182, will contain the Opinions adopted by the International Com- mission since their meeting at Lisbon in 1935. Parts I-11 (con- taining Opinions 182-192) have now been published. Further Parts will be published as soon as possible. 458 INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. APPEAL FOR FUNDS The International Commission appeal earnestly to all institutions and individuals interested in the development of zoological nomen- clature to contribute, according to their means, to the Commission’s Special (Publications) Fund. Of the total sum of £1,800 required to enable the Commission to issue all the publications now awaiting _ printing, donations amounting to £969 16s. id. were received up to 380th June 1945. Additional contributions are urgently needed in order to enable the Commission to continue their work without interruption. Contributions of any amount, however ‘small, will be most gratefully received. Contributions should be sent to the International Commission at their Publications Office, 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W. 7, and made payable to the ‘‘ International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature or Order ’’ and crossed ‘‘ Account payee. Coutts & Co.”’. PRINTED IN GREAT BRITAIN BY RICHARD CLAY AND COMPANY, LTD., BUNGAY, SUFFOLK. 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 2. Part 41. Pp. 459-470. OPINION 171 Suspension of the rules for Nymphidium Fabricius, 1807 (Class Insecta, Order Lepido- ptera) ASK NIAN INS {> ra (Kee mth {= AN f fg f Ee Oe a os DA t iveTYy | Reece he: oe eal ah f VA ry Nie) Br \' \ el SIONAL MUSES LONDON : Printed by Order of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature Sold at the Publications Office of the Commission 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7 1946 Price three shillings (All rights reserved) 7 = Issued 22nd January, 1946 INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE COMPOSITION OF THE COMMISSION The Officers of the Commission President: Dr. Karl Jordan, Ph.D., F.R.S. (United Kingdom). Vice-President : Dr. James L. Peters (U.S.A.). Secretary : Mr. Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. (United Kingdom). The Members of the Commission Class 1946 Herr Professor Dr. Walter ARNDT (Germany). Dr. William Thomas CALMAN (United Kingdom). Professor Teiso ESAKI (Japan). Professor Béla von HANKO (Hungary). Dr. Tadeusz JACZEWSKI (Poland). DreiNonan ke SORE (US s43) Class 1949 Senor Dr. Angel CABRERA (Argentina). Mr. Francis HEMMING (United Kingdom) (Secretary to the Commission). Dr. Karl JORDAN (United Kingdom) (President of the Commission). Dr. Joseph PEARSON (Australia). Monsieur le Docteur Jacques PELLEGRIN (France). Herr Professor Dr. Rudolf RICHTER (Germany). Class 1952 Senhor Dr. Afranio do AMARAL (Brazil). Professor James Chester BRADLEY (U.S.A.). Professor Ludovico di CAPORIACCO (Italy). Professor J. R. DYMOND (Canada). Dr. James L. PETERS (U.S.A.) (Vice-President of the Commission). Dr. Harold E. VOKES (U.5S.A.). Secretariat of the Commission : British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London, S.W. 7. Publications Office of the Commission : 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W. 7. Personal address of the Secretary : 83, Fellows Road (Garden Flat), London, N.W. 3. OPINION 171. SUSPENSION OF THE RULES FOR NYMPHIDIUM FABRI- CIUS, 1807 (CLASS INSECTA, ORDER LEPIDOPTERA). SUMMARY.—Under suspension of the rules it is hereby declared (i) that the name Nymphidium Fabricius, 1807 (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera) (type : Papilio caricae Linnaeus, 1758) shall not be rejected in favour of Limnas Hiibner, [1806] (type : Limnas leucosia Hiibner, [1806]) ; (ii) that the name Limnas Hiibner is to be treated as suppressed for all purposes ; and (ili) that the name Nymphidium Fabricius is therefore valid. The name Nymphidium Fabricius, 1807, with the type indicated above, is hereby added to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology as Name No. 614. font) STAMP NT OR, THk CASE. This case was submitted to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature in a letter dated 24th October 1934, in which Commissioner Francis Hemming and Mr. N. D. Riley, Keeper of the Department of Entomology, British Museum (Natural History), jointly invited the Commission to render Opimons in regard to this, and certain other, generic names in the Order Lepidoptera. The passage in that letter relating to the name Nymphidiwm Fabricius, 1807, reads as follows : — (a) We recommend that the following names ! should be added by the International Commission to the Official List of Generic Names. Our reasons for so recommending are fully set out in the statements, the terms of which we have jointly agreed, contained in Hemming’s Generic Names of the Holarctic Butterflies on the pages noted below :— O04 el, 0 ey 8 2. The following is an extract from the work referred to above of the passage relating to this genus :— 1 The other generic names referred to in this letter were Euploea Fabricius, 1807, which has since been dealt with by the International Commission in Opinion 163 (see pp. 335-346 above) and Euthalia Hubner, [1819], which has since been dealt with in Opinion 167 (see pp. 399-410 above). 462 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL NYMPHIDIUM Fabricius Fabricius, 1807, Mag. f. Insektenk. (Illiger) 6 : 286 Westwood, 1851, 1” Doubleday, Gen. Diurn. Lep. (2a Crotch, 1872, Cistula ent. 1 : 66 Scudder, 1875, Proc. Amer. Acad. Arts Sci., Boston 10 : 230 TYPE: Papiho caricae Linn., 1758 Fabricius said that there were twenty-eight species in this genus and mentioned three by name. Westwood said that he considered the genus ‘well exemplified by carvicae and lamis,”’ and Crotch definitely selected caricae Linn. (one of Fabricius’ species) as the type, basing his decision on Westwood’s action. Scudder was not justified in trying to change the type to telephus Fab. (= thelephus Cram.). The genus Nymphidium Fab. has no holarctic species, but the name is included here in view of the fact that its synonyms, Eulepis Billb. and Limnas Hibner,? have been widely (but wrongly) used for palaearctic species. Under a strict interpretation of the International Code, the name Nymphidium Fab. should be sunk as a synonym of Limnuas Hiibner. There are, however, very strong objections to such a course. These may be summarised as follows :— (a) The name Nymphidium Fab. has been universally applied to Papilio cavicae Linn., 1758, and its congeners ever since its establishment by Fabricius in 1807. (b) The name Limnas Hubner has never been applied to these species, except in the present case by Hiibner in his Sammlung exotischer Schmetterlinge. On the contrary, following Hiibner’s own use in the Tentamen (now rejected by Opinion 97 of the International Com- mission on Zoological Nomenclature), the name Limuas Hubner, when used, has always been employed for a genus of DANAIDAE, Papilio plexippus Linn., 1758, being regarded as its type. (c) There is, however, a name Lymnas (Boisduval MS.) Blanchard, 1840 (im Brullé, Hist. nat. Anim. artic. (Orth.) 3: 464) which has been, and still is, widely used for an entirely different group of RIODINIDAE. (d) To sink the well-known and universally-used generic name Nymphi- dium Fab. as a synonym of Limmnas Hubner, as is required by a strict application of the rules of the International Code, would serve no useful purpose whatever, but would, on the contrary, clearly result in greater confusion than uniformity. 3. Commissioner Hemming went on to say that, jointly with Mr. N. D. Riley, he was submitting to the International Com- mission on Zoological Nomenclature a recommendation that, in the exercise of the plenary power conferred upon them by the International Zoological Congress, the Commission should as soon as possible take the steps laid down by the Congress for the promulgation of an Opinion to the following effect :— 2 On the following page (: 104) in the account of the name Limnas Hubner, it was pointed out that pl. [29] in volume 1 of Hiibner’s Sammlung exotischer Schmetterlinge (the place where this name was first published after the Tentamen, which the Commission had rejected by Opinion 97) had already been published by November 1806. It is now known to have been published between August and November in that year (see Hemming, 1937, Hubner 1 : 401). COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION I71I. 463 The name Nymphidium Fab., 1807 (Mag. f. Insektenk. (Illiger) 6 : 286), the type of which is Papilio cavricae Linn., 1758, is hereby added to the Official List of Generic Names. The name Limnas Hiibner, [1806] (Samml. exot. Schmett. 1: pl. [29]), is not to be substituted for Nymphidium Fab., notwithstanding the fact that it has one year’s priority over that name. fee thn SUBSROURNT HISTORY OF THE CASE. 4. As a first step the Commission decided to invite the Interna- tional Committee on Entomological Nomenclature to report on the present application. This case was accordingly considered by the International Committee at their meeting held at Madrid in the second week of September 1935 during the Sixth International Congress of Entomology. After careful consideration, the Com- mittee agreed to recommend the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to take such steps as they might consider necessary under their plenary powers to secure that Limnas Hubner, [1806] (type: Limmnas leucosta Hubner, [1806]), should not be substituted for Nymphidium Fabricius, 1807 (type: Papilio caricae Linnaeus, 1758) as the name of the genus of the Neotropical genus of RIODINIDAE commonly so called. 5. This and other recommendations adopted by the Interna- tional Committee on Entomological Nomenclature at their Madrid meeting were confirmed by the Sixth International Congress of Entomology at the Concilium Plenum held at Madrid on 12th September 1935. i THE CONCLUSION REACHED BY THE INTERNA- TIONAL COMMISSION. 6. When the International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature met at Lisbon immediately after the close of the Sixth International Congress of Entomology in September 1935, they found themselves confronted with a large number of cases involv- ing proposals for the suspension of the rules, in respect of some of which advertisements had not been published or, if published, had not been published for the prescribed period, owing to the illness of Dr. C. W. Stiles, Secretary to the Commission, or for other causes. In these circumstances, the Commission decided at their meeting held on the morning of Monday, 16th September 1935 (Lisbon Session, 2nd Meeting, Conclusion 9), that immediate consideration should be given to all cases submitted to the Com- mission that, in their judgment, had reached the stage at which a 404 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL decision could properly be taken; that the By-Laws of the Com- mission should be suspended during the Lisbon Session to such extent as might be necessary to give effect to this decision; and that, in so far as this procedure involved taking decisions “‘ under suspension of the rules ”’ in cases where the prescribed advertise- ment procedure had not been complied with, the cases in question should be duly advertised as soon as might be practicable after the conclusion of the Lisbon Congress and that no Opinion should be rendered and published thereon until after the expiry of a period of one year from the date on which the said advertisement was despatched to the prescribed journals for publication. The case of the name Nympiidium Fabricius, 1807, was one of the cases in question and was accordingly dealt with under the above procedure. 7. This case was considered by the International Commission later in the course of the meeting referred to above (Lisbon Session, 2nd Meeting, Conclusion 22), when it was agreed 3 :— (a) to “‘ suspend the rules ”’ in the case of the following generic names :— Cie Chinn eCioniec Wan et} (g) to declare that the name Nymphidium Fabricius, 1807, Mag. f. Insektenk. (Illiger) 6: 286 (type: Papilo caricae Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) : 484) shall not be rejected in favour of Limnas Hiibner, [1806] (Samml. exot. Schmeitt. 1: pl. [29]) (type: Limnas leucosia Hubner, [1806], ibid.); that the name Limnas Hubner is to be treated as suppressed for all purposes; and therefore that the name Nymphidium Fabricius, 1807, is valid; (i) to add the generic names . . . Nymphidium Fabricius, 1807, .. . to the Official List of Generic Names, with the types indicated above ; (1) to render Opinions in the sense of (a) to (k) above. 8. The foregoing decisions were embodied in paragraph 28 of the report * which at their meeting held on the morning of Wednesday, 18th September 1935, the Commission (Lisbon Session, 5th Meeting, Conclusion 6) unanimously agreed to submit to the Twelfth International Congress of Zoology. That report was unanimously approved by the Section on Nomenclature at its joint meeting with the International Commission held on the afternoon of the same day. It was thereupon submitted to the Twelfth International Congress of Zoology by which it was 3 Only those portions of Conclusion 22 which refer to the present case are here quoted. For the full text of Conclusion 22, see 1943, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 1 : 20-23. 4 See 1943, Bull. zool. Nomenci. 1 : 60-61. COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION I7I. 405 unanimously approved and adopted at the Concilium Plenum held on the afternoon of Saturday, 21st September 1935, the last day of the Congress. g. In accordance with the decision taken by the Commission at Lisbon in regard to their procedure at that Session (paragraph 6 above), this case was duly advertised in 1936 in two or more of the journals named in the Resolution adopted by the Ninth International Congress of Zoology at its meeting held at Monaco in March 1913,° by which the said International Congress con- ferred upon the International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature plenary power to suspend the rules as applied to any given case where, in the judgment of the Commission, the strict applica- tion of the rules would clearly result in greater confusion than uniformity. In the period that has elapsed since the advertise- ment in the said journals of the possible suspension of the rules as applied to the present case, no communication of any kind has been addressed to the Commission objecting to the issue of an Opinion in the terms proposed. 10. The present Opinion was concurred in by the twelve (12) Commissioners and Alternates present at the Lisbon Session of the International Commission, namely :— Commissioners :—Calman; Hemming; Jordan; Pellegrin; Peters, and Stejneger. Alternates :—do Amaral vice Cabrera; Ohshima vice Esaki; Bradley vice Stone; Beier wice Handlirsch; Arndt vice Richter; and Mortensen vice Apstein. ir. The present Opinion was dissented from by no Commissioner or Alternate present at the Lisbon Session. Nor since that Session has any Commissioner who was neither present on that occasion nor represented thereat by an Alternate indicated dis- agreement with the conclusions then reached by the Commission in this matter. The following five (5) Commissioners who were not present at Lisbon nor represented thereat by Alternates did not vote on the above Ofimion :— Bolivar y Pieltain; Chapman; Fantham; Silvestri; and Stiles. 12. At the time when the vote was taken on the present Opinion, there was one (1) vacancy in the Commission consequent upon the death of Commissioner Horvath. ® See Declaration 5 (1943, Opinions and Declarations vendeved by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 1 : 31-40). 466 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL IV.—AUTHORITY FOR THE ISSUE OF THE PRESENT OPINION. WHEREAS the Ninth International Congress of Zoology at its meeting held at Monaco in March 1913, adopted a Resolution conferring upon the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, acting for the International Congress of Zoology, plenary power to suspend the rules as applied to any given case, where, in the judgment of the Commission, the strict application of the rules would clearly result in greater confusion than uniformity, provided that not less than one year’s notice of the possible suspension of the rules as applied to the said case should be given in two or more of five journals specified in the said Resolution, and provided that the vote in the Commission was unanimously in favour of the proposed suspension of the rules ; and WHEREAS the suspension of the rules is required to give valid force to the provisions of the present Opinion as set out in the summary thereof; and WHEREAS not less than one year’s notice of the possible sus- pension of the rules as applied to the present case has been given to two or more of the journals specified in the Resolution adopted by the Ninth International Congress of Zoology at its meeting held in Monaco in March 1913; and WHEREAS the vote in the Commission at their Lisbon Session was unanimously in favour of the issue of an Opinion in the terms of the present Opinion ; Now, THEREFORE, I, FRANcIs HEMMING, Secretary to the International Com- mission on Zoological Nomenclature, acting in virtue of all and every the powers conferred upon me in that behalf by reason of holding the said Office of Secretary to the International Com- mission, hereby announce the said Opinion on behalf of the Inter- national Commission, acting for the International Congress of Zoology, and direct that it be rendered and printed as Opimion Number One Hundred and Seventy One (Opinion 171) of the said Commission. In faith whereof I, the undersigned FRANCIS HEMMING, Secre- tary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature, have signed the present Opinion. | COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION I7I. 467 DonE at Aldeburgh in the County of Suffolk, this seventh day of September Nineteen Hundred and Forty Three, in a single copy, which shall remain deposited in the archives of the Interna- tional Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. FRANCIS HEMMING > 468 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL THE PUBLICATIONS OF THE COMMISSION. (obtainable at the Publications Office of the Commission at 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7.) Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. This journal has been established by the International Com- mission as their Official Organ in order to provide a medium for the publication of :— (a) proposals on zoological nomenclature submitted to the International Commission for deliberation and decision ; (b) comments received from, and correspondence by the Secretary with, zoologists on proposals published in the Bulletin under (a) above; and ~ (c) papers on nomenclatorial implications of developments in taxonomic theory and practice. The Bulletin was established in 1943. Seven Parts of volume 1 have now been published. Further Parts are in the press. Opinions and Declarations Rendered by the International Com- mission on Zoological Nomenclature. The above work is being published in three volumes con- currently, namely :— Volume 1. This volume will contain Declarations 1-9 (which have never previously been published) and Opinions 1-133 (the original issue of which is now out of print). Parts 1-21 (contain- ing Declarations 1-9 and Opinions I-12) have now been published. Further Parts will be published shortly. Volume 2. This volume, which contains the record of the decisions taken by the International Commission at Lisbon in 1935, 1s being published in two Sections (Sections A and B) with continuous pagination. Of these, Section A, containing Declara- tions 10-12 and Opinions 134-160, is now complete. Of Section B, which will contain Opimions 161-181, Parts 31-45 (containing Opinions 161-175) have now been published. The remaining Parts of this volume are in the press and will be published as soon as possible. Volume 3. This volume, which commenced with Opimon 182, will contain the Opinions adopted by the. International Commis- sion since their meeting at Lisbon in 1935. Parts 1-11 (containing Opinions 182-192) have now been published. Further Parts will be published as soon as possible. COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION I7I. 469 APPEAL FOR FUNDS The International Commission appeal earnestly to all institutions and individuals interested in the development of zoological nomen- clature to contribute, according to their means, to the Commission’s Special (Publications) Fund. Of the total sum of £1,800 required to enable the Commission to issue all the publications now awaiting printing, donations amounting to £969 16s. 1d. were received up to 380th June 1945. Additional contributions are urgently needed in order to enable the Commission to continue their work without interruption. Contributions of any amount, however small, will be most gratefully received. Contributions should be sent to the International Commission at their Publications Office, 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W. 7, and made payable to the ‘‘ International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature or Order ’’ and crossed ‘‘ Account payee. Coutts & Co.’’. RICHARD CLAY AND Buneay, S 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 2. Part 42. Pp. 471-482. OPINION 172 On the interpretation of Article 30 of the International Code in relation to the designa- tion, in abstracts and similar publications, of the types of genera, the names of which were published on, or before, 31st December 1930 <4 AgUN Aly hid, ARAN §h dy vs © 4 { Wy f > sth 0 a ONAL MUS ree LONDON : Printed by Order of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature Sold at the Publications Office of the Commission 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7 1946 Price three shillings (All rights reserved) Issued 22nd January, 1946 INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE COMPOSITION OF THE COMMISSION The Officers of the Commission President : Dr. Karl Jordan, Ph.D., F.R.S. (United Kingdom). Vice-President : Dr. James L. Peters (U.S.A.). Secretary : Mr. Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. (United Kingdom). The Members of the Commission Class 1946 Herr Professor Dr. Walter ARNDT (Germany). Dr. William Thomas CALMAN (United Kingdom). Professor Teiso ESAKI (Japan). Professor Béla von HANKO (Hungary). Dr. Tadeusz JACZEWSKI (Poland). Dr. Norman R. STOLL (U.S.A.). Class 1949 Senor Dr. Angel CABRERA (Argentina). Mr. Francis HEMMING (United Kingdom) (Secretary to the Commission). Dr. Karl JORDAN (United Kingdom) (President of the Commission). Dr. Joseph PEARSON (Australia). Monsieur le Docteur Jacques PELLEGRIWN (France). Herr Professor Dr. Rudolf RICHTER (Germany). Class 1952 | Senhor Dr. Afranio do AMARAL (Brazil). Professor James Chester BRADLEY (U.S.A.). Professor Ludovico di CAPORIACCO (Italy). Professor J. R. DYMOND (Canada). Dr. James L. PETERS (U.5.A.) (Vice-President of the Commission). Dr. Harold E. VOKES (U.S.A.). Secretariat of the Commission : British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London, S.W. 7. Publications Office of the Commission : . 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W. 7. Personal address of the Secretary : 83, Fellows Road (Garden Flat), London, N.W. 3. OPINION 172. ON THE INTERPRETATION OF ARTICLE 30 OF THE INTER- NATIONAL CODE IN RELATION TO THE DESIGNATION, IN ABSTRACTS AND SIMILAR PUBLICATIONS, OF THE TYPES OF GENERA, THE NAMES OF WHICH WERE PUBLISHED ON, OR BEFORE, 31ST DECEMBER 1930. . SUMMARY.—It is undesirable that the types of genera should be designated in Abstracts, Records, and similar publications. Where, however, the type of a genus, the name of which was published on, or before, 31st December 1930, is clearly designated in such a publication, that designation must be accepted as being within the scope of Article 30 of the Code. ae SA hehe Ni OF Man. CAST: This question was first brought to the attention of the Com- mission by Mr. J. R. Le B. Tomlin, British Museum (Natural History), in connexion with the generic name Conulinus von Martens, 1895, NachrBl. disch. malakozool. Ges. 27: 180 (Class Gastropoda, Order Stylommatophora), the type of which had been dealt with by the Commission in Opinion 86.1 Mr. Tomlin’s letter, which was dated 16th June 1929, reads as follows :— Referring to Opinion 86 as reported in Pr. Biol. Soc. Washington XX XIX, p. 102, re the molluscan name Conulinus, I have only recently noticed that in the Zool. Record for 1895, vol. XXXII, Mollusca p. 59, the Recorder, B. B. Woodward, writes : Conulinus, n.sect. of Buliminus, type B. ugandae n.sp., Martens, Nachrichtsbl. XX VII. 180. As no such statement re type is made by v. Martens, I take this to be a deliberate fixation of genotype by the Recorder. tpt SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF THE CASE. 2. This case was referred by Commissioner C. W. Stiles (Secre- tary to the Commission) to Commissioner F. A. Bather, by whom Opinion 86 had been drafted. Dr. Bather replied on 30th Septem- ber 1929 as follows :— 1 Bor the effect of the present Opinion on the decision embodied in Opinion 86, see Opinion 176 (p. 521 et seg. below). 474 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL Vol. 32 of Zoological Record was published on 5 December 1896,? and thus preceded Von Martens’ paper of 1897. It might therefore be claimed that 6. ugandae should be regarded as genotype. I do not think that is at all a necessary conclusion. The Zoological Record, as its title implies, is a record of publications by other writers; it is not an original work. Any criticisms or emendations by the recorders are (or should be) definitely indicated as such, e.g. by enclosure within square brackets [. . . ] or by the addition of initials. In the present instance there is no indication that the recorder (B. B. Wood- ward) was undertaking to do anything but record. My interpretation of his statement is that, working probably under pressure as all recorders have to, he assumed that B. ugandae was the genotype because it was immediately associated with “‘ Conulinus n.”’ and preceded the two other species de- scribed. That assumption was natural for a recorder who, in his haste, overlooked the reference to B. conulus; but it was, as we know from Von Martens 1897, an incorrect assumption. I have consulted Mr. Woodward, who says (i litt., 17 July, 1929): ““ At this distance of time it is not possible to recall what the compiler of the Molluscan Section of the Zool. Rec. for 1895 had in his mind when he penned the paragraph in question.”’ Mr. Woodward thinks that his printed sentence fixes the genotype; I do not think so. Since, however, there may be a difference of opinion on this question, I suggest that, to avoid confusion and to validate the action of previous authors (as opposed to recorders), the Commission be asked to re-affirm Opinion 86, with this additional fact before it. Further I suggest that the Commission assert, as a general principle, that a statement in a report or record or historical narration is not to be taken as an original contribution by the reporter, recorder, or historian unless he has clearly indicated his responsibility for it. 3. Copies of Dr. Bather’s letter were communicated by Dr. Stiles to the members of the Commission with a request for in- formal suggestions as to the steps to be taken in regard to this case. Replies were slow in coming in, and it was not until 1932 that Dr. Stiles was able to inform the Commission that comments had been received from nine Commissioners, these comments being to the following effect :— (a) Commissioner Angel Cabrera agreed with Dr. Bather and added :— I would suggest that Bather’s suggestion about statements in records, etc. must be adopted by the Commission as a general principle. We can never praise the Zoological Record so much as it deserves; but, even so, it is no more than a bibliographical record, and as such, it contains many unfortunate slips. 2 The actual date of publication of this volume of the Zoological Record is 4th not 5th December 1896, as is shown by the following extract from a letter dated 19th August 1929 addressed to Mr. Tomlin by Mr. F. Martin Duncan, Librarian, Zoological Society of London: “‘ In the Annual Report of the Zoological Society for 1896, page 12, it is stated that Vol. XXXII of the Zoological Record for 1895 was published on December 4th 1896.” COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 172. 475 _(b) Commissioner John Stephenson agreed with Dr. Bather and added :— I would suggest, going further than Bather, that nothing in a report, record, historical relation, ov abstract (e.g. Zool. Berichte, Biol. Abstracts, the abstracts that appear or used to appear in Arch. Naturgesch.) be taken as an original contribution, whether or not the writer indicates his responsi- bility for it. These are not the places in which we look for original con- tributions, nor in which we ought to have to look. (c) Seven Commissioners (Apstein, Chapman, Horvath, Ishi- kawa, Pellegrin, Silvestri and Stone) replied that they agreed with Dr. Bather, but none of these Commissioners indicated whether this applied to both Dr. Bather’s suggestions or was confined to the suggestion that Opinion 86 should be re- affirmed. 4. In reporting to the Commission the comments received from Commissioners on the suggestions put forward by Dr. Bather, Dr. Stiles added the following statement of his own views :— I hold an open mind and would suggest :— (1) (2) It is not clear to me how far this view would lead us. It seems to me, that so many complications might arise that the principles in- volved should be very carefully considered—(possibly postponed for special discussion when the Commission meets ?) Is the Zoological Record “‘ publication’”’? Personally I have taken it for granted that it is “‘ publication ”’ and that any statement made therein had published status. Accordingly, if the Record said, “ X-us n.g., type albus,’ I have without question considered this as designation of type species to be as correct type (subject to the provisions of Art. 30, rule (g) quoted below*) as is any other type designation. The fact is known to me that various other zoologists have followed this same plan. If the types given in the Record are not to be accepted as type designations, the question arises whether numerous similar entries, (without further remarks) in tables of synonymy, are to be accepted as type designations under Art. 30. In many reviews, the reviewer has designated types. Admittedly, a review is not the best place in which to designate the type species. But it is not clear to me that this is not to be accepted as published. Many types are designated (without additional remarks) in lists (nomenclators) of genera. I have a feeling that the author who designates type species is per- forming an important public service. Would the acceptance of Bather’s viewpoint tend to discourage authors from assuming this responsibility ? ' * Rule (g) in Article 30 reads as follows :— If an author, in publishing a genus with more than one valid species, fails to designate (see (a)) or to indicate (see (b), (d)) its type, any subsequent author may select the type, and such designation is not subject to change (Type by sub- sequent designation). (See Opinions Nos. 6, 9, 10, 32, 56). The meaning of the expression “select the type” is to be rigidly construed. Mention of a species as an illustration or example of a genus does not constitute a selection cf a type. 476 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL Dr. Stiles concluded by stating that he intended to postpone temporarily the formulation of a draft Opinion, pending further suggestions from Commissioners. 5. No further suggestions were received by Dr. Stiles from Commissioners and in consequence in February 1935 he recir- culated to the members of the Commission the comments that he had first communicated to them in 1932 (as recorded in paragraphs 3 and 4. above). On this occasion, Dr. Stiles added the suggestion that this matter should be discussed at the meeting of the Com- mission due to be held at Lisbon in September of that year. 6. Comments were received from two Commissioners on this further communication :— (a) Commissioner James L. Peters wrote (4th March 1935) :— Since the 1927 amendments to Article 25 became effective it does not seem that the question of a subsequent type designation by a compiler in the Zoological Record or similar bibliographic publication is a contingency liable to arise any further, and as far as my own field is concerned, such designations in the past are almost negligible. On the other hand a ruling against such designations in a bibliographic publication might easily be construed as invalidating type designations in such standard works as the British Museum Catalogues, where after each generic name or synonym the commonly accepted type species is listed. (b) Commissioner Witmer Stone (reversing the view expressed in 1931 3) wrote :— I heartily agree with Peters’ statements as to type designations in the Zoological Record or similar publications. III—THE CONCLUSION REACHED BY THE INTERNA- TIONAL COMMISSION. 7. At their meeting held at Lisbon on Tuesday, 17th September 1935, the Commission considered both the general question of the availability under Article 30 of the Code of designations of the types of genera, the names of which were published on or before 31st December 1930 (i.e. prior to the coming into operation of the amendment of Article 25 adopted at Budapest in 1927), in those cases where such type designations are published in Abstracts, Records and similar publications. At the same time, the Commission considered the bearing of this question on the decision in regard to the type of genus Conulimus von’ Martens, 3 See paragraph 3(c) of the present Opinion (page 475 above). COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 172. 477 1895 (Class Gastropoda, Order Stylommatophora) embodied in Opinion 86. As regards the first of these questions, with which alone the present Opinion is concerned, the Commission agreed (Lisbon Session, 4th Meeting, Conclusion g) * :— . (a) that it was undesirable 4 that the types of genera should be designated for the first time in Abstracts, Records, and similar publications ; but that, where the type of a genus was clearly designated in such a publication, that designation must be accepted as being within the scope of Article 30 of the International Code; ee e e ee (c) to render Opinions in the sense indicated in (a) and (b) above. 8. Later in the same meeting as that referred to above (Lisbon Session, 4th Meeting, Conclusion 17), Commissioner Francis Hemming, who, in the absence through ill-health of Dr. C. W. Stiles, Secretary to the Commission, had been charged with the duty of preparing the report to be submitted by the Commission to the Twelfth International Congress of Zoology, reported that, in accordance with the request made by the Commission on the previous day (Lisbon Session, 3rd Meeting, Conclusion 3(b)), he had made a start with the drafting of the Commission’s report ; that he had made considerable progress in spite of being hampered by the lack of standard works of reference; and that he did not doubt that he would be in a position to lay a draft report before the Commission at their next meeting, though in the time avail- able it would be quite impracticable to prepare the drafts of paragraphs relating to all the matters on which decisions had been reached during the Lisbon Session of the Commission. As agreed upon at the meeting referred to above (Lisbon Session, 3rd Meet- ing, Conclusion 3(a)(i1)), he was therefore concentrating upon those matters that appeared to be the more important. Com- missioner Hemming proposed that those matters which it was found impossible to include in the report, owing to the shortness of the time available, should be dealt with after the Congress on. the basis of the records in the Official Record of the Proceedings of the Commission during their Lisbon Session. For this purpose, Commissioner Hemming proposed that all matters unanimously agreed upon during the Lisbon Session should be treated in the same manner, whether or not it was found possible to include references to them in the report to be submitted to the Congress, * Only those portions of Conclusion 9 which relate to the present case are here quoted. For the full text of Conclusion 9, including the portion relating to Conulinus von Martens, 1895, see 1943, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 1: 36. The decision of the Commission in regard to the latter question has been embodied in Opinion 176 (p. 521 é¢ seg. below). 478 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL and therefore that every such decision should be treated as having been participated in by all the Commissioners and Alternates present at Lisbon. The Commission took note of, and approved, the statement by Commissioner Hemming, and adopted the proposals submitted by him, as recorded above, in regard both to the selection of items to be included in their report to the Twelfth International Congress of Zoology and to the procedure to be adopted after the Congress in regard to those matters with which, for the reasons explained, it was found impossible to deal in the report. 9g. The question dealt with in the present Ofimion was one of the matters to which it was found impossible, in the time available, to include a reference in the report submitted by the Commission to the Twelfth International Congress of Zoology at Lisbon. It is therefore one of the matters which falls to be dealt with under the procedure agreed upon by the Commission as set out in para- graph 8 above. 10. The present Opinion was concurred in by the twelve (12) Commissioners and Alternates present at the Lisbon Session of the International Commission, namely :— Commissioners :—Calman; Hemming; Jordan; Pellegrin; eens; aimGl Susymeser. Alternates :—do Amaral vice Cabrera; Ohshima vwice Esaki; Bradley vice Stone; Beier vice Handlirseh ye inneizee Richter; and Mortensen vice Apstein. 11. The present Opinion was dissented from by no Commissioner or Alternate present at the Lisbon Session. The following five (5) Commissioners, who were not present at Lisbon nor represented thereat by Alternates, did not vote on the present Opinion :— Bolivar y Pieltain; Chapman; Fantham; Silvestri; and Stiles. 12. At the time when the vote was taken on the present Opinion, there was one (I) vacancy in the Commission consequent upon the death of Commissioner Horvath. IV.-AUTHORITY FOR THE ISSUE OF THE PRESENT OPINION. WHEREAS the By-Laws of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature provide that, except in cases involving the suspension of the rules, an Opinion is to be deemed to have COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 172: 479 been adopted by the said International Commission as soon as a majority of the Members of the Commission, that is to say ten (10) Members of the said Commission, have recorded their votes in favour thereof, provided that, where any proposed Opinion involves a reversal of any former Opinion rendered by the Com- mission, such proposed Ofinion shall obtain the concurrence of at least fourteen (14) Members of the Commission voting on the same before such Opinion is to be deemed to have been adopted by the Commission; and WHEREAS the present Opinion, as set out in the summary thereof, neither requires, in order to be valid, the suspension of the rules, nor involves a reversal of any former Opinion rendered by the Commission; and WHEREAS twelve (12) Members of the Commission have signi- fied their concurrence in the present Opinion either in person or through Alternates at the Session of the Commission held at Lisbon in September 1935; Now, THEREFORE, I, FRANCIS HEMMING, Secretary to the International Com- mission on Zoological Nomenclature, acting in virtue of all and every the powers conferred upon me in that behalf by reason of holding the said Office of Secretary to the International Com- mission, hereby announce the said Opinion on behalf of the International Commission, acting for the International Congress of Zoology, and direct that it be rendered and printed as Opinion Number One Hundred and Seventy Two (Opinion 172) of the said Commission. In faith whereof I, the undersigned FRANCIS HEMMING, Secre- tary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, have signed the present Opinion. Done at Aldeburgh in the County of Suffolk, this tenth day of September, Nineteen Hundred and Forty Three, in a single copy, which shall remain deposited in the archives of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. FRANCIS HEMMING 480 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL THE PUBLICATIONS OF THE COMMISSION. (obtainable at the Publications Office of the Commission at 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7.) Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. This journal has been established by the International Com- mission as their Official Organ in order to provide a medium for the publication of :— (a) proposals on zoological nomenclature submitted to the International Commission for deliberation and decision ; (b) comments received from, and correspondence by the Secretary with, zoologists on proposals published in the Bulletin under (a) above; and (c) papers on nomenclatorial implications of developments in taxonomic theory and practice. The Bulletin was established in 1943. Seven Parts of volume 1 have now been published. Further Parts are in the press. Opinions and Declarations Rendered by the International Com- mission on Zoological Nomenclature. The above work is being published in three volumes con- currently, namely :— Volume 1. This volume will contain Declarations 1-9 (which have never previously been published) and Opinions 1-133 (the original issue of which is now out of print). Parts 1-21 (contain- ing Declarations 1-9 and Opinions I-12) have now been published. Further Parts will be published shortly. Volume 2. This volume, which contains the record of the decisions taken by the International Commission at Lisbon in 1935, is being published in two Sections (Sections A and B) with continuous pagination. Of these, Section A, containing Declara- tions 10-12 and Opinions 134-160, is now complete. Of Section B, which will contain Opinions 161-181, Parts 31-45 (containing Opinions 161-175) have now been published. The remaining. Parts of this volume are in the press and will be published as soon as possible. Volume 3. This volume, which commenced with Opinion 182, will contain the Opimions adopted by the International Com- mission since their meeting at Lisbon in 1935. Parts 1-11 (con- taining Opinions 182-192) have now been published. Further Parts will be published as soon as possible. COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 172, 481 APPEAL FOR FUNDS The International Commission appeal earnestly to all institutions and individuals interested in the development of zoological nomen- clature to contribute, according to their means, to the Commission’s Special (Publications) Fund. Of the total sum of £1,800 required to enable the Commission to issue all the publications now awaiting printing, donations amounting to £969 16s. 1d. were received up to 30th June 1945. Additional contributions are urgently needed in order to enable the Commission to continue their work without interruption. Contributions of any amount, however small, will be most gratefully received. Contributions should be sent to the International Commission at their Publications Office, 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W. 7, and made payable to the “ International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature or Order ’’ and crossed ‘*‘ Account payee. Coutts & Co.’’. 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 2. Part 43. Pp. 483-494. OPINION 173 On the type of the genus Agriades Hubner, [1819], and its synonym Latiorina Tutt, 1909 (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera), genera based upon an erroneously determined species AaWov iW 4 \ i ie Had ie ; ~~ " VAN Lh oD Bs FAN .) OF / 2% / r) a Oe a / ; v | Re pon i 4S bbe bd fy 8 PU } \ f j y ‘ Ng | i Se Lf 7, * xt xh ONAL MUSES LONDON: Printed by Order of the International Commission on . Zoological Nomenclature Sold at the Publications Office of the Commission 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7 1946 Price three shillings (All rights reserved) Issued 22nd January, 1946 INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE COMPOSITION OF THE COMMISSION The Officers of the Commission President : Dr. Karl Jordan, Ph.D., F.R.S. (United Kingdom). Vice-President : Dr. James L. Peters (U.S.A.). Secretary : Mr. Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. (United Kingdom). The Members of the Commission Class 1946 Herr Professor Dr. Walter ARNDT (Germany). Dr. William Thomas CALMAN (United Kingdom). Professor Teiso ESAKI (Japan). Professor Béla von HANKO (Hungary). Dr. Tadeusz JACZEWSKI (Poland). Dr Norman ik; SOLE (ULSEAs) Class 1949 Senor Dr. Angel CABRERA (Argentina). Mr. Francis HEMMING (United Kingdom) (Secretary to the Commission). Dr. Karl JORDAN (United Kingdom) (President of the Commission). Dr. Joseph PEARSON (Australia). Monsieur le Docteur Jacques PELLEGRIN (France). Herr Professor Dr. Rudolf RICHTER (Germany). Class 1952 Senhor Dr. Afranio do AMARAL (Brazil). Professor James Chester BRADLEY (U.S.A.). Professor Ludovico di CAPORIACCO (Italy). Professor J. R. DYMOND (Canada). Dr. James L. PETERS (U.S.A.) (Vice-President of the Commission). Dr HarcldyE VOKmsS (Urs A): Secretariat of the Commission : British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London, S.W. 7. Publications Office of the Commission : AI, Queen’s Gate, London, 5.W. 7. Personal address of the Secretary : 83, Fellows Road (Garden Flat), London, N.W. 3. OPINION 173. ON THE TYPE OF THE GENUS AGRIADES HUBNER, [1819], AND ITS SYNONYM LATIORINA TUTT, 1909 (CLASS INSECTA, ORDER LEPIDOPTERA), GENERA BASED UPON AN ERRONE- OUSLY DETERMINED SPECIES. SUMMARY.—Under suspension of the rules Papilio glandon Prunner, 1798, is hereby designated as the type of Agriades Hubner, [1819], and of its synonym Latiorina Tutt, 1909 (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera). 1.—THE STATEMENT OF THE CASE. In 1935 Commissioner Francis Hemming prepared for the consideration of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature a paper dealing with the interpretation of Opinion 65 relating to the determination of the types of genera based upon erroneously determined species, with special reference to certain genera in the Sub-Order Rhopalocera of the Order Lepido- ptera (Class Insecta). One of the genera in question was Agrviades Hubner, [1819], and its synonym Latiorina Tutt, 1909, in the family LYCAENIDAE. 2. The portion of the foregoing paper relating to this genus reads as follows 1 :— (2) AGRIADES HUBNER, [1819]? AND LATIORINA TUTT, 1909 (A) AGRIADES HUBNER, [1819] Hubner, [1819], Verz. bekannt. Schmett. (5) : 68 Scudder, 1875, Proc. Amer. Acad. Aris Sci., Boston 10 : 105 1 The text of the first part of this paper relating to the interpretation of Opinion 65 is quoted in full in Opinion 168 (pp. 411-430 above). The portions of the second part relating to the types of the other genera discussed are quoted in Opinions 169 (pp. 431-442 above) (Lycaeides Hiibner), 175 (pp. 509-520 above) (Polyommatus Latreille), 177 (Euchloé Hubner), 179 (Prin- ceps Hiibner), and 181 (Carcharodus Hibner). 2 At the time when the paper from which this is an extract was written, it was thought (Hemming, 1934, Gen. Names hol. Butt. 1: 16-17) that Ppp. 65-240 of Hiibner’s Verz. bekannt. Schmett. were published in 1823. That date was accordingly assigned to the present name. The examination of Hiibner’s surviving manuscripts has since shown that the correct date is 1819 (see Hemming, 1937, Htibney 1: 517 and also Opinion 150, for which see pp. 161-168 above). This correction has accordingly been made, wherever necessary, in the extract from Commissioner Hemming’s applica- tion quoted in the present paragraph. 486 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL 38. Hiibner placed in this genus 14 species (as recognised by himself) but did not designate a type. Of these species, the only one that is relevant here is Hiibner’s species no. 660, since that species was selected as the type of this genus by Scudder in 1875. Hubner’s entry in the Verzeichniss for this species is as follows :— 660. A. Orbitulus Prun. Lepid. 158. Meleager Hiibn. Pap. 522-52 5 & 761.762. 39. Neither when Hubner published the name Agviades Hiibner or at any subsequent time has there been the slightest doubt or misunderstanding regarding the identity of the species which he there identified as Papilio ovbitulus Prunner, 1798 (Lepid. pedemont. : 75).2 The species in question has always been identified with the well-known high-alpine and boreal species figured by Hiibner in the Sammlung euvopaischer Schmetierlinge as Papilio meleagey. For convenience this species is here referred to as the y Raroae Is iibie. 40. The difficulties now under consideration only arose in 1926 when Verity (Ent. Rec. 38 : 105) established :— (i) that Prunner had given the name Papilio orbitulus not to the “ Arctic Blue’”’ but to another alpine “‘ Blue’”’ which may here be called the ‘“‘ Green-underside Alpine Blue,” to which the name Papilio pheretes Hiibner, [1805—1806],* is usually applied ; (ii) that Prunner had given a name, Papilio glandon (ibid. : 76), to the ““ Arctic Blue’ and that this was the oldest available name for that species and should therefore be adopted. 41. This discovery at once threw in doubt the type of the genus Agviades Hubner, since that genus became thereby a genus based upon an erroneously determined species. The effect of applying in this case the preliminary assumption prescribed in Opinion 65 (namely that the author of the genus correctly identified the species that he placed in it) would be as follows :— (i) the type of Agviades Hubner would become the true Papilio orbitulus Prunner, i.e. the ‘“‘ Green-underside Alpine Blue,’ notwithstanding the fact :— (a) that the true Papilio orbitulus Prunner was not even included by Hubner in the genus Agviades but was placed by that author in the preceding genus, Nomiades Hiibner, as species no. 645 under the name Nomiades pheretes (Hubner) ; (b) that, when designating Papilio orbitulus Prunner as the type of Agvriades Hiibner, Scudder clearly indicated that he had in mind the species which Hibner had identified as Papilio ovbiiulus Prunner, 1.e;, the ~ Arctic Bluel (— apie orbitulus Prunner, Esper e¢ auctt. mec Prunner) and not the ““Green-underside Alpine Blue’’ (= the true Papilio orbitulus ATED) ; eee figure “158” quoted by Hiibner as the reference for orbitulus in de Prunner’s Lepid. pedemont. is not to the page in that work where this name appears but to the serial number allotted to this species by de Prunner. 4 At the time when the paper from which this is an extract was written, it was thought that the main (Ziefer) text of Hiibner’s Samml. europ. Schmett. was all published in 1805, the date given on the title page. It has since been ascertained (Hemming, 1937, Hiibuer 1 : 177-179) that this text was published in parts and that the sheet comprising page 45 on which the name Papilio pheretes Hibner first appeared was published in the period November 1805—August 1806. This date has accordingly been substituted for 1805, wherever necessary, in the extract from Commis- sioner Hemming’s application quoted in the present paragraph. COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 173. 487 (ii) Papilio glandon Prunner (= Papilo orbitulus Prunner, Esper ez auctt. mec Prunner) would need to be provided with a new generic name, since the only other available name for it, Latiovina Tutt, is based upon the same erroneously determined species and any decision on Agriades Hiibner would necessarily apply also to Latiorina Tutt; (iii) the name Albulina Tutt, 1909 (Ent. Rec. 21: 108) (type: Papilio pheretes Hiibner, [1805—1806]), to which the true Papilio orbitulus Prunner is normally referred, would become an objective synonym of Agviades Hiibner, since the same species would in that case be the type of each of these genera. 42. The consequences described above, including the confusion that would certainly follow from the transfer of Agviades Hiibner to be the generic name for Papilio orbitulus Prunner (= Papilio pheretes Hibner) in place of being the name for the allied genus which comprises Papilio glandon Prunner (= Papilio orvbitulus Prunner, Esper ez auctt. mec Prunner), would be an absurdly heavy price to pay for the privilege of maintaining the admittedly erroneous assumption that Hiibner correctly identified Papilio orvbitulus Prunner when he cited that name in the list of species included by him in his new genus Agviades Hiibner. 43. I accordingly recommend that the International Commission should render an Opimion under their plenary powers declaring that Papilio glandon Prunner, 1708, is the type of Agviades Hiibner, [1819], i.e. that the type of this genus is the species which was intended by its original author, which has always been accepted as such and which Scudder in his paper published in 1875 intended so to select. (B) LATIORINA TUTT, 1909 Tutt, 1900, Ent. Rec. 21 : 108 44. The position of this genus is indistinguishable from that of Agriades Hubner, except that its type was designated by its original author (Tutt) and not, as in the case of Agviades Hibner, selected by a later author (Scudder). It should be noted however that Tutt made the further error (a common one at that time) of attributing the name orvbitulus not to Prunner (its true author) but to Esper by whom it was figured and described under that name, not as a species named by himself but (quite correctly) as having been so named by Prunner. 45. In these circumstances it is evident that whatever decision is taken in regard to Agviades Hiibner must govern also Latiovina Tutt. I accord- ingly recommend that the International Commission, acting under their plenary powers, should designate Papilio glandon Prunner, 1798, as the type of Latiorina Tutt. That genus will thereupon become de juve what it has always been treated as being, namely an objective synonym of Agviades Hubner. Il.—THE SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF THE CASE. 3. The questions raised in Commissioner Hemming’s paper were considered by the International Committee on Entomological Nomenclature at their meeting held at Madrid in September 1935 during the Sixth International Congress of Entomology. The International Committee unanimously agreed to recommend the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to render an Opimion clarifying the meaning of Opinion 65 in the manner 488 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL proposed.® Having reached this conclusion on the general question involved, the International Committee examined the particular cases in the Order Lepidoptera submitted in the same paper. The International Committee considered that, if (as they had just agreed to recommend) the International Commission agreed to render an Opinion clarifying Opinion 65 in the manner proposed in the petition, the only possible course as regards the genus Agviades Hiibner, [1819], and its synonym Lattorina Tutt, 1909, would be for the International Commission to render an Ofinion declaring Papilio glandon Prunner, 1798 (= Agriades orbitulus Prunner, Hubner ec Prunner) to be the type of each of these genera. The International Committee agreed therefore to recommend the International Commission to proceed in this way under their plenary powers. | 4. The above and other resolutions adopted by the International _Committee at their meeting held at Madrid were confirmed by the Sixth International Congress of Entomology at the Concilium Plenum held at Madrid on 12th September 1935. Il].—THE CONCLUSION REACHED BY THE INTERNA- TIONAL COMMISSION. 5. When the International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature met at Lisbon immediately after the close of the Sixth International Congress of Entomology in September 1935, they found themselves confronted with a large number of cases involvy- ing proposals for the suspension of the rules, in respect of some of -which advertisements had not been published or, if published, had not been published for the prescribed period, owing to the illness of Dr. C. W. Stiles, Secretary to the Commission, or for other causes. In these circumstances the Commission decided at their meeting held on the morning of Monday, 16th September 1935 (Lisbon Session, 2nd Meeting, Conclusion 9), that immediate consideration should be given to all cases submitted to the Commission that, in their judgment, had reached the stage at which a decision could properly be taken; that the By-Laws of the Commission should be suspended during the Lisbon Session to such extent as might be necessary to give effect to this decision ; 5 For a full account of the subsequent history of the portion of this petition relating to the interpretation of Opinion 65 and the decision of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature thereon, see Opinion 168 (pp. 411-430 above). COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 173. 489 and that, in so far as this procedure involved taking decisions under suspension of the rules’’ in cases where the prescribed advertisement procedure had not been complied with, the cases in question should be duly advertised as soon as might be practic- able after the conclusion of the Lisbon Congress and that no Opimion should be rendered and published thereon until after the expiry of a period of one year from the date on which the said advertisement was despatched to the prescribed journals for publication. The case of Agviades Hiibner, [1819] (and its synonym Latiorina Tutt, 1909), was among the cases in question and was accordingly dealt with under the above procedure. 6. At the same meeting as that referred to above (Lisbon Session, 2nd Meeting, Conclusion 23), the International Com- mission agreed upon certain clarifications of Opinion 65 in regard to the status of genera based upon erroneously determined species (Lisbon Session, 2nd Meeting, Conclusion 23 (a) and (c)).6 Having thus cleared the ground regarding the principles involved, the Commission proceeded to consider the present and certain other cases in the Order Lepidoptera (Class Insecta) and the resolutions in regard thereto submitted by the International Committee on Entomological Nomenclature. After careful consideration of the present case, the International Commission agreed (Lisbon Session, 2nd Meeting, Conclusion 23 (b) and (c)) :— ’” 66 (b) in the light of (a) above, to suspend the rules in the case of the under- mentioned genera and to declare the types of the genera in question to be the species indicated below : Name of genus Type of genus (2) Agriades Hiibner, [1819],® Papilio glandon Prunner, 17098, Verz. bek. Schmett. (5) : 68 Lepid. pedemont. : 76 (the species misidentified as Papilio orbitulus Prunner, 1798, Latiorina Tutt, 1909, Ent. by Esper, [1799], by Hiibner and rec. 21 : 108 other authors) Cie) Le feces. e (c) to render Opinions in the sense of (a) and (b) above. and & See footnote 5. ” Only those portions of Conclusion 23 which relate to the present case are here quoted. For the full text of Conclusion 23, see 1943, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 1 3 23-25. 8 At the time of the Session of the International Commission on Zoo- logical Nomenclature held at Lisbon in 1935, it was still thought that this name was first published in 1823. It has since been found that the portion of Hiibner’s Verz. bek. Schmett. concerned was published in 1819 (see foot- note 2). In accordance with the editorial arrangements agreed upon at Lisbon, the date has been corrected to1819. (See 1943, Bull. zool. Nomencl, 1 : 64 and 68 (note (33)).) 490 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL 7. The foregoing decisions weré embodied in paragraph 29 of the report which at their meeting held on the morning of Wednes- day, 18th September 1935 (Lisbon Session, 5th Meeting, Conclusion 6), the Commission unanimously agreed to submit to the Twelfth International Congress of Zoology. That report was unani- mously approved by the Section on Nomenclature at its joint meeting with the International Commission held on the after- noon of the same day. It was thereupon submitted to the Twelfth International Congress of Zoology, by which it was unanimously approved and adopted at the Concilium Plenum held on the afternoon of Saturday, 21st September 1935, the last day of the Congress. 8. In accordance with the decaion taken by the Commission at Lisbon in regard to their procedure at that Session (paragraph 5 above), this case was duly advertised in 1936 in two or more of the journals named in the Resolution adopted by the Ninth Interna- tional Congress of Zoology at its meeting held at Monaco in March 1913,’ by which the said International Congress conferred upon the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature plenary power to suspend the rules as applied to any given case where, in the judgment of the Commission, the strict application of the rules would clearly result in greater confusion than uni- formity. In the period that has elapsed since the advertisement in the said journals of the proposed suspension of the rules in the present case, no communication of any kind has been addressed to the International Commission objecting to the issue of an Opinion in the terms proposed. g. The present Opinion was concurred in by the twelve (12) Commissioners and Alternates present at the Lisbon Session of the International Commission, namely :— Commissioners :—Calman; Hemming; Jordan; Pellegrin; Peters; and Stejneger. Alternates :—do Amaral vice Cabrera; Ohshima vice Esaki; Bradley vice Stone; Beier vice Handlirsch; Arndt wiece Richter; and Mortensen vice Apstein. 10. The present Opinion was dissented from by no Commissioner or Alternate present at the Lisbon Session. Nor since that Session has any Commissioner who was neither present on that occasion nor represented thereat by an Alternate indicated dis- 9 See Declaration 5 (1943, Opinions and Declarations rendered by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 1 : 31-40). COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 173. 491 agreement with the conclusions then reached by the Commission in this matter. 11. The following five (5) Commissioners who were not present at Lisbon nor represented thereat by Alternates did not vote on the above Opinion :— Bolivar y Pieltain; Chapman; Fantham; Silvestri; and Stiles. 12. At the time when the vote was taken on the present Opinion, there was one (I) vacancy in the Commission consequent upon the death of Commissioner Horvath. IV.-AUTHORITY FOR THE ISSUE OF THE PRESENT OPINION. WHEREAS the Ninth International Congress of Zoology at its meeting held at Monaco in March 1913 adopted a Resolution conferring upon the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature plenary power to suspend the rules as applied to any given case where, in the judgment of the Commission, the strict application of the rules would clearly result in greater confusion than uniformity, provided that not less than one year’s notice of the possible suspension of the rules as applied to the said case should be given in two or more of five journals specified in the said Resolution, and provided that the vote in the Commission was unanimously in favour of the proposed suspension of the rules; and WHEREAS the suspension of the rules is required to give valid force to the provisions of the present Opimion as set out in the summary thereof; and WHEREAS not less than one year’s notice of the possible sus- pension of the rules as applied to the present case has been given to two or more of the journals specified in the Resolution adopted by the Ninth International Congress of Zoology at its meeting held at Monaco in March 1913; and WHEREAS the vote in the Commission at their Lisbon Session was unanimously in favour of the issue of an Opinion in the terms of the present Opinion ; Now, THEREFORE, 4y2 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL I, FRANcIS HEMMING, Secretary to the International Com- mission on Zoological Nomenclature, acting in virtue of all and every the powers conferred upon me in that behalf by reason of holding the said Office of Secretary to the International Com- mission, hereby announce the said Ofimion on behalf of the Inter- national Commission, acting for the International Congress of Zoology, and direct that it be rendered and printed as Opinion Number One Hundred and Seventy Three (Opinion 173) of the said Commission. In faith whereof I, the undersigned FRANCIS HEMMING, Secre- tary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, have signed the present Opinion. Done in London, this first day of October, Nineteen Hundred and Forty Three, in a single copy, which shall remain deposited in the archives of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. FRANCIS HEMMING COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 173. 493 THE PUBLICATIONS OF THE COMMISSION. (obtainable at the Publications Office of the Commission at 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7.) Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. This journal has been established by the International Com- mission as their Official Organ in order to provide a medium for the publication of :— (a) proposals on zoological nomenclature submitted to the International Commission for deliberation and decision ; (b) comments received from, and correspondence by the Secretary with, zoologists on proposals published in the Bulletin under (a) above; and (c) papers on nomenclatorial implications of developments in taxonomic theory and practice. The Bulletin was established in 1943. Seven Parts of volume 1 have now been published. Further Parts are in the press. Opinions and Declarations Rendered by the International Com- mission on Zoological Nomenclature. The above work is being published in three volumes con- currently, namely :— Volume 1. This volume will contain Declarations 1-9 (which have never previously been published) and Ofinions 1-133 (the original issue of which is now out of print). Parts 1-21 (contain- ing Declarations 1-9 and Opinions I-12) have now been published. Further Parts will be published shortly. Volume 2. This volume, which contains the record of the decisions taken by the International Commission at Lisbon in 1935, 1s being published in two Sections (Sections A and B) with continuous pagination. Of these, Section A, containing Declara- tions 10-12 and Opinions 134-160, is now complete. Of Section B, which will contain Opinions 161-181, Parts 31-45 (containing Opinions 161-175) have now been published. The remaining Parts of this volume are in the press and will be published as soon as possible. Volume 3. This volume, which commenced with Opinion 182, will contain the Opinions adopted by the International Com- mission since their meeting at Lisbon in 1935. Parts 1-11 (con- taining Opinions 182-192) have now been published. Further Parts will be published as soon as possible. 494 INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. APPEAL FOR FUNDS The International Commission appeal earnestly to all institutions and individuals interested in the development of zoological nomen- clature to contribute, according to their means, to the Commission’s Special (Publications) Fund. Of the total sum of £1,800 required to enable the Commission to issue all the publications now awaiting printing, donations amounting to £969 16s. 1d. were received up to 30th June 1945. Additional contributions are urgently needed in order to enable the Commission to continue their work without interruption. Contributions of any amount, however small, will be most gratefully received. Contributions should be sent to the International Commission at their Publications Office, 44, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W. 7, and made payable to the ‘ International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature or Order ’’ and erossed ‘‘ Account payee. Coutts & Co.’’. PRINTED IN GREAT BRITAIN BY RICHARD CLAY AND COMPANY, LTD., BUNGAY, SUFFOLK. 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 2. Part 44. Pp. 495-508. OPINION 174 On the status of the names Ceraphron Panzer, [1805], and Ceraphron Jurine, 1807 (Class Insecta, Order Hymenoptera) . “ Ay cy / x. y if i \ j LA a9 J 182 pl. (92 fig, mO)) airby, rightly accepted the identification of Papilio belia Linnaeus as established by Butler (1869) but considered (wrongly) that the oldest available name for the collective species was Papilio ausonia Hiibner, [1803-1804 ],3 Sammi. euvop. Schmett. : pl. Pap. 113 figs. 582-58399). He realised that the sub- species that occurs at Lyons and in the South of France that had been figured by Esper was without a name and he accordingly named it Euchloé ausonia Hiibner var. esperi Kirby (ibid. : 506 no. 3 var. a). This therefore is the correct name (from the subspecific point of view) of Esper’s insect and therefore the correct name of the insect treated by Hubner in the Verzeichniss as ‘“‘ Euchloé belia Esp.,”’ 1.e. his species no. 994. 56. Butler (1870) selected ‘‘ belia Cramer’’ as the type of the genus Euchloé Hibner. As shown in paragraph 54 above, Butler was by that date fully aware that ‘‘ belia Cramer ’’ was not the same species as Papilio belia Linnaeus, 1767. ‘There is therefore no doubt that Butler’s intention was to select as the type of this genus the species which Stoll (im Cramer) _ had misidentified as Papilio belia Linnaeus, i.e. the insect which later had been misidentified in the same way by Esper and which Hiibner had called “* Euchloé belia Esp.” in the Verzeichniss. 57. The only difficulty arises from the fact that (as shown above) 3 Kirby assigned the date 1803 tothisname. Itis now known, however, that it should be dated [1803-1804] (see Hemming, 1937, Hubner 1 : 230). COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 177. 537 Hubner made a mistake of identification in the case of the species (no. 994) which Butler later selected as the type of the genus Euchloé Hiibner. That genus is therefore a genus based upon an erroneously determined species. If in this case the preliminary assumption enjoined by Opinion 65 (namely that Hiibner correctly identified the species placed by him in the genus Euchloé at the time that he founded that genus) were to be maintained against all the weight of the known facts, the result would be as follows :— (i) the name Euchloé Hibner, [1819], would cease to be available for the group of species without orange tips on the upperside of the fore- wings in the males, and these species would need to be referred to the genus Elphinstonia Klots, 1930 (Bull. Brooklyn ent. Soc. 25 : 87) (type: Having reached this conclusion on the general question involved, the International Committee examined the particular cases in the Order Lepidoptera submitted in the same paper. The International Committee on Entomological Nomen- clature considered that, if (as they had agreed to recommend) the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature agreed to render an Opinion clarifying Opinion 65 in the manner proposed in the petition, the only possible course as regards the genus Princeps Hiibner, [1807], and its synonym Orpheides Hiibner, [1819], would be for the International Com- mission to render an Ofimion declaring that Papilio demodocus Esper, [1798], to be the type of both these genera. The Interna- tional Committee on Entomological Nomenclature agreed there- ®> For a full account of the subsequent history of the portion of this petition relating to the interpretation of Opinion 65 and the decision of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature thereon, see Opinion 168 (pp. 411-430 above). COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE, OPINION 179. 563 fore to recommend the International Commission on Zoological | Nomenclature to proceed in this way under their plenary powers. 4. The above and other resolutions adopted by the Interna- tional Committee on Entomological Nomenclature at their meeting held at Madrid were confirmed by the Sixth Interna- tional Congress of Entomology at the Concilium Plenum held at Madrid on 12th September 1935. III.—_THE CONCLUSION REACHED BY THE INTERNA- TIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMEN- CLATURE. 5. When the International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature met at Lisbon immediately after the close of the Sixth International Congress of Entomology in September 1935, they found themselves confronted with a large number of cases involv- ing proposals for the suspension of the rules, in respect of some of which advertisements had not been published or, if published, had not been published for the prescribed period, owing to the illness of Dr. C. W. Stiles, Secretary to the Commission, or for other causes. In these circumstances the Commission decided at their _ meeting held on the morning of Monday, 16th September 1935 (Lisbon Session, 2nd Meeting, Conclusion 9), that immediate consideration should be given to all cases submitted to the Com- mission that, in their judgment, had reached the stage at which a decision could properly be taken; that the By-Laws of the Commission should be suspended during the Lisbon Session to such extent as might be necessary to give effect to this decision ; and that, in so far as this procedure involved taking decisions “under suspension of the rules ’’ in cases where the prescribed advertisement procedure had not been complied with, the cases in question should be duly advertised as soon as might be practic- able after the conclusion of the Lisbon Congress and that no _ Opinion should be rendered and published thereon until after the expiry of a period of one year from the date on which the said advertisement was despatched to the prescribed journals for publication. The case of Princeps Hiibner, [1807] (and its synonym Orpheides Hiibner, [1819], was among the cases in question and was accordingly dealt with under the above pro- cedure. E 6. At the same meeting as that referred to above (Lisbon Session, 2nd Meeting, Conclusion 23), the International Com- 564 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATION AL mission agreed upon certain clarifications of Opinion 65 in regard to the status of genera based upon erroneously determined species (Lisbon Session, 2nd Meeting, Conclusion 23 (a) and (c)).6 Having thus cleared the ground regarding the principles involved, the Commission proceeded to consider the present and certain other cases in the Order Lepidoptera and the resolutions in regard thereto submitted by the International Committee on Entomological Nomenclature. After careful consideration of the present case, the International Commission agreed (Lisbon Session, 2nd Meeting, Conclusion 23 (b) and (c)) ® :— (b) in the light of (a) above, to suspend the rules in the case of the under- mentioned genera and to declare the types of the genera in question to be the species indicated below :— Name of genus Type of genus (5) Princeps Hiibner, [1807], Papilio demodocus Esper, [1798], Samml. exot. Schmett. 1: pl. Ausl. Schmett. (14) : 205 [116] (first described by Linnaeus in and 1764 as Papilio demoleus, a name Orpheides Hiibner, [1819],? given by him in 1758 to another Verz. bek. Schmeit. (6) : 86 species; similarly misidentified by Hiibner) (c) to render Opinions in the sense of (a) and (b) above. 7. The foregoing decisions were embodied in paragraph 29 of the report which at their meeting held on the morning of Wednes- day, 18th September 1935 (Lisbon Session, 5th Meeting, Con- clusion 6), the Commission unanimously agreed to submit to the Twelfth International Congress of Zoology. That report was unanimously approved by the Section on Nomenclature at its joint meeting with the International Commission held on the afternoon of the same day. It was thereupon submitted to the Twelfth International Congress of Zoology, by which it was unanimously approved and adopted at the Concilium Plenum held on the afternoon of Saturday, 21st September 1935, the last day of the Congress. 8. In accordance with the decision taken by the Commission at Lisbon in regard to their procedure at that Session (paragraph § Only those portions of Conclusion 23 which relate to the present case are here quoted. For the full text of Conclusion 23, see 1943, Bull. zool. Nomencel. 1 3 23-25. * As explained on page 68 of vol. 1 of the Bull. zool. Nomencl., it was believed at the time of the Lisbon Session that this name was published in 1823. See also footnote 2. For the reasons there explained, the date has been corrected to 1819, the year in which it is now known that this name was published. COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 179. 565 | 5 above), this case was duly advertised in 1936 in two or more of the journals specified in the Resolution § adopted by the Ninth International Congress of Zoology at its meeting held at Monaco in March 1913, by which the said International Congress con- ferred upon the International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature plenary power to suspend the rules as applied to any given case where, in the judgment of the Commission, the strict applica- tion of the rules would clearly result in greater confusion than uniformity. In the period that has elapsed since the advertise- ment in the said journals of the proposed suspension of the rules in the present case, no communication of any kind has been addressed to the International Commission objecting to the issue of an Opinion in the terms. proposed. g. The present Ofimion was concurred in by the twelve (12) Commissioners and Alternates-present at the Lisbon Session of the International Commission, namely :— Commissioners :—Calman; Hemming; Jordan; Pellegrin; Peters; and Stejneger. Alternates :—do Amaral vice Cabrera; Ohshima vice Esaki; ibnacioy wee stone; Beier vice Handlirsch; Arndt vice - Richter; and Mortensen vice Apstein. 10. The present Opinion was dissented from by no Commissioner or Alternate at the Lisbon Session. Nor since that Session has any Commissioner who was neither present on that occasion nor represented thereat by an Alternate indicated disagreement with the conclusions then reached by the Commission in this matter. 11. The following five (5) Commissioners who were not present at Lisbon or represented thereat by Alternates did not vote on the present Opinion :— Bolivar y Pieltain; Chapman; Fantham; Silvestri; and Stiles. 12. At the time when the vote was taken on the present Opinion, there was one (1) vacancy in the Commission consequent upon the death of Commissioner Horvath. a AUTHORITY FOR THE ISSUE OF THE PRESENT OPINION. WHEREAS the Ninth International Congress of Zoology at its meeting held at Monaco in March 1913 adopted a Resolution conferring upon the International Commission on Zoological 8 See Declavation 5 (1943, Opinions and Declarations rendered by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 1 : 31-40). 566 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL Nomenclature plenary power to suspend the rules as applied to any given case where, in the judgment of the Commission, the strict application of the rules would clearly result in greater con- fusion than uniformity, provided that not less than one year’s notice of the possible suspension of the rules as applied to the said case should be given in two or more of five journals specified in the said Resolution, and provided that the vote in the Com- mission was unanimously in favour of the proposed suspension of the rules; and WHEREAS the suspension of the rules is required to give valid force to the provisions of the present Opinion as set out in the summary thereof; and WHEREAS not less than one year’s notice of the possible sus- pension of the rules as applied to the present case has been given to two or more of the journals specified in the Resolution adopted by the Ninth International Congress of Zoology at its meeting held at Monaco in March 1913; and WHEREAS the vote in the Commission at their Lisbon Session was unanimously in favour of the issue of an Opinion in the terms _ of the present Opinion ; Now, THEREFORE, I, FRANCIS HEMMING, Secretary to the International Com- mission on Zoological Nomenclature acting in virtue of all and every the powers conferred upon me in that behalf by reason of holding the said Office of Secretary to the International Com- mission, hereby announce the said Opinion on behalf of the Inter- national Commission, acting for the International Congress of Zoology, and direct that it be rendered and printed as Opinion Number One Hundred and Seventy Nine (Ofzmzon 179) of the said Commission. | In faith whereof I, the undersigned FRANCIS HEMMING, Secre- tary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, have signed the present Opinion. , DoneE in London, this twentieth day of November, Nineteen Hundred and Forty Three, in a single copy, which shall remain deposited an the archives of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. FRANCIS HEMMING COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 179. 567 THE PUBLICATIONS OF THE COMMISSION. (obtainable at the Publications Office of the Commission at 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7.) Opinions and Declarations Rendered by the International Com- mission on Zoological Nomenclature. The above work is being published in three volumes con- currently, namely :— Volumet. This volume willcontain Declarations 1-9 (which have never previously been published) and Opinions 1-133 (the original issue of which is now out of print). In order that the volume, when bound, may be of a convenient size for handling, it has been decided to divide volume 1 into a series of Sections, which will be ~ continuously paged but will each be supplied with a title page and index. It is at present contemplated that the first of these Sections (Section A) will comprise Declarations 1-9 and Opinions I-29, but no final decision can be taken until it is possible to estimate more closely than at present the number of pages re- quired for a volume so composed. An announcement on this subject will be made as soon as possible. Parts 1-21 (comprising Declarations 1-g and Opinions 1-12) have now been published. Further Parts are in the press and will be published as soon as possible. Volume 2. This volume will contain Declarations 10-12 and Opimions 134-181 and will thus be a complete record of all the decisions taken by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature at their meeting held at Lisbon in 1935. This volume will be published in two Sections, which will be continu- ously paged but will each be supplied with a title page and index. Section A, comprising Declarations 10-12 and Opinions 134-160 (published in Parts 1-30 and 304A), is now complete, price £4 4s. od. Individual Parts of this Section are also obtainable separately at the prices at which they were originally published. Section B will comprise Opinions 161-181 (to be published in Parts 31-52). Parts 31-50 (containing Opinions 161-180) have now been published and it is hoped that the remaining Parts wilk be issued at an early date. 568 INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. Volume 3. This volume, which commenced with Opinion 182, will contain the first instalment of the Opinions adopted by the International Commission since their Lisbon meeting. Parts I-II (containing Opinions 182-192) have now been published. Further Parts will be published as soon as possible. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. This journal was established by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature in 1943 as their Official Organ in order to provide a medium for the publication of :— a) proposals on zoological nomenclature submitted to the International Commission for deliberation and decision ; (b) comments received from, and correspondence by the Secretary with, zoologists on proposals published in the Bulletin under (a) above; and (c) papers on nomenclatorial implications of developments in taxonomic theory and practice. Parts 1-7 of volume 1 have now been published. Further Parts are in the press and will be published as soon as possible. PRINTED IN GREAT BRITAIN BY RICHARD CLAY AND CompPaANy, LTp., BUNGAY, SUFFOLK. OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTER- NATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Edited by cs FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E. Secretary to the Commission VOLUME 2. Part 50. Pp. 569-588. OPINION 180 On the status of the names Sphex Linnaeus, 1738, and Ammophila Kirby, 1798 (Class Insecta, Order Hymenoptera) LONDON: Printed by Order of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature Sold at the Publications Office of the Commission 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7 1946 Price three shillings and six pence (All rights reserved) sued 25th June, 1946 INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE COMPOSITION OF THE COMMISSION The Officers of the Commission President: Dr. Karl Jordan, Ph.D., F.R.S. (United Kingdom). Vice-President : Dr. James L. Peters (U.S.A.). Secretary : Mr. Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. (United Kingdom). The Members of the Commission Class 1946 Herr Professor Dr. Walter ARNDT (Germany). Dr. William Thomas CALMAN (United Kingdom). Professor Teiso ESAKI (Japan). * Professor Béla von HANKO (Hungary). Dr Tadeusz JACZEWSKI (Poland). Dr. Norman R. STOLL (U.S.A.). Class 1949 Senor Dr. Angel CABRERA (Argentina). ; Mr. Francis HEMMING (United Kingdom) (Secretary to the Commission). Dr. Karl JORDAN (United Kingdom) (President of the Commission). Dr. Joseph PEARSON (Australia). Dr. Th. MORTENSEN (Denmark). Herr Professor Dr. Rudolf RICHTER (Germany). Class 1952 Senhor Dr. Afranio do AMARAL (Brazil). Professor James Chester BRADLEY (U:S.A.). Professor Ludovico di CAPORIACCO (Italy). Professor J. R. DYMOND (Canada). Dr. James L. PETERS (U.S.A.) (Vice-President of the Commission). Dr. Harold E. VOKES (U.S.A.). Secretariat of the Commission : British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London, S.W. 7. Publications Office of the Commission : 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W. 7 Personal address of the Secretary : 83, Fellows Road (Garden Flat), London, N.W. 3. AARSONIAN INSTT fa Ni f 4 \ AUG-2 1946 irons, mused OPINION 180. ON THE STATUS OF THE NAMES SPHEX LINNAEUS, 1758, AND AMMOPHILA KIRBY, 1798 (CLASS INSECTA, ORDER HYMENOPTERA). SUMMARY.—Under the rules the type of Sphex Linnaeus, 1758 (Class Insecta, Order Hymenoptera) is Sphex sabulosa Linnaeus, 1758, as stated in Opinion 32 rendered by the International Com- mission on Zoological Nomenclature prior to the grant to them by the International Congress of Zoology at Monaco in 1918 of plenary power to suspend the rules as applied to any given case where, in their judgment, the strict application of the rules would clearly result in greater confusion than uniformity. In the judgment of the Commission, Sphea Linnaeus, 1758, is such a case. Accord- ingly, under suspension of the rules (i) all type designations for Sphex Linnaeus, 1758, and Ammophila Kirby, 1798, made prior to the date of this Opinion are hereby set aside ; (ii) Sphex flavipennis Fabricius, 1793, is hereby designated as the type of Sphex Linnaeus, 1758 ; and (iii) Sphex sabulosa Linnaeus, 1758, is hereby designated as the type of Ammophila Kirby, 1798. The names Sphex Linnaeus, 1758, and Ammophila Kirby, 1798 (Class Inseeta, Order Hymeno- ptera), with the types indicated above, are hereby added to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology as Names Nos. 617 and 618. I—THE STATEMENT OF THE CASE. As the result of consultations initiated by Professor James Chester Bradley with the leading systematic workers in the Order Hymenoptera (Class Insecta) in all countries, the following petition signed by Professor Chester Bradley and 59 other Hymeno- pterists was submitted to the International Commission :— THE CASES OF SPHEX AND AMMOPHILA The genus Sphex Linnaeus, 1758, has for its type S. sabulosa L. by designa- tion of Fernald (Entomological News 1905, v. 15 p. 163 and see further Opinion 32). But it has long and universally been used in a sense as though Sphex maxillosus of Fabricius were type (as it was incorrectly Stated to be by Kohl, 1890) and in that sense was used as type of the sub- family SPHECINAE by Ashmead in 1899. Since Fernald’s designation of sabulosa as type American authors have generally used Sphex to replace what has always been called Ammophila, a genus which on account of * 572 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL biologically interesting habits has been extensively mentioned in general literature, and have correspondingly used CHLORIONINAE instead of SPHECINAE, together with SPHECINAE in lieu of AMMOPHILINAE, European authors have not generally made this change. The genus Ammophila Kirby, 1798, has also for its type Sphex sabulosa of Linnaeus, cited by Kirby as a synonym of his first included species vulgaris, and designated by Latreille, 1810, asa type. Ammophila, there- fore, under the Code, although in universal use for more than a century is a pure synonym of Sphex, which has been the universally accepted name of a large related genus. Therefore, according to the Code: Sphex of authors becomes Ammobia Billberg ranked as a subgenus of Chlorion Lattr. ; Subfamily SPHECINAE of authors becomes CHLORIONINAE ; Subfamily AMMOPHILINAE of authors becomes SPHECINAE nec auctt, In order to conserve these names in their long accepted sense the under- signed respectfully petition the International Commission on_ Zoological Nomenclature to take the following action, to wit : (1) to suspend the rules in the case of the generic names Sphex and Ammophila ; (2) to set aside the designation by Fernald of sabulosa L. as the type = Sphex ; (3) to validate :— (a) Sphex Linnaeus, 1758, with S. flavipennis Fabr. as type; None of the originally contained species definitely recognizable at present, belong to Sphex in the sense of authors. S. flavipennis, athough not an original species, was designated (invalidly according to the Code) as type of Sphex by Latreille, 1810. (b) Ammophila Kirby, 1798, type Sphex sabulosa Fabr., by designation of Latreille, 1810; j (4) to place on the Official List of Generic Names : Sphex Linnaeus, 1758, type Sphex flavipennis Fabr. as the correct name for a genus of digger-wasps with one-segmented petiole; Ammophila Kirby, 1798, type Sphex sabulosa Fabr. as the correct name for a genus of digger-wasps with two-segmented petiole. 2. The following is the list of signatures attached to the above petition at the time of its submission to the International Com- mission :— C. T. Brues R. Benoist * H. Haupt Jos. Bequaert jp De Altken: H. Brauns ¢ G. Grandi A. Krausse L. Berland A. B. Gahan * M. Wolff A. A. Oglobin iE Prison J. G. Betrem O. W. Richards aXe, lacy Leth alte + R. Fouts P. P. Bapiy Pig aoss. G. Arnold V. S. abate J. M. Dusmet A. Handlirsch J. C. Bradley W. M. Wheeler * I. Micha G. Enderlein G1, Lyle H. Hacker T. Uchida + R. A. Cushman * A. ©. Kinsey * OF Voor E, A. Elliott H. de W. Marriott H. Habermehl + A. Crevecoeur F. Maidl Ee. Kongers W. M. Mann P. Roth W. Hellen + R. Friese E, Enslin F, X. Williams fF - a COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 180. 573 H. von Ihering t A. von Schulthess O. Schmiedeknecht + A. C. W. Wagner R. B. Benson * IND Neo) | Kouznezoy- H. Hedicke . H. F. Schwarz Ugamtsky { H. Bischoff W. V. Balduf * Hes utz L. Masi D. S, Wilkinson * L. H. Weld * * In accord with results sought by the petition without having studied the points involved in the particular case. {+ Evidently intended to subscribe to this petition, but sheet bearing his signature was not included in his reply. < Deceased. 3. The following notes were attached to the foregoing petition :— (a) Extract from a letter from Dr. S. A. Rohwer to Professor James Chester Bradley I cannot sign this and I hope that you will not feel called upon to cir- culate it, as it is asking the Commission to reverse its opinion. Sucha petition would imply lack of confidence, and would be in my opinion a step backward. Should the Commission reverse its opinion, the principle for which it was founded—namely, stability of nomenclature, would be seriously jeopardized. (b) Note by Professor James Chester Bradley Opinion 32, to which Mr. Rohwer has reference, determined the type of the genus.Sphex on the basis of the premises submitted. The question of setting aside the rules and conserving Sphex in the customary sense was not considered, in fact the Commission at that time would have had no power to do so. To now ask the Commission to set aside the rules con- cerning Sphex is not requesting a reversal of its decision. Now that the type of Sphex under the rules is established, there is point in the further step of asking the Commission to suspend the rules in the case, an act which would be futile before it was clear what the type under the rules actually is. . (J.C.B.) Il.—THE SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF THE CASE. 4. This case was circulated to the members of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature in January 1935, when it was arranged that it and the other Hymenoptera cases sub- mitted at the same time should be dealt with at the meeting of the Commission due to be held at Lisbon in September of that year, by which time the recommendations of the International Com- mittee on Entomological Nomenclature would be available. 5. IThis case was considered by the International Committee on Entomological Nomenclature at their meeting held at Madrid in the second week of September 1935, during the Sixth Interna- tional Congress of Entomology. The International Committee on Entomological Nomenclature first examined the only objection 1 On this point, see the ‘‘ summary ”’ and paragraphs 5 and (i) of the present Opinion. 574. OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL that had been lodged against the action. proposed, namely that that action would involve asking the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to reverse the decision embodied in Opinion 32 where they had declared that ‘On the basis of the premises submitted, sabulosa is the type of Sphex Linnaeus, 1758.”’ The International Committee, after examining the application in detail, took note that far from constituting a request that the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature should reverse their previous decision, the application accepted that decision as the starting point of the case and, on the basis of that decision, asked the International Commission to take a decision on an entirely different question and one which had never pre- viously been submitted to the Commission for decision. When the International Commission rendered Opinion 32, which was published in July 1911, they were acting in virtue of the power to render Opinions on the interpretation of the International Code that had been conferred upon them by the Seventh International Congress of Zoology at its meeting held at Boston in 1907. At the time of the rendering (and publication) of Opinion 32, the Interna- tional Commission possessed no power to suspend the rules and it was not until 1913 that at Monaco plenary power to suspend the rules in certain cases was conferred upon them by the Ninth International Congress of Zoology. The present application was an application that the International Commission should use those powers in the case of the names Spex Linnaeus, 1758, and Ammophila Kirby, 1798, in order to secure that the correct use of those names should be the use in universal currency prior to the designation by Fernald (1905) of Sphex sabulosa Linnaeus, 1758, as the type of Sphex Linnaeus, 1758. No similar application had ever been submitted to the International Commission in the case of these names. Clearly, therefore, no decision which the Inter- national Commission might take on this application could possibly reverse any decision previously given. The International Com- mittee on Entomological Nomenclature agreed therefore that the objection that the present application involved a request for the — reversal of Opinion 32 was misconceived and without any valid force. 6. Having reached this conclusion, the International Committee on Entomological Nomenclature turned to consider the only two questions which, in their judgment, arose on the present applica- tion: (a) Would the strict application of. the rules in the case of the names Sphex Linnaeus and Ammop/ila Kirby result in greater COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 180. 575 confusion than uniformity? (b) If so, what action should the International Committee on Entomological Nomenclature recom- mend the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to take under their plenary powers to remedy this situation? As regards the first of these questions, the International Committee agreed that the transfer of Sphex Linnaeus to be the name of the genus for so long called Ammophila Kirby, with the consequent change in the meaning to be attached to the subfamily name SPHECINAE, would clearly resuit in greater confusion than uni- formity. The International Committee agreed therefore that it was desirable that in this case the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature should make use of their plenary powers to suspend the rules. On the second of the questions before them, the International Committee on Entomological Nomenclature agreed that, if the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature was prepared in principle to use their plenary powers in this case, the most satisfactory course would be for them to set aside all existing type designations for Sphex Linnaeus, 1758, and to designate as the type of that genus some well-known species which indisputably belonged to the genus Sphex in the pre-I905 sense. The International Committee on Entomological Nomenclature agreed that, as none of the original Linnean species satisfied this condition, the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature should be invited to designate as the type of this genus some species that had not been included in the genus by Linnaeus.2> The International Committee agreed further that Sphex flavipennis Fabricius, 1793, satisfied the necessary con- ditions. The selection of that species as the type of Sphex Linnaeus, 1758, would have the further advantage that it would in effect confirm the designation of that species as the type of this genus made (erroneously at that time) by Latreille as far back as 1810. 7. The above and other recommendations adopted by the International Committee on Entomological Nomenclature at their meeting held at Madrid were confirmed by the Sixth International Congress of Entomology at the ~ Ca Plenum held at Nee on 12th September 1935. 2 Farlier at the same Session the International Committee on Entomo- logical Nomenclature had reached a similar conclusion in regard to a genus (Satyrus Latreille, 1810) in a different Order (Order Lepidoptera). See paragraph 9(iii) below. 3 Latreille in 1810 (Consid. gén. Anim. Crust. Avach. Ins. : 438) cited “ Pepsis flavipennis, Fab.” as the type of Sphex Linnaeus. For the inter- pretation of this work of Latreille, see Opinion 136 (pp. 13-20 in section A of the present volume). A 576 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL Ill.—_THE CONCLUSION REACHED BY THE INTERNA- TIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMEN- CLATURE. 8. When the International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature met at Lisbon immediately after the close of the Sixth International Congress of Entomology in September 1935, they found themselves confronted with a large number of cases involv- ing proposals for the suspension of the rules, in respect of some of which advertisements had not been published or, if published, had not been published for the prescribed period, owing to the illness of Dr. C. W. Stiles, Secretary to the Commission, or for other causes. In these circumstances, the Commission decided at their meeting held on the morning of Monday, 16th September 1935 (Lisbon Session, 2nd Meeting, Conclusion 9), that immediate consideration should be given to all cases submitted to the Commission that, in their judgment, had reached the stage at which a decision could properly be taken; that the By-Laws of the Commission should be suspended during the Lisbon Session to such extent as might be necessary to give effect to this decision; and that, in so far as this procedure involved taking decisions ‘‘ under suspension of the rules’’ in cases where the prescribed advertisement procedure had not been complied with, the cases in question should be duly advertised as soon as might be practicable after the conclusion of the Lisbon Congress and that no Cpinion should be rendered and published thereon until after the expiry of a period of one year from the date on which the said advertisement was despatched to the prescribed journals for publication. The case of Sphex Linnaeus, 1758, and Ammophila Kirby, 1796, was one of the cases in question and was accordingly dealt with by the Commission under the above procedure. g. This case was considered by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature at their meeting held on the afternoon of Monday, 16th September 1935. At this meeting, the Commis- sion carefully examined both the petition submitted in this case (including the note of dissent by Dr. S. A. Rohwer) and the recommendations in regard thereto submitted by the Interna- tional Committee on Entomological Nomenclature. In the course of the ensuing discussion attention was drawn to the following considerations :— | (i) the International Committee on Entomological Nomen- clature were perfectly correct in concluding that no de- COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 180. 7]. cision that might be taken by the International Com- mission on Zoological Nomenclature on the present applica- tion could reverse the decision embodied in the Commission’s Opimion 32, since the question dealt with in the present application was entirely distinct from that dealt with in that Opinion ; (ii) if the literature, biological as well as taxonomic, of the name Sphex Linnaeus, 1758, was looked at as a whole—as Should be done, in judging an application of this kind— there was no doubt that greater confusion than uniformity would result from the strict application of the rules in this case ; (iii) if the plenary powers were to be used to designate as the type of Sphex Linnaeus, 1758, some species other than the species which under the rules is its type (Sphex sabulosa Linnaeus, 1758), it was essential that the species so selected should be a well-known species that indisputably belonged to the genus Sphex Linnaeus in the commonly accepted meaning of that name (7.e. in the sense universally under- stood prior to 1905); if none of the originally included Linnean species satisfied this condition, the most satis- factory course would be to designate as the type of this genus some species which did satisfy those requirements even if for that purpose it was necessary to designate as the type of this genus some species not included in the genus by Linnaeus in 1758; it was pointed out that this would not be the first occasion on which the Commission, acting under their plenary powers, would have designated as the type of a genus a species which had not been included in that genus at the time of its first publication, for at the present (Lisbon) Session (2nd Meeting, Conclusion 22(c)) the Commission had taken such a decision in the case of the genus Satyrus Latreille, 1810 (Order Lepidoptera).* 10. At the conclusion of the foregoing discussion, the Interna- tional Commission agreed (Lisbon Session, 3rd Meeting, Conclusion 2) > :— + The text of the decision in this case is given in full in 1943, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 1: 20-23. The Opinion later rendered to give effect to this decision is Opinion 142, for which see pp. 67-80 in Section A of the present volume. 5 Only those portions of Conclusion 2 which refer to the present case are here quoted. For the full text of Conclusion 2, see 1943, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 1 : 27-30. 578 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL (c) under “‘‘ suspension of the rules ”’ to set aside all type designations for the undermentioned genera and to declare their types to be the species indicated below :— Name of genus Type of genus (3 3) Sphex Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Sphex flavipennis Fabricius, 1793, Nat (ede 10) 1533560 Ent. syst.2 3 201 (34) Ammophila Kirby, 1798, Sphex sabulosa Linnaeus, 1758, Trans. linn. Soc. Lond. 4: Syst. Nat, (ed. 10) 1 3 569 199 (d) under ‘‘ suspension of the rules”’ to place on the Official List of Generic Names the sixteen generic names enumerated in (c) above (names (19) to (34)), each with the type species there indicated ; (e) to render Opinions in the sense of (a) to (d) above. 11. The foregoing decisions were embodied in paragraph 27 of the report which at their meeting held on the morning of Wednes- day, 18th September 1935, the Commission unanimously agreed (Lisbon Session, 5th Meeting, Conclusion 6) to submit to the Twelfth International Congress of Zoology. In order to make perfectly clear to all the members of the Congress that (as ex- plained in paragraph 9(i) above) the decision taken in the present case did not involve a reversal of the decision embodied in the Commission’s Opinion 32, the Commission inserted the following “note’”’ at the end of paragraph 27 of their report to the Con- - gress :— Note. With reference to the names Sphex Linn., and Ammophila Kirby referred to in paragraph (d) (15) and (16) above,® it should be noted that the Commission have on a previous occasion (in Opinion 32) declared that the type of Sphex Linn. is Sphex sabulosa Linn. The Commission remain of the opinion that that species is the type of Sphex Linn. under the rules, but in view of the fact that the strict application of the rules in this case would cause greater confusion than uniformity, they have now agreed to suspend the rules in the manner shown above. 12. At the same meeting as that at which they adopted their report to the Twelfth International Congress of Zoology, the Commission agreed (Lisbon Session, 5th Meeting, Conclusion 10) that Commissioner Karl Jordan (President of the Commission) and the new Secretary to the Commission, when elected, should be authorised to make such arrangements and to take such, other action, aS might appear to them to be necessary or expedient : — (i) to establish the Secretariat of the Commission at its new head- quarters ; (11) to secure the due publication of the Opinions agrecd upon from time to time by the Commission ; 6 The references given in this ‘“‘ note” are to the sub-paragraphs into which paragraph 27 of the Lisbon Report was divided. For the full text of that paragraph, see 1943, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 1 : 59-60. COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 180. 579 _ -.(iii) to give effect to the decisions reached by the Commission at their Lisbon Session ; — (iv) to obtain the finance required for the due functioning of the Com- mission; and generally | . (v) to secure the effective continuance of the work of the Commission. 13. The report adopted by the Commission on the morning of Wednesday, 18th September 1935, was unanimously approved by the Section on Nomenclature at its joint meeting with the Inter- national Commission held on the afternoon of the same day. It was thereupon submitted to the Twelfth International Congress of Zoology, by which it was unanimously approved and adopted at the Concilium Plenum held on the afternoon of Saturday, 21st September 1935, the last day of the Congress. | 14. In accordance with the decision taken by the Commission at Lisbon in regard to their procedure at that Session (paragraph 8 above), this case was duly advertised in 1936 in two or more of the journals specified in’the Resolution adopted by the Ninth International Congress of Zoology at its meeting held at Monaco in March 1913, by which the said International Congress conferred upon the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature plenary power to suspend: the rules.as applied to any given case where, in the judgment of the Commission, the strict application of the rules would clearly result in greater confusion than uni- formity. In the period that has elapsed since the advertisement in the said journals of the proposed suspension of the rules in the present case, the Commission have received three communications objecting to the suspension of the rules in this case. The terms of these communications are as follows :— (a) Document forwarded under cover of a letter dated 1st March 1937 by Dr. S. A. Rohwer in the name of the Committee on Nomen- clature of the Entomological Society of Washington - The first valid type fixation for Sphex Linn. is that by Fernald, 1905, who named S. sabulosa Linn. as type. The prior designation of Pepsis flavi- pennis Fabr. by Latreille, 1810, was invalid since that species was not originally included. Ammophila Kirby also has for its type S. sabulosa Linn., by designation of Latreille, 1810, and is therefore, under the Rules, a synonym of Sphex Linn. Fernald’s type designation for Sphex was upheld by the Commission in Opinion 32,’ which states ‘‘ Unless it can be shown that some other species has been validly designated at an earlier date, the designation of sabulosa by Fernald, 1905, is not subject to change.” With the support of this Opinion workers in different parts of the world at HOT. a definition of the scope of Opinion 32, see paragraphs 9(i) and 11 of the present Opinion. 580 OPINIONS AND .DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL (G. Arnold,® S. Africa; R. E. Turner, England; J. Bequaert,® United States, and F. X. Williams,* Hawaii) have followed Fernald. Now, how- ever, it is proposed that the Commission reverse ® its action of thirty years ago, and under suspension of the Rules, place on the Official List of Generic Names Sphex Linn., 1758, naming as type Sphex flavipennis Fabr., a species described twenty-nine years after the genus was established. We feel strongly that any possible temporary inconvenience resulting from the recognition of Sphex with sabulosa as type cannot justify such extreme action. If a previously rendered Opinion should be reversed 1 with no more justification than the satisfaction of certain irreconcilable opponents any approach to stability in nomenclature would appear impossible. (b) Letter dated 28th M arch 1937 received from Dr. Charles D. Michener, Berkeley, California I wish to say that it seems to me the suggested use of Sphex and Ammo- phila (Hymenoptera) is not desirable. This was the usage prior to 1905; had the rules been suspended then,!! much confusion would have been avoided. However, the change was made (Fernald, Ent. News, June 1905, and Proc. U.S.N.M., 1906, 31: 294) and has been accepted, so that for over thirty years, Chlorion and Sphex have been in use instead of Sphex and Ammophila. To return to the latter pair would be only to repeat confusion. Since Chlorion and Sphex are in general use, and are correct from a standpoint of priority, it seems that they should be used. (c) Letter dated 12th April 1937 from Dr. H. T, Fernald, Orlando, Florida I must strongly oppose the proposed suspension of the Rules and the insertion in the Official List, of the last two items under the heading ““ Hymenoptera ’’ as stated in the “‘ Notice of possible suspension of the Rules of Nomenclature in certain cases,’”’ dated May 1st 1936 and published in ‘‘ Science’’ June 5, 1936; viz., suspend the rules and insert in the Official List with the types as given in parentheses: ‘‘ Sphex Linn., 1758 (Sphex flavipennis Fabr., 1793); Ammophila Kirby, 1798 (Sphex sabulosa Linn., 1758).”’ These two genera are so related that action on one will necessarily involve corresponding action on the other. The genus Ammophila established by Kirby in 1798 included four species. Three of these have been removed (quite properly) to another genus, leaving species No. 1, sabulosa, as the genotype by elimination.” No one has published this, however. 8 It will be seen from paragraph 2 of the present Opinion that this author’s name is one of those included in the list of signatories of the petition submitted to the International Commission for the suspension of the rules in this case. ® This statement is incorrect. It will be seen from paragraph 3(b) of the present Opinion that this application does not seek to set aside Opinion 32 and from paragraph 11 that its acceptance by the Commission does involve that consequence. 10 See footnote 9. 11 For the reasons explained in paragraph 5 of the present Opinion, such action by the International Commission was not within their powers at the date in question. 12 Genotypes cannot be fixed by elimination under Article 30 of the Code. In Article 30, there isno mandatory provision relating to ‘‘elimination,”’ which is cited only as the 4th of 13 criteria which authors are ‘“‘ recommended ”’ to follow when themselves selecting types under rule (g) in that Article. COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION I80. 581 The genus Sphex established by Linné, 1758, has had its type fixed by subsequent designation and this designation was approved 1° by the Inter- national Commission (Opinion 32). The genotype designated was sabulosa, the same species as remains in Ammophila as its genotype, as shown above. The designation of sabulosa as the genotype of Sphex was made in accord- ance with Article 30 as revised by the Seventh Congress, as follows : I. Does not apply to this case. II. (e) Species to be excluded. (a) Species not included under the generic name when this was first published. Sabulosa was included. (8) Species inquirendae. Sabulosa was not such a species. (y) Species doubtfully referred to the genus. Not true for sabulosa. (f) Does not apply. (g) Fixation of a type by subsequent designation, ‘‘ such designa- tion is not subject to subsequent change.’’ Type by subse- quent designation—sabulosa—designated in 1905. III. Recommendations (h) With Linnaean genera, select the most common or medicinal species. No medicinal species. Sabulosa the most common, with 115 references in Dalla Torre’s Catalogus by far the largest. (i) Not applicable. (j) sabulosa is not exotic from the standpoint of the author of the genus. (k) Not applicable as all the species known to have been transferred. To take back the last one transferred (pectinipes) would either make the present family LARRIDAE become SPHECIDAE and cause great confusion involving over 1000 species, or else extinguish SPHECIDAE altogether, making it a subfamily of the LARRIDAE. (1) Not applicable. ({m) None of the species are named communis, vulgaris, medicinalts or officinalis. (n) sabulosa is the best known and most easily obtainable of the species. (o) Not applicable. (p) Not applicable. (q) Original description of genus and species published together. (r) Not applicable. (s) If the type were to be selected by the “ first species ”’ rule, No. 1 (argillacea) would be the type. This species has not been recognized. Iftaken it would throw out SPHECIDAE, SPHECINAE, SPHECINI, and Sphex from yany use whatever until argillacea has been rediscovered. If No. 2 be taken under these circum- stances, it is sabulosa. (t) sabulosa as species No. 2 has page precedence except for argillacea. cé d Fabricius in his Systema Piezatorum, 1804,14 places in Sphex the Linnaean sabulosa and adds three other of his own species. This indicates that he 18 The question asked and answered in Opinion 32 was not what species should be approved as the type of Sphex Linnaeus but what species was in fact the type of that genus under the Code. See paragraphs 9(i) and 11 of the present Opinion. : 14 The correct date of this work is [1804-1805]. See Griffin, 1935, in Richards, Tvans. R. ent. Soc. Lond. 88: 144. The date should be cited in square brackets, since it is only ascertainable from external sources. 582 -OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL saw the confusion in the species placed under Sphex and purified it by putting sabulosa as the Linnean species typical of the genus. From this analysis of the situation sabulosa was selected as the genotype of Sphex and this selection was approved 15 by Opinion 32 of the Interna- tional Commission. Accordingly sabulosa is now the type of Sphex and also of Ammophila.- The proposal before the Commission is to replace Linné’s genus Sphexz, 1758, by Kirby’s genus Ammophila, 1798. The reasons for this proposal have not been made public. If this change were made and the other proposal also approved, Sphex would become a genus containing none of the original species of Linné which are not exotic from his standpoint, with the possible exception of colon, gibba, ignita, aurata, and cyanea which are not given in Dalla Torre’s Catalogus, Vol. VIII. If given in other volumes (not accessible to me) they would evidently have been transferred to other genera and hence would not be available for genotypic consideration. 1 The proposal to make flavipennis Fabr., 1793, the genotype of Sphex would result in a Linnaean: genus with a Fabrician genotype! Certainly this would be a somewhat unusual procedure.’ Sphex as it is now placed has been widely accepted and adopted since the designation of sabulosa as its type. To reverse 1® this now would mean introducing more confusion to what is now becoming well settled and with many papers, large and small, treating of these insects as they now stand. For the above reasons, based on the establishment of the genotypes of Sphex and Ammophila as outlined above, I must Oppose the PeCRCea to shift the names of these genera. ; 15. Immediately upon their receipt by the Gomihitions copies of the documents quoted in paragraph 14 above were communi- cated (April 1936) to each member of the Commission, but since that date no member of the Commission has expressed himself as being in agreement with the representations contained therein. 16. The representations set out in paragraph 14 above were considered at the Plenary Conference between the President of the Commission and the Secretary to the Commission convened in London on 19th June 1939 under the authority of the Resolution adopted by the Commission at their meeting held at Lisbon on 18th September 1935 (for the text of which see paragraph 12 above). The pie Conference aa Conference, Ist Meet- ing, Conclusion 9) }%: (b) examined the communications that had been received during the prescribed period in regard to the undermentioned genera :— 15 This is not what the Commission did or were asked to do. See foot- note 13. 16 For a note on the limited extent to which “‘ elimination ”’ is recognised under Article 30 of the Code, see footnote 12. 17 See paragraph 9(ili) of the present Opinion. 18 See footnote 9. : s 19 Only those portions of Conclusion 9 which ielaee to the Aegan case are here quoted. For the full text of Conclusion 9, see 1943, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 1 3 76-77. | COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 180. 583 (ix) Sphex Linnaeus, 1758 (x) Ammophila Kirby, 1798 from the Committee on Nomenclature of the Entomological Society of Washington; from Charles D. Michener, Berkeley, California; and from H. T. Fernald, Orlando, Florida; (c) took note that, although copies of the communications referred to “aye (b) above had been transmitted to each member of the Com- mission immediately upon their receipt, no member of the Com- mission had expressed himself as being in agreement with any of the representations contained therein ; -(d) agreed that the communications referred to in (b) above brought : forward no data and adduced no considerations that had not been before the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature when at Lisbon in 1935 they approved the recommendations in favour of the suspension of the rules in these cases submitted to them by the International Committee on Entomological Nomenclature in «resolutions adopted during the meeting of the Sixth International Congress of Entomology at Madrid in the same year. (e) agreed that, in view of (c) and (d) above, the proper course for the present Conference in the discharge of the duties entrusted to it by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (Lisbon Session, 5th Meeting, Conclusion 10) was to give effect to the decisions in this matter reached by the International Commission at. their Lisbon Session (3rd Meeting, Conclusion 2) and therefore that Opinions should be issued as soon as possible in the sense indicated in paragraph 27 of the report submitted by them to the Twelfth International Congress of Zoology and approved and adopted by that Congress at the Conciltum Plenum held at Lisbon on 21st September 1935. 17. The present Opinion was concurred in by the twelve (12) Commissioners and Alternates present at the Lisbon Session of the Commission, namely :— Commissioners :—Calman ; Hemming; Jordan; Pellegrin ; Peters ; and Stejneger. Alternates :—do Amaral vice Cabrera; Ohshima vice Esaki; Bradley vice Stone; Beier vice Handlirsch; Arndt vice Richter; and Mortensen vice Apstein. 18. The present Opinion was dissented from by no Commissioner or Alternate present at the Lisbon Session. Nor since that Session has any Commissioner who was neither present on that occasion nor represented thereat by an Alternate indicated disagreement with the conclusions then reached by the Commission in this matter. 1g. The following five (5) Commissioners who were not present at Lisbon nor represented thereat by Alternates did not vote on the present Opinion :— ve 7 Bolivar y Pieltain; Chapman; Fantham; Silvestri; and Stiles. - 20. At the time when the vote was taken on the present Opinion, there was one (I) vacancy in the Commission consequent upon the death of Commissioner Horvath. 584 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL IV.—AUTHORITY FOR THE ISSUE OF THE PRESENT OPINION. WHEREAS the Ninth International Congress of Zoology at its meeting held at Monaco in March 1913 adopted a Resolution con- ferring upon the International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature, acting for the International Congress of Zoology, plenary power to suspend the rules as applied to any given case where, in the judgment of the Commission, the strict application of the rules would clearly result in greater confusion than uniformity, pro- vided that not less than one year’s notice of the possible suspension of the rules as applied to the said case should be given in two or more of five journals specified in the said Resolution, and provided that the vote in the Commission was unanimously in favour of the said suspension of the rules; and WHEREAS the suspension of the rules is required to give valid force to the provisions of the present Ofimion as set out in the summary thereof; and WHEREAS not less than one year’s notice of the possible sus- pension of the rules as applied to the present case has been given to two or more of the journals specified in the Resolution adopted by the Ninth International Congress of Zoology at its meeting held at Monaco in March 1913; and ‘ WHEREAS the vote in the Commission at their Lisbon Session was unanimously in favour of the issue of an Opinion in the terms of the present Opimion ; Now, THEREFORE, I, FRANCIS HEMMING, Secretary to the International Com- mission on Zoological Nomenclature, acting in virtue of all and every the powers conferred upon me in that behalf by reason of holding the said Office ofsSecretary to the International Com- mission, hereby announce the said Ofimion on behalf of the International Commission, acting for the International Congress of Zoology, and direct that it be rendered and printed as Opimion Number One Hundred and Eighty (Opinion 180) of the said Commission. In faith whereof I, the undersigned FRANCIS HEMMING, Secre- tary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, have signed the present Opinion, COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION I80. 585 DonE in London, this twenty-fifth day of November, Nineteen Hundred and Forty Three, in a single copy, which shall remain deposited in the archives of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. FRANCIS HEMMING 586 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL THE PUBLICATIONS OF THE COMMISSION. (obtainable at the Publications Office of the Commission at 41, Oueen's'Gate,London,S:W 7.) Opinions and Declarations Rendered by the International Com- mission on Zoological Nomenclature. The above work is being published in three volumes con- currently, namely :— Volume 1. This volume will contain Declarations 1-9 (which have never previously been published) and Opinions 1-133 (the original issue of which is now out of print). In order that the volume, when bound, may be of a convenient size for handling, it has been decided to divide volume 1 into a series of Sections, which will be continuously paged but will each be supplied with a title page and index. It is at present contemplated that the first of these Sections (Section A) will comprise Declarations 1-9 and Opinions 1-29, but no final decision can be taken until it is possible to estimate more closely than at present the number of pages required for a volume so composed. An announcement on this subject will be made as soon as possible. Parts I-21 (comprising Declarations I-g and Opinions 1-12) have now been published. Further Parts are in the press and will be published as soon as possible. Volume 2. This volume will contain Declarations 10-12 and Opinions 134-181 and will thus be a complete record of all the decisions taken by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature at their meeting held at Lisbon in 1935. This volume will be published in two Sections, which will be con- tinuously paged but will each be supplied with a title page and WOvleae Section A, comprising Declarations 10-12 and Opinions 134-160 (published in Parts 1-30 and 30 A), is now complete, price £4 4s. od. Individual Parts of this Section are also obtainable separately at the-prices at which they were originally published. ~ Section B will comprise Opinions 161-181 (to be published in Parts 31-52). Parts 31-50 (containing Opinions 161-180) have now been published and it is hoped that Part 51 (Opinion 181) and Part 52 (index and title page) will be published shortly. COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 180. 587 Volume 3. This volume, which commenced with Opinion 182, will contain the first instalment of the Opinions adopted by the International Commission since their Lisbon meeting. Parts I-II (containing Opinions 182-192) have now been published. Further Parts will be published as soon as possible. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. This journal was established by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature in 1943 as their Official Organ in order to provide a medium for the publication of :— (a) proposals on zoological nomenclature submitted to the International Commission for deliberation and decision; (b) comments received from, and correspondence by the Secretary with, zoologists on proposals published in the Bulletin under (a) above; and (c) papers on nomenclatorial implications of developments in taxonomic theory and practice. Parts 1-7 of volume 1 have now been published. Further Parts are in the press and will be published as soon as possible. eg A aj pa is Ne . ¥ “ay * ; J Tay) ; ; est y a ev tank Ss 7” ; 4" : #; wy ee es oe | . ie as 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 2. Part 51. Pp. 589-612. OPINION 181 On the type of the genus Carcharodus Hubner, [1819], and its synonym Spilothyrus Duponchel, 1835 (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera), genera based upon an erroneously determined species LONDON: Printed by Order of the International Commission on : Zoological Nomenclature and Sold on their behalf by the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature at the Publications Office of the Trust 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7 1947 Price four shillings and ten pence (All rights reserved) Issued 28th February, 1947 INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE COMPOSITION OF THE COMMISSION The Officers of the Commission President : Dr. Karl Jordan, Ph.D., F.R.S. (United Kingdom). Vice-President : Dr. James L. Peters (U.S.A.). Secretary : Mr. Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. (United Kingdom). The Members of the Commission Class 1949 Senor Dr. Angel CABRERA (Argentina). Mr. Francis HEMMING (United Kingdom) (Secretary to the Commission). Dr. Karl JORDAN (United Kingdom) (President of the Commission). Dr. Theodor MORTENSEN (Denmark). Dr. Joseph PEARSON (Australia). Herr Professor Dr. Rudolf RICHTER (Germany). Class 1952 Senhor Dr. Afranio do AMARAL (Brazil). Professor James Chester BRADLEY (U.S.A.). Professor Ludovico di CAPORIACCO (Italy). Professor J. R. DYMOND (Canada). Dr. James L. PETERS (U.S.A.) (Vice-President of the Commission). Dr. Harold E. VOKES (U.S.A.). Class 1955 Professor Dr. Hilbrand BOSCHMA (Netherlands). Dr. William Thomas CALMAN (United Kingdom). Professor Teiso ESAKI (Japan). Professor Béla von HANKO (Hungary). Dr. Tadeusz JACZEWSKI (Poland). Dr. Norman R. STOLL (U.S.A.). Secretariat of the Commission : British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London, S.W. 7. Publications Office of the Commission : 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W. 7. Personal address of the Secretary :. 83, Fellows Road (Garden Flat), London, N.W. 3. OPINION 181. ON THE TYPE OF THE GENUS CARCHARODUS HUBNER, [1819], AND ITS SYNONYM SPILOTHYRUS DUPONCHEL, 1835 (CLASS INSECTA, ORDER LEPIDOPTERA), GENERA BASED UPON AN ERRONEOUSLY DETERMINED SPECIES. SUMMARY.—Under suspension of the Régles Papilio alceae Esper, [1780], is hereby designated as the type of Carcharodus Hiibner, [1819], and of its synonym Spilothyrus Duponchel, 1835 (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera). I—THE STATEMENT OF THE CASE. In 1935 Commissioner Francis Hemming prepared for the consideration of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature a paper dealing with the interpretation of Opinion ‘65 relating to the determination of the types of genera based upon erroneously determined species, with special reference to certain genera in the Order Lepidoptera (Class Insecta). One of the genera in question was Carcharodus Hubner, [1819], and its © synonym S#ilothyrus Duponchel, 1835, in the family HESPERIIDAE. 2. The portion of the foregoing paper relating to this genus reads as follows + :— (6) CARCHARODUS HUBNER, [1819],2 AND SPILOTHYRUS DUPONCHEL, 1835 (A) Carcharodus Hiibner, [1819] Hubner, [1819], Verz. bekannt. Schmett. (7) : 110 Pl6tz, 1879, Ent. Zig, Stettin 40 : 179 68. Hiibner placed in this genus three closely allied species (nos. 1189- I191). He gave a short description of the genus so established, but he 1 The text of the first part of this paper relating to the interpretatiow of Opinion 65 is quoted in full in Opinion 168 (pp. 411-430 above). The portions of the second part relating to the types of the other genera dis- cussed are quoted in Opinions 169 (pp. 431-442) (Lycaeides Hubner), 173 (pp. 483-494 above) (Agviades Hubner), 175 (pp. 509-520 above) (Polyommatus Latreille), 177 (pp. 533-544 above) (Euchloé Hiibner), and ae (Pp. 557-508 above) (Princeps Hubner). 2 At the time when the paper from which this is an extract was written, it was thought (Hemming, 1934, Gen. Names hol. Butt. 1 : 16-17) that Ppp. 65-240 of Hiibner’s Verz. bekannt. Schmett. were published in 1823. That date was accordingly assigned to the present name. The examina- tion of Hiibner’s surviving manuscripts has since shown that the correct date is 1819 (see Hemming, 1937, Hiibnerv 1: 517 and also Opinion 150 (pp. 161-168 in (Section A of) the present volume). This correction has accordingly been made, wherever necessary, in the extract from Com- missioner Hemming’s application quoted in the present paragraph. 592 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL specified no type. The first of the included species to be selected as the type of this genus was species no. 1191, i.e. the species which Hiibner called Carcharodus malvae Schiffermiller, when in 1879 that species under the name Papilio alceae Esper was so selected by Plotz. 69. Hiibner’s entry for this species in the Verzeichniss was as follows :— r191. C. Malvae Schiff. Verz. Pap. A. 1. Hiibn. Pap. 450. 451. Alceae Esp. Pap. RTbot 70. There is no doubt whatever regarding the species to which Hiibner intended to refer when making the above entry for species no. 1191 in his Verzeichniss. Beyond possibility of question it was the ‘‘ Common Mallow Skipper’ now universally attributed to the genus Carcharodus Hibner. This is proved by the fact that Hubner ave for this species two references which unquestionably apply to the ‘‘ Mallow Skipper,’”’ namely his own figures of that species under the name Papilio malvae (Hubner, [1800—1803],3 Samml. europ. Schmett.: pl. Pap. 90 figs. 450-451) and the figure published by Esper under the name Papilio alceae (Esper, [1 ro), Die Schmett. 1 (Bd. 2) Forts. Tagschmett. : 4 pl. 51 fig. 39). 71. There remains the first of the references cited by Hiibner in the Verzeichniss, namely the name Papilio malvae as used in the so-called Vienna Catalogue first published in 1775 and re-issued in a larger edition (under a slightly different title) in the following year. At that time even the common species of European HESPERIIDAE were very imperfectly understood and for some time thereafter authors commonly associated several allied species as “ varieties’? of some mythical polymorphous species. Denis and Schiffermiller were, as is well known, particularly interested in the larval stages of the Order Lepidoptera and it may therefore certainly be concluded that they assumed that they included the ‘‘ Common Mallow Skipper ’’ in the species to which they applied the name Papilio malvae, though they appear to have included that species also under the new name Papilio fritillum [Denis & Schiffermiller], 1775 (Schmett. Wien : 159 no. A. 3.).4 It ‘is certain in any case that Hiibner considered that Denis and Schiffermiller had ‘applied the name Papilio malvae to the “Common Mallow Skipper.”’ | 3 The date here assigned to pl. Pap. 90 of Hiibner’s Sammi. europ. Schmett. has been corrected for reasons similar to those explained in foot- note 2. (See Hemming, 1937, Hubner 1 : 229.) 4 In July 1942 Commissioner Hemming furnished the following supple- mentary note :— Supplementary note on the identity of Papilio fritillum [Denis & Schiffermiiller], 1775, and Papilio fritillarius Poda, 1761. Within the last twelve months, the problem of the identity of Papilio fritillum [Denis & Schiffermiiller], 1775 (Schmett. Wien : 159 no. A. 3) and of Papilio fritillarius Poda, 1761 (Ins. Mus. graec. : 79 no. 53) (which are undoubtedly only different names for the same species) has been re-examined independently by myself and by Brigadier W. H. Evans, the well-known authority on the family HESPERIIDAE. We are agreed that these names do not apply (as I had previously thought) to the “ Common Mallow Skipper ” (i.e. to Papilio alceae Esper, [1780]), but are names for the mallow-feeding species of the genus Pyrgus Hiibner, [1819] (Verz. bekannt. Schmett. (7) : 109), commonly known as Pyrgus cartham (Hubner, {r 808-1813]). The synonymy of the latter species is therefore now seen to be as follows :— Pyrgus fritillarius (Poda, wen Papilio fritillarius Poda, 1761, Ins. Mus. graec. : 79 no. 53 “* Graz.” Papilio fritillum [Denis & Schiffermiiller], 1775, ‘Schmett. Wien : 159 no. A. 3 “* Wien.” Papilio carthami Hibner, [1808-1813], Samml. europ. Schmett.: pl. Pap. 143, figs. 7206, 7236 (nec figs. 721- 722) (no locality cited). A fuller note setting out in detail the synonymy of the various species involved has since been published by Commissioner Hemming (1943, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 1 : 68-69). See also footnote 24. COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION ISI. 593 72. What it is important at this stage to note is that Denis and Schiffer- miller were not—and did not claim to be—the authors of the name Papiho malvae. They made it quite clear that they were using the name Papilio malvae Linnaeus, 1758. It is therefore necessary now to consider what was the species so named by Linnaeus (1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 3 485 no. 167). Many authors in the 18th century identified this species with the ‘““ Common Mallow Skipper,” though as early as 1780 Esper had taken the opposite view and had given the name Papilio alceae to the ‘““ Common Mallow Skipper,’’ which he regarded as being still without an available name. »Esper’s action was endorsed by Fabricius and the Italian de Prunner, but the name Papilio alceae Esper did not at that time come into general use. At the beginning of the 19th century Hoffmansegg (1804, Mag. f. Insektenk. (illiger) 3 : 198), ignoring Esper’s alceae, gave the name Papilio malvarum to the ‘““ Common Mallow Skipper,” basing that name upon the figures (figs. 450, 451) published by Hiibner as Papilio malvae. In spite of the action of Esper and Hoffmansegg, the name Papilio malvae Linnaeus continued for some time to be commonly applied to the ‘‘ Common Mallow Skipper,” especially in France, where such leading authors as Godart, Duponchel and Boisduval continued to use this name in this sense as late as the fourth decade of the century. Not long after this, however, Wallengren (1853, Lep. Rhop. scand. : 275) advanced powerful arguments to show that the true Papilio malvae Linnaeus, 1758, was the small species of the genus Pyvgus Hubner, [1819], which Hiibner ([1800-—1803], Sammi. euvop. Schmett. : pl. Pap. 92 figs. 460-467) had figured as Papilio alveolus, 1.e. the species which occurs in England and is there known as the “ Grizzled Skipper.” > In 1861, this identification of Papilio malvae Linnaeus, 1758, was accepted by Staudinger (18601, 1m Staudinger & Wocke, Cat. Lep. Europa’s (1) :15) and in 1871 this view was endorsed by Kirby (1871, Syn. Cat. diurn. Lep.: 614). These two works exercised a tremendous influence on students of the Sub-Order Rhopalocera and since their appear- ance no one has questioned the accuracy of the identification of Papilio malvae Linnaeus, 1758, with the English “‘ Grizzled Skipper.” 73. In a matter of this kind, however, it is necessary to go back to the original sources in order to make sure that no error has been made. I myself therefore re-examined this question when preparing my Generic Names of the holarctic Butterflies in connection with the genus Pyrgus Hubner, [1819], of which Papilio malvae Linnaeus, 1758, is the type (Hemming, 1934, Gen. Names hol. Butt. 1: 165). After the most careful study of the Linnean descriptions, the references cited by Linnaeus for this species and the other available evidence bearing on this subject, I came to the conclusion that there was no doubt in the matter at all and that the “‘ Grizzled Skipper’ of British entomologists was certainly the species to which Linnaeus applied the name Papilio malvae in 1758. I have since prepared a summary of the evidence which led me to this con- clusion and I attach it to the present paper as Appendix 2.® ° For the most complete and profusely illustrated modern account of the species referred to here (and throughout the present application and its annexed Appendix) as the ‘‘ Grizzled Skipper ’’, see Warren (B. C. S.), “ Monograph of the Tribe HESPERIIDI (European species) with revised classification of the subfamily HESPERIINAE (Palaearctic species) based on the genital armature of the males ’”’ (1926, Tvans. ent. Soc. Lond. T4 (1) : 72-78, pl. 24, figs. 1, 3-6, 8-11g4, 79, pl. 25 fig. 1 (¢ genitalia)). § Appendix 1 to the paper from which the above paper is an extract contained examples of genera based upon erroneously determined species. The classes of case so illustrated are enumerated in paragraph 13 of the paper referred to above, which is quoted in the “‘ statement of the case ”’ given in Opinion 168 (see page 416 above). 2 594 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL 74. The position is, therefore, that both Denis and Schiffermiller in 1775 and Hiibner in 1819 made an error of identification when they identified Papilio malvae Linnaeus, 1758, with the ‘Common Mallow Skipper ”’ (= Papilio alceae Esper). This error is most unfortunate since it means that the genus Carchavodus Hibner, [1819], of which (as shown in para- graph 68 above) Papilio malvae Linnaeus, Denis & Schiffermiiller, is the type, is a genus based upon an erroneously determined species. If in this case the preliminary assumption enjoined by Opinion 65 (namely that Hiibner correctly identified the species placed by him in the genus Car- charodus at the time when he founded that genus) were to be maintained in the teeth of the evidence to the contrary, the result would be as follows :— (i) the type of Carcharodus Hubner, [1819], would become the true Papilio malvae Linnaeus, 1758, i.e. the species of the genus Pyrgus Hubner, [1819], known to British entomologists as the ‘‘ Grizzled Skipper,”’ notwithstanding the fact :— : (a) that the true Papilio malvae Linnaeus, 1758, was not included by Hiibner in the genus Carcharodus Hubner, [1819], but was placed by that author in the genus Pyvgus Hiibner, [1819] (on p. 109 the page immediately preceding that on which the name Carcharodus was printed), where it appeared as species no. 1176 under the name Pyvgus alveolus Hibner ; (b) that, in selecting the type of the genus Carvchavodus Hubner, Pl6tz, by using the specific trivial name alceae Esper (cited by Hibner as a synonym of “ C. malvae Schiff.’’), indicated in the clearest possible way that he intended the type of this genus to be the ‘‘Common Mallow Skipper ’”’ and not the “Grizzled Skipper’’ (= the true Papilio malvae Linnaeus, 1758) ; | (ii) the generic name Cayvcharodus Hiibner, [1819], and also the generic name Spilothyrus Duponchel, 1835 (see paragraph 77 below) would become objective synonyms of the generic name Pyrgus Hubner, [1819], since the true Papilio malvae Linnaeus, 1758, is the type of the last-named genus (Hemming, 1934, Gen. Names hol. Butt. 1:165), while the false Papilio malvae Linnaeus, 1758, i.e. the species mis- identified by Denis and Schiffermiller and by Hubner, is the type of the two first-named genera; (iii) Papilio alceae Esper, [1780], and its allies, which for over a hundred years have been referred to the genus Carchavodus Hubner, [1819] (except by those relatively few authors who have used the name ._Spilothyvus Duponchel, 1835), would. need to be attributed to the genus Reverdinus Ragusa, 1919 (Nat. sicil. 23 (7/12) : 172), of which Papilio altheae Hubner, [1800-1803]? (Samml. europ. Schmeit. : pl. Pap. oo figs. 452-45329) is the type, having been so selected by Lindsey in 1925 (Ann. ent. Soc. Amer. 18 : 100). 75. The consequences described above would be an absurdly heavy price to pay for the privilege of maintaining the admittedly erroneous assumption that Hiibner correctly identified the species placed by him in the genus Carchavodus Hiibner. ‘This is, therefore, a clear case where the preliminary assumption enjoined in Opinion 65 should be discarded and the second part of that Opinion should come into play, that is to say, the case of the generic name Cayrchavodus Hiibner, [1819], should be submitted, with full details, to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature for decision. 76. I accordingly, recommend that the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature should render an Opinion under their plenary powers declaring that the type of Carcharodus Hibner, [1819], is the * For the date assigned to Hiibner’s pl. Pap. 90, see footnote 3. COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION I8I. 595 species referred to in this paper as the ‘Common Mallow Skipper” (= Papilio alceae Esper, [1780]) and not the “‘ Grizzled Skipper ”’ (= the true Papilio malvae Linnaeus, 1758). As stated elsewhere (1932, Tvans. ent. Soc. Lond. 80 : 293-294), I consider that the oldest available name for the “Common Mallow Skipper ” is Papilo fritillarius Poda, 1761.8 (B) Spilothyrus Duponchel, 1835 Duponchel, 1835, 7 Godart, Hist. nat. Lépid. France Suppl. 1 (Diurnes) : 415 Watson, 1893, Proc. zool. Soc. Lond. 1893 : 67 77. Duponchel placed in this genus (on page 416) three species, namely (i) what he regarded as Papilio malvae Linnaeus, (11) Papiho altheae Hubner, and (iii) Papilio lavatherae Esper (which he misspelt Javatevae). These are the same three species as those which Hiibner included in the genus Carcharodus Hiibner, [1819] (paragraph 68 above), if it is assumed that Duponchel identified Papilio malvae Linnaeus in the same way as Hiibner did in the Verzeichniss. That this assumption is correct is immediately evident from an inspection of Duponchel’s book, (a) because that book is no more than a supplement to that of Godart in which the ‘“‘ Common Mallow Skipper’’ and not the “ Grizzled Skipper’’ was identified as Papilio maivae Linnaeus, 1758, and (b) because Duponchel (on page 415) placed the ‘‘ Grizzled Skipper,’’ under the specific trivial name alveolus Hubner (paragraph 72 above), in the genus Syvichius Boisduval, 1834. 78. From the three species placed in the genus Spilothyrus by Duponchel, | Watson selected the first as the type. In doing so, Watson indicated in the clearest way the species which he intended should be the type of this genus, for he used for this purpose the name Papilio alceae Esper. 79. In these circumstances it is evident that whatever decision is taken in regard to the generic name Carchavrodus Hubner, [1819], must govern also the generic name Spilothyrus Duponchel, 1835. I accordingly ask the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to include in the proposed Opinion a declaration that the “‘ Common Mallow Skipper ’’ and not the “‘ Grizzled Skipper ’’ is the type of Spilothyvus Duponchel, 1835. That genus will thereupon become de juve what it has always been treated as being since Watson’s selection of Papilio alceae Esper, [1780] as the type, -namely an objective synonym of Carchavodus Hiibner, [1819]. IEP DINIDID.G 0 On the identity of Papilio malvae Linnaeus, 1758 By Francis Hemming, C.B.E. (a) Introductory Papilio malvae Linnaeus, 1758 (Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 485 no. 167) is now accepted by all authors as being the small species of the genus Pyrvgus Hubner, [1819] (Verz. bekannt. Schmeit. (7) : 109) which occurs in England and is there known as the “ Grizzled Skipper ’”’ (e.g. the species described and figured under the name Hesperia malvae (Linnaeus) by South, 1906, Butt. Brit. Isles : 184-186 pl. 122 figs. 1-3, 7¢g, 4-60, 899). 2. This identification of Papilio malvae Linnaeus, 1758, has been uni- versally accepted by all authors at least since 1861 (Staudinger, 1861, in Staudinger & Wocke, Cat. Lep. Europa’s (1): 15). In the earlier part of 8 This question has since been re-examined by Commissioner Hemming, who has furnished the supplementary note reproduced in footnote 4. A more extended note showing that the oldest available name for the species referred to here as the ‘‘ Common Mallow Skipper ” is Papilio alceae Esper, [1780], and not Papilio fritillarius Poda, 1761, has been, published by Commissioner Hemming, in 1943, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 1 : 68-60. ® For a note regarding the document which formed Appendix 1 to the paper from which the above is an extract, see footnote 5. 596 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL the 19th century, however, the name Papilio malvae Linnaeus, 1758, was identified with the species now usually known as Cayrchavodus alceae (Esper, [1780]) by such leading French authors as Duponchel (1844, Lat. méth. Lépid. Europe : 37), Boisduval (1829, Europ. Lepid. Index meth. : 26 and 1840, Geneva Index meth. europ. Lepid. : 35) and Godart (1820, Lépid. France 1: 243; 1823, Table méth. Lépid. France : 64; and [1824] Ency. méth. 9 (2) (Ins.) : 779). Im the second half of the 18th century (when even the common European species of the family HESPERIIDAE were very little understood) this name was widely used for C. alceae (Esper) by many German authors. 3. The problem of the type of the genus Carcharodus Hiibner, [1819] (Verz. bekannt. Schmett. (7) : 110) turns on the identity of Papilio malvae Linnaeus, 1758, and I have thought it desirable, in submitting proposals in regard to that generic name to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, to summarise in the present note the available evidence in regard to this subject. (b) The original description of Papilio malvae Linnaeus, 1758 4. The description given by Linnaeus in 1758 for Papilio malvae is as follows :— Papilio Plebejus [printed at the top of the page) Malvae. 167. P. P. alis denticulatis divaricatis nigris albo maculatis. fin. svec. 749. Tt. oel. 3. IEDs Aphon Uo BOA tts Se Roeés. ins. 1. pap. 2. t. 10 Merian. eur. 1. t. 48. Wilk. pap. 54. t. 2..¢. 1. RCAUIN INS. b. Lf 2 O. Fi Habitat in Malva, Althaea. (c) General considerations bearing on the identification of Linnean species 5. Before attempting to interpret Linnaeus’s description of Papilio malvae, it is necessary to recall the following important considerations which must always be borne in mind when interpreting descriptions in Linnaeus’s systematic works :— (a) So far as possible Linnaeus always based his descriptions upon actual specimens and on the few occasions when he was unable to do so, he was careful to indicate the fact by placing a cross sign (called by Linnaeus “‘ Signum Crucis ’’) at the end of the description. An example is provided in the toth edition of the Syst. Nat. in the butterflies by the description of Papilio nestor (: 463 no. 30). Lin- naeus’s own description of this convention reads as follows (Syst. Nat. (ed. 12) 1 (2) : 1019 nota) :-— Signo Crucis ubique notavimus animalia nobis nec viva, nec in museis asserata visa, ut Naturae consulti ad ea attentius examinanda incitentur. (b) Linnaeus underlined in ink in his copy of the 12th edition of the Syst. Nat. the serial number allotted to each species of which he possessed a specimen in his own collection (Verity, 1913, /. linn. Soc. Lond. (Zool.) 32:174). It is thus possible, when examining the Linnean collection, to ascertain as regards any given species whether Linnaeus possessed a specimen and therefore whether a Linnean specimen should be looked for in that collection. (c) Whenever Linnaeus had himself published a description of a given species in one of his pre-binominal works (i.e..in any of his works published prior to 1758), he gave a reference to that work in the roth edition of the Syst. Nat. Such references were invariably placed by Linnaeus immediately after the conclusion of the description. These references were often printed on the same line as the last words of the description; where this was not done, they were invariably printed before, and on a higher line than, references to works by COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION I8I. 597 other authors. Linnaeus clearly intended to indicate by this means that he attached a special degree of importance to these references to his own works. Their importance lies in the fact that they are first-hand references to works written by himself and refer, in the case of Swedish species, to species known to himself and in many cases to species collected by himself. The possibility of misidenti- fications in such cases is thus reduced to the minimum. Unlike the references discussed in (d) below, these references by Lannaeus to his own works must therefore be regarded as ‘‘ primary references.” (d) The references given by Linnaeus in the toth edition of the Syst. ie 7 clow the) | primary, neterences 7) (ii ‘amy)) are references) to plates in works published by other authors prior to 1758, representing, as Linnaeus believed, the species described and named by Linnaeus in that work. Not infrequently, however, the plates so cited repre- sent some species other than that intended by Linnaeus. These errors.may sometimes have been due to genuine mistakes on the part of Linnaeus, but somé were due to an entirely different cause and ; one which has been frequently overlooked, namely the fact that some at least of these references were taken by Linnaeus at second-hand from notes communicated to him by correspondents who had access to works (or to parts of works) that were not available to Linnaeus himself. Linnaeus made no secret of his practice of citing references which he had not been able himself to verify and in the 1st edition of the Fauna svecica (1746) (last page of the Ratio Operis) he expressly invited readers to furnish him with such references from the works of Reaumur, Rajus, Frisch, etc. The passage in question reads : “ Qui synonyma plura ex Reaumuril, Raji, Frischii, &c. scriptis mihi communicaverit, rem faciet multo mihi acceptissimam.”’ Such “‘ secondary references ’’ to the works of other authors stand therefore in a very different position from the “‘ primary references ”’ discussed in (c) above. They are useful in many ways and should be studied with care; they should however be accepted with reserve and, where errors of identification are found in these “‘ secondary references,’’ those errors taken by themselves provide no ground for assuming that Linnaeus himself was guilty of having misidentified a species or of having confused two different species together. Such errors may just as well have been made by some correspondent who had forwarded the reference to Linnaeus, by whom through force of circumstances it had been accepted second-hand without verification. (e) In the roth edition of the Syst. Nat. Linnaeus usually cited ‘‘ second- ary references’ in double columns. It has been usual to interpret these references as though those in the left-hand column were the 1st, 3rd, 5th, etc., references in the list and those in the right-hand column the 2nd, 4th, 6th, etc., references. A careful comparison of the “ secondary references ”’ cited by Linnaeus for a given species (1) in the roth edition of the Syst. Nat., where these references are in double column, and (ii) in the 12th edition, where they are in a single column, shows, however, that Linnaeus regarded the references in the left- hand column as all preceding those in the right-hand column. (d) Analysis of the references cited by Linnaeus in his original description of Papilio malvae Linnaeus, 1758 6. In the light of the general considerations indicated in paragraph 5 (c) to (e) above, the references cited by Linnaeus in his original description of Papilio malvae Linnaeus, 1758, are seen to be the following :— (A) “ Primary references ”’ (1) Fn. svec. 749 [a misprint for 794]. (2) EEO Ae 598 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL (B) ‘‘ Secondary references ”’ CL) ee. ae ts 26.57.70, (2) Merian. eur. 1. t. 48. (3) Reaum. ims. 1.7%. 11. f. 6.7. (4)(FRROeS. tS Pap. 2) bloOr (5) Wilk. pap. 54. ¢. 2: ¢. 1. (e) “‘ Primary veferences’”’ cited by Linnaeus in his original description of Papilio malvae Linnaeus, 1758 7. The citation of the 1st edition of the Fauna svecica as a ‘‘ primary reference ’’ shows that the species which Linnaeus was describing was a species known to him as occurring in Sweden. roy | lakes primary reference” ‘‘J¢. oel.” is an abbreviation of “ Iter oelandicum,”’ the latinised title of the work published by Linnaeus in Swedish im 1745 under the title ‘‘Olandska och Gothlandska Resa pa Riksens hdgloflige standers befallning f6rrattad ahr 1741.’’ This work contains an account of the journey to Oland, Gotland and other places in Southern Sweden undertaken by Linnaeus in 1741 at the request of the Swedish Government. This journey was started from Stockholm on 15th May (Old Style) 1741; on the same day the party crossed into the Province of Sodermanland. On the following day, 16th May (O.S.) 1741, the party did some collecting at Trosa and it was here that they captured the butterfly to which 17 years later Linnaeus gave the name Papilio malvae. 9g. Both these “‘ primary references ’’ clearly establish that the insect which in 1758 Linnaeus described as Papilio malvae was an insect taken in Sweden. (f) “‘ Secondary veferences’”’ cited by Linnaeus in his original description of Papilio malvae Linnaeus, 1758 10. Penver. The figure cited) represents the |" Grizzledyoikippem aac: the small species of the genus Pyvgus Hubner, [1819], now universally identified as Papilio malvae Linnaeus, 1758 (see paragraph 1 above). 11. Merian. The plate represents the species commonly known as Carcharodus alceae (Esper, [1780]).1° 12. Reaumur. ‘The figures cited represent Carcharodus alceae (Esper, [1780]). 13. Rdsel. Linnaeus cited plate 10 without giving any figure references and it must therefore be assumed that he treated all the figures on that plate as referring to this species. Two species are represented on this plate. Apart from figures 1.and 2, which represent larvae, and figures 3 and 4, which represent pupae, figures 5 and 6 represent Carcharodus alceae 10 When this paper was originally written, this species (the ““ Common Mallow Skipper ’’) was referred to at this point by Commissioner Hemming as Papilio fritillarius Poda, 1761. As explained in footnote 8, it has now been shown that the above identification was incorrect and that the oldest available name for this species is Papilio alceae Esper, [1780]. At the same time Commissioner Hemming has shown that the name Papilho fritillarius Poda, 1761, is the oldest available name for the species previously known as Pyreus cavthami Hibner, [1808-1813]. In order to avoid further confusion in the use of these names, the name Carcharodus alceae (Esper, [1780]) has been substituted here and elsewhere in the ‘‘ statement of the case”’ for the - name Carcharodus fritillarius (Poda, 1761) previously erroneously applied to this species. Similarly, the name Pyrgus fritillarius (Poda, 1761) has been substituted for Pyrgus carthame (Hubner, [1808-1813]), wherever the latter name appeared in the “‘ statement of the case’ as the name for the “Mallow Pyrgus.”’ COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION I8I. 599 (Esper, [1780]), and figure 7 represents Pyrgus fritillavius (Poda, 1761), i.e. the species commonly known as Pyrgus carthami (Hubner, [1808—1813]).™ 14. Wilkes. Wilkes merely copied Roésel’s figures of C. alceae (Esper, [1780]) and P. fritillarius (Poda, 1761) (= P. carthami (Hibner, [1808- 1813])); both are referred to on page 54 of his work (the page referred to by Linnaeus), the former as No. 1, the latter as No. 2. 15. Of the five “‘ secondary references ’’ discussed above, no. (5) (Wilkes) may be ignored as it is nothing but a direct copy from no. (4) (Rédsel). As regards the remainder, the position is seen to be as follows :— acterence) no, (1) (Petiver)) 1s to the) Grizzled Skipper; 7 ie. to the Species now universally identified as Papilio malvae Linnaeus, 1758 (see paragraph 1 above) ; (ii) references nos. (2) (Merian), (3) (Reaumur), and part of (4) (Résel) are to the ‘‘ Common Mallow Skipper,”’ i.e. ue the species commonly known as Carcharodus alceae (Esper, [1780]).™ (iii) part of reference no. (4) (R6sel) is to the ‘“‘ Mallow Pyrgus,”’ i.e. to the species now commonly known as Pyrgus carthami (Hubner, [1808-1 813]). 33 (g) Evidence afforded by the Linnean diagnoses and descriptions of Papilio malvae Linnaeus, 1758 16. The earliest diagnosis for this species published by Linnaeus is that which appeared in 1745 in his Oldndska och Gothlandska Resa (“ primary reference no. (2)) (see paragraph 8 above). This diagnosis, which was written for the specimen taken by him at Trosa in the Swedish Province of Soedermanland on 16th May (O.S.) 1741, reads as follows :— Papilio hexapus alis divaricatis denticulatis nigris albo punctatis. 17. The diagnosis given by Linnaeus in 1746 for species no. 794 in the 1st edition of the Fauna svecica (‘‘ primary reference’ no. (1)) is identical with the diagnosis given by Linnaeus in 1745 for the insect taken at Trosa in 1741. On this occasion, Linnaeus added the following fuller descrip- tion :— . DESCR. Magnitudo Argi 803. Corpus totum & alae supra nigro fuscae; Alae maculis parvis seu punctis quadratis, albis, numerosi adspersae sunt a parte exteriori, margine quasi dentato, interiacentibus maculis albis. Corpus & Alae subtus griseo- cinereae; alae ipsae subtus maculis albis difformibus inaequalis magnitudinis. Antennae clavatae, supra fuscae, subtus albidae, periolis annulis minimis albis. Alae erectae non sunt, sed divaricatae, fere uti Phalaenae quercifolia dicta. 11 For the most complete and profusely illustrated modern account of the species referred to throughout the “ statement of the case’”’ as the ““Mallow Pyrgus,” i.e. the species of which the oldest available name is Pyrgus fritillarius (Poda, 1761) but which is better known by its synonym Pyrgus carthami (Hibner, [1808—-1813]), see Warren (B. C. S.), “‘ Mono- graph of the tribe HESPERIIDI (European species) based on the genital armature of the males ”’ (1926, Tvans. ent. Soc. Lond. 74 (1) : 64-72, pl. 15, fig. 6 (¢ genitalia), pl. 22, figs. 1-64, pl. 23, figs. 1-699, 7-129). 12 As will be seen from footnote 8, it has now been ascertained that the name Carcharodus alceae (Esper, 1780) is, in fact, the oldest available name for the species referred to throughout the “‘ statement of the case’ as the “ Common Mallow Skipper.”’ 18 As shown in footnote 4, the oldest available name for the ‘‘ Mallow Pyrgus”’ is Pyrgus fritillarius (Poda, 1761) and not Pyrgus carthami (Hubner, [1808-1813]) as commonly believed at the time when the present case was submitted to the International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature. 600 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL This description can only apply to the ‘‘ Grizzled Skipper,’’ i.e. to the Pyrgus species now universally identified as Papilio malvae Linnaeus, 1758 (see paragraph 1 above). 18. The diagnosis given by Linnaeus for Papilio malvae in 1758, when he first published that binominal name is identical with that given in 1745 for the Trosa insect and in 1746 for the same species when it appeared as species no. 794 in the ist edition of the Fauna svecica, except that at the end the word “ maculatis ’’ is substituted for the word “‘ punctatis.’’ In this connection, it will be noted that in the longer description published in 1746 Linnaeus had used the words macula and punctum as alternative descriptions for the small square white markings on the upperside of the wings of this species. 19. Three years later Linnaeus published a further diagnosis and descrip- tion of this species (Linnaeus, 1761, Faun. svec. (ed. 2) : 285 no. 1081). The diagnosis so given is identical with that given in 1745 for the Trosa insect and in 1746 for the same species when it appeared as species no. 794 in the tst edition of the Fauna svecica. The last named work is cited as a ‘primary reference’ (~ Fx.794)... Lhe longer’ descripuonenzenyay, Linnaeus for this species on this occasion is identical with that in the rst edition of the Fauna svecica, except that in the description of the antennae the word “‘ periolis ”’ is omitted. 20. The diagnosis given by Linnaeus for Papilio malvae in 1758 could properly be applied either to the “‘ Grizzled Skipper ’’ (paragraph 1 above) or to the “ Mallow Pyrgus”’ i.e. Pyvgus fritillarius (Poda, 1761) (= Pyrgus carthami (HWibner), [1808-1813] 44). It could not reasonably be regarded as applicable to the ‘‘ Common Mallow Skipper,”’ 1.e. Cavcharodus alceae (Esper), !4 (a) because the word niger is not an appropriate description of the ground colour of the upperside and (b) because the phrase “ albo maculatis’’ is not one which can be held to apply to a species such as this in which the markings on the forewings are insignificant and tend to be confluent, while the hindwings are devoid altogether of such markings. The diagnosis given by Linnaeus for this species in'1758 is (as noted above) identical (except for one word) with that given by Linnaeus in 1746 (Fauna svecica) and in 1745 (Iter oelandicum) to a specimen of a species taken by himself in Sweden. This locality eliminates from consideration both the ‘“‘ Mallow Pyrgus’’ and the ‘‘ Common Mallow Skipper,” neither of which occur in that country. The fuller description given for this species in the 1st edition of the Fauna svecica in supplement to the brief diagnosis clearly applies only to the ‘‘ Grizzled Skipper.’’ The same is true also of the corresponding description given by Linnaeus for this species in the 2nd edition of that work (1761). (h) Evidence afforded by the name selected by Linnaeus for this species and the habitat cited by him for it 21. The trivial name (malvae) given by Linnaeus to this species in 1758 may be taken as implying a belief on his part that this species was associated in some way with the mallow (Malva). It is perfectly fair to conclude that Linnaeus considered that the mallow was the food-plant for the larva of the species to which he gave the name Papilio malvae. 22. Linnaeus gave no indication in 1745 of the habitat of the insect taken at Trosa in 1741, but, when redescribing that species in 1746 (in the 1st edition of the Fauna svecica), he gave the indication ‘‘ Habitat primo vere in Pratis.’?’ In 1758, when he’first applied the name Papilio malvae to this species, Linnaeus substituted for this entry the words ‘‘ Habitat in Malva, Althaea.’’ Three years later (in 1761 in the 2nd edition of the Fauna svecica), Linnaeus dropped this indication and repeated the habitat cited by him for this species in the ist edition of that work. In the 12th 14 See footnote Io. COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION I81. 601 edition of the Syst. Nat. (1 (2) : 795 no. 267) published in 1767 Linnaeus again used the formula employed in 1758. ' 23. The “ Grizzled Skipper,” i.e. the small species of the genus Pyrgus Hiibner, [1819], now universally identified with Papilio malvae Linnaeus, 1758, has no connection whatever with the mallow. .On the other hand, the ““ Common Mallow Skipper ”’ (= Carcharodus alceae (Esper, [1780] 15)), figures of which were cited as ‘‘ secondary references ’’ in Linnaeus’s original description of Papilio malvae (see paragraph 15(1i) above) is closely asso- ciated with the mallow. Its larva feeds upon that plant and the imago is never found far from it. The association of this species with the mallow was known both to Merian (‘‘ secondary reference’ (2)) and to Rosel (“ secondary reference ’’ (4)) and this piece of information may (and prob- ably did) come to Linnaeus from one or other of these sources, for there is no evidence to show that Linnaeus knew Carcharodus alceae (Esper) }° either in nature or in the museum. ‘The third species included among Linnaeus’s ‘“‘ secondary references ” in his original description of Papilio malvae, namely the ‘‘ Mallow Pyrgus,”’ i.e. Pyrgus fritillarius (Poda, 1761) (= Pyrgus carthami (Hiibner 15)) (paragraph 15(iii) above) is also asso- ciated with the mallow, but there is no evidence to show that this fact was known to Linnaeus. 24. The evidence afforded by the trivial name (malvae) applied to this species by Linnaeus in 1758 and by the “‘ habitat ”’ assigned to this species on that occasion, taken in conjunction with the “‘ secondary reterences ”’ (2), (3) and (4) (but not “‘ secondary reference ”’ (1)) suggest that Linnaeus was then describing the ‘““ Common Mallow Skipper ”’ (= Carcharodus alceae (Esper) 15) and not the “‘ Grizzled Skipper.’’ The same evidence would have pointed also to the possibility that Linnaeus was then describing the “Mallow Pyrgus,”’ i.e. Pyrvgus fritillarius (Poda) (= Pyrgus carthami (Hibner)), which, jointly with Carcharodus alceae (Esper),1° was cited by him in “‘ secondary reference ’’ (4), if there had been any evidence to show that Linnaeus was aware of the connection of the last-named species with the mallow plant. (i) Evidence afforded by the type locality of Papilio malvae Linnaeus, 1758 25. Linnaeus cited no locality for this species when he named it in 1758, but (as shown in paragraph 6 above) he then cited two “ primary references”’ for this species and each of these references is to a description of a Swedish specimen. Both these descriptions are based upon the same specimen, as is shown by the fact that the diagnosis in the two works (the ist edition of the Fauna svecica and the Iter oelandicum) is word for word the same. In the earlier (i.e. the last-named) of these works it is stated that the specimen from which the diagnosis was drawn was taken by Linnaeus’s party at Trosa in the Swedish Province of Soedermanland on 16th May (O.S.) 1741 (paragraph 8 above). This must therefore be accepted as the type locality of Papilio malvae Linnaeus, 1758. 26. Of the three species to figures of which Linnaeus gave “‘ secondary references ”’ in his original description (1758) of Papilio malvae under that binominal name, the “ Grizzled Skipper’”’ (paragraph 1 above) occurs commonly in Sweden. Neither of the other species, Carcharodus alceae (Esper) and Pyrgus fritillarius (Poda) (= Pyrgus carthami (Hiibner)), 15 occurs in that country. The type locality therefore eliminates both these species from further consideration. (j) Evidence afforded by the Linnean collection now in the possession of the Linnean Society of London 27. As shown in paragraph 5(b) above, Linnaeus marked his copy of the 12th edition of the Syst. Nat. to show, as regards the Order Lepidoptera, 15 See footnote ro. 16 See footnote Io. 1” The Linnean collection of specimens of the Order Lepidoptera was 602 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL which species were represented in his collection. Papilio malvae Linnaeus, 1758, was one of the species so marked (Jackson, 1913, Cat. linn. Spec. Amphib. Ins. Test. : 30). | 28. Verity (1913, J. linn. Soc. Lond. (Zool.) 32 : 173-174) has shown that Linnaeus’s own specimens in the Linnean collection can with care be dis- tinguished from later additions by Smith by the nature of the pins used and the way in which the wings are set. Heshas shown also (ibid. 32 : 190) that the Linnean collection contains one Linnean specimen of Papilio malvae Linnaeus, 1758, and that this specimen is a male of the “‘ Grizzled Skipper,”’ i.e. of the small species of the genus Pyvgus Hiibner now universally identi- fied as Papilio malvae Linnaeus, 1758 (paragraph 1 above). Neither Carcharvodus alceae (Esper) nor Pyrgus fritillarius (Poda) (= Pyrgus car- thami (Hiibner)) is represented in the Linnean collection. (k) Analysis of available evidence regarding the identity of Papilio malvae Linnaeus, 1758 29. The following is an analysis of the available evidence regarding the identity of Papilio malvae Linnaeus, 1758, discussed in the preceding paragraphs :— . The “ Grizzled The “‘ Mallow Skipper,”’ i.e. The ‘“‘ Common Pyrgus,”’ i.e. the species of the | Mallow Skipper,’’ | Pyvrgus fritillarius i.e. Carcharodus Nature of evidence Evidence provided by the two “primary re- ferences ”’ cited by Lin- genus Pyrgus Hubner now uni- versally identified as Papilio malvae Linnaeus, 1758 (see paragraph 1) applicable to this species, because it occurs in Sweden alceae (Esper, [1780]) (see paragraph 11 and footnote 10) inapplicable to this species, be- cause it does not (Poda, 1761) (= Pyrgus carthami (Hiibner, [1808- 1813)) (see paragraph 13 and footnote 10) inapplicable to this species, because it does not occur in naeus in 1758: occur in Sweden Sweden (Both show that Papilio malvae Linnaeus was de- scribed from a Swedish specimen and the earlier of the two works (‘“‘ [ter oelandicum ”’) shows that the original speci- men (i.e. the type) was taken at Trosa in the Swedish Province of Sé6dermanland on 16th May (O.S.) 1741) (paragraphs 7-9 & 25-26) evacuated during the war on grounds of security to the Zoological Museum, Tring. While there, the collection was carefully re-examined by Dr. A. Steven Corbet, Assistant Keeper, Department of Entomology, British Museum (Natural History), in conjunction with Mr. W. H. T. Tams, Assistant Keeper in the same Department. This re-examination fully confirmed the conclusions reached by Dr. Roger Verity in 1912, both Dr. Corbet and Mr. Tams being of the opinion: (1) that it is possible by the various means noted by Dr. Verity to distinguish the specimens which were placed in the collection by Linnaeus himself from those added to it after his death, and (2) that the collection in its present state affords ‘‘ no evidence of the label-changing attributed by many authors to Sir James Edward Smith, M.D., who purchased the Linnean collections on the death of Linnaeus’s son and subsequently became the first President of the Linnean Society of London.’”’ See Corbet (A. S.), 1942, Proc. R. ent. Soc. Lond. (B) 11 : 91-94. COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION I8I. 603 Nature of evidence Evidence provided by the four ‘‘ secondary references’ cited by Linnaeus in 1758 (paragraphs 10-15) The diagnosis published by Linnaeus for this species in 1758 (paragraphs 16-20) The description at- tached to the diagnosis by Linnaeus in 1746 in the non-binominal first edition of the Fauna svec. and repeated in 1761 in the binominal second edition of that work (paragraphs 17, 19-20) The trivial name “‘ mal- vae’’ applied by Lin- naeus to this species, indicating its reputed association with the Mallow plant (paragraphs 21, 23-24) The habitat cited by Linnaeus for this species In 1758 {paragraphs 22-24) Evidence provided by the Linnean collection preserved in the Mus- eum of the Linnean Society of London (paragraphs 27-28) The ‘‘ Grizzled Skipper,” i.e. the species of the genus | Mallow Skipper,”’i.e. Pyrgus Hiibner ow universally identified as Papilio malvae Linnaeus, 1758 (see paragraph 1) reference (I) re- fers to this species (paragraph Io) applicable to this species (paragraph 20) applicable to this species (paragraph 20) not appropriate for this species (paragraph 23) not applicable to this species (paragraph 23) a male of this species bearing a Linnean label is preserved in the Linnean collection The ‘‘ Common Carcharodus alceae (Esper, [1870]) (see paragraph 11 and footnote 10) references (2) and (3) and the first part of reference (4) refer to this species (paragraphs 11, 12 and 13) not applicable to this species (paragraph 20) not applicable to this species (paragraph 20) appropriate for this species and known to be so by Linnaeus, if he had read _ either Merian or Réosel, to each of whose works he gave a “secondary re- ference ” (paragraphs 23-24) applicable to this species and known to be so by Lin- naeus, if he read either Merian or Rosel, to each of whose works he gave a “ second- ary reference ”’ (paragraphs 23-24) no specimen in the Linnean collec- tion (paragraph 28) The “* Mallow Pyeeuss 146. Pyrgus fritillarius (Poda, 1761) ° (= Pyrgus carthami (Hubner, [1808— 1813])) (see paragraph 13 and footnote 10) the second part of reference (4) refers to this species (paragraph 13) applicable to this species (paragraph 20) not applicable to this species (paragraph 20) appropriate for this species; but there is no evidence to show that Linnaeus was aware of this fact _ (paragraphs 23-24) applicable to this species; but there is no evidence to show that Linnaeus was aware of this fact (paragraphs 23-24) no specimen in the Linnean collection (paragraph 28) 30. The foregoing analysis shows that there are three species to which the name Papilio malvae might conceivably have been applied by Linnaeus in 1758, namely :— (x) the “ Grizzled Skipper,’ now universally identified with Papilio malvae Linnaéus, 1758 (paragraph 1 above) ; 604 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL (2) the ‘“‘ Common Mallow Skipper,” Carcharodus alceae (Esper, [1780]) (see paragraph 11 above and footnote Io) ; (3) the “‘ Mallow Pyrgus,”’ Pyrgus fritillavius (Poda, 1761) (= Pyrgus carthami (Hiibner, [1808—-1813])). 31. The trivial name given to this species and the habitat assigned to it — suggest that the species was either Carcharodus alceae (Esper) or Pyrgus fritillarius (Poda) (= Pyrgus carthami (Hiibner)) 1% and this conclusion is supported by the fact that figures of both these species were included among the “ secondary references” cited by Linnaeus in 1758. The second of these species can however be eliminated from further consideration, since there is no evidence to show that Linnaeus was aware, or could have been aware, of the association of this species with the mallow, since the first record of this observation was made long after Linnaeus’s time. 32. The problem resolves itself therefore into the question whether the species named Papilio malvae in 1758 was the “ Grizzled Skipper ’”’ or Carcharodus alceae (Esper).18 The evidence shows that Papilio malvae Linnaeus, 1758, occurs in Sweden; the “ Grizzled Skipper ”’ does occur in that country, but Carcharodus alceae (Esper) 18 does not. The diagnosis given by Linnaeus in 1758 fits the ‘‘ Grizzled Skipper ’’ perfectly but only with the greatest difficulty can it be argued that it fits Carcharodus alceae (Esper).1® The longer description given by Linnaeus for this species in 1746 (‘‘ primary reference ”’ (1)) is a clear and (judged by the standards of the times) an adequate description of the ‘‘ Grizzled Skipper’’ and is entirely inapplicable to Carcharodus alceae (Esper).1® Finally, the Linnean collection contains one of Linnaeus’s own specimens labelled ‘“‘ Papilio malvae’”’ and this is a specimen of the “‘ Grizzled Skipper’; there is no specimen of Carcharodus alceae (Esper) 18 in the Linnean collection. 33. It is impossible to disregard this mass of evidence provided by the writings of Linnaeus and by the evidence of his own collection, even though some (but not all) of the “‘ secondary references ’’’ point to an opposite conclusion. In the case of a conflict of this kind, the evidence directly afforded by the author of the species himself must be regarded as having far greater weight than indications derived from references cited by that author to the works of other naturalists especially in the case of an author like Linnaeus who (by his own admission) was forced by circumstances to rely at times for references to such works upon second-hand evidence communicated to him by correspondents (paragraph 5(d) above). 34. The conclusion to be drawn from a survey of all the available evidence is therefore that the universal practice of the last eighty years is undoubtedly correct and that the species described by Linnaeus in 1758 as Papilio malvae is the small species of the genus Pyvgus Hiibner, [1819], known in — England as the “‘ Grizzled Skipper ’’ (paragraph 1 above). Il.—THE SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF THE CASE. 2. The questions raised in Commissioner Hemming’s paper were considered by the International Committee on Entomological Nomenclature at their meeting held at Madrid in September 1935 during the Sixth International Congress of Entomology. The International Committee unanimously agreed to recommend the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to render 18 See footnote 10. ~ COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION I8I. 605 an Opinion clarifying the meaning of Opinion 65 in the manner proposed.4® Having reached this conclusion on the general question involved, the International Committee examined the particular cases in the Order Lepidoptera submitted in the same paper. The International Committee on Entomological Nomen- clature considered. that, if (as they had agreed to recommend) the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature agreed to render an Opinion clarifying Opinion 65 in the manner proposed in the petition, the only possible course as regards the genus Carcharodus Hiibner, [1819], and its synonym Sfilothyrus Dupon- chel, 1835, would be for the International Commission to render an Opinion declaring that Papilio alceae Esper, [1780],° to be the type of both these genera. The International Committee con- sidered also that great advantage would be served if at the same time the International Commission were to make it clear that Hubner and Schiffermiiller, on whose judgment in this matter Hubner had relied, were in error in identifying Papilio alceae Esper 7° with Papilio malvae Linnaeus, 1758. The International Committee on Entomological Nomenclature agreed therefore to recommend the International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature to proceed in this way under their plenary powers. 4. The above and other resolutions adopted by the International Committee on Entomological Nomenclature at their meeting held at Madrid were confirmed by the Sixth International Congress of 19 For a full account of the subsequent history of the portion of this petition relating to the interpretation of Opinion 65 and the decision of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature thereon, see Opinion 168 (pp. 411-430 above). 20 As explained in footnote Io, it was erroneously believed at the time when this case was submitted to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature that the oldest available name for the ‘“ Common Mallow Skipper ’’ was Papilio fritillarius Poda, 1761, whereas it is now known that that name is properly applicable to the species referred to in the present Opinion as the “‘ Mallow Pyrgus,” i.e. the species hitherto known as Pyrgus carthami ,(Hibner, [1808-1813]). In consequence, it is now seen that the familiar name Papilio alceae Esper, [1780], is the oldest available name for the ‘““ Common Mallow Skipper,”’ the species universally accepted as the type of the genus Carchavodus Hiibner, [1819]. So far as concerns the name of this species, this case was considered by the International Committee on Entomological Nomenclature at its meeting held at Madrid in 1935 on the basis of the premises submitted. Accordingly in formulating their recommendations for the consideration of the International Com- mission on Zoological Nomenclature, the International Committee on Entomological Nomenclature then accepted the name Papilio fritillarius Poda, 1761, as being the oldest available name for the “‘ Common Mallow Skipper.’’ In order to avoid further confusion, this error has been cor- rected in the record of the conclusions reached by the International Committee on Entomological Nomenclature at Madrid in 1935 set out in paragraph 3 of the present Opinion. 606 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL Entomology at the Concilium Plenum held at Madrid on rath September 1935. III—THE CONCLUSION REACHED BY THE INTERNA- TIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMEN- CLATURE. 5. When the International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature met at Lisbon immediately after the close of the Sixth International Congress of Entomology in September 1935, they found themselves confronted with a large number of cases involv- ing proposals for the suspension of the Régles, in respect of some of which advertisements had not been published or, if published, had not been published for the prescribed period, owing to the illness of Dr. C. W. Stiles, Secretary to the Commission, or for other causes. In these circumstances the Commission decided at their meeting held on the morning of Monday, 16th September 1935 (Lisbon Session, 2nd Meeting, Conclusion 9), that immediate consideration should be given to all cases submitted to the Commission that, in their judgment, had reached the stage at which a decision could properly be taken; that the By-Laws of the Commission should be suspended during the Lisbon Session to such extent as might be necessary to give effect to this decision; and that, in so far as this procedure involved taking decisions “‘ under suspension of the rules ’’ in cases where the prescribed advertisement procedure had not been complied with, the cases in question should be duly advertised as soon as might be practicable after the conclusion of the Lisbon Congress and that no Ofimion should be rendered and published thereon until after the expiry of a period of one year from the date on which the said advertisement was despatched to the prescribed journals for publication. The case of Carcharodus Hiibner, [1819] (and its synonym Sfzlothyrus Duponchel, 1835), was among the cases in question and was accordingly dealt with under the above procedure. 6. At the same meeting as that referred to above (Lisbon Session, 2nd Meeting, Conclusion 23), the International Com- mission on Zoological Nomenclature agreed upon certain clari- fications of Opinion 65 in regard to the status of genera based upon erroneously determined species (Lisbon Session, 2nd Meeting, Conclusion 23 (a) and (c)).21_ Having thus cleared the ground regarding the principles involved, the Commission proceeded — 21 See footnote 19. COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION I8I. 607 to consider the present and certain other cases in the Order Lepidoptera and the resolutions in regard thereto submitted by the International Committee on Entomological Nomenclature. After careful consideration of the present case, the International Commission agreed (Lisbon Session, 2nd Meeting, Conclusion 23 (b) and (c)) 24 :-— {b) in the light of (a) above, to suspend the rules in the case of the under- mentioned genera and to declare the types of the genera in question to be the species indicated below :— Name of genus Type of genus (6) Carcharodus Hubner, [1819],22 Papilio alceae Esper, [1780], Verz. ber. Schmett. (7):110 Die Schmett. 1 (Bd. 2) Forts. and LTagschmett.: 4 pl. 51 fig. 39 24 Spilothyrus Duponchel, 1835, (the species misidentified as im Godart, Hist. nat. Lépid. Papilio malvae Linnaeus, 1758, France Suppl. 1 (Diurnes): by Schiffermiiller & Denis, 1775, 415 and by Hitbner and Duponchel) (c) to render Opinions in the sense of (a) and (b) above. 47. The foregoing decisions were embodied in paragraph 29 of the report which at their meeting held on the morning of Wednes- 22 Only. those portions of Conclusion 23 which relate to the present case are here quoted. For the full text of Conclusion 23, see 1943, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 1 3 23-25. 23 See footnote 2. #4 For the reasons explained in footnote 20, the name assigned to the “ Common Mallow Skipper ”’ at the time when this case was brought before the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature at their meeting held at Lisbon in 1935 was Papilio fritillarius Poda, 1761, that name being then (erroneously) believed to be the oldest available name for this species. At the same time, the International Commission realised that they were handicapped on that occasion both by the small amount of time available for discussion and by the lack of works of reference; they accordingly decided that after the close of the Lisbon Congress when the necessary works of reference would be available the whole of the references included in the report which they then submitted to the Twelfth International Congress of Zoology should be examined and any necessary corrections made before their report was officially published (Lisbon Session, 5th Meeting, Con- clusion 1(c)) (see 1943, Bull. zool. Nomencl.1: 44). It was in the discharge of the duty so imposed that Commissioner Hemming found that the identi- fication of Papilio fritillarius Poda, 1761, with the “Common Mallow Skipper ”’ was erroneous and that in consequence the oldest available name for that species was the well-known name Papilio alceae Esper, [1780]. In accordance with the decision taken by the International Commission at Lisbon, this correction was thereupon made both in the report submitted by the Commission to the Twelfth International Congress of Zoology (see 1943, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 1 : 62) and in the Official Record of Proceedings of the Commission at their Lisbon Session (see 1943, 1bid.1: 25). At thesame time, a full explanatory note was published setting out the corrected synonymy of the species concerned (see 1943, 1bid. 1 : 08-60). - 608 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL day, 18th September 1935 (Lisbon Session, 5th Meeting, Conclusion 6), the Commission unanimously agreed to submit to the Twelfth International Congress of Zoology. That report was unanimously approved by the Section on Nomenclature at its joint meeting with the International Commission held on the afternoon of the same day. It was thereupon submitted to the Twelfth Interna- tional Congress of Zoology by which it was unanimously approved and adopted at the Concilium Plenum held on the afternoon of Saturday, 21st September 1935, the last day of the Congress. 8. In accordance with the decision taken by the Commission at Lisbon in regard to their procedure at that Session (paragraph 5 above), this case was duly advertised in 1936 in two or more of the journals specified in the Resolution adopted by the Ninth Interna- tional Congress of Zoology at its meeting held at Monaco in March 1913, by which the said International Congress conferred upon the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature plenary powers to suspend the fégles as applied to any given case where, in the judgment of the Commission, the strict application of the Régles would clearly result in greater confusion than uni- formity. In the period that has elapsed since the advertisement in the said journals of the proposed suspension of the FRégles in the present case, no communication of any kind has been addressed to the International Commission objecting to the issue of an Opimion in the terms proposed. | g. The present Ofimion was concurred in by the twelve (12) Commissioners and Alternates present at the Lisbon Session of the International Commission, namely :-— Commissioners :—Calman; Hemming; Jordan; Pellegrin; Peters; and Stejneger. Alternates :—do Amaral vice Cabrera; Ohshima wice Esaki; Bradley wice Stone; Beier vice Handlirsch; Aendiycze Richter; and Mortensen vice Apstein. 10. The present Opinion was dissented from by no Commissioner or Alternate at the Lisbon Session. Nor since that Session has any Commissioner who was neither present on that occasion nor represented thereat by an Alternate indicated disagreement with the conclusions then reached by the Commission in this matter. 11. The following five (5) Commissioners who were not present at Lisbon nor represented thereat by Alternates did not vote on the present Opinion :— Bolivar y Pieltain; Chapman; Fantham; Silvestti; and Stiles. COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION I8I. 609 1z. At the time when the vote was taken on the present Opinion, there was one (I) vacancy in the Commission consequent upon the death of Commissioner Horvath. IV.—AUTHORITY FOR THE ISSUE OF THE PRESENT OPINION. WHEREAS the Ninth International Congress of Zoology at its meeting held at Monaco in March 1913 adopted a Resolution conferring upon the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature plenary power to suspend the Régles as applied to . any given case where, in the judgment of the Commission, the strict application of the Régles would clearly result in greater confusion than uniformity, provided that not less than one year’s notice of the possible suspension of the Régles as applied to the said case should be given in two or more of five journals specified in the said Resolution, and provided that the vote in the Com- mission was unanimously in favour of the proposed suspension of the Régles; and WHEREAS the suspension of the Régles is required to give valid force to the provisions of the pLeeen Opinion as set out in the summary thereof; and WHEREAS not less than one year’s notice of the possible sus- pension of the fégles as applied to the present case has been given to two or more of the journals specified in the Resolution adopted by the Ninth International Congress of Zoology at its meeting held at Monaco in March 1913; and WHEREAS the vote in the Commission at their Lisbon Session was unanimously in favour of the issue of an Opznion in the terms of the present Opinion ; Now, THEREFORE, I, FRANcIS HEMMING, Secretary to the International Com- mission on Zoological Nomenclature, acting in virtue of all and every the powers conferred upon me by reason of holding the said Office of Secretary to the International Commission, hereby announce the said Opinion on behalf of the International Com- mission, acting for the International Congress of Zoology, and direct that it be rendered and printed as Opinion Number One Hundred and Eighty One (Opinion 181) of the said Commission. 610 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL In faith whereof I, the undersigned FRANCIS HEMMING, Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature, have signed the present Opinion. DonE in London, this first day of December, Nineteen Hundred and Forty Three, in a single copy, which shall remain deposited in the archives of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. FRANCIS HEMMING COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION I8I. O11 APPEAL FOR FUNDS The International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature earnestly appeal to all institutions and individuals interested in the develop- ment of zoological nomenclature to contribute, according to their means, to the Special (Publications) Fund established for financing the publication of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Additional donations are urgently needed to enable the Trust to secure that there shall be no interruption in the Publications Programme of the International Commission. Already since the ending of the war, there has been a noticeable increase in the rate at which new applications have been received _ by the International Commission from zoologists. The Commission welcome this development and intend to do everything in their power to deal promptly with all such applications, but, if they are to succeed in so doing, they will need to receive active assistance from all institutions and individual zoologists who are in a position to contribute towards the funds of the Commission. Contributions of any amount, however small, will be most gratefully received and should be sent to the International Trust at their Publications Office, 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7. All such contributions should be made payable to the “ International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature or Order ’’ and crossed “‘ Account payee. Coutts & Co.’’. SIGNED ON BEHALF OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE FRANCIS HEMMING Secretary to the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature. International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, Publications Office, 41, Queen’s Gate, LONDON, S.W.7. Ist February, 1947 6I2 INTERNATIONAL: COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL ‘NOMENCLATURE. OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Index to Section B of Volume 2 NOTICE TO SUBSCRIBERS Part 52 containing the indexes and title page for Section B of Volume 2 of the work Opinions and Declarations rendered by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature will be published as soon as possible. FRANCIS HEMMING Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature Secretariat of the Commission, at the British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, LONDON, S.W.7. ist February, 1947. PRINTED IN GREAT BRITAIN BY RICHARD CLAY AND COMPANY, LTD., BuNGAY, SUFFOLK. 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 2. Part 52. Pp. 613—628 DIRECTION 2 Addition to the Official Lists and Official Indexes of certain scientific names dealt with in Opinions 161 to 181 JUL 9- 1964 LONDON : Printed by Order of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature and Sold on behalf of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature by the International Trust at its Publications Office 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7 1954 Price Six Shillings (All rights reserved) Issued 21st May, 1954 INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE COMPOSITION AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THE RULING GIVEN IN DIRECTION 2 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.) (2th 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) (1st January 1947) Senor Dr. Angel Cabrera (Eva Peron, F.C.N.G.R., Argentina) (27th July 1948) Mr. Francis Hemming (London, England) (27th July 1948) (Secretary) Dr. Joseph Pearson (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 Riley (British Museum (Natural History) London) (9th June 1950)» M 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-Universitét zu Berlin, Germany) (5th July1950) Senhor Dr. Afranio do Amaral (S. Paulo, Brazil) (12th August 1953) (Vice- President) ONE 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 (Békéscsaba, Hungary) (12th August 1953) Dr. Norman R. Stoll (Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, New York N.Y., U.S.A. (12th August 1953) 4 Mr. P. C. Sylvester-Bradley (Sheffield University, Sheffield, England) (12th August 1953) ; Dr. L. B. Holthuis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Nether- lands) (A2th August 1953) DIRECTION 2 ADDITION TO THE °° OFFICIAL LISTS ” AND “* OFFICIAL _ INDEXES ” OF CERTAIN SCIENTIFIC NAMES DEALT WITH IN ‘ OPINIONS ” 161 TO 181 RULING :—(1) The under-mentioned generic names dealt with in the Opinions severally specified below are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology as Names Nos. 758 to 760 respectively :—(a) Argyreus Scopoli, 1777 (gender : masculine) (type species, by selection by Reuss (1928): Papilio niphe Linnaeus, 1767) (this generic name ruled under the Plenary Powers as being not available for use in preference to Argynnis Fabricius, 1807 (type species: Papilio paphia Linnaeus, 1758) but available for use by any specialist who does not consider the type species of these two genera to be congeneric with one another) (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera) (Opinion 161); (b) Symphaedra Hiibner, 1818 (gender: feminine) (type species, by selection by Scudder (1875): Symphaedra alcandra Hibner, 1818) (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera) (this generic name ruled under the Plenary Powers as not being available for use in preference to Euthalia Hiibner, [1818] (type species : Papilio lubentina Cramer, [1777], but available for use by any specialist who does not consider the type species of these two genera to be congeneric with one another) (Opinion 167); (c) Princeps Hiibner, [1807] (gender : masculine) (type species, by designation under the Plenary Powers: Papilio demodocus Esper, [1798]) (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera) (for use by specialists who may consider that the type species of this genus is not congeneric with Papilio machaon Linnaeus, 1758, the type species of Papilio Linnaeus, 1758) (Opinion 179). (2) The under-mentioned specific names dealt with in the Opinions severally specified below are hereby placed 616 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology as Names Nos. 183 to 193 respectively :—(a) paphia Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Papilio paphia (specific name of type species of Argynnis Fabricius, 1807) (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera) (Opinion 161) ; (b) hyperbius Linnaeus, 1763, as published in the combination Papilio hyperbius (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera) (Opinion 161); (c) minutator Fabricius, 1798, as published in the combination Jchneumon minutator (specific name of type species, by designation under the Plenary Powers, of Bracon Fabricius, [1804—1805] (Class Insecta, Order — Hymenoptera) (Opinion 162); (d) pulcher Fabricius, 1798, as published in the combination Pompilus pulcher (specific name of type species, by designation under the Plenary Powers, of Pompilus Fabricius, 1798) (Class Insecta, Order Hymenoptera) (Opinion 166); (e) lubentina Cramer, [1777], as published in the combination Papilio lubentina (specific name of type species of Euthalia Hiibner, [1819]) (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera) (Opinion 167); (£) nais Forster, 1771, as published in the combination Papilio nais (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera) (Opinion 167); (g) sulcatus Jurine, 1807, as published in the combination Ceraphron sulcatus (specific name of type species, by designation under the Plenary Powers, of Ceraphron Jurine, 1807) (Class Insecta, Order Hymenoptera) (Opinion 174); (h) brevi- pennis Latreille, |1802—1803], as published in the com- -bination Proctotrupes brevipennis (specific name of type species, by designation under the Plenary Powers, of Proctotrupes Latreille, 1796) (Class Insecta, Order Hymen- optera) (Opinion 178); (i) demodocus Esper, [1798], as published in the combination Papilio demodocus (specific name of type species, by designation under the Plenary Powers, of Princeps Hiibner, [1807] (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera) (Opinion 179); (j) flavipennis Fabricius, 1793, as published in the combination Sphex flavipennis (specific name of type species, by designation under the Plenary Powers, of Sphex Linnaeus, 1758) (Class Insecta, Order Hymenoptera) (Opinion 180); (k) sabulosa Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Sphex sabulosa (specific name of type species, by designation DIRECTION 2 617 under the Plenary Powers, of Ammophila Kirby, 1798) (Class Insecta, Order Hymenoptera) (Opinion 180). (3) The under-mentioned generic names or reputed generic names dealt with in the Opinions severally specified below are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology as Names Nos. 162 to 166 respectively :—(a) Psammochares Latreille, 1796, as suppressed under the Plenary Powers for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy (Class Insecta, Order Hymenoptera) (Opinion 166) ; (b) Pompilus, all uses of, prior to Pompilus Fabricius, 1798, as suppressed under the Plenary Powers for the purposes both of the Law of Priority and of the Law of Homonymy (Class Insecta, Order Hymenoptera) (Opinion 166) ; (c) Limnas Hubner, [1806], as suppressed for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy (Class Insecta, Order Lepidop- tera) (Opinion 171); (d) Ceraphron Panzer, [1805], as suppressed under the Plenary Powers for the purposes both of the Law of Priority and of the Law of Homonymy (Class Insecta, Order Hymenoptera) (Opinion 174) ; (ec) Serphus Schrank, 1780, as suppressed under the Plenary Powers for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy (Class Insecta, Order Hymenoptera) (Opinion 178). I.—THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE PRESENT * DIRECTION ” The present Direction contains the second instalment of decisions taken by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature under the General Directive given to it by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948, that it should review the Rulings given in all its previous Opinions for the purpose of placing on the various Official Lists and Official Indexes scientific names dealt with in those Opinions and the 618 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS titles of books similarly dealt with. The first instalment of decisions so taken by the Commission—in Direction 1—was con- cerned with the codification of the Rulings given in Opinions 182 to 194 (the last thirteen of the pre-Paris Opinions), which formed the opening portion of volume 3 of the work Opinions and Declarations rendered by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Thus, on the publication of Direction 1 (1954, Ops. Decls. int. Comm. zool. Nomencl. 3 : 401—416), the codifica- tion of the Rulings given in the Opinions included in volume 3 was complete, and the International Commission was able to turn its attention to the codification of the Rulings given in the Opinions (Opinions 134—181) contained in volume 2 of the above work, which, though complete in other respects, still lacks a Subject Index. In order to secure that, during the process of codification, there shall be at all times a solid bloc of Opinions, the Rulings given in which have been codified, it was decided to codify the Opinions comprised in volume 2 in the reverse order from that in which they were published. The present Direction contains codifications of twenty-one of the Opinions comprised in volume 2. Under the arrangement described above, these Opinions are Opinions 161 to 181. 2. On 12th February 1954, Mr. Hemming, as Secretary, submitted to the International Commission for its consideration the following Draft Direction embodying his proposals for the codification, in accordance with the decision of the Paris Congress, of the Rulings given by the Commission in its Opinions 161 to 181 :-— DRAFT DIRECTION Addition to the ‘‘ Official Lists ’’ and ‘‘ Official Indexes ’’ of certain scientific names dealt with in ‘‘ Opinions ’’ 161—181 The following scientific names dealt with in Opinions 161 to 181 are hereby added to the Official Lists and Official Indexes noted below, in accordance with the General Directive issued to the International Commission by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, Paris, that it should insert in the foregoing Lists and Indexes entries DIRECTION 2 619 relating to generic and specific names dealt with in Opinions rendered prior to the Paris Session :— OPINION 161: (1) The following entry is to be made on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology : Argyreus Scopoli, 1777 (type species, by selection by Reuss (1928, Int. ent. Z. 22: 146): Papilio niphe Linnaeus, 1767 (this generic name not to be used in preference to Argynnis Fabricius, 1807, but available for those specialists who do not consider Papilio niphe Linnaeus, 1767, to be congeneric with Papilio paphia Linnaeus, 1758, the type species of Argynnis Fabricius, 1807). (2) The following entries are to be made in the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology :—(a) paphia Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Papilio paphia ; (b) hyperbius Linnaeus, 1763, as published in the combination Papilio hyperbius. OPINION 162: The following entry is to be made in the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: minutator Fabricius, 1798, as published in the combination [chneumon minutator. | OPINION 163: The following entry is to be made in the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology : corus Fabricius, 1793, as published in the combination Papilio corus. OPINION 166: (1) The following entries are to be made in the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology : (a) Psammochares Latreille, 1796 (suppressed for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy) ; (b) Pompilus, any uses of prior to Pompilus Fabricius, 1798 (suppressed for the purposes of both the Law of Priority and the Law of Homonymy). (2) The following entry is to be made in the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology : pulcher Fabricius, 1798, as published in the com- bination Pompilus pulcher. OPINION 167: (1) The following entry is to be made in the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology : Symphaedra Hubner, 1818, Zutr. z. Samml. exot. Schmett. 1 : 7 (type species, by Scudder (1875, Proc. Amer. Acad. Arts Sci., Boston, 10: 272): Symphaedra alcandra Hubner, 1818, ibid. 1: 7, pl. 1, figs. 1, 2) (this generic name not to be used in preference to Euthalia Hubner, [1819], but available for those specialists who do not consider Symphaedra alcandra Hiibner, 1818, to be congeneric with Papilio lubentina Cramer, [1777]). (2) The following entries are to be made in the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology : (a) lubentina Cramer, [1777], as published in the combination Papilio lubentina ; (b) nais Forster, 1771, as published in the combination Papilio nais. OPINION 171: The following entry is to be made in the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology: Limnas 620 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS Hiibner, [1806] (for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy). OPINION 174: (1) The following entry is to be made on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology : Ceraphron Panzer, [1805] (suppressed for the purposes both of the Law of Priority and of the Law of Homonymy). (2) The following entry is to be made in the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology : sulcatus Jurine, 1807, as published in the combination Ceraphron sulcatus. OPINION 178: (1) The following entry is to be made in the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology: Serphus Schrank, 1780 (suppressed for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy). (2) The following entry is to be made in the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology : brevipennis Latreille, [1802—1803], as published in the combination Proctotrupes brevipennis. OPINION 179: (1) The following entry is to be made in the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology : Princeps Hubner, [1807] (type species by designation under the Plenary Powers) Papilio demodocus Esper, [1798] (for use by specialists who may consider that the type species of this genus is not congeneric with Papilio machaon Linnaeus, 1758, the type species of Papilio Linnaeus, 1758). (2) The following entry is to be made in the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology : demo- docus Esper, [1798], as published in the combination Papilio demodocus.1 OPINION 180: The following entries are to be made in the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: (a) flavipennis Fabricius, 1793, as published in the combination Sphex flavipennis; (b) sabulosa Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Sphex sabulosa. 3. The following explanatory notes were submitted to the Commission at the same time as the Draft Direction reproduced in the immediately preceding paragraph. The purpose of these notes was twofold :—{1) to explain why no action was required on certain of the Opinions numbered 161 to 181; (2) to draw attention to the provisional or otherwise incomplete character of the decisions recorded in certain of these Opinions, in con- sequence of which further action by the Commission was required — 1 The only reason why it was not here proposed that the name Orpheides Hubner, [1819] (a junior objective synonym of Princeps Hubner, [1806]) dealt with in this Opinion should be placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology was that this action had already been taken in the Ruling given in Opinion 270 (in the press). DIRECTION 2 621 before the names dealt with in those Opinions could be placed on the appropriate Official Lists and Official Indexes :— Notes on Points arising on ‘‘ Opinions ’’ 161—181 Note 1: (a) The nominal species Papilio niphe Linnaeus, 1767, dealt with in Opinion 161, is treated by all specialists as a junior subjective synonym of Papilio hyperbius Linnaeus, 1763. Accordingly, it is, under the regulations, the latter name and not the former which is due to be placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. (b) The addition to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology of the name Argyreus Scopoli, 1777, is necessary under the regulations that, where owing to differences in taxonomic opinion some authors accept one genus but others consider that two should be recognised, both names are to be placed on the Official List, an explanatory note being added in the case of the later published name (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 237, 268). Note 2: Opinions 164, 168 and 172 are concerned with interpretations of the Rég/es and no action is called for at the present time in connection with these Opinions. Note 3: Opinion 165 contains a purely negative decision, and. it will be necessary shortly to consider what affirmative action is required. A paper on this subject will be submitted to the Commission as soon as possible (File Z.N.(S.) 802). Note 4: The cheironym Pompilus Schneider, 1784, dealt with in Opinion 166, is not proposed for addition to the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology, for this action has already been taken in Opinion 233, now in the press. The latter Opinion records the comprehensive decision taken by the Commission in regard to the status of names published by Schneider in 1784 (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 586). Note 5: The addition to the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology of the name znais Forster, 1771, as published in the combination Papilio nais, proposed in connection with Opinion 167 is recommended for reasons similar to those explained in Note 1 (b). Note 6: Opinion 169 is one of a number of Opinions where the only reason why proposals for the addition of the names there dealt with are not now submitted is that the required action has already been taken in Opinions prepared in connection with decisions on individual cases reached by the Commission in Paris : argyrognomon Bergstrasser, [1779], as published in the combination Papilio argyrognomon, in 622 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS Opinion 269 (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 480) ; Lycaeides Hiibner, [1819], in Opinion 270 (ibid. 4 : 484). Note 7: The decision in Opinion 170 was of a temporary stop-gap nature and it is necessary now that the Commission should take an appropriate affirmative decision. A paper on this subject will be submitted to the Commission as soon as possible (File Z.N.(S.) 803). Note 8: (a) The Paris Congress decided that, where, as in the case dealt with in Opinion 171, a name is suppressed under the Plenary Powers solely for the purpose of validating some other name of later date, that suppression is to be limited to the purposes of the Law of Priority, the name so suppressed to retain its rights under the Law of Homonymy ; the purpose of this decision was to prevent the suppres- sion of a name for one purpose having the accidental effect of upsetting some other name already replaced on the ground that it was a junior homonym of the name to be suppressed (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 339). (b) The name caricae Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Papilio caricae, referred to in this Opinion has already been placed on the Official List in Opinion 232 now in the press (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4: 458). Note 9: All the names dealt with in Opinions 173, 177 and 181 have been placed on the appropriate Official Lists and Official Indexes in Opinion 270. See also in the same Opinion, Orpheides Hiibner, [1819], has been placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. Note 10: (a) It is not proposed that the name icarus Rottemburg, 1775, as published in the combination Papilio icarus, dealt with in Opinion 175, should now be placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology, this being a question which is under separate consideration (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 485) (File Z.N.(S.) 805). (b) The name Polyommatus Latreille, 1804, has been placed on the Official List in Opinion 260 now in the press (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 484). Note 11: It is not at present proposed that the names dealt with in Opinion 176 should be placed on the Official Lists ; a separate paper on this subject will be submitted later (File Z.N.(S.) 804). — I1l—DECISION OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 4. Issue of Voting Paper V.P.(54)6: Concurrently with the submission to the Commission of the Draft Direction reproduced DIRECTION 2 623 in paragraph 2 above and the explanatory notes reproduced in paragraph 3 above, a Call for a Vote, numbered Voting Paper V.P.(54)6, was issued under the One-Month Rule. In this Voting Paper 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 taken by the Commission prior to 1948, issued to the International Commission by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948, the entries recording such decisions taken in Opinions 161 to 181 specified in the Draft Direction submitted by the Secretaiy simultaneously with the present Voting Paper, should be made, as proposed, in the Official Lists and Official Indexes concerned ”’, and (2), if he did not so agree as regards any given item, to indicate the item concerned. 5. Correspondence between the Secretary and Commissioner L. B. Holthuis in regard to the proposal for the codification of the names dealt with in “‘ Opinion”? 167 submitted in Voting Paper V.P.(54)6: In a letter dated 16th February 1954, Commissioner L. B. Holthuis raised a point in connection with the proposal in the enclosure to Voting Paper V.P.(54)6 in relation to the codification of the decisions given in the Ruling by the Commission in Opinion 167. The point raised by Commissioner Holthuis and later by Commissioner H. Boschma was that, whereas in this Opinion both the name Symphaedra Hiibner and the name Euthalia Hubner had been treated as having been published in 1819, it was proposed in the Draft Direction annexed to Voting Paper V.P.(54)6 that the name Symphaedra Hiibner should be treated as having been published in 1818, i.e. in the year prior to the publication of the name Euthalia Hiibner, which it was still proposed should be treated as having been published in 1819. In a letter dated 14th March 1954, Mr. Hemming explained that this difference was due solely to the fact that since the Lisbon (1935) Session at which the Ruling incorporated in Opinion 167 was adopted, the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948, by liberalising the provisions of Article 25 had rendered available the name Symphaedra Hiibner as published in 1818 jn the first volume of the Zutrdge zur Sammlung exotischer Schmetterlinge. This generic name therefore now ranked from the Zutrdge of 1818, instead of (as previously) from the Verzeichniss 624 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS of 1819. Mr. Hemming added that, in his view and in that of Mr. N. D. Riley, this change in the date to be attributed to the name Symphaedra Hubner did not in any way effect the substance of the decision taken by the Commission in Lisbon, namely to secure, through the use of the Plenary Powers, that the well- known generic name Euthalia Hubner should not be replaced by the name Symphaedra Hubner, a name which, when used, had always been employed for a single species (its type species), and then only by those specialists who regarded that species as generically separable from the large group of species habitually placed in the genus Euthalia. In letters dated 23rd and 29th March 1954 respectively Commissioners Holthuis and Boschma expressed themselves as completely satisfied with the explanations given in the letter referred to above but asked that in the Direction codifying Opinion 167 an explicit statement should be inserted “explaining the changes that occurred since the adoption of Opinion 167, so that any zoologist can understand the discrepan- cies between the two Opinions’’. In accordance with this request Mr. Hemming’s letter to Dr. Holthuis of 14th March 1954 is attached to the present Direction as an appendix. 6. Withdrawal of the proposal relating to the codification of the Ruling given in “ Opinion” 162: On 25th March 1954, Mr. Hemming, as Secretary to the Commission, executed the following Minute withdrawing the proposal for the codification of the Ruling given in Opinion 162, which he had included in the Draft Direction relating to the codification of the Rulings given in Opinions 161 to 181: “‘ On re-checking the proposals submitted with Voting Paper V.P.(54)6, I find that the proposal submitted for the codification of the Ruling given in Opinion 162 is not required, for the specific name corus Fabricius, 1793, as published in the combination Papilio corus (the only name included in that proposal), has already been placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology in the Ruling given in Opinion 232, now in the press, embodying a decision taken by the Commission in Paris in 1948 to suppress certain generic names (including the generic name Euploea) published by Illiger in 1807 in senses different from those applied to these names by Fabricius later in the same year (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 452—459). I accordingly now withdraw the proposal on this subject submitted with Voting Paper V.P.(54)6 ”’. DIRECTION 2 625 7. The prescribed Voting Period: As the foregoing Voting Paper was issued under the One-Month Rule, the prescribed Voting Period closed on 12th March 1954. 8. Particulars of the Voting on Voting Paper V.P.(54)6: The ‘state of the voting on Voting Paper V.P.(54)6 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) : Lemche ; Holthuis ; Vokes ; Hering ; Dymond ; Riley ; Boschma; Bonnet; do Amaral; Bradley (J.C.); Esaki; Mertens; Hemming; Sylvester-Bradley ; ~Hanko ; Jaczewski; Pearson; Stoll; (b) Negative Votes : None ; (c) Voting Paper V.P.(54)6 was not returned by one (1) Com- missioner : Cabrera. 9. Declaration of Result of Vote: On 30th March 1954, Mr. Hemming, Secretary to the International Commission, acting as Returning Officer for the Vote taken on Voting Paper V.P.(54)6, signed a Certificate that the Votes cast were as set out in paragraph 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 ine matter aforesaid. 10. On 3lst March 1954 Mr. Hemming prepared the Ruling given in the present Opinion and at the same time signed a Certificate that subject to the omission of the proposal relating to Opinion 162, which, as explained in paragraph 6 above, had been withdrawn on 25th March 1954, 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)6. 626 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 11. The following are the original references for the names which appear in the Ruling given in the present Direction :— Argyreus Scopoli, 1777, Introd. Hist. nat. : 431 brevipennis, Proctotrupes, Latreille, [1802—1803], in Sonnini’s Buffon, Hist. nat. gén. partic. Crust. Ins. 3 : 309 Ceraphron Panzer, [1805], Faun. Ins. germ. (97) : tab. 16 demodocus, Papilio, Esper, [1798], Ausl. Schmett. (14) : 205, pl. 51, fig. 1 flavipennis, Sphex, Fabricius, 1793, Ent. syst. 2 : 201 hyperbius, Papilio, Linnaeus, 1763, Amoen. acad. 6 : 408 Limnas Hubner, [1806], Samml. exot. Schmett. 1 : pl. [29] lubentina, Papilio, Cramer, [1777], Uitl. Kapellen 2 (13) : 92, pl. 115, figs. C, D minutator, Ichneumon, Fabricius, 1798, Suppl. Ent. syst. : 225 nais, Papilio, Forster, 1771, Noy. Spec. Ins. 1 : 73 paphia, Papilio, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 481 Princeps Hubner, [1807], Sammi. exot. Schmett. 1 : pl. [116] Psammochares Latreille, 1796, Précis Caract. Ins. : 115 pulcher, Pompilus, Fabricius, 1798, Suppl. Ent. syst. : 249 sabulosa, Sphex, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 569 Serphus Schrank, 1780, Schrift. Berlin. Ges. nat. Freunde 1 : 307 sulcatus, Ceraphron, Jurine, 1807, Nouv. Méth. class. Hyménopt. : 303 Symphaedra Hubner, 1818, Zutrdge z. Samml. exot. Schmett. te ple ngs 12 12. The following are the references to the type selections specified for the under-mentioned genera in the Ruling given in the present Direction :—(a) for the genus Argyreus Scopoli, 1777 : type selection by Reuss, 1928, Int. ent. Z. 22 : 146; (b) for the genus Symphaedra Hibner, 1818: type selection by Scudder, 1875, Proc. Amer. Acad. Arts. Sci., Boston 10 : 272. 13. The present Direction is hereby rendered in the name of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature by the under-signed Francis Hemming, Secretary to the said Com- mission, in virtue of all and every the powers conferred upon him in that behalf. 14. The present Direction shall be known as Direction Two (2) of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. DIRECTION 2 627 Done in London, this Thirty-First day of March, Nineteen Hundred and Fifty-Four. Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature FRANCIS HEMMING ANNEXE The names ‘‘ Symphaedra ’? Hiibner, 1818, and ‘‘ Euthalia ’’? Hiibner, [1819] Letter dated 14th March 1954 from Francis Hemming, Secretary to the Commission to Dr. L. B. Holthuis In reply to your letter of 16th February, I should explain that the facts as they then existed were correctly stated in the application about the name Euthalia, both of which were then rightly attributed to the Verzeichniss bekannt. Schmett. It had always been known that the name Symphaedra had been published by Hibner in volume 1 of the Zutr. z. Samml. exot. Schmett, but at the time of the submission of this application that name, as there published, was not an available name, since it was published without a diagnosis and without a designated or indicated type species. The situation in this matter was completely changed by the decision of the Paris Congress in 1948 to liberalise the provision of Article 25 (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 78—80), and the reference of Symphaedra to the Zutrdge instead of to the Verzeichniss is thus no more than an inevitable consequential result of that decision. The purpose of the application submitted in this case was to prevent the confusion which would inevitably arise if Symphaedra Hiibner possessed—or could be claimed to possess—priority over Euthalia. In this case there would not only have been confusion but also the prospect of continuing instability, for this is a case where the type species of a genus having (or claimed to have) a name possessing priority (Symphaedra) over another name (Euthalia) has as its type Species a species which is taxonomically at the extreme margin of the large group of species habitually referred to the second genus (Euwthalia). Thus, if no action had been taken by the Commission, we should have had this position :—(1) Systematists who regarded the two type species as congeneric would have had to call by the name Symphaedra all the species hitherto called Euthalia ; (2) Systematists who regarded the two type species as generically distinct from one another would have used (as hitherto) the name Symphaedra for the type species of that 628 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS genus and would have used (as hitherto) the name Euthalia for all the other species concerned. Great confusion would have resulted from the instability so created, for in any discussion of the genus Euthalia it would have been difficult, and often impossible, to determine the dimensions of the group to which the author concerned was referring. It was to prevent this most undesirable result that the application dealt with in Opinion 167 was submitted, its purpose being to secure that the name Euthalia should be available for the large group of species for which it is habitually used, while at the same time arrangements were made under which the name Symphaedra would continue to be available for the one species which some systematists placed in Euthalia, but others considered worthy of generic separation. Neither at that time nor since has any lepidopterist thought it proper to advocate the sub- stitution of the name Symphaedra for the name Euthalia. Thus, the application submitted in this case had the support of all interested workers. You are, of course, correct when you say that, as the claims of Symphaedra for priority over Euthalia rested (as it was then thought) only on page precedence, it would not have been necessary to ask the Commission to use the Plenary Powers to secure protection for the name Euthalia, if that protection could have been secured by the ‘‘ first reviser ’’? provision ; but in this group the “ first reviser ’’ rule has worked so uncertainly and attempts to operate that rule have given rise to so much uncertainty that the applicants (Mr. N. D. Riley and myself) took the view that the present was a case where the use of the Plenary Powers was necessary if stability was to be secured. It was for this reason that we submitted our application. Mr. Riley whom I have consulted takes the view that no essential change has occurred in regard to this name since at Lisbon in 1935 the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, decided to use its Plenary Powers to protect Euthalia as against Symphaedra. For my part, I fully share this view. We therefore both consider that the proper course now is to proceed as proposed in Voting Paper V.P.(54)6, that is, to place Symphaedra on the Official List for use by any specialist who considers that genus distinct from Euthalia, this to be subject, however, to the condition imposed in Opinion 167 that Symphaedra shall not be used in preference to Euthalia. The name Euthalia Hibner is already on the Official List, following the decision of the Commission that in the interests of stability that name must be protected from attack. Printed in England by Metcatre & Cooper LimiTeEp, 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 2. Part 53. Pp. 629—652 DIRECTION 4 Addition to the Official Lists and Official Indexes of certain scientific names and of the titles of certain books dealt with in Opinions 134—160, exclusive of Opinion 149 AgTHSON/S ‘ “4y~ OCT 21 1954 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 1954 Rc os a Price Eleven Shillings and Sixpence (All rights reserved) Issued \st October, 1954 INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE COMPOSITION AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THE RULING GIVEN IN DIRECTION 4 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) (A2th 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. he ayagne teers (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-Universitdat zu Berlin, Germany) (Sth July 1950) Senhor Dr. Afranio do Amaral (S. Paulo, Brazil) (12th August 1953) (Vice- President) fies 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 (Békéscsaba, 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) DIRECTION 4 ADDITION TO THE “° OFFICIAL LISTS” AND “OFFICIAL INDEXES” OF CERTAIN SCIENTIFIC NAMES AND OF THE TITLES OF CERTAIN BOOKS DEALT WITH IN ‘‘ OPINIONS ” 134—160, EX- CLUSIVE OF ‘* OPINION ” 149 RULING :—(1) The under-mentioned generic names are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology as Names Nos. 802—805 respectively :—(a) Merops Linnaeus, 1758 (gender : masculine) (type species, by Linnean tautonymy (Opinion 16): Merops apiaster Linnaeus, 1758) (Class Aves) (Opinion 140) ; (b) Merope Newman, 1838 (gender: feminine) (type species, by monotypy: Merope tuber Newman, 1838) (Class Insecta, Order Mecoptera) (Opinion 140); (c) Tingis Fabricius, 1803 (gender : feminine) (type species, by selection by Latreille (1810) : Cimex cardui Linnaeus, 1758) (Class Insecta, Order Hemiptera) (Opinion 143) ; (d) Cynthia Fabricius, 1807 (gender: feminine) (type species, by selection by Westwood (1840) : Papilio cardui Linnaeus, 1758) (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera) (to be used by any specialist who may consider that the type species of this genus is generically distinct from Papilio atalanta Linnaeus, 1758, the type species of Vanessa Fabricius, 1807, but not to be used in preference to the name Vanessa Fabricius, 1807) (Opinion 156). (2) The under-mentioned specific names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology as Names Nos. 241—266 respectively :—(a) achilles Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Papilio achilles (specific name of type species of Morpho Fabricius, 1807) (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera) (Opinion 137) ; (b) pygmaeus Linnaeus, 1767, as published in the combination Sirex pygmaeus (specific name of type species of Cephus Latreille, [1802—1803)) 632 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS (Class Insecta, Order Hymenoptera) (Opinion 139); (c) abdominalis Panzer, [1798], as published in the com- bination Tiphia abdominalis (specific name of type species of Astata Latreille, 1796) (Class Insecta, Order Hymenoptera) (Opinion 139); (d) apiaster Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Merops apiaster (specific name of type species of Merops Linnaeus, 1758) (Class Aves) (Opinion 140) ; (e) tuber Newman, 1838, as published in the combination Merops tuber (specific name of type species of Merope Newman, 1838) (Class Insecta, Order Mecoptera) (Opinion 140); (f) actaea Esper, [1780], as published in the combination Papilio actaea (type species, by designation under the Plenary Powers, of Satyrus Latreille, 1810) (Class Insecta, Order Lepi- doptera) (Opinion 142); (g) cardui Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Cimex cardui (specific name of type species of Tingis Fabricius, 1803) (Class Insecta, Order Hemiptera) (Opinion 143); (h) cribraria Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Vespa cribraria (specific name of type species, by designation under the Plenary Powers, of Crabro Fabricius, 1775) (Class Insecta, Order Hymenoptera) (Opinion 144) ; (i) /utea Linneaus, 1758, as published in the combination Tenthredo lutea (specific name of type species, by designa- tion under the Plenary Powers, of Cimbex Olivier, 1790) (Class Insecta, Order Hymenoptera) (Opinion 144") ; (j) Ayale Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Papilio hyale (specific name of type species, by designation under the Plenary Powers, of Colias Fabricius, 1807) (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera) (Opinion 145) ; (k) nigra Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Formica nigra (specific name of type species, by designation under the Plenary Powers, of Lasius Fabricius, [1804— 1805]) (Class Insecta, Order Hymenoptera) (Opinion 151) ; (1) pilipes Fabricius, 1775, as published in the combination 1 By inadvertence not all of the requisite information was submitted to the International Commission at the time when, by the Ruling given in Opinion 144, it validated the name Cimbex Olivier, 1790, under its Plenary Powers. On this Omission coming to light, the necessary further action was taken by the Commission by a decision which has since been embodied in Opinion 216 (1954, Ops. Decls, int, Comm. zool, Nomencl, 4 : 63—72). DIRECTION 4 633 Apis pilipes (specific name of type species, by designation under the Plenary Powers, of Anthophora Latreille, 1803) << Insecta, Order Hymenoptera) (Opinion 151) ; m) fuscicornis Jurine, 1807, as published in the com- bination Omalus fuscicornis (specific name of type species, by designation under the Plenary Powers, of Bethylus Latreille, [1802—1803]) (Class Insecta, Order Hymeno- ptera) (Opinion 153); (n) formicarius Latreille, ({1804— 1805], as published in the combination Dryinus formicarius (specific name of type species of Dryinus Latreille, [1804]) (Class Insecta, Order Hymenoptera) (Opinion 153) ; (0) falcata Poda, 1761, as published in the combination Gryllus falcata (specific name of type species, by designa- tion under the Plenary Powers, of Phaneroptera Serville, 1831) (Class Insecta, Order Orthoptera) (Opinion 154) ; (p) Jilifolia Fabricius, 1793, as published in the combina- tion Locusta lilifolia (specific name of type species of Tylopsis Fieber, 1853) (Class Insecta, Order Orthoptera) (Opinion 154) ; (q) bedeguaris Linnaeus, 1758 as published in the combination Ichneumon bedeguaris (specific name of type species, by designation under the Plenary Powers, of Torymus Dalman, 1820) (Class Insecta, Order Hymeno- ptera) (Opinion 155); (rt) atalanta Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Papilio atalanta (specific name of type species of Vanessa Fabricius, 1807) (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera) (Opinion 156); (s) cardui Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Papilio cardui (specific name of type species of Cynthia Fabricius, 1807) (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera) (Opinion 156) ; (t) viduatorius Fabricius, [1804—1805], as published in the combination Cryptus viduatorius (specific name of type species of Cryptus Fabricius, [1804—1805]) (Class Insecta, Order Hymenoptera) (Opinion 157) ; (u) enodis Linnaeus, 1767, as published in the combination Tenthredo enodis (specific name of type species of Arge Schrank, 1802) (Class Insecta, Order Hymenoptera) (Opinion 157) ; (v) pini Linneaus, 1758, as published in the combination Tenthredo pini (specific name of type species of Diprion Schrank, 1802) (Class Insecta, Order Hymenoptera) (Opinion 157); (w) migratorius Linneaus, 1758, as published in the combination Gryllus migratorius (specific 634 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS name of type species, by designation under the Plenary Powers, of Locusta Linnaeus, 1758) (Class Insecta, Order Orthoptera) (Opinion 158); (x) extensorius Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Jchneumon extensorius (specific name of type species, by designation under the Plenary Powers, of Jchneumon Linnaeus, 1758 (Class Insecta, Order Hymenoptera) (Opinion 159) ; (y) instigator Fabricius, 1793, as published in the com- bination Ichneumon instigator (specific name of type species, by designation under the Plenary Powers, of Pimpla Fabricius, [1804—1805]) (Class Insecta, Order Hymenoptera) (Opinion 159) ; (z) manifestator Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Ichneumon mani- festator (specific name of type species, by designation under the Plenary Powers, of Ephialtes Gravenhorst, 1829) (Class Insecta, Order Hymenoptera) (Opinion 159). (3) The under-mentioned generic names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology as Names Nos. 212—221 respectively :—(a) the following generic names published on plates in volume | of Hubner (J.), Sammlung exotischer Schmetterlinge, being names suppressed under the Plenary Powers for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy :—(i) Potamis Hiibner, [1807]; (ii) Rusticus Htibner, [1807]; (11) Mancipium Hubner, [1807] (Opinion 137); (b) Astatus [Jurine], 1801 (a name published in a work suppressed for nomenclatorial purposes under the Plenary Powers) (Opinion 139); (c) Crabro Geoffroy, 1762 (a name suppressed under the Plenary Powers for the purposes both of the Law of Priority and of the Law of Homo- nymy”) (Opinion 144); (d) Lasius Panzer, [1801—1802] (a name suppressed under the Plenary Powers for the purposes both of the Law of Priority and of the Law of 2 At the time when the name Crabro Geoffroy, 1762, was suppressed under the Plenary Powers, it was an open question whether the Histoire abrégée in which it was published was an available work under Article 25 of the Régles. It has since been ruled by the Commission that the foregoing work does not comply with the requirements of the above Article and therefore that no name acquired the status of availability by reason of having been published in Geoffroy’s Histoire abrégée. See Opinion 228 (1954, Ops. Decls. int. Comm. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 209—220). DIRECTION 4 | 635 Homonymy) (Opinion 151); (e) Podalirius Latreille, 1802 (a name suppressed under the Plenary Powers for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy) (Class Insecta, Order Hymen- optera) (Opinion 151); (f) Callimome Spinola, 1811 (a name suppressed under the Plenary Powers for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy) (Class Insecta, Order Hymenoptera) (Opinion 155); (g) Misocampe Latreille, 1818 (a name suppressed under the Plenary Powers for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy) (Class Insecta, Order Hymenoptera) (Opinion 155); (h) Ephialtes Schrank, 1802 (a name suppressed under the Plenary Powers for the purposes both of the Law of Priority and of the Law of Homo- nymy) (Class Insecta, Order Hymenoptera) (Opinion 159). (4) The titles of the under-mentioned works are hereby placed on the Official List of Works approved as Available for Zoological Nomenclature as Works Nos. 12—16 respectively :—(a) Freyer (C. F.), Neuere Beitrdge zur Schmetterlingskunde, 7 vols., 1833—1858 (species described as new in this work to be treated as having been described as belonging to the genus cited by Freyer at the head of the description and not to the genus with the name of which the new specific name was actually combined) (Opinion 134); (b) Latreille (P. A.), Con- sidérations générales sur [Ordre naturel des Animaux composant les Classes des Crustacés, des Arachnides et des Insectes avec un Tableau méthodique de leurs Genres disposés en Familles, 1810 (the entries in the Tableau Meéthodique® at the end of this work to be accepted as ® It may be noted that, although the very important list of genera containing type selections made by Latreille in the Considerations générales is referred to on the title page of that work under the title “ Tableau méthodique de leurs Genres disposés en Familles, this is not the title actually used by Latreille at the head of this list, which was as follows :—Table des Genres avec lindication de Pespéce qui leur sert de type’’. It is presumably because of the use by Latreille of the word “‘ Tableau’’ in the expression ‘“‘ Tableau méthodique’’ on the title page and of the substitution for that word of the word * Table’’ at the head of the list itself that this list has been commonly, though incorrectly, referred to in the literature as the “* Table méthodique ”’ of Latreille (1810). 636 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS constituting the selection, under Rule (g) in Article 30, of type species for the genera concerned in those cases where Latreille there cited for the genus in question one nominal species only but in no other case, it being under- stood that the selection so made is to be accepted as a valid selection, only (i) if the nominal species so selected was one of those included in the genus by its original author and (ii) if the type species for the genus concerned had not already been determined under any of the earlier Rules in Article 30 or by a previous selection made under Rule (g) in that Article) (Opinion 136, incorporating Opinion 11); (c) Fabricius (J. C.), a paper entitled ‘Die neueste Gattungs-Eintheilung der Schmetterlinge aus den Linneischen Gattungen Papilio und Sphinx” published in 1807 on pages 277—295 of volume 6 of the serial publication Magazin fiir Insektenkunde heraus- gegeben von Karl Iiliger (generic names published in the foregoing paper to take precedence over any names published for the same genera earlier in 1807 by Hubner (J.) on the legends to plates in volume 1 of the work entitled Sammlung exotischer Schmetterlinge) (Ruling given under the Plenary Powers) (Opinion 137); (d) Htibner (J.), Sammlung exotischer Schmetterlinge, 3 vols. (vol. 2 completed, and vol. 3 compiled, by Geyer (C.) ), 1806—[1838] (generic names published on the legends of plates in vol. 1 of this work prior to the publication in 1807 by Fabricius (J. C.) of the paper entitled “ Die neueste Gattungs-Eintheilung der Schmetterlinge aus den Linneischen Gattungen Papilio und Sphinx” not to take precedence over names published by Fabricius for the same genera) (Ruling given under the Plenary Powers) (Opinion 137); (e) Hiibner (J.), Verzeichniss bekannter Schmettlinge [sic], 1816—[ 1826] (the dates, as determined in the light of the discovery of Htibner’s manuscripts, to be — accepted for the several portions of this work being as follows :—(1) pp. 1—16, 1816; (2) pp. 17—176, [1819] ; (3) pp. 177—208, [1820]; (4) pp. 209—256, [1821]; (5) pp. 257—304, [1823]; (6) pp. 305—431, [1825] ; (7) Anzeiger, pp. 1—72, [1826]) (Opinion 150). (5) The under-mentioned work is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Works in Zoological DIRECTION 4 637 Nomenclature as Work No. 28 :—[Jurine, (L.)], anonymous paper entitled “ Nachricht von Einen neuen entomolischen [sic] Werke des Hrn. Prof. JURINE in Geneve” (dealing with the generic classification of the Order Hymenoptera (Class Insecta) ) and commonly known as the “ Erlangen List’? published in 1801 on pp. 161—165 of the unnumbered volume for that year of the serial publication /ntelligenz-Blatt der Literatur- Zeitung (a paper suppressed for nomenclatorial purposes under the Plenary Powers) (Opinion 135). I.—THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE PRESENT ** DIRECTION ” The present Direction contains the fourth instalment of decisions taken by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature under the General Directive given to it by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948, that it should review the Rulings given in all its previous Opinions for the purpose of placing on the various Official Lists and Official Indexes scientific names dealt with in those Opinions and the titles of books similarly dealt with. The first and third instal- ments (Directions 1 and 3) contained decisions taken by the International Commission after reviewing the Rulings given in Opinions 182—194, the first thirteen Opinions included in volume 3 of the present work ; the second instalment (Direction 2) contained decisions taken after the review of Opinions 161—181. The present Direction contains the decisions taken by the Commission after reviewing the Rulings given in Opinions. 134—160, exclusive of Opinion 149, which it was considered could more conveniently be dealt with separately owing to the large number of names involved. The present Direction con- cludes the review by the Commission of the Rulings given in 638 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS Opinions 134—160, save as regards certain individual items which, as explained in the notes reproduced in paragraph 2 of the present Direction, have been reserved by the Commission for individual treatment. | 2. On Sth April 1954, Mr. Francis Hemming, as Secretary, submitted to the Commission the following note covering the annexed Draft of a Direction embodying his proposals for the codification, in accordance with the decision of the Paris Congress, of the Rulings given by the Commission in Opinions 134—160, exclusive of Opinion 149, proposals relating to which were deferred by Mr. Hemming for separate submission to the Commission? :— Addition to the ‘‘ Official Lists ’’ and ‘* Official Indexes ’’ of certain names and of the titles of certain books dealt with in ‘° Opinions ”’ 134—148 and 150—160, under the General Directives on this subject issued to the Commission by the Thirteenth (Paris) and Fourteenth (Copenhagen) International Congresses of Zoology In my Note dated 12th February 1954 I submitted to the Commission with V.P.(54)6 proposals for the addition to the Official Lists and Official Indexes of certain names dealt with in the Commission’s Opinions 161—181, under the General Directive on this subject issued to the Commission by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948. I now submit corresponding proposals relating to the Commission’s Opinions 134—148 and 150—160. Opinion 149 contains a large number of names which will need to be added to the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology, and I have thought that it would be more convenient to reserve the proposals in regard to this Opinion for submission with a later Note. 2. I have annexed to the present paper a series of short notes con- taining explanations of certain of the proposals now submitted, which I hope will serve the convenience of members of the Commission. Notes on Points arising on ‘“ Opinions ’’ 134—160 Note | : Opinion 136 was itself no more than a clarification of a Ruling given in Opinion 11 in regard to the interpretation, in relation to Rule (g) in Article 30, of action taken by Latreille in 1810 in the Tableau méthodique annexed to his Considérations générales. It would clearly be not only impracticable but also highly inappropriate to attempt to codify the Ruling given in Opinion 136 independently of that given in * See?Direction 5 (1954, Ops. Decls, int. Comm. zool. Nomencl, 2 : 653—664. DIRECTION 4 639 Opinion 11. Accordingly, in the codification now submitted the Rulings given in these two Opinions are dealt with together. Note 2: In Opinion 137 the Plenary Powers were used (conditionally) for the purpose of protecting three well-known generic names, but through some inadvertence it was not expressly stated in the Official Record of the Session held by the Commission at Lisbon (where the Ruling given in this Opinion was adopted) that these three generic names were to be placed on the Official List. When during the late war I was engaged in compiling the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology, | brought this omission to the notice of President Karl Jordan who thereupon gave directions that, subject to later confirmation by the Commission, these names (Morpho Fabricius ; Helicopis Fabricius ; Pontia Fabricius) were to be treated as having been placed on the Official List. The action so taken was reported to the Commission in Paris with reference to the second and third of these names which then came before it in another connection, and the action of President Jordan in this matter was confirmed ; at the same time the names of the type species of Helicopis and Pontia were placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. Accordingly, all that is now required to give effect to the Paris Congress’ General Directive is that the name of the type species of Morpho should be placed on the foregoing Official List and that the three corresponding generic names published by Hiibner in the Sammi. exot. Schmett should be placed on the Official Index. Note 3: Opinion 138 is concerned only with the interpretation of a provision in the Rég/es and no action is called for at the present time in connection with this Opinion. Note 4: Opinion 140 was primarily concerned with the formation of two family names which are now to be entered on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology. At the same time it will be necessary to place on the Official List of Generic Names the names of the type genera of these families and on the Official List of Specific Names the specific names of the type species of these two genera. The particulars needed for this purpose are not given in this Opinion, and I have accordingly made special inquiries for the purpose of securing the necessary information. (A) The name Merops Linnaeus, 1758, is accepted by all ornithologists as the generic name for the Bee-Eater and Merops apiaster Linnaeus, 1758, is accepted by all workers as the type species of this genus ; it became the type species by Linnean tautonymy through the citation by Linnaeus under the name Merops apiaster of the pre-1758 univerbal name “‘ Merops ”’ by various early authors. (B) The name Merope Newman, 1838: I have consulted Mr. N. D. Riley (British Museum (Natural History), London), who informs me that the name Merope Newman, 1838, is currently accepted as the name of a taxonomically valid genus, which inturnis the type genus of the currently 640 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS accepted family MEROPEIDAE, that this name is feminine in gender, that the type species of the above genus is Merope tuber Newman, 1838, by monotypy, that the specific name tuber Newman is currently accepted as the oldest available name for the species concerned and therefore that both the generic name Merope Newman and the specific name tuber Newman (Merope) are eligible for admission to the appropriate Official Lists and should be so admitted. Note 5: For reasons similar to those explained in Note 3 above in connection with Opinion 138, no action at the present time is called for in connection with Opinion 141. Note 6: Like Opinion 140, Opinion 143 is mainly concerned with the formation of a family name, and it is necessary now to place the type genus of that family and the specific name of the type species of that genus on the appropriate Official Lists. I have consulted Dr. W. E. China (British Museum (Natural History), London), who informs me that the type species of Tingis Fabricius, 1803 is Cimex cardui Linnaeus, 1758, by selection by Latreille, 1810, that the name cardui Linnaeus is currently accepted for the species so named, that there is agreement among specialists on these questions and therefore that these names should be entered in the Official Lists concerned. Note 7: For reasons similar to those explained in Note 3 above in connection with Opinion 138, no action at the present time is called for in connection with Opinion 145. Note 8: For reasons similar to those referred in the immediately preceding note, no action is called for at the present time in connection with Opinion 147 or with Opinion 148. Note 9: Proposals for the codification of the names included in the Ruling given in Opinion 149 will be submitted in a later Voting Paper?. Note 10: Opinion 152 is concerned with Meigen, 1800, Nouvelle Classification des Mouches a deux ailes. The Ruling given was purely interim in character. A comprehensive proposal on this subject has since been submitted by Dr. C. W. Sabrosky (Z.N.(S.) 191). Note |1 : The purpose of the application dealt with in Opinion 156 was to secure a Ruling which would prevent any possibility of the sub- stitution of the name Cynthia Fabricius, 1807, for the name Vanessa Fabricius, 1807, two names of which the latter is a household word, while the former has only been used intermittently. The two names were published in the same work and the name Cynthia has page precedence over Vanessa. The difficulties of the literature in this group are such that it has been found that the “ First Reviser ”’ Rule cannot be relied upon to produce a conclusion which would not be open to 5 See footnote 4. § Sabrosky, 1952, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 6 : 131—141. DIRECTION 4 641 challenge. For this reason there was a tendency at the time of the submission of this application for specialists to rely upon the principle of page precedence. The name Cynthia Fabricius is an available name, being only a subjective synonym of Vanessa Fabricius. It would be appropriate, therefore, for that name now to be placed on the Official List of Generic Names with a note that it is available for use by any specialist who considers that the type species of Cynthia and Vanessa are generically distinct from one another but that this name is not available for use in preference to the name Vanessa. Note 12: Opinion 160, which is concerned with the name Anguina Scopoli, 1777, gave only an interim Ruling which it is desirable should be replaced as quickly as possible by a definite Ruling. Proposals to this end have been submitted to the Commission and are now under con- sideration by it in the vote which is in progress on Voting Paper V.P.(54)15. Annexe to the Note by the Secretary covering Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(54)4 ADDITION TO THE ‘ OFFICIAL LISTS ’” AND ‘ OFFICIAL INDEXES ” OF CERTAIN SCIENTIFIC NAMES OF THE TITLES OF CERTAIN BOOKS DEALT WITH IN ** OPINIONS ”’ 134—148 AND 150— 160 Draft Direction The following scientific names and the titles of the following books dealt with in Opinions 134—160 are hereby added to the Official Lists and Official Indexes noted below in accordance (a) with the General Directive issued to the International Commission by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948, that it should insert in the foregoing Lists and Indexes entries relating to - scientific names dealt with in Opinions rendered prior to the Paris Session and (b) with the corresponding Directive issued by the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology, Copenhagen, 1953, that similar entries relating to the titles of books dealt with in such Opinions should be made in the Official List and Official Index established by that Congress for the recording of such decisions :— OPINION 134: The title of the under-mentioned work with the annexed note is to be entered in the Official List of Works Approved as Available for Zoological Nomenclature :—Freyer (C. F.), Neuere Beitrdge zur Schmetterlingskunde, 1833—-1858, 7 vols. (species des- cribed as new in this work to be treated as having been described as belonging to the genus cited by Freyer at the head of the description and not to the genus in combination with the name of which the new specific name was actually cited). 642 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS OPINION 135 : The title of the under-mentioned paper is to be entered in the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Works in Zoological Nomenclature :—The paper by Jurine (L.) dealing with the generic classification of the Order Hymenoptera (Class Insecta) published anonymously in 1801 under the title ‘*‘ Nachricht von einen neuen entomolischen [sic] Werke des Hrn. Prof, Jurine in Geneve’’ ({anon.], 1801, Jntelligenz-Blatt der Literatur-Zeitung 1801 : 161—165) (sup- pressed for nomenclatorial purposes under the Plenary Powers). OPINION 136 (embodying also OPINION 11): The title of the under-mentioned work is to be entered in the Official List of Works Approved as Available for Zoological Nomenclature, together with the accompanying note : Latreille (P. A.), 1810, Considérations générales sur l Ordre naturel des Animaux composant les Classes des Crustacés, des Arachnides et des Insectes avec un Tableau méthodique de leurs Genres disposés en Familles (the entries in the Tableau méthodique at the end of this work are to be accepted as constituting the selection, under Rule (g) in Article 30, of type species for the genera concerned in those cases where Latreille there cited for the genus concerned one nominal species only but in no other case, it being understood that a selection so made is to be accepted as a valid selection only (a) if the nominal species so selected was one of those included in the genus by its original author and (b) if the type species for the genus con- cerned had not been determined under any of the earlier Rules in Article 30 or by a previous selection made under Rule (g) ). OPINION 137: (1) The titles of the under-mentioned works are to be entered in the Official List of Works Approved as Available for Zoo- logical Nomenclature :—(a) Fabricius (J. C.), 1807, ‘‘ Die neueste Gattungs-Eintheilung der Schmetterlinge aus den Linneischen Gat- tungen Papilio und Sphinx ’’ (Fabricius (J. C.), 1807, Mag. f. Insektenk. (Illiger) 6 : 277—295); (b) Hiibner (J.), 1806—[1838], Sammlung exotischer Schmetterlinge, 3 vols. (vol. 2 completed, and vol. 3 pub- lished, by Geyer (C.)) (generic names in this work published before the publication in 1807 by Fabricius (J. C.) of the paper entitled “* Die neueste Gattungs-Eintheilung . . .”’ not to take precedence over the names so published by Fabricius). (2) The following entry to be made in the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology : achilles Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Papilio achilles (specific name of type species of Morpho Fabricius, 1807). (3) The following entries to be made in the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology :—the under-mentioned names as published on plates in Hubner’s Sammi. exot. Schmett. and as suppressed under the Plenary Powers :— (a) Potamis Hiibner [1807] ; (b) Rusticus Hiibner, [1807] ; (c) Mancipium Hibner, [1807]. OPINION 139: (1) The following entries to be made in the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology :—(a) pygmaeus Linnaeus, 1767, as DIRECTION 4 643 published in the combination Sirex pygmaeus (specific name of type species of Cephus Latreille, [1802—1803]) ; (b) abdominalis Panzer, [1798], as published in the combination Tiphia abdominalis (specific name of type species of Astata Latreille, 1796). (2) The following entry to be made in the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology :—Astatus [Jurine], 1801 (name published in a work suppressed for nomenclatorial purposes under the Plenary Powers). OPINION 140: (1) The following entries to be made in the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology :—(a) Merops Linnaeus, 1758 (gender : masculine) (type species, by Linnean tautonymy (Opinion 16): Merops apiaster, Linnaeus, 1758) (Class Aves) ; (b) Merope Newman, 1838 (gender : feminine) (type species, by monotypy : Merope tuber, Newman, 1838) (Class Insecta, Order Mecoptera). (2) The specific names of the type species of the two genera specified in (1) above to be placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. (3) The following entries to be made in the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology :—({a) MEROPIDAE (type genus : Merops Linnaeus, 1758); (b) MEROPEIDAE (type genus: Merope Newman, 1838) (family name formed under the Ruling given in Opinion 140). OPINION 142 : The following entry to be made in the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology : actaea Esper, [1780], as published in the combination Papilio actaea (specific name of type species of Satyrus Latreille, 1810, by designation under the Plenary Powers). OPINION 143 : (1) The generic name Jingis Fabricius, 1803 (gender : feminine) (type species, by selection by Latreille (1810) : Cimex cardui Linnaeus, 1758) to be entered on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. (2) The specific name cardui Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Cimex cardui (specific name of type species of Tingis Fabricius, 1803) to be entered in the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. (3) The family name TINGIDAE (type genus: Tingis Fabricius, 1803) (family name formed under the Ruling given in Opinion 143) to be entered in the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology. OPINION 144: (1) The name Crabro Geoffroy, 1762, as suppressed under the Plenary Powers for the purposes both of the Law of Priority and of the Law of Homonymy to be entered in the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. (2) The following names to be entered in the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology :—(a) cribraria Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Vespa cribraria (specific name of type species, by designation under the Plenary Powers, of Crabro Fabricius, 1775); (b) /utea Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Tenthredo lutea (specific name of type species, by designation under the Plenary Powers, of Cimbex Olivier, 1790). | 3 : 644 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS OPINION 146: The specific name hyale Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Papilio hyale (specific name of type species, by designation under the Plenary Powers, of Colias Fabricius, 1807) to be entered in the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. OPINION 150: The following entry to be made in the Official List of Works Approved as Available for Zoological Nomenclature : Hiibner (J.), 1816—[1826], Verzeichniss bekannter Schmettlinge [sic] (the dates, as determined in the light of the discovery of Hiibner’s manuscripts, to be accepted for the several portions of this work being as follows :— (1) pp. 1—16, 1816; (2) pp. 17—176, [1819]; (3) pp. 177—208, [1820] ; (4) pp. 209—256, [1821]; (5) pp. 257—304, [1823] ; (6) pp. 305—431, [1825] ; (7) Anzeiger, pp. 1—72, [1826]). OPINION 151: (1) The following entries to be made in the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology :—(a) Lasius Panzer, [1801—1802] (suppressed, under the Plenary Powers, for the purposes both of the Law of Priority and of the Law of Homonymy) ; (b) Podalirius Latreille, 1802 (suppressed, under the Plenary Powers, for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy). (2) The following entries to be made in the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology :—(a) nigra Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Formica nigra (specific name of type species, by designation under the Plenary Powers, of Lasius Fabricius, [1804—1805]) ; (b) pilipes Fabricius, 1775, as published in the com- bination Apis pilipes (specific name of type species, by designation under the Plenary Powers, of Anthophora Latreille, 1803). OPINION 153: (1) The following entries to be made in the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology :—(a) fuscicornis Jurine, 1807, as published in the combination Omalus fuscicornis (specific name, by designation under the Plenary Powers, of Bethylus Latreille, [1802— 1803]) ; (b) formicarius Latreille, [1804—1805], as published in the combination Dryinus formicarius (specific name of type species of Dryinus Latreille, [1804]). OPINION 154: The following entries to be made in the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology :—(a) falcata Poda, 1761, as published in the combination Gryllus falcata (specific name of type species, by designation under the Plenary Powers, of Phaneroptera Serville, 1831) ; (b) /ilifolia Fabricius, 1793, as published in the combination Locusta lilifolia (specific name of type species of Tylopsis Fieber, 1853). OPINION 155: (1) The following entries to be made in the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology : (a) Callimome Spinola, 1811 (suppressed, under the Plenary Powers, for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy) ; (b) Misocampe Latreille, 1818 (suppressed, under the Plenary Powers, DIRECTION 4 645 for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy). (2) The specific name bedeguaris Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Ichneumon bedeguaris (specific name of type species, by designation under the Plenary Powers, of Torymus Dalman, 1820) to be entered in the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. OPINION 156: (1) The name Cynthia Fabricius, 1807 (type species, by selection by Westwood (1840) : Papilio cardui Linnaeus, 1758) to be entered in the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the follow- ing note attached to it :—(to be used by any specialist who considers the type species of this genus and that of Vanessa Fabricius, 1807, to be generically distinct from one another but, by direction given under the Plenary Powers, not to be used in preference to Vanessa Fabricius, 1807) ; (2) The under-mentioned names to be entered in the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology :—(a) atalanta Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Papilio atalanta (specific name of type species of Vanessa Fabricius, 1807) ; (b) cardui Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Papilio cardui (specific name of type species of Cynthia Fabricius, 1807). OPINION 157: The following names to be entered in the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology : (a) viduatorius Fabricius, [1804— 1805], as published in the combination Cryptus viduatorius (specific name of type species of Cryptus Fabricius, [1804—1805]) ; (b) enodis Linnaeus, 1767, as published in the combination Tenthredo enodis (specific name of type species of Arge Schrank, 1802) ; (c) pini Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Tenthredo pini (specific name of type species of Diprion Schrank, 1802). OPINION 158: The following name to be entered in the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology :—migratorius Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Gryllus migratorius (specific name of type species, by designation under the Plenary Powers, of Locusta Linnaeus, 1758). OPINION 159: (1) The name Ephialtes Schrank, 1802 (as suppressed under the Plenary Powers for the purposes both of the Law of Priority and of the Law of Homonymy) to be entered in the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. (2) The following names to be entered in the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology :— (a) extensorius Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Ich- neumon extensorius (specific name of type species, by designation under the Plenary Powers, of Ichneumon Linnaeus, 1758); (b) instigator Fabricius, 1793, as published in the combination Jchneumon instigator (specific name of type species, by designation under the Plenary Powers, of Pimpla Fabricius, [1804—1805]) ; (c) manifestator Linnaeus, 1758, 646 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS as published in the combination Ichneumon manifestator (specific name of type species, by designation under the Plenary Powers, of Ephialtes Gravenhorst, 1829). Il—DECISION TAKEN BY THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 3. Issue of Voting Paper V.P.(.O.M.)(54)4 : Concurrently with the submission to the Commission of the Draft Direction repro- duced in the annexe to the note by the Secretary reproduced in paragraph 2 above, a Call for a Vote, numbered Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(54)4, was issued on Sth April 1954 under the One- Month Rule. In this Voting Paper each Member of the Com- mission 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 taken by the Commission prior to 1948, issued to the International Com- mission by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948, the entries recording such decisions taken in Opinions 134—148 and 150—160 in the Draft Direction annexed to the statement submitted by the Secretary simultaneously with the present Voting Paper, should be made, as proposed, in the Official Lists and Official Indexes concerned, 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 5th May 1954. DIRECTION 4 647 5. Particulars of the Voting on Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(54)4 : The state of the voting on Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(54)4 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) : Holthuis ; Lemche; Vokes; Hering; Sylvester- Bradley ; Bonnet; Dymond; Mertens ; Cabrera ; Esaki; Stoll; Jaczewski; Riley ; Pearson ; Hem- ming ; Bradley (J. C.) ; Boschma ; (b) Negative Votes : None ; (c) Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(54)4 was not renee by two (2) Commissioners :° do Amaral ; ‘Hanko. 6. Declaration of Result of Vote: On 6th 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)4, 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 Inter- national Commission in the matter aforesaid. 7. Postponement of the addition to the “ Official Lists’’ and * Official Indexes”’ of the Family-Group Names dealt with in ** Opinions”? 140 and 143: On 12th June 1954 Mr. Francis Hemming, as Secretary, placed on the Commission’s File 7 After the close of the Prescribed Voting Period Affirmative Votes were received from Commissioner do Amaral and Commissioner Hanko. 648 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS Z.N.(G.)67 the following Declaratory Minute postponing the placing on the Official Lists and Official Indexes of the Family- Group Names dealt in Opinions 140 and 143 respectively :— Postponement of the addition to the ‘* Official Lists ’’ and ‘‘ Official Indexes ’’ of the Family-Group Names dealt with in ‘‘ Opinions ”’ 140 and 143 respectively MINUTE dated 12th June 1954 By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E., Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature The proposed codification of the decisions taken by the Com- mission (a) in Opinion 140 (relating to the family names MEROPIDAE (Class Aves) and MEROPEIDAE (Class Insecta) ) and in Opinion 143 (relating to the family name TINGIDAE (Class Insecta) ) raises for the first time in a concrete fashion the problems involved in placing Family-Group names on the Official Lists and Official Indexes established by the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology, Copenhagen, 1953, for the recording of such names. In preparing ° the Rulings required to give effect to the decisions in regard to the foregoing names taken by the Commission in its vote on Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(54)4, I have encountered considerable difficulties of various kinds. I hoped originally that, by a study of the relevant litera- ture and by consultation with specialists in the groups concerned, it might be possible to resolve these difficulties on a routine basis, and it was for this reason that I did not complete and sign the Direction giving effect to the decision taken by the Commission in its vote on the foregoing Voting Paper immediately after the close of the Pre- scribed Voting Period on 5th May 1954. 2. In the investigations referred to above |] have received great assistance from Dr. Ernst Mayr, Mr. N. D. Riley and Mr. D. E. Kimmins, and Dr. W. E. China, but in spite of the assistance so rendered I cannot feel that the difficulties involved in preparing the Ruling codifying the decisions taken by the Commission in the Opinions referred to above have been overcome to a degree sufficient to justify the inclusion in the Ruling to be rendered in pursuance of the vote taken on Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(54)4 of entries relating to the decisions taken in regard to the foregoing Opinions. I am of the opinion therefore that the questions involved in codifying the decisions given in these two Opinions will med to be resubmitted to the Commission. DIRECTION 4 649 3. In order to avoid any further delay in the rendering of the Direction embodying the decision taken by the Commission on Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(54)4 and incidentally also that taken on Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(54)5 (the Voting Paper concerned with the next following Direction), | hereby direct (1) that, pending a further decision being taken by the Commission in regard to the codification of the decisions embodied in Opinions 140 and 143, no entries are to be made in the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology or in the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology in respect of the Family-Group names dealt with in the foregoing Opinions, and (2) that the Direction embodying the decision taken by the Commission in its vote on Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(54)4 be now rendered forthwith, subject to the omission therefrom of the matters specified in (1) above. 8. On 12th June 1954, 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.)(54)4, subject to the omission therefrom, as prescribed in the Declara- tory Minute by the Secretary dated 12th June 1954 reproduced in paragraph 7 of the present Direction, of decisions relating to the placing on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology and on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology of the names dealt with in Opinions 140 and 143 respectively. 9. The following are the original references for the generic and specific names placed on Official Lists and Official Indexes by the Ruling given in the present Direction :— abdominalis, Tiphia, Panzer, [1798], Faun. Ins. germ. (53) : tab. 5 achilles, Papilio, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 463 actaea, Papilio, Esper, [1780], Die Schmett. 1 (Bd 2) Forts. Tag- schmett : 37, pl. 57, figs. la g, 1b 7 apiaster, Merops, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 117 Astatus |Jurine], 1801, Intell.-Bl. Lit.-Ztg 1801 : 163 atalanta, Papilio, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 478 bedeguaris, Ichneumon, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 567 Callimome Spinola, 1811, Ann. Mus. Hist. nat., Paris 17(98) : 148 cardui, Cimex, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 443 650 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS cardui, Papilio, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10), 1 : 475 Crabro Geoffroy, 1762, Hist. abrég. Ins. Paris, 2 : 261 cribraria, Vespa, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 573 Cynthia Fabricius, 1807, Mag. f. Insektenk. (Illiger) 6 : 281 enodis, Tenthredo, Linnaeus, 1767, Syst. Nat. (ed. 12) 1(2) : 922 Ephialtes Schrank, 1802, Fauna boic. 2(2) : 316 extensorius, Ichneumon, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 561 falcata, Gryllus, Poda, 1761, Ins. Mus. graec. : 52 formicarius, Dryinus, Latreille, [1804—1805], in Sonnini’s Buffon, Hist. nat. gén. partic. Crust. Ins. 13 : 228 fuscicornis, Omalus, Jurine, 1807, Nouv. Méth. class. Hyménopt : 301 hyale, Papilio, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 469 instigator, Ichneumon, Fabricius, 1793, Ent. syst. 2 : 164 Lasius Panzer, [1801—1802], Faun. Ins. germ. (86) : tab. 16 lilifolia, Locusta, Fabricius, 1793, Ent. syst. 2 : 36 lutea, Tenthredo, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 555 Mancipium Hubner, [1807], Sammi. exot. Schmett. 1 : pl. [141] manifestator, Ichneumon, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 563 Merope Newman, 1838, Ent. Mag. 5(2) : 180 Merops Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10), 1 : 117 migratorius, Gryllus, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 432 Misocampe Latreille, 1818, Nouy. Dict. Hist. nat. (ed. 2) 21 : 213 nigra, Formica, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 580, pilipes, Apis, Fabricius, 1775, Syst. Ent. : 383 pini, Tenthredo, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 556 Podalirius Latreille, 1802, Hist. nat. Fourmis : 430 Potamis Hubner, [1807], Samml. oxet. Schmett. 1 : pl. [79] pygmaeus, Sirex, Linnaeus, 1767, Syst. Nat. (ed. 12) 1(2) : 929 Rusticus Hubner, [1807], Samml. exot. Schmett. 1: pls. [102], [104] Tingis Fabricius, 1803, Syst. Rhyng. : 124 tuber, Merope, Newman, 1838, Ent. Mag. 5(2) : 180 viduatorius, Cryptus, Fabricius, [1804—1805], Syst. Piezat. : 70 10. The following are the references for the selection of type species for nominal genera placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology by the Ruling given in the present Direction :— DIRECTION 4 651 For Tingis Fabricius, 1803: Latreille, 1810, Consid. gén. Anim. Crust. Arach. Ins. : 433 For Cynthia Fabricius, 1807 : Westwood, 1840, Introd. Class. Ins. Zesym ; &/ 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 Inter- national 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 Four (4) of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. DONE in London, this Twelfth day of June, Nineteen Hundred and Fifty-Four. Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature FRANCIS HEMMING RE ph SOP pe Sake AY ua i 4 * ' ves a | be! HA ORE 7 Dey bie Be Seer | See ae ; ' a aR ‘ 7 Veen}! \ B | Velea tet VCRs ‘ bara pi wie <3) ie Be) \sidinaeay f) FE. Sore ero iS Pee x 0 a ares ina DOneniGs ae : : 7 : " it ‘ i : ¢ aX t Aa ae Povetita i ane HEB va vey ae We : en ee h 4 is is 4 PPP ESSER EERE Mie iS iy ee CP RG é 5 . tads fj Srhkee 2H ESE ; ‘i? +X - } PLR ‘AS ak! . ; ae cara Bia a Eee RY Y ba) ’ i 2 } A i « % " Printed in England by Mrtcatre & 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 2. Part 54. Pp. 633—664 DIRECTION 5 Addition to the Official Lists and Official Indexes of certain scientific names dealt with in Opinion 149 . 1954 co RARN y Z LONDON : Printed by Order of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature and Sold on behalf of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature by the International Trust at its Publications Office 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7 1954 Price Five Shillings and Sixpence (All rights reserved) Issued 1st October, 1954 INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE COMPOSITION AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THE RULING GIVEN IN DIRECTION 5 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) 4 Vice-President : Senhor Dr. Afranio do Amaral (Sao Paulo, Brazil) (A2th 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 Unstitute of Zoology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland) (i5th 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 (Békéscsaba, 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. Holthuis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Nether- lands) (12th August 1953) DIRECTION 5 ADDITION TO THE ‘ OFFICIAL LISTS ’” AND ** OFFICIAL INDEXES ” OF CERTAIN SCIENTIFIC NAMES DEALT WITH IN ‘OPINION ” 149 RULING : (1) The undermentioned specific names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology as Names Nos. 267—287 respectively :—(a) acervorum Panzer, [1799], as published in the com- bination Blatta acervorum (specific name of type species of Myrmecophilus Berthold, 1827); (b) aptera Char- pentier, 1825, as published in the combination Forficula aptera (specific name of type species of Chelidura Berthold, 1827); (c) caerulans Linnaeus, 1767, as pub- lished in the combination Gryllus caerulans (specific name of type species of Sphingonotus (emend. of Sphingo- nothus) Fieber, 1852); (d) caerulescens Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Gryllus caerulescens (specific name of type species of Oedipoda Latreille, 1829); (e) gigantea Klug, 1820, as published in the combination Proscopia gigantea (specific name of type species of Proscopia Klug, 1820) ; (f) glabra Herbst, 1786, as published in the combination Locusta glabra (specific name of type species of Gampsocleis Fieber, 1852) ; (g) gryllotalpa Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Gryllus gryllotalpa (specific name of type species of Gryllotalpa Latreille, [1802—1803]) ; (h) macu- licollis Serville, 1831, as published in the combination Gryllacris maculicollis (specific name of type species of Gryllacris Serville, 1831); (i) minor Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Forficula minor (specific name of type species of Labia Leach, 1815) ; (j) monstrosus Drury, [1773], as published in the combination Gry/lus monstrosus (specific name of type species of Schizo- dactylus Brullé, 1835); (k) obscura Walker, 1869, as published in the combination Tarraga obscura (specific 656 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS name of type species of Prophalangopsis Walker, 1871) ; (1) paradoxus Latreille, [1802—1803], as published in the combination Tridactylus paradoxus (specific name of type species of Tridactylus Olivier, 1789) ; (m) puncta- tissima Bosc, 1792, as published in the combination Locusta punctatissima (specific name of type species of Leptophyes Fieber, 1852) ; (n) religiosus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Gryllus_religiosus (specific name of type species of Mantis Linnaeus, 1767) ; (0) rossia Rossi, 1790, as published in the combination Mantis rossia (specific name of type species of Bacillus Le Peletier de Saint-Fargeau & Serville, 1825) ; (p) serrata Fabricius, 1793, as published in the combination Locusta serrata (specific name of type species of Saga Char- pentier, 1825) ; (q) siccifolius Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Gryllus siccifolius (specific name of type species of Phyllium Illiger, 1798); (x) stridulus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Gryllus stridulus (specific name of type species of Psophus Fieber, 1853) ; (s) talpa Burmeister, 1838, as published in the combination Stenopelmatus talpa (specific name of type species of Stenopelmatus Burmeister, 1838) ; (t) talpoides Walker, 1871, as published in the combination Hemimerus talpoides (specific name of type species of Hemimerus Walker, 1871) ; (u) tenuis Perty, 1832, as published in the ~ combination Mastax tenuis (specific name of type species of Eumastax Burr, 1899). (2) The under-mentioned generic names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology as Names Nos. 222 and 223 respectively :—(a)Psopha Fieber, 1852 (a junior homonym of Psopha Billberg, 1828); (b) Sphingonothus Fieber, 1852 (an Invalid Original Spelling for Sphingonotus Picber S52), DIRECTION 5 657 I.—THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE PRESENT * DIRECTION ” The present Direction contains the fifth instalment of decisions taken by the International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature under the General Directive given to it by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948, that it should review the Rulings given in all its previous Opinions for the purpose of placing on the various Official Lists and Official Indexes scientific names dealt with in those Opinions and the titles of books similarly dealt with. The first and third instalment (Directions 1 and 3) contained decisions taken by the International Commission after reviewing the Rulings given in Opinions 182—194, the first thirteen Opinions included in volume 3 of the present work ; the second and fourth instalments (Direc- tions 2 and 4) contained decisions taken after the review of Opinions 161—181 and 134—160, exclusive cf Opinion 149, respectively. The present Direction contains the decisions taken by the Commission after reviewing the Ruling given in Opinion 149, which it was considered could more conveniently be dealt with as a separate unit owing to the large number of names involved. The present Direction concludes the review by the Commission of the Rulings given in Opinions 134—181, the Opinions comprised in volume 2 of the present work, save as regards certain individual items which, as explained in the Directions concerned, have been reserved by the Commission for individual treatment at a later date. 2. On 5th April 1954, Mr. Francis Hemming, as Secretary, submitted to the Commission the following note covering the annexed Draft of a Direction embodying his proposals for the codification, in accordance with the decision of the Paris Con- gress, of the Ruling given by the Commission in its Opinion 149 :— ** Opinion”? 149; Addition of names to the ‘‘ Official Lists ’’ and ** Official Indexes ’’ under the General Directive issued to the Commission by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948 NOTE by FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E., Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature The Members of the Commission will have observed that in the covering note to Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(54)4 (submitted herewith) 658 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS [ explained (in Note 9) that separate proposals would be submitted for the codification of the Ruling given in Opinion 149 (addition to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology of the names of twenty-one genera of the Order Orthoptera (Class Insecta) ). I did not then submit proposals relating to the foregoing Opinion partly because of the large number of names involved and partly because I had thought it desirable, before doing so, to consult Dr. B. P. Uvarov, C.M.G., D.Sc., F.R.S. (Director, Anti-Locust Research Centre, London) for the purpose of confirming that the specific name of the type species of each of the genera dealt with in the above Opinion was in every case the ‘oldest available names (both objectively and subjectively) for the species concerned. 2. I have now been advised by Dr. Uvarov that the twenty-one specific names concerned are the oldest available for the species con- cerned, and I accordingly now submit herewith a Draft Direction for the placing of these names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. In the same Draft Direction I have included a proposal that the name Psopha Fieber, 1852, should be placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. Reference to Opinion 149 will show (: 154—155) that this name is invalid, as it is a junior homonym of Psopha Billberg, 1828, and that it was for this reason that the variant form Psophus Fieber, 1853, was placed on the Official List in place of the foregoing name. 3. Once a decision has been taken on the Draft Direction now sub- mitted, the codification of the Opinions included in volume 2 of the work “ Opinions and Declarations’ will have been completed, and it will be possible at once to prepare and publish the long-overdue Index Part for this volume. Annexe to the Note by the Secretary covering Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(54)5 ADDITION TO THE ‘* OFFICIAL LISTS ”? AND ** OFFICIAL INDEXES ”? OF THE NAMES DEALT WITH IN ** OPINION ” 149 Draft Direction In accordance with the General Directive issued to the Commission by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948, that it should place on the appropriate Official Lists and Official Indexes scientific names dealt with in Opinions rendered prior to that date, the following names dealt with in Opinion 149 are hereby placed on the under-mentioned Official Lists and Official Indexes :— (1) The under-mentioned specific names (being the names of the type species of the twenty-one genera, the names of which were placed on DIRECTION 5 659 the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology under Opinion 149) are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology :— (a) rossia Rossi, 1790, as published in the combination Mantis rossia ; (b) aptera Charpentier, 1825, as published in the combination Forficula aptera ; (c) tenuis Perty, 1832, as published in the combination Mastax tenuis; (d) glabra Herbst, 1786, as published in the combination Locusta glabra; (e) maculicollis Serville, 1831, as published in the combination Gryllacris maculicollis ; (f) gryllotalpa Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Gryllus gryllotalpa; (g) talpoides Walker, 1871, as published in the combination Hemimerus talpoides ; (h) minor Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Forficula minor ; (i) punctatissima Bosc, 1792. as published in the combination Locusta punctatissima ; (j) religiosus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Gryllus religiosus; (k) acervorum Panzer, [1799], as published in the combination Blatta acervorum; (l) caerulescens Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Gryllus caerulescens ; (m) siccifolius Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Gryllus siccifolius ; (n) obscura Walker, 1869, as published in the combination Tarraga obscura ; (0) gigantea Klug, 1820, as published in the combina- tion Proscopia gigantea ; (p) stridulus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Gryllus stridulus ; (q) serrata Fabricius, 1793, as published in the combination Locusta serrata ; (t) monstrosus Drury, [1773], as published in the combination Gryllus monstrosus ; (Ss) caeru- lans Linnaeus, 1767, as published in the combination Gryllus caerulans ; (t) talpa Burmeister, 1838, as published in the combination Steno- pelmatus talpa; (u) paradoxus Latreille, [1802—1803], as published in the combination Tridactylus paradoxus. (2) The under-mentioned generic name is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology ; Psopha Fieber, 1852, (junior homonym of Psopha Billberg, 1828). Il.—DECISION TAKEN BY THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 3. Issue of Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(54)5 : Concurrently with the submission to the Commission of the Draft Direction repro- duced in the annexe to the note by the Secretary reproduced in paragraph 2 above, a Call for a Vote, numbered Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(54)5, was issued on 5th April 1954 under the One- Month Rule. In this Voting Paper each Member of the Com- mission was asked (1) to state whether he agreed “that, in 660 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 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 taken by the Commission prior to 1948, issued to the International Com- mission by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948, the entries recording such decisions taken in Opinion 149 specified in the Draft Direction annexed to the statement submitted by the Secretary simultaneously with the present Voting Paper, should be made, as proposed, in the Official Lists and Official Indexes concerned ’’, 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 5th May 1954. 5. Particulars of the Voting on Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(54)5 : The state of the voting on Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(54)5 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) : Holthuis; Lemche; Vokes; Hering; Bonnet ; Dymond ;_ Sylvester-Bradley ; Mertens; Cabrera ; Esaki ; Stoll ; Jaczewski; Riley ; Pearson ; Hemming ; Bradley (J. C.) ; Boschma ; (b) Negative Votes : None ; (c) Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(54)5 was not returned by two (2) Commissioners! : do Amaral, Hanko. * After the close of the Prescribed Voting Period affirmative Votes were received from Commissioner do Amaral and Commissioner Hanko. DIRECTION 5 661 6. Declaration of Result of Vote: On 6th 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)5, 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. Minute by the Secretary regarding the addition to the “* Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology” of an Invalid Original Spelling for a name dealt with in “ Opinion”? 149 : When preparing the Ruling required to give effect to the vote taken by the Commission on Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(54)5, the Secretary on Ist June 1954 placed on the Commission’s File (File Z.N.(G.) 67) relating to this case the following Minute dealing with a point which had not been expressly raised in the foregoing Voting Paper :— Insertion in the forthcoming ‘‘ Direction ’’ codifying the Ruling given in ‘‘ Opinion ”’ 149 of a Ruling placing on the ‘‘ Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology ’”’ an Invalid Original Spelling of a generic name placed on the ‘* Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ’’ by the Ruling given in that ‘‘ Opinion ”’ MINUTE by FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E., Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature It will be necessary in the forthcoming Direction codifying the Ruling given in Opinion 149 to take account of a small consequential effect of a correction published in 1945 of an incorrect entry inadvertently included in the foregoing Opinion when first published in 1943. The facts in regard to this matter are the following. Twenty-one generic names in the Order Orthoptera (Class Insecta) were placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology by the Ruling given in Opinion 149. Of these one was the generic name published by Fieber in 1852 with the defective spelling Sphingonothus. By an unfortunate oversight this name was included in the above Opinion under the foregoing incorrect spelling instead of under the emended spelling Sphingonotus. This oversight was corrected in a Supplementary Note published in 1945 (Ops. Decls. int. Comm. zool. Nomencl. 2 : (15)— (18) ). The publication of the foregoing Note secured the substitution 662 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS on the Official List of the emended spelling Sphingonotus in place of the Invalid Original Spelling Sphingonothus. 2. The action described above completed all the action in this matter that was necessary in 1945 but, as the result of two decisions taken by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948, supplementary action in one regard is now called for. The decisions referred to above are :—(1) The Paris Congress established an Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology and directed that all invalid names dealt with by the Commission in its Opinions should be inscribed in this Index. (2) The Congress further directed the Commission to review all Opinions previously rendered by it for the purpose of complying with the foregoing, and certain other, procedural decisions then taken. Under the above decisions the spelling Sphingonothus, rejected by the Commission as an Invalid Original Spelling for the name so published by Fieber in 1852, now falls automatically to be placed on the Official Index established by the Paris Congress. 8. On 3rd June 1954 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.)(54)5, as clarified in one respect by the Minute reproduced in paragraph 7 above. 9. The following are the original references for the names placed on Official Lists and Official Indexes by the Ruling given in the present Direction :— acervorum, Blatta, Panzer, [1799], Faun. Ins. germ. (68) : tab. 24 aptera, Forficula, Charpentier, 1825, Hor. Ent. : 69 caerulans, Gryllus, Linnaeus, 1767, Syst. Nat. (ed. 12) 1(2) : 701 caerulescens, Gryllus, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 432 gigantea, Proscopia, Klug, 1820, Hor. phys. Berol. : 18 glabra, Locusta, Herbst, 1786, in Fuessly, Arch. Ins. 7 : 193 gryllotalpa, Gryllus, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 428 maculicollis, Gryllacris, Serville, 1831, Ann. Sci. nat. 22(86) : 139 minor, Forficula, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 423 monstrosus, Gryllus, Drury, [1773], I/l. nat. Hist. 2 : index & 81 obscura, Tarraga, Walker, 1869, Cat. Dermapt. Saltat. Brit. Mus. 1 : 100 paradoxus, Tridactylus, Latreille, [1802—1803], in Sonnini’s Buffon, Hist. nat. gén. partic, Crust. Ins. 3: 276 DIRECTION 5 663 Psopha Fieber, 1852, in Kelch, Grundl. Orth. Obersches. : 2 punctatissima, Locusta, Bosc, 1792, Actes Soc. Hist. nat. Paris 1(1) : 45 religiosus, Gryllus, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 426 rossia, Mantis, Rossi, 1790, Faun. etrusc. 1 : 259 serrata, Locusta, Fabricius, 1793, Ent. syst. 2 : 43 siccifolius, Gryllus, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 425 Spingonothus Fieber, 1852, in Kelch, Grundl. Orth. Obersches. : 2 stridulus, Gryllus, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 432 talpa, Stenopelmatus, Burmeister, 1838, Handb. Ent. 2(2) (No. 1) : 721 talpoides, Hemimerus, Walker, 1871, Cat. Dermapt. Saltat. Brit. Mus. 5 Suppl. Dermapt. Salt. : 2 tenuis, Mastax, Perty, 1832, Del. Anim. artic. Brasil (2) : 123 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 Five (5) of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. DONE in London, this Twelfth day of June, Nineteen Hundred and Fifty-Four. Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature FRANCIS HEMMING NOTICE TO SUBSCRIBERS It is expected that this volume will be complete on the publication of three further Parts (Parts 55—57). Of these, Parts 55 and 56 will, it is anticipated, be devoted to two further Directions codifying decisions taken in Opinions included in the present volume. Part 57 will contain the Title Page and Indexes for this volume. | Printed in England by Mretcatre & CoopEeR 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 2. Part 55. Pp. 665—684 DIRECTION 6 Addition to the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology of the names MEROPIDAE (Class Aves) and MEROPEIDAE and TINGIDAE (Class Insecta) LONDON : Printed by Order of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature and Sold on behalf of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature by the International Trust at its Publications Office 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7 1954 Price Ten Shillings (All rights reserved) _ Issued 6th December, 1954 INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE COMPOSITION AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THE RULING GIVEN IN DIRECTION 6 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 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-Universitdat zu Berlin, Germanyy (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.) (A2th August 1953) Professor Béla Hanké (Mezogazdasadgi Muzeum, Budapest, Hungary) (A2th 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. Holthuis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) (12th August 1953) DIRECTION 6 ADDITION TO THE “OFFICIAL LIST OF FAMILY- GROUP NAMES IN ZOOLOGY ” OF THE NAMES MEROPIDAE (CLASS AVES) AND MEROPEIDAE AND TINGIDAE (CLASS INSECTA) RULING :—(1) The under-mentioned family-group names dealt with in the Opinions severally specified below, are hereby placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology as Name Nos. | to 3 respectively :— (a) MEROPIDAE Lesson, [1830] (type genus: Merops Linnaeus, 1758) (form for this family-name designated by the Ruling given in Opinion 140) (Class Aves) ; (b) MEROPEIDAE (emend. of MEROPIDAE) Tillyard, 1919 (type genus : Merope Newman, 1838) (form for this family-name designated by the Ruling given in Opinion 140) (Class Insecta, Order Mecop- tera) ; (c) TINGIDAE (emend. of TINGINI) Costa (A.), 1838 (type genus: Tingis Fabricius, 1803) (form for this family-name designated by the Ruling given in Opinion 143) (Class Insecta, Order Hemi- ptera) ; , (2) The under-mentioned family-group names dealt with in the Opinions severally specified below are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology with the Name Nos. there specified :— (a) MEROPIDAE Tillyard, 1919 (an Invalid Original Spelling for MEROPEIDAE (Opinion 140)) (Name No. 1); (b) the under-mentioned family-group names for the family-group having Tingis Fabricius, 1803, as its type genus, being invalid names by reason of consisting of vernacular (French) words and 668 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS not Latinised words (Opinion 143) (Name Nos. 2 to 4 respectively) :— (1) TINGIDES Amyot & Serville, 1843 ; (ii) TINGIDITES Laporte, 1833 ; (iii) TINGIDITES Spinola, 1837 ; (c) the under-mentioned family-group names for the family-group having Tingis Fabricius, 1803, as their respective type genera, being invalid names by reason of their having been formed in a manner inconsistent with the Ruling given in Opinion 143 (Name Nos. 5 to 14 respectively) :— (i) TINGIDARIA Distant, 1903 ; (11) TINGIDIDAE Fieber, 1861 ; (iii) TINGIDIDEA Flor, 1860 ; (iv) TINGIDINA Douglas & Scott, 1865 ; (v) TINGIDINAE Van Duzee, 1917; (vi) TINGIDAE Baker (A.C.), 1922 ; (vil) TINGITARIA Stal, 1873 ; (vill) TINGITIDAE Stal, 1873 ; (ix) TINGITINA Stal, 1873 ; (x) TINGITINI Champion, 1897 ; (d) the under-mentioned family-group name for the family-group having Jingis Fabricius, 1803, as its type genus, being an invalid name by reason of being an Invalid Original Spelling (Name No. 15) :—TINGINI Costa (A.), 1838 ; (ec) the under-mentioned family-group names for the family-group having Jingis Fabricius, 1803, as their respective type genera, being invalid names by reason of being junior homonyms of TINGIDAE (emend. of TINGINI) Costa (A.), 1838 (Name Nos. 16 and 17 respectively) :— (1) TINGIDAE Westwood, 1840 ; (ii) TINGIDAE Dohrn, 1859. DIRECTION 6 669 I—THE STATEMENT OF THE CASE On 12th June 1954, Mr. Francis Hemming, as Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, executed a Minute (a) recalling that under the Regulations governing the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology and the corres- ponding Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology, the name of any taxon belonging to that group having as its type genus a genus, the name of which has been placed upon the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology or upon the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology is to be placed upon the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology or, as the case may be, upon the corresponding Official Index of Rejected. and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology, (b) stating that bibliographical and other difficulties had been encountered in preparing the Ruling necessary to give effect to certain decisions taken by the Commission in its vote on Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(54)4 in relation to the family-group names for taxa belonging to this group having Merops Linnaeus, 1758, Merope Newman, 1838, and Tingis Fabricius, 1803, as their respective type genera, (c) expressing the opinion that it was undesirable that the decision of the Com- mission on the numerous other matters covered by the foregoing Voting Paper should be postponed until the difficulties referred to above had been resolved, and (d) accordingly directing that, pending the further consideration by the International Commission of the family-group names referred to in (b) above, no entries in relation to those names be made either in the Official List or in the Official Index. ‘The text of the Minute by Mr. Hemming sum- marised above has been published in Direction 4 (: 648—649), the Direction embodying the decision taken by the Commission on the proposals dealt with in the Voting Paper referred to above (Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(54)4). 2. The further consultations in regard to the family-group names referred to in the preceding paragraph were concluded by the end of June 1954 and on 2nd July 1954, Mr. Hemming laid 670 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS before the Commission the following paper explaining the investi- gations which he had carried out in this matter and submitting proposals for dealing with the names in question :— Addition of certain family-group names dealt with in ‘‘* Opinions ”’ 140 and 143 to the ‘* Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology ’’ and to the ‘‘ Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology ”’ respectively By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E., Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (Statement dated 2nd July 1954) Included among the proposals for the codification of the Rulings given in Opinions 134 to 160, exclusive of Opinion 149, which I sub- mitted to the Commission on 5th April last with Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(54)4 were proposals for codifying the decisions taken in Opinion 140 and Opinion 143 relating respectively to the family names based upon the generic names Merops Linnaeus, 1758 (Class Aves) and Merope Newman, 1838, (Class Insecta, Order Mecoptera) and upon the generic name Tingis Fabricius, 1803, (Class Insecta, Order Hemiptera). 2. When I came to prepare the detailed Ruling required to give effect to the vote on the foregoing Voting Paper, I found that the Opinions concerned did not contain references to the places where the family-group names in question had first been published. I accordingly sought the help of specialists in the groups concerned. The specialists whom I so consulted were :—(1) for MEROPIDAE : Professor Ernst Mayr ; Colonel R. Meinertzhagen ; (2) for MEROPEIDAE : Mr. N. D. Riley ; Mr. D. E. Kimmins ; (3) for TINGIDAE: Dr. W. E. China. For the reasons explained in Paper No. Z.N.(S.) 844! relating to Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(54)11, whic s being submitted to the Commission simultaneously with the present paper, it was found by the specialist consultants that in many cases it was a matter of great difficulty to trace the place where a given family-group name was first published and that, when a reference had been found, it was not possible to be certain that that reference was in fact a reference to the place where the name in question first appeared in the literature, however carefully the literature was searched. It was found also that the tracking-down of references for family-group names is an extremely laborious and time-consuming process. The grateful thanks of the Commission are due to the specialists who were so kind as to give their valuable time to searching for the references for the family-group names dealt with in the foregoing Opinions. 1 The paper here referred to is reproduced in paragraph 2 of Declaration 18 (1954, Ops. Decls. int. Comm. zool. Nomencl. 6 : i—xx). DIRECTION 6 671 3. The Prescribed Voting Period for Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(54)4, the Voting Paper containing, inter alia, proposals for codifying the family-group names dealt with in Opinions 140 and 143 expired on 5th May 1954, but by the second week in June it had still not been possible to trace all the essential bibliographical references for the family-group names in question. Accordingly, on 12th June, 1954, I executed a Minute on File Z.N.(G.) 67, in which I, first, directed that the proposals relating to the codification of the Rulings in regard to family-group names given in the foregoing Opinions should be withdrawn for further examination, and, second, completed the Direction required to give effect to the vote taken by the Commission on the foregoing Voting Paper, other than that in respect of the questions which had been temporarily withdrawn. The effect of the decision given in the foregoing Minute was to permit the immediate despatch to the printer of the Direction referred to above (Direction 47), while at the same time clearing the ground for the present re-submission to the Commission of proposals relating to the reserved question relating to the family-group names dealt with in Opinions 140 and 143. 4. I now submit revised proposals for the codification of the Rulings in regard to family-group names given in the foregoing Opinions. The proposals in question are set out in the Annexe to the present note. It will be noted (1) that a bibliographical reference (author, date, and place of publication) has now been added in respect of each name, and (2) that proposals have been included for the addition to the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology (a) of the name MEROPIDAE Tillyard, 1919, rejected in favour of MEROPEIDAE by the Ruling given in Opinion 140 and (b) of the numerous variant forms for the family-group name TINGIDAE which, without being listed, were rejected by the Commission by the Ruling given in Opinion 143. It was by inadvertence only that proposals on this last- named subject were not included in the recommendation submitted with Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(54)4. 5. Of the proposals now submitted, the only one which calls for any explanation is that in relation to the name TINGIDAE and its variants. First, it has to be noted that the two? first family-group names to be published with the genus Tingis Fabricius, 1803, as the type genus of the nominal family-group so established were both French vernacular names. These were the names TINGIDITES Laporte, 1833, and TINGI- DITES Spinola, 1837 (not “ 1840’, as commonly, though incorrectly, stated, this latter date being that of the second edition of Spinola’s Essai). Under the Copenhagen decisions (1953, Copenhagen Decisions 2 Direction 4 was published in October 1954 (Ops. Decls. int. Comm. zool. Nomencl. 2 : 629—652). 3 Later, Commissioner Jaczewski pointed out that the name TINGIDES Amyot & Serville, 1843, was also a vernacular word and not a Latinised word (see paragraph 8 of the present Direction). It has accordingly so been recorded in the present Direction (see paragraph 4 of the Minute by the Secretary repro- duced in paragraph 11 of the present Direction). 672 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS zool. Nomencl. : 35—36, Decision 53), the foregoing names are ineligible for consideration, since they are vernacular words and not Latinised words and their acceptance is not necessary in the interest of maintaining stability in the nomenclature of the group concerned. The third and next family-group name based upon the name Tingis Fabricius, 1803, was published in 1838. This was TINGINI Costa, 1838, a name published for a taxon of family rank. It was not until 1840 that the name was published by Westwood in the form TINGIDAE, the form approved by the Commission in Opinion 143. Westwood cited a number of synonyms, among them, TINGIDITES Laporte, 1833, but expressly treated himself as the author of this name (citing it as ‘““TINGIDAE Westw.’’). He did not refer to TINGINI Costa. Under the decision by the Copenhagen Congress that the relative status of family-group names is to be determined by the principle of priority and that, where a name of Greek or Latin origin is incorrectly formed, it is to be emended, the family-group here under consideration ranks for the purposes of priority from 1838 and not from 1840 and is attributable to Costa and not to Westwood. Proposals for the form of notation to be adopted in making entries on either the Official List or the Official Index of family-group names in a case such as the present have been submitted as Point (2) of the four proposals placed before the Commission in Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(54)114 submitted simultaneously with the present proposals. ANNEXE Draft of a ‘* Direction ’’ for the codification of certain family-group names dealt with in ‘* Opinion ”’ 140 and ‘‘ Opinion ’”’ 143 OPINION 140: (1) The following names to be placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology:— (a) MEROPIDAE Lesson, [1830], Traité d’Ornith. : 236 (type genus : Merops Linnaeus, 1758) (form of family-name approved in Opinion 140) (b) MEROPEIDAE (emend. of MEROPIDAE made by Ruling given in Opinion 140) Tillyard, 1919, Proc. linn. Soc. N.S.W. 44 : 603 (type genus : Merope Newman, 1838). (2) The following name to be placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology: MEROPIDAE Tillyard, 1919, Proc. linn. Soc. N.S.W. 44 : 603 (type genus : Merope Newman, 1838) (an Invalid Original Spelling rejected in favour of MEROPEIDAE by the Ruling given in Opinion 140). OPINION 143: (1) The following name to be placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology: TINGIDAE (emend. of TINGINI made by Ruling given in Opinion 143) Costa (A.), 1838, Cimicum 4 The decision taken by the Commission on Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(54)11 has been given in Declaration 18. See footnote 1. DIRECTION 6 673 Regni Neap. Centuria prima : 18 (name given to a family) (type genus : _Tingis Fabricius, 1803) (first published in the form TINGIDAE by Westwood, 1840 Untrod. mod. Class Ins. 2 Syn. : 120), by whom this was treated as a new name). (3) The following names, each having Tingis Fabricius, 1803, as the type genus of the family-group so named, to be placed on the Official Index of Rejected Family-Group Names in Zoology:— (a) TINGIDITES Laporte, 1833, Mag. Zool. 2 (Suppl.) : 4—47* (name given to a family) (invalid because a vernacular (French) word and not a Latinised word) (b) TiNGIDITES Spinola, 1837, Essai Ins. Hémipt. : 68 (name given to a family) (invalid because a vernacular (French) word and not a Latinised word) Notes:—(1) Spinola’s work is often incorrectly treated as having been published in 1840. This is the date of publication of the second edition of Spinola’s Essai, the first edition of which was published in 1837. (2) There is nothing whatever in Spinola’s Essai to suggest that the name TINGIDITES, as there published, was anything but a new name. (c) the following names, each of which is a junior objective synonym of TINGIDAE (emend. of TINGINI) Costa, 1838 :— (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) (vi) (vii) (viii) TINGIDARIA Distant, 1903, Faun. Brit. Ind., Rhyng. 2 : 130 (name given to a tribe) TINGIDES Amyot & Serville, 1843, Hist. nat. Ins. Hémipt. : 295 (name given to a family) TINGIDINA Douglas & Scott, 1865, Brit. Hemipt. 1 Heteropt. : 23 (name given to a superfamily) TINGIDINAE Van Duzee, 1917, Univ. Calif. Publ. Ent. 2 : 211+ (name given to a subfamily) TINGIDAE Baker (A.C.), 1922, Science 55 (1456) : 603 (an Invalid Emendation of TINGIDAE Westwood, 1840) TINGINI Costa (A.), 1838, Cimicum Regni Neap. Centuria prima : 18 (an Invalid Original Spelling emended to TINGIDAE by Ruling given in Opinion 143) TINGITARIA Stal, 1873, K. Svensk. Vet.-Akad. Handl., Stockholm 11 (No. 2) : 118 (name given to a tribe) TINGITIDAE Stal, 1873, K. Svensk. Vet.-Akad. Handl., Stockholm 11 (No. 2) : 115 * The paper in which this name was first published is frequently cited under its title as “* Essai Class. Syst. Hémipt.”’ instead of under the serial in which it was published. + The whole of the volume in question was devoted to the Catalogue of Hemiptera of America North of Mexico. 674 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS (ix) TINGITINA Stal, 1873, K. Svensk. Vet.-Akad. Handl., Stockholm 11 (No. 2): 116 (name given to a sub- family) (x) TINGITINI Champion, 1897, Biol. centr.-amer., Heteropt. 2 : 5 (name given to a tribe). 3. Registration of the present application: On receipt, the present application was allotted the Registered Number Z.N.(G.) 67/6. Il—THE DECISION TAKEN BY THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 4. Issue of Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(54)12 : Concurrently with the submission to the Commission of the Draft Direction given in the Annexe to the note numbered Z.N.(G.) 67/6 by the Secretary reproduced in paragraph 2 above, a Call for a Vote, numbered Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(54)12, was issued on 2nd July 1954 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 taken by the Commission prior to 1948, issued to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948, the entries recording such decisions taken in relation to family-group names in Opinions 140 and 143 specified in the draft Direction annexed to the statement submitted by the Secretary simultaneously with the present Voting Paper, should be made, as proposed, in the Official List, and in the Official Index of Family-Group Names ”’, and (2) if he did not so agree as regards any given item, to indicate the item concerned. 5. 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) had duly received the Voting Papers issued to them, the Secretary gave directions on DIRECTION 6 675 2nd August, 1954 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. 6. Comment received from Commissioner L. B. Holthuis: On 3rd July 1954, Commissioner L. B. Holthuis addressed a letter, reproduced as Document 1 in the Annexe to the present Direction, raising objection to the placing on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Names of certain of the names so proposed to be placed. On 16th July 1954, the Secretary replied expressing the view that these objections were based upon a misunderstanding of the reasons on account of which the proposals in question had been put forward (Annexe, Document 2) and further explaining those proposals. Dr. Holthuis replied on 21st July 1954 giving reasons why he felt bound to adhere to the view expressed in his earlier letter (Annexe, Document 3). On 22nd July 1954, Mr. Hemming wrote, taking note of Dr. Holthuis’s position in this matter (Annexe, Document 4). 7. Comment received from Commissioner Harold E. Vokes: On 7th July 1954, Commissioner Harold E. Vokes returned his com- pleted Voting Paper, on which, after voting against the proposals submitted as (ili) (TINGIDINA) and (iv) (TINGIDINAE) in paragraph (2)(c) of the draft annexed to the Secretary’s paper of 2nd July 1954, he added the following note: “I do not wish to suppress super- family or subfamily names as objective synonyms of family names ’”’. In acknowledging receipt (on 23rd July) of Commissioner Vokes’s Voting Paper, the Secretary drew attention to the fact that the proposal submitted in regard to the names cited by Commissioner Vokes was not that they should be suppressed as objective synonyms of the family name TINGIDAE but that they should be rejected, and therefore placed on the Official Index, by reason of the fact that they were formed in a manner which was inconsistent with the Ruling given in Opinion 143 that at the family-name level the correct formation of the family-group name for the taxon based on the genus Jingis Fabricius, 1803 was TINGIDAE and therefore that the two names in question were incorrectly formed. 8. Comment received from Commissioner T. Jaczewski: On 17th July 1954, Commissioner T. Jaczewski, when returning his 676 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS completed Voting Paper, drew attention to two further family- group names based upon the generic name Tingis Fabricius, 1803, which he suggested should be placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology at the same time as the names enumerated in paragraph (2) of the draft annexed to the Secretary’s paper of 2nd July 1954 (reproduced in paragraph 2 of the present Direction) :— The list of junior objective synonyms to be rejected should be com- pleted by the following entry : TINGIDIDAE Fieber (F.X.), 1861, Europ. Hemipt. : 24, 35, 116, this entry to be inserted between Entry (ii) and Entry (iii). This seems to be the oldest of that form of the name which I have been able to trace. In Flor (G.), 1860 (Rhynchoten Livlands 1 : 65, 317) I find still another form of the name, namely, TINGIDIDEA Fieber, but I am unable to find the corresponding publica- tion of Fieber. In Entry (ii) the name was given by Amyot et Serville not to a Family but to a “group”. Moreover, it was treated as a vernacular French word, as is clearly evident when we compare the spelling of the name of the same level on page 303, namely, Brachy- rhyquides. 9. Particulars of the Voting on Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(54)12 : The state of the voting on Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(54)12 at the close of the Prescribed Voting Period 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 (save as respects the six items specified in (b) below) ; Hering ; Vokes (save as respects the two items specified in (b) below); Cabrera; Esaki; Lemche ; Hemming; Stoll; Sylvester-Bradley ; Pearson; do Amaral; Mertens; Jaczewski; Bonnet; Boschma (save as respects the three items specified in (b) below) ; Riley ; Bradley (J.C.) ; Dymond ; (b) Negative Votes had been given by the following three (3) Commissioners in respect of the items severally specified below ; Holthuis, in respect of the names TINGIDARIA, TINGIDES, TINGIDINA, TINGITARIA, TINGITINA, TINGITINI ; Vokes in DIRECTION 6 677 respect of the names TINGIDARIA and TINGITARIA ; Boschma in respect of the names TINGIDARIA, TINGI- | TARIA and TINGITINI?; (c) Voting Paper not returned, one (1) : Hanko. 10. 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)12, 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. Supplementary Decisions on certain points: On 11th September 1954, Mr. Francis Hemming, as Secretary to the International Commission, reviewed the comments received from Professor Jaczewski during the Voting Period and the other material available in regard to the present case, and in the light of this review executed the following Minute giving a Supple- mentary Direction in regard to certain matters arising out of the foregoing review :— Family-Group Names based upon the generic name ** Tingis ”’ Fabricius, 1803 : Supplementary Direction MINUTE dated 11th September 1954 by FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E., Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature In his Minute dated 17th July 1954, Commissioner T. Jaczewski has drawn attention to two invalid forms of the family-group name for the 5 In notifying his reservation on the proposals submitted, Commissioner Boschma endorsed his Voting Paper as follows : —‘‘ except the names for Tingidae established for tribes:’’. Three names so established had been cited in the paper containing the proposals submitted for decision in Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(54)12, and these names have accordingly been entered in the present paragraph as having been voted against by Commissioner Boschma. 678 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS taxon of that group having the genus Tingis Fabricius, 1803, as its type species, namely (a) TINGIDIDAE Fieber (F.X.), 1861 ; (b) TINGIDIDEA Flor (G.), 1860, this name being attributed by Flor to Fieber. Com- missioner Jaczewski has, however, been unable to trace any paper by Fieber containing this name, which must therefore be treated as having been a manuscript name of Fieber’s at the time when it was published by Flor in 1860 or perhaps as a misprint for Fieber’s name TINGIDIDAE at that time still a manuscript name. 2. In the same Minute, Commissioner Jaczewski (a) drew attention to the name TINGIDES Amyot & Serville, 1843, which had been entered (as Item (2) (c) (ii)) in the list of invalid forms of the family-group name for the taxon based upon the genus Tingis Fabricius, 1803, which it had been recommended in the Draft Direction set out in the Annexe to my paper Z.N.(G.) 67/6 of 2nd July 1954 should be placed upon the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology, and (b) furnished evidence to show that, in addition to being invalid as being formed in a manner inconsistent with the Ruling given in Opinion 143 (as had been pointed out in the paper referred to above), the name TINGIDES Amyot & Serville, 1843, was invalid by reason of having been published as a vernacular French word and not as a Latinised word. 3. In reviewing the material relating to the present case in preparation of the Ruling to be prepared for the forthcoming Direction, I have observed, with reference to the name TINGIDAE as published inde- pendently by Westwood in 1840 and by Dohrn in 1859, to which attention had been drawn by Dr. W. E. China (British Museum (Natural History), London) in the letter dated 3rd June 1954, in which he had furnished the information which formed the basis of the proposals in relation to Opinion 143 included in the Draft Direction annexed to my Paper of 2nd July 1954, that when I had omitted the foregoing names in compiling the list of invalidly formed family-group names based on the genus Tingis Fabricius, 1803, to be recommended for addition to the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology, 1 had by some inadvertence omitted to add the further recommendation that the names TINGIDAE Westwood, 1840, and TINGIDAE Dohrn, 1859, being junior homonyms of the name TINGIDAE (emend. of TINGINI) Costa, 1838, should on that account be placed on the Official Index referred to above, as is required under the General Directive issued to the Commission by the International Congress of Zoology that Rulings given by it are in any given case to cover the whole field involved in that case. 4. In the circumstances described above, I now, acting as Secretary to the International Commission, hereby direct that in the Ruling to be given in the present case :—(1) the names TINGIDIDEA Flor, 1860, and TINGIDIDAE Fieber (F.X.), 1861, be included among the invalidly formed family-group names for the taxon based upon the genus DIRECTION 6 679 Tingis Fabricius, 1803, to be entered upon the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology ; (2) the name TINGIDES Amyot & Serville, 1843, previously proposed to be entered on the foregoing Official Index as an invalidly formed family-group name for the taxon based upon the genus Tingis Fabricius, 1803, be entered upon the said Official Index as being an invalid name by reason of its being a vernacular French word and not a Latinised word ; (3) the names TINGIDAE Westwood, 1840, and TINGIDAE Dohrn, 1859, being junior homonyms of the name TINGIDAE (emend. of TINGINI) Costa, 1838, be entered as such upon the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology. 12. On 12th September 1954, 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.)(54)12, subject to the amplifications specified in the Supplementary Direction given in his Minute dated 11th September 1954 (repro- duced in paragraph 11 of the present Direction). 13. The following are the original references for the family- group names placed on the Official List and Official Index for such names by the Ruling given in the present Direction:— MEROPEIDAE (emend. of MEROPIDAE made by the Ruling given in Opinion 143) Tillyard, 1919, Proc. linn. Soc. N.S.W. 44 : 603 MEROPIDAE Lesson, [1830], Traité d’ Ornith. : 236 MEROPIDAE Tillyard, 1919, Proc. linn. Soc. N.S.W. 44 : 603 TINGIDAE (emend. of TINGINI) Costa (A.), 1838, Cimicum Regni Neap. Centuria prima : 18 TINGIDAE Westwood, 1840, Introd. mod. Class. Ins. 2 : 120 TINGIDAE Dohrn, 1859, Cat. Hemipt., Stettin : 42 TINGIDARIA Distant, 1903, Faun. Brit. Ind., Rhynch. 2 : 130 TINGIDES Amyot & Serville, 1843, Hist. nat. Ins. Hémipt. : 295 TINGIDIDAE Fieber (F.X.), 1861, Europ. Hemipt. : 24, 35, 116 TINGIDIDEA Flor (G.), 1860, Rhynchoten Livlands 1 : 65, 317 TINGIDINA Douglas & Scott, Brit. Hemipt. 1 Heteropt. : 23 680 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS TINGIDINAE Van Duzee, 1917, Univ. Calif. Publ. Ent. 2: 211 (commonly cited under the title of Van Duzee’s paper as ** Cat. Hemipt. Amer. N. of Mexico’’) TINGIDITES Laporte, 1833, Mag. Zool. 2 (Suppl.) : 4—47 (com- monly cited under the title of Laporte’s paper as “ Essai Class. Syst. Hémipt.’’) TINGIDITES Spinola, 1837, Essai Ins. Hémipt. : 68 TINGIDAE Baker (A.C.), 1922, Science 55 (1456) : 603 TINGINI Costa (A.), 1838, Cimicum Regni Neap. Centuria prima : 18 TINGITARIA Stal, 1873, K. Svensk. Vet.-Akad. Handl., Stockholm 11 (No. 2) : 118 (commonly cited as vol. 3 of Stal’s “ Enum. Hemipt.’’) TINGITIDAE Stal, 1873, K. Svensk. Vet.-Akad. Handl., Stockholm 11 (No. 2) : 115 TINGITINA Stal, 1873, K. Svensk. Vet.-Akad. Handl., Stockholm 11 (No. 2) : 116 TINGITINI Champion, 1897, Biol. centr-amer., Heteropt. 25 14. 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 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. 15. The present Direction shall be known as Direction Six (6) of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Done in London, this Twenty-Second day of September 1954, Nineteen Hundred and Fifty-Four. Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature FRANCIS HEMMING DIRECTION 6 681 ANNEXE Correspondence between Mr. Francis Hemming, Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenciature, and Dr. L. B. Holthuis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) in regard to the proposed rejection of certain incorrectly-formed family-group names based upon the generic name ‘‘ Tingis ”’ Fabricius, 1803 DOCUMENT | Letter, dated 3rd July 1954, from Dr. L. B. Holthuis to Mr. Francis Hemming Family group names of “ Opinions’? 140 and 143 on the “* Official List” I agree with the Draft Direction annexed to Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(54)12, except for the fact that I cannot see the use of having the names TINGIDARIA, TINGIDES, TINGIDINA, TINGITARIA, TINGITINA and TINGITINI placed on the Official Index. It seems to me that, since the Copenhagen Congress decided that no endings are prescribed for the units of the Family-Group other than the family and subfamily, these just cited names potentially are available for tribes, superfamilies etc. To place these names on the Index would preclude their use, quite unnecessary, for these categories of the family-group, which seems not right to me. My objection does not cover the names TINGIDINAE, TINGUDAE, and TINGITIDAE, as these end in -inae or -idae and thus cannot be used but for subfamilies and families. The name TINGINI Costa, which is the unemended form of the emended and officially recognised name TINGIDAE, should, I believe be inserted in the Index with the express statement that this name cannot be used for a family or subfamily name, but that it is available as a name for other units within the family-group. This same procedure, of course, could be applied to the names TINGIDARIA, TINGIDES, TINGIDINA, TINGITARIA, TINGITINA and TINGITINI, but it seems more reasonable to leave these out altogether. 682 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS DOCUMENT 2 Letter, dated 16th July 1954, from Mr. Francis Hemming Dr. L. B. Holthuis Incorrect variant forms of family-group names based on the generic name “* Tingis’’ Fabricius I am writing to you on this subject because it is, I think, clear from your letter of 3rd July that I did not succeed in making the meaning of my proposal sufficiently clear ; in consequence your vote in favour of excluding from the Official Index certain of the names which I had proposed should be added thereto. (1) The name TINGIDES is a name given to a family as such and the objections raised in your letter do not therefore apply to it. I think therefore that it must have been included in your reservation by some accident. (2) Two of the other names on your list—TINGIDINA and TINGITINA— were given to subfamilies as such, and, as the Congress has laid down a definite method for forming subfamily names, these names also fall outside the scope of your argument. (3) I quite agree that the Congress has not at present agreed upon terminations for any categories in the family-group other than families and subfamilies, but I suggest that for the present purpose this is not relevant. What is relevant—and what seems to me to be the only thing that is relevant in the present context—is whether each of the family-group names with which we are here concerned is formed in such a way that, if the termination is left out of account, the name is formed in accordance with the Ruling given by the Commission in Opinion 143. To take an example, the question which we have to ask ourselves is whether a tribe name formed with the termination “ -aria ”’ and thus giving the name TINGIDARIA could possibly also give a family name TINGIDAE, the form for the name of this family prescribed in Opinion 143? The answer to this question is clearly “no” because the insertion of the letters “id ’’ after the letter “ g’’ and before the termination “ -aria”’ clearly means that in the opinion of the author concerned the basic portion of the generic name is “ tingid- ”’ and not “* ting- ’’ and in consequence the name for a family in a group, of which the tribe was called TINGIDARIA would inevitably be TINGIDIDAE and not TINGIDAE. In other words, the tribe name TINGIDARIA is an incor- rectly formed name, quite irrespective of the termination used, and ought therefore, as such, to be placed on the Official Index. Exactly similar considerations apply to the other incorrectly formed tribe names cited in your letter, namely, TINGITARIA and TINGITINI (both DIRECTION 6 683 of which would give the family name TINGITIDAE instead of TINGIDAE) and the two subfamily names mentioned in your letter, namely, TINGIDINA and TINGITINA, which would give the family names TINGIDIDAE and TINGITIDAE respectively. The other name, as has already been noted, that you mentioned in your letter, namely, TINGIDES, is merely an incorrectly formed version of the family name TINGIDAE. DOCUMENT 3 Letter, dated 21st July 1954 from Dr. L. B. Holthuis to Mr. Francis Hemming Family-Group names based on “ Tingis ”’ Thank you for your letter of July 16 on this subject. The points which you raise in it will be answered here in the same order. (1) TrINGIDeEs. I fully agree with you that this name cannot be used for a family, and if the Official Index was one of Family (and Sub- family) names only, I would have had no objection at all against inserting it in that Index. But since the possibility exists that in the family-group containing the family TINGIDAE a category will be named TINGIDES, I do not believe it advisable to place the name TINGIDES (even if it originally was proposed for a family) on the Official Index of Family-Group Names in Zoology. As I wrote in my previous letter, I am willing to vote for the insertion in the Index of this name (and of those mentioned under (2) and (3) below) if it is made sufficiently clear that they only are rejected as names for families (and subfamilies) and that they are available for other categories in the family-group. (2) Exactly the same applies to TINGIDINA and TINGITINA. (3) The names TINGIDARIA, TINGITARIA, and TINGITINI are rejected by you since they are formed of the basic portion Tingid- or Tingit- with the ending -aria or -ini. I do not see why these names could not have been formed of the basic portion Ting- and the endings -idaria, -itaria or -itini. (Would it not be nice to have a tribe TINGIDARIA with a subtribe TINGINARIA, similar to the family name TINGIDAE and the subfamily name TINGINAE?) Since the endings of tribes etc. are not prescribed by the Congress, I suppose that they can have any form, including those of -idaria, -itaria, and -itini. I have carefully considered this question, but as yet I see no reason to change my vote. 684 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS DOCUMENT 4 Extract from letter, dated 22nd July 1954, from Mr. Francis Hemming to Dr. L. B. Holthuis * Tingis’”’: family-group names Your letter of 21st July. I note that you wish your earlier vote to stand in this matter. I will record your vote accordingly. Speaking personally, I think that it is a pity, for no-one can seriously suppose that anyone has ever published a family-group name with a termination beginning with the letter ““d’’. Still less is there any chance that any- one will propose the adoption of terminations so formed or that, if anyone did so, such a proposal would secure any support. There is, in my opinion, no room for doubt that the spellings in question in the present case are anything more than misspellings due to the authors concerned having formed those names in a manner inconsistent with the Ruling given by the Commission in Opinion 143 that at the family-name level the name belonging to the family-group based on the generic name Tingis Fabricius is to be spelled TINGIDAE. Printed in England by MretcaLFrE & Cooper LimiTED, 10-24 Scrutton St., London E C 2 lux OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTER- NATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Edited by FRANCIS HEMMING, cC.M.G., C.B.E. Secretary to the Commission VOLUME 2. Part 56. Pp. 685—696 DIRECTION 7 Determination of the gender to be attributed to certain generic names placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology by the Rulings given in Opinions 134 to 181 LONDON : Printed by Order of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature | and ; Sold on behalf of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature by the International Trust at its Publications Office 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7 1954 Price Six Shillings (All rights reserved) Issued 6th December, 1954 INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE COMPOSITION AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THE RULING GIVEN IN DIRECTION 7 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. wees Pearson (Tasmania Museum, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia) (27th July 194 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. Pos 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) (A2th 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 (Mezébgazdasagi 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) (i2th August 1953) Dr. L. B. Holthuis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Nether- lands) (A2th August 1953) DIRECTION 7 DETERMINATION OF THE GENDER TO BE ATTRIBUTED TO CERTAIN GENERIC NAMES PLACED ON THE ** OFFICIAL LIST OF GENERIC NAMES IN ZOOLOGY ” BY THE RULINGS GIVEN IN ‘* OPINIONS ” 134 TO 181 RULING :—(1) The gender to be attributed to each of the under-mentioned generic names dealt with in the Opinions severally noted below is hereby determined as being the masculine gender :—(i) Bacillus St. Fargeau & Serville, 1825 (Opinion 149); (ii) Bethylus Latreille, [1802—1803] (Opinion 153); (itt) Bracon Fabricius, [1804—1805] (Opinion 162); (av) Cephus Latreille, [1802—1803] (Opinion 139) ; (v) Ceraphron Jurine, 1807 (Opinion 174) ; (vi) Cimbex Olivier 1790 (Opinion 144) ; (vii) Crabro Fabricius, 1775 (Opinion 144) ; (viii) Cryptus Fabricius, [1804—1805] (Opinion 157); (ix) Diprion Schrank, 1802 (Opinion 157) ; (x) Dryinus Latreille, 1804 (Opinion 153) ; (xi) Ephialtes Gravenhorst, 1829 (Opinion 159); (xii) Hemimerus Walker, 1871 (Opinion 149) ; (xiii) Ichneumon, Linnaeus, 1758 (Opinion 159); (xiv) Lasius Fabricius, [1804—1805] (Opinion 151); (xv) Leptophyes Fieber, 1852 (Opinion 149) ; (xvi) Myrmeco- philus Berthold, 1827 (Opinion 149); (xvii) Pompilus Fabricius, 1798 (Opinion 166); (xviii) Proctotrupes Latreille, 1796 (Opinion 178) ; (xix) Psophus Fieber, 1853 (Opinion 149) ; (xx) Satyrus Latreille, 1810 (Opinion 142) ; (xxi) Schizodactylus Brullé, 1835 (Opinion 149); (xxii) Sphex Linnaeus, 1758 (Opinion 180) ; (xxi) Sphingonotus Fieber, 1852 (Opinion 149); (xxiv) Stenopelmatus Bur- meister, 1838 (Opinion 149); (xxv) Torymus Dalman, 1820 (Opinion 155); (xxvi) Tridactylus Olivier, 1789 (Opinion 149). (2) The gender to be attributed to each of the under- mentioned generic names dealt with in the Opinions severally noted below is hereby determined as being the feminine gender :—(i) Ammophila Kirby, 1798 (Opinion 180) ; (ii) Anthophora Latreille, 1803 (Opinion 151) ; (ii) Arge Schrank, 1802 (Opinion 157); (iv) Argynnis 688 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS Fabricius, 1807 (Opinion 161) ; (v) Astata Latreille, 1796 (Opinion 139); (vi) Chelidura Berthold, 1827 (Opinion 149) ; (vii) Colias Fabricius, 1807 (Opinion 146) ; (vii) Euploea Fabricius, 1807 (Opinion 163); (ix) Euthalia Hiibner, [1819] (Opinion 167); (x) Gampsocleis Fieber, 1852 (Opinion 149); (xi) Gryllacris Serville, 1831 (Opinion 149); (xii) Helicopis Fabricius, 1807 (Opinion 137); (xiii) Labia Leach, 1815 ( Opinion 149) ; (xiv) Locusta Linnaeus, 1758 (Opinion 158); (xv) Oedipoda Latreille, 1829 (Opinion 149); (xvi) Phaneroptera Serville, 1831 (Opinion 154); (xvii) Pimpla Fabricius, [1804—1805] (Opinion 159); (xviii) Pontia Fabricius, 1807 (Opinion 137); (xix) Proscopia Klug, 1820 (Opinion 149) ; (xx) Saga Charpentier, 1825 (Opinion 149) ; (xxi) Vanessa Fabricius, 1807 (Opinion 156). (3) The gender to be attributed to each of the under- mentioned generic names dealt with in the Opinions severally noted below is hereby determined as being the neuter gender :—(i) Nymphidium Fabricius, 1807 (Opinion 171) ; (i) Phyllium Mliger, 1798 (Opinion 149). I.—THE STATEMENT OF THE CASE In Direction 3 (August 1954, Ops. Decls. int. Comm. zool. Nomencl. 3 ; 417—426) the International Commission on Zoo- logical Nomenclature, acting in compliance with the General Directive issued to it by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1949 (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 341) that the gender of each name placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology should be specified in the entry to be made in that List in relation to that name, gave a Ruling regarding the gender to be attributed to the generic names placed on the foregoing Official List in the Opinions rendered prior to 1948 which form the first instalment of the Opinions included in volume 3 of the present series. The present Direction, which — constitutes the second stage in the compliance by the Commission DIRECTION 7 689 with the General Directive referred to above, contains deter- minations of the gender to be attributed to each generic name placed on the Official List by the Commission in volume 2 of the present Series, with the exception of the gender to be attri- buted to six names, decisions on which (as explained in paragraph 5 below) have been temporarily postponed to permit of further examination of the issues involved. Subject to the exception noted above, the present Direction completes the action required to give effect to the General Directive of the Paris Congress in respect of all names placed on the Official List since 1936. The _ proposals on which the present Direction is based were contained in the following paper submitted to the Commission by Mr. Francis Hemming, Secretary to the Commission, on 2nd July 1954 :— Gender to be attributed to the generic names placed on the ‘‘ Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ’’ by Rulings given in ‘** Opinions ”’ 134 to 181 By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E., (Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) By its vote taken on Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(54)6, the Commission discharged, in relation to Opinions 182 to 194, the obligation laid upon it by the General Directive issued by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948, that it should inscribe on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the gender attributable to each generic name which either had already, or might thereafter, be placed upon that Official List. The action so taken completed the action required in connection with the Opinions comprised in Volume 3 of the work Opinions and Declarations and made it possible to arrange to send to the printer the concluding Part (Title Page, Indexes, etc.) of that volume. It is now necessary to take corresponding action in regard to the generic names placed on the Official List by the Rulings given in the Opinions (Opinions 134—181) comprised in volume 2 in the foregoing series. 2. Volume 2 of the work Opinions and Declarations, etc., contains 48 Opinions, in only 23 of which are generic names placed on the Official List. The number of names standardised in this way in those Opinions is 55. It is these names to which it is now necessary to attribute a gender. The names concerned, with particulars of the Opinion in which each was placed on the Official List, are shown in Annexe | to the present note. 3. Consideration was given in May 1951 to the arrangements to be made for obtaining expert advice for the formulation of pro- posals for the consideration of the Commission for the assignment of 690 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS a gender to each generic name placed on the Official List prior to the issue by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology of the General Directive referred to in paragraph 1 above. It was then decided by the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature to secure for this purpose the services of a scholar engaged in teaching the Classical Languages at a leading University, and, after appropriate consultations the Trust then invited Mr. F. J. Lelievre (London University, Bedford College) to undertake this task. Mr. Lelievre accepted this invitation, and in August 1951 he furnished his Report on this subject. In this Report, Mr. Lelievre, after setting out the general principles by which he has guided himself in the task entrusted to him, indicated the gender which, in his opinion, was attributable to each of the 625 generic names concerned. Mr. Lelievre added explanatory notes as regards any name for which he considered this to be necessary. 4. The proposal now submitted to the Commission, which is based upon the Report received from Mr. Lelievre, is that, so far as concerns the generic names placed on the Official List in volume 2 of the work Opinions and Declarations, the gender to be attributed to those names shall be the gender specified in Column (2) of Annexe 1 to the present paper. In Annexe 2 are given notes furnished by Mr. Lelievre in his Report in regard to certain of the names concerned. ANNEXE 1 Gender proposed to be inscribed in the ‘*‘ Official List of Generic Names in Zoology *’ in respect of the names placed on that ‘‘ List ’’ by Rulings given in ‘* Opinions ”’ 134 to 181 Gender proposed “* Opinion’’ in to be assigned which name Generic Name to name specified in Col. specified in Col. (1) was placed (1) on “ Official List? Morpho Fabricius, 1807 Feminine 137 Helicopis Fabricius, 1807 Feminine e Pontia Fabricius, 1807 Feminine 3 Cephus Latreille, [1802—1803] Masculine 139 Astata Latreille, 1796 Feminine a Satyrus Latreille, 1810 Masculine 142 Crabro Fabricius, 1775 Masculine 144 Cimbex Olivier, 1790 Masculine Be Colias Fabricius, 1807 Feminine 146 Bacillus St. Fargeau & Serville, 1825 Masculine 149 Chelidura Berthold, 1827 Feminine 2 Eumastax Burr, 1899 Masculine DIRECTION 7 Generic Name Gampsocleis Fieber, 1852 Gryllacris Serville, 1831 Gryllotalpa Latreille, [1802—1803] Hemimerus Walker, 1871 Labia Leach, 1815 Leptophyes Fieber, 1852 Mantis Linnaeus, 1767 Myrmecophilus Berthold, 1827 Oedipoda Latreille, 1829 Phyllium Mlliger, 1798 Prophalangopsis Walker, 1871 Proscopia Klug, 1820 Psophus Fieber, 1853 Saga Charpentier, 1825 Schizodactylus Brullé, 1835 Sphingonotus Fieber, 1852 Stenopelmatus Burmeister, 1838 Tridactylus Olivier, 1789 Lasius Fabricius, [1804—1805] Anthophora Latreille, 1803 Bethyius Latreille, [1802—1803] Dryinus Latreille, 1804 Phaneroptera Serville, 1831 Tylopsis Fieber, 1835 Torymus Dalman, 1820 Vanessa Fabricius, 1807 Cryptus Fabricius, [1804—1805] Arge Schrank, 1802 Diprion Schrank, 1802 Locusta Linnaeus, 1758 Ichneumon Linnaeus, 1758 Pimpla Fabricius, [1804—1805] Ephialtes Gravenhorst, 1829 Argynnis Fabricius, 1807 Bracon Fabricius, [1804—1805] Euploea Fabricius, 1807 Pompilus Fabricius, 1798 Euthalia Hubner, [1819] Nymphidium Fabricius, 1807 Ceraphron Jurine, 1807 Proctotrupes Latreille, 1796 Sphex Linnaeus, 1758 Ammophila Kirby, 1798 691 Gender proposed “‘ Opinion’’ in to be assigned which name to name specified in Col. specified in Col. (1) was placed (1) on “° Official eiSt Feminine 149 Feminine i Feminine ‘ Masculine im Feminine 5 Masculine “ Masculine Masculine Feminine fe Neuter ie Masculine Yr. Feminine ie Masculine A Feminine Af Masculine _ Masculine " Masculine ie Masculine 5 Masculine 151 Feminine nA Masculine 153 Masculine a Feminine 154 Masculine ee Masculine 155 Feminine 156 Masculine 157 Feminine a Masculine ns Feminine 158 Masculine 159 Feminine is Masculine oe Feminine 161 Masculine 162 Feminine 163 Masculine 166 Feminine 167 Neuter 171 Masculine 174 Masculine 178 Masculine 180 Feminine 2. 692 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS ANNEXE 2 Notes furnished by Mr. F. J. Lelievre on the gender attributable to certain generic names published in volume 2 of the work ‘‘ Opinions and Declarations ”’ (Ed. Note :—Greek words have been transliterated into the Latin alphabet for the purpose of the preparing of this paper.) (1) Prophalangopsis and (2) Tylopsis: ‘‘ Opsis”’ (Greek) feminine, forms feminine compound nouns in the Classical Greek period, * opsis’’ bearing the meaning “‘sight’’, ‘“‘view’’. In later Greek, compound adjectives were formed derived from “ opsis”’ in the sense “‘countenance’’, “‘ aspect’’, ““appearance’’. The affinity of the modern compounds is to the latter: the masculine gender is appropriate. (2) Eumastax : The Greek word “ mastax’’, feminine (=“‘ jaw’). This word did not form any compounds so far as we know. Eumastax in Greek, however, would naturally be classed as an adjective, and on the analogy of compounds formed from words with a similar termination (e.g., aulax, bolax) this adjective would be: used of the masculine as well as the feminine gender. As a noun-equivalent, Eumastax would bear the masculine genders. (3) Gampsocleis : ‘“‘kleis”’, feminine, “‘ bolt’’, “‘ hook’’, “collarbone”’, forms nouns and adjectives in composition. Both are restricted to the feminine gender in actual usage and I have therefore classed Gampsocleis as feminine. (4) Gryllotalpa: ‘‘'Talpa’”’ is normally feminine, though one instance of its use in the masculine gender is quoted by Lewis and Short. The feminine gender should therefore be retained for the Official List. (5) Colias: The attribution of the masculine gender to this word would rest principally on the fact that certain Greek adjectives in **-as’’, including those in “ -ias’’, are to be found in the masculine as well as in the feminine gender, and that such adjectives used as nouns would normally be regarded as masculine. ‘‘ Colias’’ belongs in origin to this general group of words, but as used in antiquity, DIRECTION 7 | 693 whether as a place name or as a cult-name of Aphrodite, it is feminine, and the modern zoological name is undoubtedly based on these uses. (6) Sphex : Masculine strongly predominates. Liddell-Scott-Jones quotes only one clear instance of the feminine and this may be disregarded. 2. Registration of the present application: On receipt, the present application was allotted the Registered Number Z.N.(G.)67/7. I.—THE DECISION TAKEN BY THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 3. Issue of Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(54)13 : Concurrently with the submission to the Commission of the Draft Direction given in Annexe 1 to the note numbered Z.N.(G.)67/7 by the Secretary reproduced in paragraph 1 above, a Call for a Vote, numbered V.P.(O.M.)(54)13, was issued on 2nd July 1954 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 Official List of Generic Names in Zoology of the gender of each name placed thereon prior to 1948, issued to the International Commission by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948, the gender specified in Column (2) in Annexe 1 to the note by the Secretary submitted simul- taneously with the present Voting Paper should be entered in the foregoing Official List in respect of the names enumerated in that paragraph ”, and (2) if he did not so agree as regards any given item, to indicate the item concerned. 694 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 4. 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) had duly received the Voting Papers issued to them, the Secretary gave directions on 2nd August 1954 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 in this case was closed on 11th September 1954. 5. Withdrawal of proposals relating to the gender to be attributed to six generic names to permit of further examination of the issues involved: During the Prescribed Voting Period for Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(54)13, comments and suggestions were received four Commissioners (Cabrera ; Esaki; Holthuis ; Jaczewsk1) in regard to the gender to be attributed to individual names included in the list submitted to the Commission for decision. Altogether, the following six names were involved in these comments : —(1) Prophalangopsis Walker, 1871; (2) Tylopsis Fieber, 1853 ; (3) Eumastax Burr, 1899 ; (4) Morpho Fabricius, 1807; (5) Mantis Linnaeus, 1767; (6) Gryllotalpa Latreille, [1802—1803]. When on 2nd August 1954 Mr. Hemming, as Secretary to the Commission, reviewed the votes and comments received in relation to Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(54)13, he executed a Minute directing (a) that the proposals submitted in that Voting Paper in relation to the gender to be attributed to the Six generic names specified above be withdrawn for further examination and (b) that, in consequence, the Vote on Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(54)13 be treated as being concerned only with the other names specified in the memorandum Z.N.(G.)67/7 submitted to the Commission simultaneously with the foregoing Voting Paper. 6. Particulars of the Voting on Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(54)13 : At the close of the Prescribed Voting Period, extended in the manner specified in paragraph 4 of the present Direction, the state of the voting was as follows on the proposals submitted DIRECTION 7 695 in Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(54)13, exclusive of the proposals relating to the six names specified in paragraph 5 of the present Direction which, as there explained, had been withdrawn from the purview of the foregoing Voting Paper by the Minute executed by the Secretary to the Commission on 2nd August 1954 :— (a) Affirmative Votes had been given by the following eighteen (18) Commissioners (arranged in the order in which Votes were received) : Hering ; Vokes ; Cabrera ; Esaki ; Jaczewski ; Lemche ; Hemming; Stoll; Sylvester-Bradley ; Pearson; do Amaral; MHolthuis; Mertens; Bonnet; Boschma ; Riley ; Bradley (J.C.) ; Dymond ; (b) Negative Votes : None ; (c) Voting Paper not returned, one (1): Hanko. 7. 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)13, signed a Certificate that the Votes cast were as set out in paragraph 6 above and declaring that the proposal submitted in the foregoing Voting Paper, exclusive of the proposals relating to the six names specified in paragraph 5 above, which, as there explained, had been withdrawn from the purview of the foregoing Voting Paper by the Minute executed by the Secretary on 2nd August 1954, had been duly adopted and that the decision so taken was the decision of the International Commission in the matter aforesaid. 696 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 8. On 23rd September 1954 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)(54)13. 9. The original references for the generic names, the gender attributable to which is determined by the Ruling given in the present Direction, are specified in the Opinions on which decisions on those names were severally taken by the Commission. 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 1s 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 Seven (7) of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Done in London, this Twenty-Third day of September, Nineteen Hundred and Fifty-Four. Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature FRANCIS HEMMING Printed in England by MetcaLtre & CooPER Limitep, 10-24 Scrutton St., London EC 2 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTER- NATIONAL COMMISSION ON LOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Edited by FRANCIS HEMMING, c.M.G., C.B.E. Secretary to the Commission VOLUME 2. Part 57. Pp. 697—704 DIRECTION 8 Co-ordination of two entries on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology made in Directions 4 and 5 respectively with corresponding entries previously made by a Ruling given in Opinion 299 LONDON : Printed by Order of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature and Sold on behalf of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature by the International Trust at its Publications Office 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7 1954 Price Three Shillings and Sixpence (All rights reserved) Issued 6th December, 1954 INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE COMPOSITION AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THE RULING GIVEN IN DIRECTION 8 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) ae aes Pearson (Tasmanian 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 ieee) Denbigh Riley (British Museum (Natural History) London) (9th une 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) Raa 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 Hank6é (Mezédgazdasadgi 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) DIRECTION 8 CO-ORDINATION OF TWO ENTRIES ON THE ° OFFICIAL LIST OF SPECIFIC NAMES IN ZOOLOGY ” MADE IN **DIRECTIONS ” 4 AND 5 RESPECTIVELY WITH CORRESPONDING ENTRIES PREVIOUSLY MADE BY A RULING GIVEN IN ° OPINION ” 299 RULING :—(1) The entries on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology made by Rulings given respectively in Direction 4 and Direction 5 in respect. of the under-mentioned names are hereby deleted from the foregoing List, the names in question having previously been placed on that List as Names Nos. 146 and 147 respectively by the Ruling given in Opinion 299 :— (a) migratorius Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Gryllus migratorius ; (b) religiosus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Gryllus religiosus. (2) The Name Nos. on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology allotted to the names placed thereon by Ruling (2)(x) to (2)(z) in Direction 4 are hereby altered from Names Nos. 264 to 266 respectively to Name Nos. 263 to 265 respectively. (3) The under-mentioned Name Nos. allotted to names placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology by Ruling (1) in Direction 5 are hereby varied as follows :— (a) The Name Nos. allotted to the names specified in sub-sections (a) to (m) in the foregoing Ruling to be changed from Names Nos. 267 to 279 respectively to Name Nos. 266 to 278 respectively ; (b) The Name Nos. allotted to the names specified in sub-sections (0) to (u) in the foregoing Ruling to be changed from Name Nos. 281 to 287 respectively to Name Nos. 279 to 285 respectively. APR eo «r=. 700 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS I—THE ORIGIN OF THE PRESENT “ DIRECTION ” On 29th September 1954 Mr. Francis Hemming, Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, placed the following Minute on the Commission’s Files Z.N.(G.)67/3 and Z.N.(G.)67/4 respectively :— Overlap between Rulings given in ‘‘ Direction ’’ 4 and ‘‘ Direction ”’ 5 respectively and an earlier Ruling given in ‘* Opinion’? 299 MINUTE by Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. (Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) It has always been recognised that, until the various Official Lists and: Official Indexes are published in book form, complete with alphabetical indexes, there is a serious and growing risk that, as time goes on and additions are made to these Lists and Indexes, entries may be made in respect of names already so entered. Two such cases have just come to light. The circumstances are described below. 2. In view of the widespread and growing demand by zoologists for the publication of the Official Lists in book form and of the importance attached to this method for stabilising nomenclature by each of the last two International Congresses of Zoology (Thirteenth Congress, Paris, 1948 ; Fourteenth Congress, Copenhagen, 1953), the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature recently decided, notwithstanding the difficulties of its financial position, to establish a post of Research Assistant for a period of one year, the duty of the zoologist to be appointed to this post being to clear up, under the directions of the Secretary to the Commission, all outstanding matters arising on the Official Lists (in particular the entries made in Opinions published in the period prior to 1937, when the bibliographical and other particulars now required in respect of entries made on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology were not normally furnished in the Opinions by which names were placed on that List) and to prepare the Official Lists and Official Indexes for publication. After consultation with the Professors of Zoology at the constituent Colleges of London University, the Trust, on the nomination of Professor H. Munro Fox, F.R.S., Professor of Zoology at Bedford College, offered this post to Miss D. N. Noakes, B.Sc., by whom it was accepted. Miss Noakes has taken up her appointment and her first task has been to compile alphabetical card indexes of the names already placed DIRECTION 8 | 701 upon the Official Lists and Official Indexes. It was in so doing that she detected the overlap between Directions 4 and 5 on the one hand and Opinion 299 on the other hand, with which the present Minute is concerned. 3. The overlap so detected arose in the following way. In the Spring of this year I submitted to the Commission proposals designed to give effect, so far as Opinions 134—160 were concerned, to the General Directive issued to the Commission by the Thirteenth Inter- national Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948, that it should complete the codification of decisions taken in Opinions rendered prior to 1948 by placing on the appropriate Official Lists and Official Indexes the names dealt with in those Opinions. The decision taken by the Commission on the foregoing proposals was embodied partly in Direction 4 (1954, Ops. Decls. int. Comm. zool. Nomencl. 2 : 629—652) and partly in Direction 5 (1954, ibid. 2 : 653—664). Included among these proposals were proposals for placing on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the specific names of the type species of the genera Mantis Linnaeus, 1767, and Locusta Linnaeus, 1758, the names of which had been placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology by the Rulings given in Opinions 149 and 158 respectively. Both these species had originally been described by Linnaeus in 1758 in the genus Gryllus (as Gryllus religiosus and Gryllus migratorius res- pectively). In submitting the foregoing proposals in relation to these two names, I overlooked the fact that in a Report (1951, Bull. zool Nomencl, 2 : 112—118) which I had previously made for the purpose of clearing up all matters outstanding in regard to the subdivisions of the genus Gry/lus Linnaeus, 1758, consequent upon the proposed application in full to that generic name of the provisions of Opinion 124, | had already recommended that the two foregoing names should be placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology and that these proposals had been approved by the Com- mission. The decision so taken has since been embodied in Opinion 299 (1954, Ops. Decis. int. Comm. zool. Nomencl. 8 : 209—236). The consequence of this oversight on my part was that the specific name migratorius Linnaeus, 1758, was placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology as Name No. 146 in Opinion 299 and as Name No. 263 in Direction 4 and that the name religiosus Linnaeus, 1758, was placed on the foregoing List as Name No. 147 in the above Opinion and as Name No. 280 in Direction 5. In the case of each of these names the later entry will need now to be deleted. At the same time it will be necessary to make consequential adjustments in the Name Nos. allotted to names placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology subsequent to the making thereon of the first of the duplicate entries referred to above. 702 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS Il.—THE DECISION TAKEN IN THE PRESENT CASE 2. On 2nd October 1954 Mr. Francis Hemming, Secretary to the Commission executed in duplicate the following Minute of Direction which he placed in the Commission’s Files Z.N.(G.)67/3 and Z.N.(G.)67/4 dealing respectively with Direction 4 and Direction 5 :— Measures to be taken to co-ordinate two entries on the ‘‘ Official List of Specific Names in Zoology ’’ made by Rulings included in ‘* Direction’? 4 and ‘* Direction’? 5 respectively with corresponding entries previously made by a Ruling given in ‘* Opinion ’’ 299 MINUTE OF DIRECTION by FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E. (Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) Having reviewed the circumstances in which, as set forth in my Minute of 29th September 1954, Rulings placing two names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology given in Opinion 299 were inadvertently repeated at a later date, the first, relating to the name migratorius Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Gryllus migratorius, in a Ruling given in Direction 4, the second, relating to the name religiosus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Gryllus religiosus, in Direction 5, | am of the opinion that the necessary corrections should be made as soon as possible but that, as these corrections relate only to the mechanics of the Official Lists and do not involve the consideration of any nomenclatorial issues, it is not necessary to submit this matter to the Commission for a fresh vote and that the required action can properly be taken by myself in virtue of the discretion vested in me by reason of holding the Office of Secretary to the International Commission. 2. Now, therefore, as Secretary to the International Commission, I hereby direct that the required adjustments be made by the following Rulings and that these Rulings be incorporated in a Direction to be rendered and published in Volume 2 of the work Opinions and Declarations rendered by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, the volume in which have been published Direction 4 and Direction 5, the Directions now to be amended in the manner specified below : {Here followed the three Rulings reproduced as Rulings (1) to (3) in the present Direction]. DIRECTION 8 703 3. The present Direction shall be known as Direction Eight (8) of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Done in London, this Second day of October, Nineteen Hundred and Fifty-Four. Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature FRANCIS HEMMING Ji aut f ) fe j ; i I 1 ea. ‘ i) ‘ i, + ¥; ; . ft t ite t a a ie 5 as a ee) f Ra ‘ ‘ a : ‘ ‘teal yp bY % » ee F i we \. i aye x ae 1c i Re Printed in England by Mrtcarre & Cooper Shi, ii Nene RRL Uae Ly a, i" 7 Limite, 10-24 Scru Pah eae nee i Vy } ns, A iby 4 | yee . 6 Me ve g ¢ s } Mie at E S? + oa . tee , i os ‘ i ty ; lee i ? bY uy Ty ; : 4) rx | yee | j ae : ‘ bay § Peay op u ¥h. rom i | ‘ i a W ft i we 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 2. Part 58. Pp. 705—718 DIRECTION 9 Determination of the gender to be attributed to six generic names placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology by Rulings given in Opinions 137, 149 and 154 LONDON : Printed by Order of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature and Sold on behalf of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature by the International Trust at its Publications Office 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7 1954 Price Six Shillings (All rights reserved) Issued 6th December, 1954 INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE COMPOSITION AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THE RULING GIVEN IN DIRECTION 9 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. oseee 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-Universitdat 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 Hanké (Mezogazdasagi 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. Sylvester-Bradley (Sheffield University, Sheffield, England) (12th August 1953) Dr. L. B. Holthuis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) (12th August 1953) DIRECTION 9 DETERMINATION OF THE GENDER TO BE ATTRIBUTED TO SIX GENERIC NAMES PLACED ON THE **OFFICIAL LIST OF GENERIC NAMES IN ZOOLOGY ” BY RULINGS GIVEN IN ‘OPINIONS ” 137, 149 AND 154 RULING :—The gender to be attributed to each of the under-mentioned generic names dealt with in the Opinions severally noted below is hereby determined as being the feminine gender :—(1) Morpho Fabricius, 1807 (Opinion 137); (2) Eumastax Burr, 1899 (Opinion 149); (3) Gryllotalpa Latreille, [1802—1803] (Opinion 149); (4) Mantis Linnaeus, 1767 (Opinion 149) ; (5) Prophalangopsis Walker, 1871 (Opinion 149); (6) Tylopsis Fieber, 1853 (Opinion 154). I1.—THE STATEMENT OF THE CASE On 2nd July 1954, Mr. Francis Hemming, Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, submitted to the Commission proposals for determining the gender to be attributed to each of the generic names dealt with in the Opinions (Opinions 134—181) included in volume 2 of the work Opinions and Declarations rendered by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. These proposals were accompanied by a Voting Paper (V.P.(O.M.)(54)13), in which the Members of the Commission were asked (1) to signify whether they agreed that the gender attributed to the generic names in question in Mr. Hemming’s paper was the correct gender, and (2), if as regards any given name, a Commissioner considered that some To. ) ee Pe” <> ”lCU Vem 708 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS other gender should be attributed to the name in question, to indicate the grounds on which that view was taken. During the Prescribed Voting Period for the foregoing Voting Paper, comments were received in regard to the gender to be attributed to six of the generic names included in the list annexed to Mr. Hemming’s paper. At the close of the Voting Period on the foregoing Voting Paper, Mr. Hemming, as Secretary to the Commission, gave directions withdrawing the proposals which he had submitted in regard to the six names in question, in order to permit of the further examination of the issues involved. The six names which were withdrawn were the following :— (1) Prophalangopsis Walker, 1871; (2) Tylopsis Fieber, 1853 ; (3) Eumastax Burr, 1899 ; (4) Morpho Fabricius, 1807 ; (5) Mantis Linnaeus, 1767; (6) Gryllotalpa Latreille, [1802—1803]. The decision taken unanimously in regard to the remaining names was thereupon embodied in Direction 7 (1954, Ops. Decls. int. Comm. zool. Nomencl. 2 : 685—696). The position as regards the six names excepted from the foregoing Direction was there- upon examined by Mr. Hemming in consultation with specialists in the groups concerned. 2. On 24th September 1954, Mr. Hemming submitted to the Commission a paper giving particulars of the consultations which he had carried out i regard to the six generic names in question and submitted a revised Voting Paper (V.P.(O.M.)(54)22) dealing with the gender to be attributed to these names. The first paragraph of this paper contained a recital of the circumstances leading up to the submission of the nevis! proposal. The remainder of the paper was as follows :— Gender to be attributed to six generic names placed on the ‘°° Official List of Generic Names in Zoology’’ by Rulings given in ‘* Opinions ”’ included in volume 2 of that Series — By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E., Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 2. Two questions arise in considering the gender to be attributed to long-established generic names such as are most of those included in the foregoing list [i.e. the six names cited in paragraph 1 of the DIRECTION 9 709 present Direction, which had also been enumerated at the end of the first paragraph of Mr. Hemming’s paper of 24th September 1954], namely :—(1) What is, or probably is, the correct gender to be attri- buted on linguistic grounds ? (2) Is the gender ascertained under (1) above the gender commonly attributed to the generic names in question ? For, if in any given case the answer to the second of these questions is in the negative, a prima facie case arises for action to be taken by the Commission in the interests of nomenclatorial stability. The position as regards each of the generic names specified in the preceding para- graph has accordingly been examined from each of the foregoing - points of view. 3. Of the six generic names dealt with in the present paper, all are the names of genera of insects ; five are the names of genera in the Order Orthoptera (Prophalangopsis ; Eumastax ; Gryllotalpa ; Mantis ; Tylopsis) and one is the name of a genus in the Order Lepidoptera (Morpho). The first four of the Orthoptera names were originally dealt with in Opinion 149 and the fifth (7ylopsis) in Opinion 154, the Lepidoptera name was dealt with in Opinion 137. The proposals in regard to all these names were submitted to the Commission by the International Congress of Entomology, Madrid, 1935, the Orthoptera names on the proposal of Dr. B. P. Uvarov, C.M.G., D.Sc., F.R.S. (Director Anti-Locust Research Centre, London), the Lepidoptera name on the proposal of Dr. Karl Jordan, Ph.D., F.R.S., Mr. N. D. Riley, C.B.E., and myself. At the outset of the review undertaken in regard to the gender to be attributed to the foregoing names, I accordingly consulted Dr. Uvarov in regard to the Orthoptera names, and Mr. Riley in regard to the Lepidoptera name. I myself also con- sidered this latter name. The advice received from these specialists is annexed to the present paper: Annexe | (Reply received from Dr. Uvarov) ; Annexe 2 (Reply received from Mr. Riley). A note by myself is given in Annexe 3. 4. The generic names “* Prophalangopsis’’ and ‘ Tylopsis’’: The Copenhagen Congress decided in favour of the feminine gender for compound words ending in “ -opsis’”’ (1953, Copenhagen Decisions zool. Nomencl. : 51, Decision 84(7)(b)(iti) ). In the note annexed to my paper of 2nd July 1954 (Annexe 2, point (1) ) Mr. Lelievre gave his reasons for considering that the gender to be accepted for the foregoing names should be masculine. Attention was drawn to these names by four Commissioners (Cabrera ; Esaki; Holthuis ; Jaczewski) during the voting on Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(54)13, and it was for this reason that the proposals submitted in regard to these names were withdrawn for further examination. On the question of practice, Dr. Uvarov reports that these names were treated as feminine by their original authors and have been treated as such by all subsequent authors. It is recommended that the feminine gender be accepted for these names. 710 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 5. The generic name ~“‘ Eumastax”’: Mr. Lelievre reported (see Annexe 2(2) to my paper of 2nd July 1954") that the masculine gender should be attributed to this name. Commissioner Esaki considered that Decision 84(2)? applies to this name and that it should therefore be accepted as of the feminine gender. Dr. Uvarov reports that this latter gender was used both by the original author of the name and all subsequent authors, with only two casual and non-motivated excep- tions. It is recommended that the feminine gender be accepted. 6. The generic name ‘“‘ Mantis”: Mr. Lelievre treated Mantis as a masculine word, but this was questioned by Commission Jaczewski. If, as was assumed by Mr. Lelievre, this name was derived from the Greek, this would be likely. Dr. Uvarov points out however that Linnaeus (1767), the author of this name, clearly treated it as a feminine word, listing in this genus fourteen species, all having names with feminine terminations. Included among these was religiosa, a name which in 1758 Linnaeus had published in combination with the name Gryllus and which he had then written as “ religiosus’’. Dr. Uvarov adds that the acceptance of the feminine gender for this name is “ the universal practice ’’. Ina case like this where there is no clear evidence by the original author as to the origin of a name, to treat it as having a gender different from that universally accepted for it, solely because, if it were derived from the Greek, that gender would be incorrect, would seem to me to be ritualistic and therefore undesirable. I accordingly recommend that the feminine gender be accepted for this name. 7. The generic name “‘ Gryllotalpa”’ : Mr. Lelievre reported that the word “ talpa’’ on which this name is based, is a feminine word but that Lewis & Short record a single usage of this name in the masculine gender. Commissioner Holthuis drew attention in this connection to the Copenhagen decision (Decision 84(4)) which provides that, where a generic name consists of a word of classical origin which is of common gender, the masculine gender shall be attributed to it. My view is that a casual use in the classical literature of a gender for a noun different from the gender otherwise attributed to that noun does not make that noun a word of common gender, but should be regarded rather as a mistake by the author who used the unusual gender for that word. Dr. Uvarov reports that the generic name Gryllotalpa has always been treated, without exception, as being of the feminine gender. I recommend that that gender be accepted for this name, as originally recommended by Mr. Lelievre. 8. The generic name “‘ Morpho”’: Mr. Lelievre reported that this name should be treated as being feminine in gender, but Commissioner 1 See page 692 of the present volume. 2 The Decision here referred to is to be found on page 49 of the work Copenhagen Decisions zool. Nomencl. DIRECTION 9 . 711 Jaczewski noted in his reply that it was not clear to him why this name should not be treated as masculine. Liddell & Scott however give only the feminine gender for this word which was the name in Classical Greek for Aphrodite of Lacedaemon. This appears to me to be decisive. On the question of usage Mr. Riley reports that practice has been more or less equally divided but that in some cases at least the masculine usage appears to have been non-motivated. He favours the acceptance of the feminine gender. As a lepidopterist, I hold the same view, being of the opinion that for the reason given above the correct gender for this name is the feminine gender and that there is nothing in the weight of usage in the literature which would justify the Commission considering the grant of exceptional treatment in this case. 9. Recommendations now submitted: Having now completed the review of the six generic names withdrawn from the purview of the vote on Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(54)13, I submit the following recommendation to the Commission, namely that, in the case of each of the six generic names enumerated below, the gender to be attributed thereto in the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology shall be the feminine gender :—(1) Prophalangopsis Walker, 1871; (2) Tylopsis Fieber, 1853 ; (3) Eumastax Burr, 1899 ; (4) Mantis Linnaeus, 1767 ; (5) Gryllotalpa Latreille, [1802—1803] ; (6) Morpho Fabricius, 1807. ANNEXE 1 Letter dated 18th August 1954, from Dr. B. P. Uvarov, C.M.G., D.Sc., F.R.S., Director, Anti-Locust Research Centre, London Here is the information you ask for in your letter of 17th August. 1. Prophalangopsis Walker, 1871 and Tylopsis Fieber, 1853. Treated by the respective original authors and by all subse- quent ones as of feminine gender. 2. Eumastax Burr, 1899. Treated by the author as of feminine gender. This has been, and still is, the general practice, with only two casual and not motivated exceptions. 712 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 3. Mantis Linnaeus, 1758. The original combination was Gryllus Mantis religiosus, but in the 12th ed. Syst. Nat., 1767, Linnaeus regarded Mantis as a genus and listed under it 14 species, including religiosa, all with feminine terminations. This is the universal practice. 4. Gryllotalpa Latreille, 1802. Treated always, without a single exception, as a feminine name. I hope this information will be sufficient to ensure that the current practice is not altered. ANNEXE 2 Letter dated 27th August 1954, from Mr. N. D. Riley, C.B.E., Keeper, Department of Entomology, British Museum (Natural History), London Most of: the specific names in this genus are nouns and therefore afford no guidance on the question of gender. A search through new names since Seitz (who cited a number of adjectival names in the feminine) shows that there has been no consistency on the part of authors in the matter of the gender of the name Morpho. Possibly there is a small majority usage for the masculine gender, but in the case of at least some authors the choice of gender was, no doubt, non-motivated. We can, I think, conclude that modern practice is about equally divided. As the name Morpho seems undoubtedly to be feminine, I am certainly in favour of the acceptance of that gender for it. ANNEXE 3 Note dated 17th August 1954, by Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. (London) The word Morpho is the name in Classical Greek for the goddess Aphrodite of Lacedaemon. It is therefore a feminine noun. Liddell & Scott give no other usage for this noun. The generic name Morpho DIRECTION 9 713 Fabricius, 1807, is, therefore, of the feminine gender. I should be strongly opposed to any suggestion, if such were made, that the Commission should accept any other gender for this generic name. 3. Registration of the present application: On receipt, the present application was allotted the Registered Number Z.N.(G.) 67/8. Il—THE DECISION TAKEN BY THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 4. Issue of Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(54)22: Concurrently with the submission to the Commission of the paper reproduced in paragraph 2 of the present Direction, a Call for a Vote, numbered V.P.(O.M.)(54)22, was issued on 24th September 1954 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 Official List of Generic Names in Zoology of the gender of each name placed thereon prior to 1948 issued to the International Commission by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948, the gender specified in para- graph 9 of the note by the Secretary submitted simultaneously with the present Voting Paper should be entered in the foregoing Official List in respect of the names enumerated in that para- graph ’’, and (2), if he did not so agree as regards any given item, to indicate the item concerned. 5. The Prescribed Voting Period: As the foregoing Voting Paper was issued under the One-Month Rule, the Prescribed Voting Period closed on 24th October 1954. 6. Particulars of the Voting on Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(54)22: At the close of the Prescribed Voting Period, the state of the voting 714 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS on the proposals submitted in Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(54)22 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 ; Lemche ; Hering ; Vokes ; Hemming; Esaki; Stoll; Boschma ; Riley; do Amaral?; Hanko; Pearson; Cabrera; Dymond; Mertens ; Bonnet ; Bradley (J.C.)*; Jaczewski. (b) Negative Votes: None ; (c) Voting Paper not Returned: None. 7. Declaration of Result of Vote: On 24th October 1954, Mr. Hemming, Secretary to the International Commission, acting as Returning Officer for the Vote taken on Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(54)22, signed a Certificate that the Votes cast were as set out in paragraph 6 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. 8. On 25th October 1954, Mr. Hemming prepared the Ruling given in the present Direction at at the same time signed a Certifi- cate that the terms of that Ruling were in complete accord with 3 For a note furnished by Commissioner do Amaral explaining the grounds on which he had voted see the Appendix to the present Direction, Document 1. * For a note furnished by Commissioner Chester Bradley explaining the grounds for his vote on the name Mantis Linnaeus, 1767, see the Appendix to the present Direction, Document 2, DIRECTION 9 715 those of the proposal approved by the International Commission in its Vote on Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(54)22. 9. The original references for the names to which a gender is attributed by the Ruling given in the present Direction have been furnished in the Opinions in which the generic names in question were severally placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. 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 Nine (9) of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Done in London, this Twenty-Fifth day of October, Nineteen Hundred and Fifty-four. Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature FRANCIS HEMMING 716 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS APPENDIX Explanatory statements furnished by two Commissioners at the time of voting on the present ‘‘ Direction ”’ DOCUMENT No. 1 Letter dated Ist October 1954 from Dr. Afranio do Amaral (Instituto Butantan, Sao Paulo, Brasil) I have at hand the copy of Z.N.(G.) 67/8 and the corresponding V.P.(O.M.)(54)22 which I am returning to you herewith, duly signed and dated. As you will see from my copy of the Voting Paper, I am perfectly in agreement with assigning the feminine gender to the 6 generic names involved, my own reasons, as based on strictly linguistic arguments, being the following : 1. Morpho. This name, having been taken directly from the Greek pop¢dw, —ovs(7)—with the original meaning of “ Venus” or ‘beauty’? (an attribute of Venus)—is obviously feminine. This Greek word was never used as masculine. 2, 3. Prophalangopsis, Tylopsis, two composite names of which the consequent element reproduces the Greek word w is,—ews(n)— with the original meaning of “ figure ’’, or “‘ aspect ’—are obviously feminine. I do not agree with Mr. F. J. Lelievre in considering both these names as compound adjectives. They are nouns although having adjectival value. Should we accept them as real compound adjectives we would be obliged to consider them as incorrect forms, respectively, of Prophalangopticus (-a,-um= pod arayyontiK0s,—1],— ov in Greek) and Tylopticus (-a, -um = tvAomTtKOs, —7, —ov in Greek). This point raises again the issue I brought forward at the two last sessions of our Commission held during the 1953 Copenhagen Congress, namely, the necessity of a Recommendation being introduced as an Annexe into the future edition of our Code to the effect of advising zoologists—instead of forming any more names on the model of Ancylostoma (or Agkylostoma) and Trypanosoma, which in Linguistics are classified as nomina rei (with the meaning, respectively, of ““ hooked DIRECTION 9 | 717 mouth’? and “ borer-like body ’’)—always to give them the corre- sponding and proper Latin adjectival termination (‘‘ desinence ”’ -uS, -a, -um), thus writing Acylostomum, Trypanosomum, etc., which would be considered as nomina agentis (adjectival nouns) with the proper meaning, respectively, of “the bearer (animal) of a hooked mouth ’’, “the bearer (animal) of a borer-like body’, etc. That Recommendation, besides preserving the purity of glottologic principles, would also serve the purpose of uniformity since it would avoid maintaining in a nomenclatural system a striking incoherence as that represented, for instance, by such incorrect names as Ophiceras (see Opinion 194) and Lomatoceras (see Opinion 198)—both of which are really nomina rei—side by side with Tomocerus (see Opinion 239) which 1 is a correct nomen agentis. : ~. At niesent se have meiner authority to take the proper action of changing these names into their adjectival forms nor the necessary foundation to consider them as real adjectives. 4. Eumastax. | disagree from Mr. Lelievre’s opinion for the same reasons as setforthinitem3. In Greek the name paora€é, —axos, (7), applicable both to the upper-lip (or mustache) and to an insect, was feminine. At present we have neither authority to take the proper action of changing this name into its adjectival form (Euma- stacicum = Edwactaxixov in Greek) nor the necessary foundation to consider it as a real adjective. 5. Mantis. According to its applications, this name had two genders in Greek. It was masculine (6 udvtis) when it meant the * prophet ’’, and feminine (7) avis) when it meant the “ prophetess ”’ or the “ praying grass-hopper’”’ as used by Dioscorides. Linnaeus most obviously used it in the acception of this insect and so it is feminine. 66 6. Gryllotalpa. J quite agree with that “a casual use in the classical literature of a gender for a noun different from the gender otherwise attributed to that noun does not make that noun a word of common gender, but should be regarded rather as a mistake by the author who used the unusual gender for that word’’. Talpa is feminine. So is its compound Gryllotalpa. Based on the standing I am taking as a modest student of linguistic phenomena I shall answer by the affirmative the question (2) you make in item 2 of your Z.N.(G.) 67/8 : The gender ascertained in the light of linguistic grounds is the correct one and is above the gender commonly (or casually, with more reason) attributed to any word. 718 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS DOCUMENT No. 2 Statement, dated 13th October 1954, furnished by Professor J. Chester Bradley (Cornell University, Department of Entomology, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) Mantis is unquestionably a masculine word in Greek usage ; the vote to treat it as a feminine is because it seems more important to conserve the universal usage of two centuries than it 1s to correct the error of the original author. Most Greek nouns ending in “ -is” are feminine, and doubtless Linnaeus did not realize that “‘ mantis ”’ was an exception. The argument that there was no clear evidence as to the origin of Linnaeus’s name “‘ Mantis” 1s tenuous, as shown by the following quotations from Liddell and Scott’s Greek-English Lexicon®, “‘II—-a kind of locust or grasshopper, with long, thin fore feet, which are in constant motion, perh. Mantis religiosa, Linn.”’. The primary meaning of the word is given as “‘ one who divines ”’. 5 Fd. Note : The quotation here given by Professor Bradley is correct as regards the primary entry in Liddell and Scott. The position is not however so clear cut as that quotation suggests, for the above authorities also cite feminine usages of the word ‘‘ mantis”? by Aeschylus, Sophocles, Thucydides and Pindar. (Initialled F.H. 19th October 1954.) Printed in England by MercaLre & 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 2. Part 59. (Concluding Part) Gran > APR 22 Peay 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 One Pound, Fifteen Shillings (All rights reserved) Is sued 29th March, 1955 im, iy ee 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 2. Part 59. Pp. 719—768 (Also published with this Part : Title Pages, and preliminary matter noted below) CONTENTS Appendices ; Corrigenda ; Indexes Also published with this Part: Title Page, Foreword; and Table of Contents for whole volume ; Title Page and Foreword to Section B | 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, Fifteen Shillings (All rights reserved) Issued 29th March, 1955 es a ad asin Nt) SNe aN RR RRS a LR ate a eller cn nietahd lettre Raigenemie WERE. YW fy Fi 1 \ : i : ¥ 2 ' . Ly . Fi ~y ‘ ' by : ; 3 : ee a Bie tou b teal! ; 1, fs ey ne aap 7 rh Hear ie vel hae fe a ke i ts fi Li nl ; i ij Was ; . ie Le ee Ps % Oe. 5 i tay bos Ba? . yes Re J Ls, n ti Pave “int i ! ¥ 1 ae 5 Re sel | 2 Dea ; “ I t ar : , 7 ye 3 ep = He 2 , Loi ; ; at tt oa cee i i i ’ 3 Eta ee : i tare Pe rae ; ‘ { ¢ , ar ; 2 t } _ a ut { a 5 2 i i % >} 4 { i { E . % se Volume 2 721 APPENDIX 1 Subsequent history of the interpretations of the ‘‘ Régles ’’ given by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature in eight ‘‘ Opinions ’’ published in the present volume _ The Opinions comprised in the present volume include eight in which the International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature gave Rulings interpreting provisions in the Régles. That these Rulings were rendered in Opinions and not in Declarations, as is now the practice in such cases, is due to the fact that all the Opinions concerned were adopted by the Commission prior to the decision by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948, that in future the “ Opinions’ Series should be reserved for Rulings regarding the status of individual zoological names and of individual zoological books and that Rulings containing interpretations of the Régles should be rendered in the “ Declarations ”’ Series. 2. Since the adoption of the eight Opinions concerned, the Régles have been substantially revised and expanded by the Thirteenth (1948) and Fourteenth (1953) International Congresses of Zoology held in Paris and Copenhagen respectively. By the earlier of these Congresses all interpretative Rulings previously given by the Commission were incorporated into the Régles, either in their original, or in some modified, form. In each case therefore the Rulings given in the Opinions comprised in the present volume were the subject of action by the Paris Congress. Consequent upon the codification by the Paris Congress of these Rulings, the Commission repealed the Opinions concerned for all except historical purposes (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 165— 166, Decision 49). The Copenhagen Congress reviewed com- prehensively certain major problems referred to it for decision by the Paris Congress, which had not felt able to reach definitive conclusions on these matters. The decisions so taken by the Copenhagen Congress involved modifications in certain respects in the provisions based upon the Rulings given in some of the Opinions now under consideration, which the Paris Congress had incorporated into the Régles. The present position of the interpretations given in each of these Opinions is set out briefly in the following paragraphs. 722 Opinions and Declarations ** Opinion ”’ 138 3. Opinion 138 contained a Ruling as to the meaning to be attached to the expression “definite bibliographic reference ” which at Budapest in 1927 the Tenth International Congress of Zoology had incorporated in the new Proviso (Proviso (c)) which it had then inserted in Article 25. Under this provision no name published after 31st December 1930 as a substitute for a pre- viously published name acquired the status of availability unless the new name so published was accompanied by a “ definite bibliographic reference’ to the name so replaced. Between the meeting at Lisbon in 1935 of the Twelfth International Congress of Zoology and the meeting in Paris in 1948 of the Thirteenth International Congress experience had shown that this well-intentioned provision was unduly restrictive in character. Accordingly, at its Paris Session the Commission recommended that the foregoing provision should be replaced by one which merely required that, where, subsequent to the date cited above, a name is published as a substitute for a previously published name, the substitute name so published must, in order to be available under Article 25, he accompanied by “a reference to the name which is thereby replaced’. The Commission further recommended that, simultaneously with the adoption of the foregoing relaxation of Proviso (c) to Article 25, there should be inserted in the Régles a Recommandation urging authors, when publishing substitute names to cite “a full bibliographic reference to the name so replaced” (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 69, Decision 6(1)). The foregoing recommendations were approved by the Paris Congress. ** Opinion ”’ 141 4. Opinion 141 set out certain principles, which had previously been laid down inferentially in Opinion 133, for use ininterpreting Article 4 relating to the naming of families and subfamilies. The Paris Congress decided that, while the Ruling given in this Opinion should be incorporated into the Régles provisionally, the existing provisions in relation to the naming of taxonomic units of the family-group were so inadequate that it was desirable that the whole subject should be reviewed, in consultation with interested specialists, with a view to the adoption by the next (Copenhagen, Volume 2 423 1953) International Congress of Zoology of a comprehensive series of provisions relating to the naming of families and sub- families (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 138—139). In accordance with the decision taken by the Paris Congress, extensive con- sultations on the subject of the reform of the provisions in the Régles relating to the naming of taxa of the family-group were carried out between the Paris and Copenhagen Congresses. The documents so received were placed on the Agenda for the Meetings of the Commission and the Colloquium arranged to be held at Copenhagen (1953, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 10 : 1—60). On the basis of the material so submitted the Copenhagen Con- gress inserted in the Régles a comprehensive series of provisions relating to the formation of family-group names, at the same time repealing the provisions (Articles 4 and 5) by which this matter had formerly been regulated, together with the inter- pretative Ruling originally given in the present Opinion which, as has been explained, had been provisionally inserted in the Régles by the Paris Congress (1953, Copenhagen Decisions zool. Nomencl. : 32—37, Decisions 43—58). ** Opinion ’”’ 145 5. Opinion 145 contained a Ruling that, where a name on being first published is published in a work later rejected for nomen- clatorial purposes by the International Commission under its Plenary Powers, the fact that the name in question had been so published does not invalidate that name, if it is later re-published. The Ruling so given, extended so as to cover names first published in books rejected as invalid under the provisions of Article 25 as well as names first published in a book suppressed for nomenclatorial purposes under the Plenary Powers, was incorporated into the Régles by the Thirteenth. International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948 (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4: 165, Decision 47). ** Opinion ”’ 147 6. Opinion 147 contained a Ruling applying to generic names the provisions in the second paragraph of Article 35 regarding specific names defining the differences in spelling between other- wise identical names which are to be ignored in determining 724 Opinions and Declarations whether any two names are homonyms of one another. Previous to the adoption of the Ruling given in this Opinion no guidance was provided by the Rég/es in this matter. During the period between the Twelfth (Lisbon, 1935) International Congress of Zoology, when the Ruling given in this Opinion was adopted, and the Thirteenth (Paris, 1948) Congress, experience showed that it was desirable to amend the Régles, so as to restrict the area within which differences in spelling may be ignored for the pur- poses of generic homonymy. Accordingly, the Paris Congress, when incorporating into the Régles the Ruling given in this Opinion, limited its application to generic names which were (1) based upon the same Latin or Latinised word, (2) upon the same modern patronymic or (3) upon the same geographical or topographical term. In all other cases a difference of spelling of a single letter was to be sufficient to prevent any two names from being treated as homonyms of one another (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 161—162, Decision 41). This matter was considered again by the Fourteenth (Copenhagen, 1953) Congress which. decided to extend the single-letter Rule to those classes of generic names which had been excepted therefrom by the Paris decision (1953, Copenhagen Decisions zool. Nomencl. : 78, Decision 152). ‘‘ Opinion? 148 7. Opinion 148 contained Rulings relating to the principles to be observed in interpreting Articles 25 and 34 in relation to the availability of generic names published as emendations of, or as substitutes for, earlier generic names of the same origin and meaning. The Ruling so given was in three parts, and it will be convenient to consider separately the subsequent history of each of the problems so involved. 8. Ruling (1) in Opinion 148 gave an express interpretation on a question of principle which had been dealt with indirectly in an earlier Opinion (Opinion 120), an Opinion which was primarily concerned with an individual name. Under the Ruling given in Opinion 148 a generic name published as an emendation of a previously published such name takes automatically as its type species the species which is the type species of the genus, the name of which is so emended. This Ruling was incorporated into the Régles by the Paris (1948) Congress (1950, Bull. zool. Volume 2 OS Nomencl. 4 : 148, Decision 20). At the same time the Paris Congress inserted in the Régles a provision making it clear that, while, as stated in the Ruling given in Opinion 148, a generic name and any emendation of that name are to be treated as synonyms of one another, an emendation, if sufficiently different in spelling from the original generic name not to be a homonym of that name, is eligible to be brought into use if the name in its original spelling is found to be invalid. This supplementary decision by the Paris Congress was clarified by the Fourteenth (Copenhagen, 1953) Congress in its general revision of Article 19 relating to the emendation of names (1953, Copenhagen Decisions zool. Nomencl. : 43—45, Decisions 71—72). 9. Ruling (2) in Opinion 148, like Ruling (1), formalised a decision previously given by the Commission indirectly in an Opinion (Opinion 125) which had primarily been concerned with an individual name. Under this Ruling a generic name is to be rejected if the same word had previously been published as an emendation of some other generic name. The Ruling so given was incorporated into the Régles by the Paris Congress (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 163, Decision 44). The provision so adopted was included by the Copenhagen (1953) Congress in the comprehensive revision which it made of Article 19 relating to the emendation of names (Copenhagen Decisions zool. Nomencl. : 45, Decision 73(3)). It was made clear in that revision that this provision applies only to an Invalid Emendation, as contrasted with an Erroneous Subsequent Spelling (ibid. : 45, Decision 73(4)). 10. Ruling (3) in Opinion 148 dealt with a point which was bound up with the Ruling given in Opinion 147 and, when the Paris (1948) Congress amended the Rég/es when dealing with the Ruling given in that Opinion, the Ruling given in this portion of Opinion 148 ceased to be appropriate. It was accordingly decided not to incorporate it into the Régles (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 163—164, Decision 45 (1)). ** Opinion ’’ 164 11. In Opinion 164 the Commission gave a Ruling that, where two or more nominal genera are united on taxonomic grounds, 726 Opinions and Declarations such action in no way affects the type species of the genera con- cerned. This Ruling was incorporated into the Régles by the Thirteenth (Paris, 1948) International Congress of Zoology (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 157, Decision 35). ** Opinion ”’ 168 12. In Opinion 168 the Commission amplified the Ruling previously given in Opinion 65 on the subject of the species to be accepted as the type species of a genus considered by later workers to have been based upon a misidentified type species. The Ruling given in this Opinion, which was adopted by the Commission at its Session held at Lisbon in 1935, did not, as the Commission then realised, cover the whole of the complicated problem involved and it was left for the next Congress to complete the provisions dealing with this matter. The problem of genera based upon misidentified type species was considered in detail by the Thir- teenth International Congress of Zoology at Paris in 1948, when a comprehensive series of provisions was inserted in the Régles (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 158—159, Decision 38). The provision so adopted was, in part, redrafted and in addition slightly amended, by the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology, Copenhagen, 1953 (1953, Copenhagen Decisions zool. Nomencl. : 68—69, Decision 128). ‘< Opinion ” 172 13. In Opinion 172 the Commission gave a Ruling that, where a type species is clearly selected in a literature-recording serial, that selection must be accepted for the purposes of Article 30. The Commission added that, in its view, this method of selecting type species for genera was undesirable. The Ruling so given was incorporated into the Régles by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948 (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 161, Decision 40). FRANCIS HEMMING Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 24th January, 1955 Volume 2 Woe APPENDIX 2 Subsequent history of the questions dealt with in the ** Declarations *’ published in the present volume At Paris in 1948 the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology approved a proposal submitted by the International Commission that the “ Declarations” Series should be reserved for Rulings interpreting individual provisions in the Reégles (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 136—137, Decision 9(2)) and it was in the light of this general decision that shortly afterwards the Congress turned to consider the question of incorporating into the Régles in suitable cases the resolutions adopted by the Commission which had so far been embodied in the form of Declarations. Of these, Declarations 1 to 9 embodied resolutions adopted by the Commission on various dates prior to 1935, while Declarations 10 to 12 embodied the three resolutions of a general character which had been adopted by the Commission at its Lisbon Session and which were published in the present volume. The action taken in regard to these three Declarations is set out below. Consequent upon the action so taken, the Commission repealed these Declarations for all except historical purposes (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 171, Decision 59). ** Declaration ’’ 10 The Commission decided that the Resolution embodied in Declaration 10 (a resolution regarding the importance of forming specialist groups for the study of the nomenclature of particular divisions of the Animal Kingdom), and also that embodied in Declaration 9 (a resolution stressing the importance of Universities including zoological nomenclature in their courses of general and systematic zoology), being of the nature of statements of policy, were not suitable for incorporation in the Régles (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 166, Decision 50(3)). ** Declaration ’’ 11 Declaration 11 embodied a Resolution in which the Com- mission had urged authors to indicate the systematic position 728 Opinions and Declarations (Class and Order) when giving names to new taxonomic units. This Resolution was incorporated into the Régles as a Recom- mandation by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948 (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 170, Decision 58). ** Declaration ’’ 12 In Declaration 12 the Commission amplified in certain respects a resolution prescribing a Code of Ethics to be observed by authors when replacing invalid names previously published by other authors which it had originally adopted at its Session held at Monaco in 1913 which in 1943 had been embodied in Declara- tion 1 (1943, Ops. Decls. int. Comm. zool. Nomencl. 1 : 1—6). At Pais in 1948 the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology inserted in the Régles an Article embodying the Code of Ethics as laid down in Declaration 1 as amplified by Declaration 12 (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 167, Decision 51). FRANCIS HEMMING Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 24th January 1955 Volume 2 729 APPENDIX 3 Notes on four individual cases of nomenclature on which interim decisions only were given in ‘‘ Opinions ”’ published in the present volume In the case of four of the Opinions published in the present volume, each dealing with the status of some name or book, the Ruling given in the Opinion published in the present volume is of an interim or provisional character only. Particulars of the action subsequently taken, or now proposed to be taken, in regard to each of these cases are given below. | ‘¢ Opinion ” 152 In Opinion 152 the Commission re-affirmed the Ruling given in its Opinion 28 that the pamphlet by J. W. Meigen published in 1800 with the title Nouvelle Classification des Mouches a deux Ailes was a nomenclatorially acceptable work, but added that, where specialists in the group concerned were of the opinion that the acceptance of any given new generic name published in this pamphlet would lead to greater confusion than uniformity, they should submit full particulars to the Commission with such recommendations for the suspension of the rules in that case as they might consider the most appropriate. Towards the end of, and immediately after, the war of 1939— 1945 several applications in regard to particular names were submitted to the Commission under the procedure laid down in - Opinion 152, and in 1951 five of these applications were published in the Official Organ of the Commission (1951, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 2 : 129—160). Later, an application for the total suppression of the Nouvelle Classification for nomenclatorial purposes was received from Dr. Curtis W. Sabrosky (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Bureau of Entomology and Plant Quarantine, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.). This applica- tion was published in April 1952 (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 6 : 131— 141). By an arrangement made between the International 730 Opinions and Declarations Trust for Zoological Nomenclature and the applicant a large number of separates of the foregoing paper were made available for communication to interested specialists, together with a questionnaire asking for views on the action which it was desirable should be taken by the Commission. A detailed summary of the replies received to this questionnaire was prepared by Dr. Sabrosky and was published in May 1954 (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 9 : 225— 240). This case is at present under active consideration by the International Commission and it is hoped that a decision on it will be reached at an early date. ** Opinion *’ 160 The question raised in the application dealt with in Opinion 160 was whether the generic name Anguina Scopoli, 1777 (Class Nematoda) was an available name. This question turned on whether in his Introductio ad Historiam Naturalem, the work in which the foregoing name was first published, Scopoli had, as then required by Proviso (b) to Article 25, applied the “principles of binary nomenclature’’. The general issue so involved was at that time sub judice, having been deferred for decision by the next International Congress of Zoology. In the present case therefore the Commission could not do more than rule that, for so long as generic names published by authors using a “binary ’’, though not a binominal, system of nomenclature were recognised as complying with the requirements of Article 25 of the Régles, the generic names published in 1777 in Scopoli’s Introductio, including the name Anguina, should be accepted, but that the position would need to be re-examined if later it were to be decided to reject names published by authors not applying the binominal system of nomenclature. The major issue involved in this case was decided at Paris in 1948 by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, which, after ruling that the expression “‘ nomenclature binaire ”’ as used in the Régles had the same meaning as the expression ““nomenclature binominale’’, substituted the latter expression wherever the expression “nomenclature binaire”’ had hitherto appeared (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 64—66, Decision 3). This decision cleared the ground for an examination by the Volume 2 731 Commission of the question of the status of names first published in Scopoli’s Introductio of 1777. On this question the Com- mission ruled that in the foregoing work Scopoli had duly complied with the requirements of Article 25 and therefore that new names published in that work possessed the status of availability. This decision was promulgated in Opinion 329 (1955, Ops. Decls. int. Comm. zool. Nomencl. 9 : 309—320). All that remained to be done in this case was therefore for the Commission to render an Opinion dealing expressly with the name Anguina Scopoli, 1777, and with the associated generic names Anguillulina and Tylenchus raised in the original application. A decision on these matters has now been taken by the Commission, and this has been embodied in Opinion 341 which is now in the press and will, it is expected, shortly be published as Part 8 of volume 10 of the present series. ** Opinion ”’ 165 In this case the Commission had before it an application for the use of the Plenary Powers for the purpose of preventing the well-known generic name Strymon Hiibner, 1818 (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera) from being overturned by a generic name which had hitherto been used in an entirely different sense. At the time of the consideration of this case at its Session held at Lisbon in 1935 the Commission had before it a supplementary note by the applicants, in which the view was expressed that the taxonomic considerations on which the application had been based might well be modified when this large genus next came to be revised. The applicants accordingly suggested that a decision on this case should be deferred, on the understanding that the door would be left open for the re-submission of this case at a later date. In the light of this supplementary communication the Commission, as an interim measure, gave a Ruling in Opinion 165 that the need for the use of the Plenary Powers had not been established. 7 A revised application has now been received in this case and has been allotted the Registered Number Z.N.(S.) 802. It is hoped that this application will be published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature at an early date. 732 Opinions and Declarations ‘‘ Opinion ” 170 Opinion 170 is concerned with one of a number of cases in which a large body of hymenopterists had asked the Commission to use its Plenary Powers for the purpose of promoting stability in the nomenclature of the Order Hymenoptera (Class Insecta). The request submitted in the present case was that the Commission should use its Plenary Powers for the purpose (a) of suppressing the generic names Hy/aeus Fabricius, 1793, and Prosopis Fabricius, [1804—1805], and (b) of validating the name Prosopis Jurine, 1807, with Sphex signata Panzer, [1798], as type species. The proposal submitted in this case was approved by the Commission at its Lisbon Session, subject to its being advertised for a period of one year before an Opinion was rendered setting out the decision so taken. At the same time the Commission conferred upon the President and the new Secretary, when elected, Plenary Powers to act on its behalf in regard to this and other cases on which similar provisional decisions had then been taken. The issue of the Public Notice so prescribed elicited considerable objection to the use of the Plenary Powers in this case. When these objections came to be examined by the President and the Secretary, those Officers took the view that the Plenary Powers ought not be used in the present case without a further and more detailed examination of the issues involved. Accordingly, under the Plenary Powers conferred jointly upon them by the Commission at its Lisbon Session, those Officers gave a direction that, as an interim measure, an Opinion should be prepared and rendered, setting out the history of this case, as summarised above, and appealing to interested specialists for further statements of their views. Effect to this direction was given in Opinion 170. Having regard to the General Directive given to the Com- mission by the International Congress of Zoology that it shall deal in one sense or another with every application submitted to it and should record the decision so taken in a manner which will permit of its being recorded in the appropriate Schedule to the Régiles, it is incumbent upon the Commission to replace as soon as possible the provisional Ruling given in Opinion 170 with a substantive Ruling disposing of this case in whatever may be found to be the manner generally desired. For this purpose, this case has been re-registered under the Number Volume 2 733 _Z.N.(S.) 803 and arrangements are being made for the preparation of a revised application which, when received, will be published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature and thus thrown open to public discussion. FRANCIS HEMMING Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 24th January 1955 734 page 5. page 6. page 11. page 12. page 15. page 21. page 135. page 135. page 135. page 147. page 147. page 150. page 157. page 291. page 297. page 298. page 299. page 299. page 615. Opinions and Declarations Corrigenda Line 11 from bottom : substitute “‘ Ninth” for “ Sixth ’’. Line 8 : substitute “‘ Ninth ’’ for “‘ Sixth ”’. Line 13 from bottom ; substitute “‘ Ninth ’’ for ‘‘ Sixth ”’. Line 6: substitute “‘ Ninth” for “ Sixth’’. Line 9 from bottom: at end of sentence after the date ‘“‘ 1810’, insert the words “* should be accepted as designation of types of the genera in question.” Last line of ““ Summary ” : at end insert the following sentence : “ The names Morpho Fabricius, 1807 (type: Papilio achilles Linnaeus, 1758), Helicopis Fabricius, 1807 (type : Papilio cupido Linnaeus, 1758), and Pontia Fabricius, 1807 (type : Papilio daplidice Linnaeus, 1758) are hereby added to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology as Names Nos. 564 to 566”’. Line 3 of Section (1) of ‘Summary ’’: after the words “earlier name’’, insert the words “‘ where that name is itself an available name ”’. Line 6 of Section (1) of ‘‘ Summary ” : at the beginning of the sentence following the word ‘“‘ Example ’’, insert the words ‘“‘Assuming that the name Achatina Lamarck, 1799, is an available name ”’. Line 2 from bottom: delete the sentence commencing with the word “If” and ending (on line 2 of page 136) with the words “‘ not available ’’. Last line but one of ‘““Summary ” : substitute ‘‘ Sphingonotus” for ‘“‘ Sphingo- nothus’’. Paragraph 1, last line but two : substitute ‘“‘ Sphingonotus Fieber ” for “ Sphingo- nothus Fieber (as Sphingonotus)’’. Line 25 : substitute ‘“‘ Sphingonotus”’ for “‘ Sphingonothus”’. Line 2 : substitute ‘‘ Sphingonotus ”’ for ‘‘ Sphingonothus ”’. Line 2 of title : between the word ‘‘ Gervais’ and the word “ van’’, insert the word “‘and’’. Paragraph 6, line 1 : substitute ‘“‘ Stekhoven ” for “‘ Steckhoven ”’. Paragraph 8, line 9: substitute ‘““Anguillula”’ for “‘Anguillulina’’. Paragraph 11, line 1 : substitute ‘‘ Ditlevsen ”’ for “‘ Ditlevson ”’. Paragraph 14, line 2: substitute ‘“‘Alma-Ata, Kazakhstan” for ‘“‘Almata, Krazekstau ”’. Line 18 of Ruling: substitute ‘‘ Euthalia Hiibner, [1819]” for Hubner, [1818] ”’. ** Futhalia | Volume 2 735 INDEX TO AUTHORS OF APPLICATIONS DEALT WITH IN THE PRESENT VOLUME AND OF COMMENTS ON THOSE APPLICATIONS Page Page Alfken, J. D. 38-40, 91-92, Benoist, R. 38-40, 91-92, 171-172, 199-201, 229-230, 253- 255, 277-280, 321-322, 377-378, Wise, 497-498, 547-548, S71— 573 Allgen, C. ae ne Seedy Amaral, Ado”. . VAGSTNT Apstein, K. 262, 147, 211, 216; 265, 475 Arnold, G. 38-40, 91-92, 171-172, 199-201, 229-230, 253- 255, 277-280, 321-322, 377-378, 445-446, 497-498, 547-548, 571- oa) Baby, P. P. .. . 38-40, 9I-92, 171-172, 199-201, 229-230, 253- 255, 277-280, 321-322, 377-378, 445-446, 497-498, 547-548, 571- 373 Baker, A. C. . 83, 214-221 Balouf, W. V. 38-40, 91-92, 171-172, 199-201, 229-230, 253- 255, 277-280, 321-322, 377-378, 445-446, 497-498, 547-548, 571- 573 Bather, F. A. .. 216-217, 474, 524 Baylis, H. A. 297-298 Bell, E. ..114, 244, 312, 363 171-172, 199-20), 220 3p p5e8 255) O77 280 301-90) sr a7e. 445-446, 497-498, 547-548, 571— 573 Benson, R. P. . 38-40, 91-92, 171-172, 199-201, 229-230, 253-— 255, 277-280, 321-322, 377-378, 445-446, 497-498, 547-548, 571- 573 Bequaert, J. . 38-40, 91-92, 171- 172, 199-201, 229-230, 253-255, 277-280, 321-322, 377-378, 445-— 446, 497-498, 547-548, 571-573 Berland, L. . .38-40, 91-92, 171- 172, 199-201, 229-230, 253-255, 277-280, 321-322, 377-378, 445-— 446, 497-498, 547-548, 571-573 Betrem, J.G. ..38-40, 91-92, 171- 172, 199-201, 229-230, 253-255, 277-280, 321-322, 377-378, 445- 446, 497-498, 547-548, 571-573 Bischoff, H. . .38—40, 91-92, 171- b72) 199-2012 229-2305 253- 95>. 277-280, 321-322, 377-378, 445— 446, 497-498, 547-548, 571-573 Boschma, HW. \.. ie S23 Bradley, J.C. ..38—40, 91-92, 171- 172, 199-201, 229-230, 253-255, 277-279, 321-322, 377-378, 445- 446, 497-498, 547, 571-572, aie 7 736 Page Brues, iC. . .38-40, 91-92, 171- 172, 199-201, 229-230, 253-255, 277-280, 321-322, 377-378, 445- 446, 497-498, 547-548, 571-573 Cabrera, A. . 474 Caudell, A. N. .. 148, 212-213, 266 Chapman, F. . 475 China, W. E. 640, 670, 678 Chitwood, B. G. 293-296 Ciavansine, Ux IR 293-296 Comstock, J. A. 114, 244, | 312, 363 Crevecoeur, A. . .38—-40, 91-92, 171- 172, 199-201, 229-230, 253-255, 277-280, 321-322, 377-378, 445-— 446, 497-498, 547-548, 571-573 @urrany CH. ). 114,244 312, 363 Cushman, R. A. 38-40, 91-92, 171- 172, 199-201, 229-230, 253-255, 277-280, 285-286, 321-322, 377— 378, 445-446, 497-498, 547-548, 571-573 Ditlevsen, H. . 299 Dusmet, J. M. ..38—40, 91-92, 171- 172, 199-201, 229-230, 253-255, 277-280, 321-322, 377-378, 445-— 446, 497-498, 547-548, 571-573 Elliott, E. A. ..38-40, 91-92, 171- 172, 199-201, 229-230, 253-255, 277-280, 321-322, 377-378, 445— 446, 497-498, 547-548, 571-573 Opinions and Declarations Page Enderlein, C. ..38-40, 91-92, 171-— 172, 199-201, 229-230, 253-255, 277-280, 321-322, 377-378, 445— 446, 497-498, 547-548, 571-573 Enslin, E. . .38-40, 91-92, 171- 172, 199-201, 229-230, 253-255, 277-280, 321-322, 377-378, 445- 446, 497-498, 547-548, 571-573 Entomological Society of Washington ..214, 284-285, 451, 502, 551—552, 579 Fernald, H. T. .. 580-582 Filipjev, I. N. 299-300 Forbes, W. T. M.. 114, 244, 3125363 Fouts, R. . .38-40, 91-92, 171- 172, 199-201, 229-230, 253-255, 277-280, 321-322, 377-378, 445- 446, 497-498, 547-548, 571-573 Friese, R. . .38-40, 91-92, 171- 172, 199-201, 229-230, 253-255, 277-280, 321-322, 377-378, 445-. 446, 497-498, 547-548, 571-573 Frison, T. H. ..38-40, 91-92, 171- 172, 199-201, 229-230, 253-255, 277-280, 321-322, 377-378, 445— 446, 497-498, 547-548, 571-573 Gahan, A.B. . .38-40, 91-92, 171- 172, 199-201, 229-230, 253-255, 277-280, 321-322, 377-378, 445— 446, 497-498, 547-548, 571-573 Goffart, H. . 299 Goodey, T. . 298 Volume 2 737 Page Grandi, G. . .38—-40, 91-92, 171- 172, 199-201, 229-230, 253-255, 277-280, 321-322, 377-378, 445- 446, 497-498, 547-548, 571-573 Gunder, J.D. .. 114, 244, 312, 363 Habermehl, H. 38-40, 91-92, 171- e920) 229-230; 253=255, Pigme2s0 321-322, 371-378, 445= 446, 497-498, 547-548, 571-573 Hacker, H. . .38-40, 91-92, 171- 172, 199-201, 229-230, 253-255, 277-280, 321-322, 377-378, 445- 446, 497-498, 547-548, 571-573 Hall, M. C. 293-296 Handlirsch, A. .. 38-40, 91-92, 148, 149, 171-172, 199-201, 216, 229- 230, 253-255, 266, 277-280, 321- 322, 377-378, 445-446, 497-498, 547-548, 571-573 andsehim, Bo... ... ein (xls) Haupt, H. . .38-40, 91-92, 171- 172, 199-201, 229-230, 253-255, 277-280, 321-322, 377-378, 445- 446, 497-498, 547-548, 571-573 Hedicke, H. . 38-40, 91-92, 171- 172, 199-201, 229-230, 253-255, 277-280, 321—322, 377-378, 445-— 446, 497-498, 547-548, 571-573 Heinrich, C. 214-215 Hellen, W. . . 38-40, 91-92, 171— 172, 199-201, 229-230, 253-255, 277-280, 321-322, 377-378, 445-— 446, 497-498, 547-548, 571-573 Page Hemming, F. . 15-16, 23-25, 70- TI, 72, 73—74,. 111-113, 125-126, 128, 136-138, 164-166, 191, 241- 242, 303, 309-311, 337-339, 352, 361-362, 364-366, 367, 370-373, 401-403, 413-419, 422-423, 433- 437, 451, 461-463, 477, 485-487, 511-512, 526-527, 535-537, 559- 562, 591-604, 618-622, 623, 624, 627-628, 638-641, 648-649, 657— 658, 661-662, 670-674, 677-680, 682-683, 684, 689-690, 700-701, 708-711, 712-713, (5)-(9), C1)- (13), (15)-(18) Holthuis, L. B. 623, 675, 681, 683 Horvath, G. 216, 475 Huntingdon, E. I. 114, 244, 312, 363 International Committee on Entomological Nomenclature, 3-4, 9, 17, 25, 49, 72-73, 74, 84, 93, 148-151, 163, 173, 184, 218, 255-256, 266-268, 339, 364, 403, 419, 437, 447, 499, 512, 537-538, 548-549, 562-563, 573-575, 604— 606, (xi) Ishikawa, C. Soe ag5 Jaczewski, T. 675-676, 710-711 Jordan, K. 216, 300, 639 Kinsey, A.C. . .38-40, 91-92, 171- 172, 199-201, 229-230, 253-255, 277-280, 321-322, 377-378, 445- 446, 497-498, 547-548, 571-573 738 Opinions and Declarations Page .. 114, 244, 312, 363 Klots, A. B. Kolbe, H. J. an ir se a Krausse, A. . 38-40, 91-92, 171- 172, 199-201, 229-230, 253-255, 277-280, 321-322, 377-378, 445- 446, 497-498, 547-548, 571-573 Kruger, R. . 38-40, 91-92, 171- 172, 199-201, 229-230, 253-255, 277-280, 321-322, 377-378, 445— 446, 497-498, 547-548, 571-573 Kuznezev-Ugamtsky, N. N. 38-40, 91-92, 171-172, 199-201, 229-230, 253-255, 277-280, 321-322, 377- 378, 445-446, 497-498, 547-548, 571-573 Lautner, J. G. (xix)—(Xx) Lelievre, F.J. .. 692-693, 709-711 Linsley, E. G. 450-451 Lutz, F. E. . 38-40, 91-92, 171- 172, 199-201, 229-230, 253-255, 277-280, 321-322, 377-378, 445- 446, 497-498, 547-548, 571-573 livic G. 1: . .38—40, 91-92, 171- 172, 199-201, 229-230, 253-255, 277-280, 321-322, 377-378, 445- 446, 497-498, 547-548, 571-573 McDunnough, J. .. 113-114, 243-244, 311-312, 363 Maidl, F. . .38-40, 91-92, 171- 172, 199-201, 229-230, 253-255, 277-280, 321-322, 377-378, 455-— 446, 497-498, 547-548, 571-573 Page Mann, W. M._ ..38-40, 91-92, 171- 172, 199-201, 229-230, 253-255, 277-280, 321-322, 377-378, 445- 446, 497-498, 547-548, 571-573 Marriott, H.de W. 38-40, 91-92, 171-72, 199-201, 229-230, 253-— 255, 277-280, 321-322, 377-378, 445-446, 497-498, 547-548, 571- 573 Masi, L. .. . .38-40, 91-92, 171- 172, 199-201, 229-230, 253-255, 277-280, 321-322, 377-378, 445- 446, 497-498, 547-548, 571-573 Micha, I... . .38—40, 91-92, 171- 172, 199-201, 229-230; 253-255, 277-280, 321-322, 377-378, 445— 446, 497-498, 547-548, 571-573 Michener, C. D. 451, 580 Monticelli, F. S. a meer Als) Mortensen, T. 349-350 Oglobin, A. A. ..38-40, 91-92, 171- 172, 199-201, 229-2305 253-255. 277-280, 321-322, 377-378, 445— 446, 497-498, 547-548, 571-573 Park, A. R. . 38-40, 91-92, 171- 172, 199-201, 229-230, 253-255, 277-280, 321-322, 377-378, 445— 446, 497-498, 547-548, 571-573 _ 114, 244, 312, 363 Passos, C. F. dos Pate, V:S: L. ..38-40, 91-977 iwi 172, 199-201, 229-230, 253-255, 277-280, 321-322, 377-378, 445- 446, 497-498, 547-548, 571-573 i Volume 2 739 Page Pellegrin, J. .. 475 Peters, J. L. oe id .. 476 Pirlot, J. M. 57-58 Richards, O. W.. .38—40, 91-92, 171- 172, 199-201, 229-230, 253-255, 277-280, 321-322, 377-378, 445— 446, 497-498, 547-548, 571-573 > Riley, N. D. OO. 72, Vil-113, 337-339, 370-373, 401-403, 461- 463, 624-639, 711, 712 Rohwer, S.A. ..214-215, 221, 233, 210-271, 326-327, 451, 502, 551- S525 573,519 Ross, H. H. . .38-40, 91-92, 17i- 172, 199-201, 229-230, 253-255, 277-280, 321-322, 377-378, 445- 446, 497-498, 547-548, 571-573 Roth, R. . 38-40, 91-92, 171- 172, 199-201, 229-230, 253-255, 277-280, 321-322, 377-378, 445- 446, 497-498, 547-548, 571-573 Royal Entomological Society of London 111-113, 241, 309, 361 Schmiedeknecht,O. 38-40, 91-92, 171-172, 199-201, 229-230, 253- 255, 277-280, 321-322, 377-378, 445-446, 497-498, 547-548, 571- 573 Schneider, W. .. Bigs i 299 Schulthess, A. von 38-40, 91-92, 171-172, 199-201, 229-230, 253-— 255, 277-280, 321-322, 377-378, 445-446, 497-498, 547-548, 57i- S13 Page Schwarz, H. F. ..38-40, 91-92, 171- 172, 199-201, 229-230, 253-255, 277-280, 321-322, 377-378, 445- 446, 497-498, 547-548, 571-573 Schweizerische entomolgische Gesellschaft X1X—XX Silvestri, F. 62, 475 Skinner, H. He wi ay BIG Sprague, M. L. ne .. 451 Steiner, G. 293-296 Stekhoven, J. H. S. 4p Ue aOR Stephenson, J. .. a .. 475 Stiles, C. W. . 58, 213-214, 216, 350, 475, 524 Stone, W. 61, 476 Tams, W. H. T. 69, 72, 111-113 Thorne, G. 293-296 Ticehurst, C. B. Ss Sets, | Tomlin, J. R. le B. 473, 523 Turner, R. E. 579-580 Uchida, T. . 38-40, 91-92, 171- 172, 199-201, 229-230, 253-255, 277-280, 321-322, 377-378, 445- 446, 497-498, 547-548, 571-573 658, 709-712, (16)-(17) Uvarov, B. P. 740 Opinions and Declarations Page Vost, O. . 38-40, 91-92, 171- 172, 199-201, 229-230, 253-255, 277-280, 321-322, 377-378, 445- 446, 497-498, 547-548, 571-573 Vokes, HY Bios. ve B/S) Wagner, A. C. W. 38-40, 91-92, 171-172, 199-201, 229-230, 253- 255, 217-280; 321-322, 377-378, 445-446, 497-498, 547-548, 571- 5/3 Watson, F.E. .. 114, 244, 312, 363 Weld, L. H. . .38-40, 91-92, 171- 172, 199-201, 229-230, 253-255, 277-280, 321-322, 377-378, 445- A446, 497-498, 547-548, 571-573 Page Wheeler, W. M.. .38—40, 91-92, 171- 172, 199-201, 229-230, 253-255, 277-280, 321-322, 377-378, 445-— 446, 497-498, 547-548, 571-573 Wilkinson, D.S. 38-40, 91-92, 171- 172, 199-201, 229-230, 253-255, 277-280, 321-322, 377-378, 445- 446, 497-498, 547-548, 571-573 Williams, F. X. ..38—40, 91-92, 171- 172, 199-201, 229-230, 253-255, 277-280, 321-322, 377-378, 445-— 446, 497-498, 547-548, 571-573 Williams, R. C., Jnr. 114, 244, 312, 363 Wolff, H. . .38-40, 91-92, 171- 172, 199-201, 229-230, 253-255, 277-280, 321-322, 377-378, 445- 446, 497-498, 547-548, 571-573 Volume 2 741 Page abdominalis Panzer, [1798], as published in the combination Tiphia abdominalis (Class Insecta, Order Hymenoptera), Sere on the Hehe List ae a4) cific Names in Zoology as ‘Name INONZ248 2: ae ae 632 acervorum Panzer, [1799], as published in the combination Blatta acervorum (Class Insecta, Order Orthoptera), ale on the ca List a Specie Names in Zoology as Name No. 267 : 655 correction of Name No. on above List to Name No. 266 .. ee ve at) (699. achilles Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Papilio achilles » (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera), type species of Morpho Fabricius, 1807 (9) placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology as name No. 241.. 631 actaea Esper, [1780], Papilio (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera), designated, under the Plenary Powers, to be the type species of Satyrus Latreille, 1810 ie 69 placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology as Name No. 246 632 Agriades Hubner, [1819] (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera), validation of, under the Plenary Powers, and Papilio glandon Prunner, 1798, designated as type species 485 alceae Esper, [1780], Papilio (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera), designated, under the Plenary Powers, to be the type species of Carcharodus Hubner, a and of its synonym Spilothyrus Duponchel, 1835 591 Ammophila Kirby, 1798 (Class Insecta, Order Hymenoptera), all type selections for, set aside under the ney Powers, and Sphex sabulosa Linnaeus, 1758, designated as type species : : Be ce We a ae 571 gender of name ap oe Ne : Ey an 3 687 placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology as Name No. 618 571 Anguillulina Gervais & Van Beneden, 1859 en Daye case for use of the Plenary Powers not established 291—305, 731 Anguina Scopoli, 1777 (Class emiarods): case for use of the Bena Powers not established : Fs oe : ans oi fis . 291—305, 730—731 Anthophora Latreille, 1803 (Class Insecta, Order Hymenoptera), all type selections for, set aside under the Plenary Powers, and Avs ee Fabricius, 1775, designated as type species : : et +e on 171 gender of name x: Ay it e: By, m a 687 placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology as Name No. 595 171 742 Opinions and Declarations apiaster Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Merops apiaster (Class Aves), placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology as Name No. 244 aptera Charpentier, 1825, as published in the combination Forficula aptera (Class Insecta, Order Dermaptera), ss on the es a eae Names in Mae as Name No. 268 correction of Name No. on above List to Name No. 267 Arge Schrank, 1802 (Class Insecta, Order Hymenoptera), placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology as Name No. 603, with Tenthredo enodis Lin- naeus, 1767, as type species : é ae us a a gender of name Argynnis Fabricius, 1807 (Class Insecta, Order oa validated under the Plenary Powers, as against Argyreus Scopoli, LITA tr gender of name placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology as Name No. 609, with Papilio paphia Linnaeus, 1758, as type species Argyreus Scopoli, 1777 (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera), decision, under the Plenary Powers, not to substitute this name for Argynnis Fabricius, 1807 gender of name placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology as Name No. 758 with Papilio niphe Linnaeus, 1767, as type species (with note as above) argyrognomon Bergstrasser, [1779], Papilio (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera), designated, under the Plenary Powers, to be the pies SPSEIES of Lycaeides Hubner, [1819] gh Bs ae bee : us Astata Latreille, 1796 (Class Insecta, Order Hymenoptera), placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology aS Name No. ee with ea abdominalis Panzer, [1798], as type species ‘ 3 gender of name Astatus Jurine, 1801 (Class Insecta, Order coisa lee! SUPP EOS under the Plenary Powers bes si a é placed on the Official Index a ee and Invalid Generic Names in ee as Name No. 215 Mes atalanta Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Papilio atalanta (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera), wieeeat on the sone List as Specie Names in Zoology as Name No. 258 , Bacillus Le Peletier de Saint Fargeau and Serville, 1825 (Class Insecta, Order Orthop- tera), placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Hoe eey in) Name No. ne with Mantis rossia Rossi, 1790, as type species gender of name _ Page 632 655 699 253 687 309 687 309 309 615 615 433 31 688 37 634 633 147 687 Volume 2 bedeguaris Linnaeus, 1758, Ichneumon (Class Insecta, Order Hymenoptera), desig- nated, under the Plenary Powers, to be the type species of Torymus Dalman, 1820 placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology as Name No. 257 Bethylus Latreille, [1802—1803] (Class Insecta, Order Hymenoptera), all type selections for, set aside under the Plenary Powers, and Omalus fuscicornis Jurine, 1807, designated as type species ait His Me gender of name Ae He oe «f he ips Bi ne placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology as Name No. 596 Bracon Fabricius, [1804—1805] (Class Insecta, Order Hymenoptera), all type selections for, set aside under the Plenary Powers, and JIchneumon minutator Fabricius, 1798, designated as type species oH : gender of name placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology as Name No. 610 brevipennis Latreille, [1802—1803], Proctotrupes (Class Insecta, Order Hymeno- ptera), designated, under the Plenary ee to the aoe age of Proctotrupes Latreille, 1796 } ny bh ‘ ‘ : placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology as Name No. 190 caerulans Linnaeus, 1767, as published in the combination Gryllus caerulans (Class Insecta, Order Orthoptera), pices on the os List el ore Names in ey as Name No. 269 correction of Name No. on above List to Name No. 268 caerulescens Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Gryllus caerulescens (Class Insecta, Order Orthoptera), ee on the a List a eee Names _in Zoology as Name No. 270 .. correction of Name No. on above List to Name No. 269 Callimome Spinola, 1811 (Class Insecta, Order Hymenoptera), suppression of, under the Plenary Powers, for the purposes of the Law of aes but not for those of the Law of Homonymy . ; HS as sits é Re si ae placed on the Official List Mh Sa and Invalid Generic Names in pee as Name No. 219 44 Carcharodus Hiibner, [1819], (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera), designation, under the Plenary Powers, of Papilio alceae Esper, [1780], as type species of 5 cardui Linnaeus, 1758, as pulblisthedl in the combination Cimex cardui (Class Insecta, Order Hemiptera), Dieses on the Coe List ei Serene Names in Looe as Name No. 247... : cardui Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Papilio cardui (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera), pees on the Laden List of Species Names in ar ages as Name No. 259... caricae Linnaeus, 1758, Papilio (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera), designated, under the Plenary Powers, to be the type species of Nymphidium Fabricius, 1807. . 743 Page 229 633 199 687 199 SYA! 687 321 547 616 655 699 655 699 229 635 591 632 633 461 744 Opinions and Declarations Page Cephus Latreille, [1802—1803] (Class Insecta, Order Hymenoptera), placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Aoeeey [as } Name No. ie with Sirex pygmaeus Linnaeus, 1758, as type species 37 gender of name 687 Ceraphron Jurine, 1807 (Class Insecta, Order Hymenoptera), all type selections for, set aside under the Plenary Powers, and Ceraphron sulcatus Jurine, 1807, designated as type species ae ae oh fut as Ne a oes AO, gender of name 687 placed on the Official es of Goer Nees in Les as Nae os 615 497 Ceraphron Panzer, [1805], (Class Insecta, Order Hymenoptera), suppression of, under the Plenary Powers, for the purposes both of the Law of sae and the Law of Homonymy : a ot By i sou aoe placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology a Name No. 165 eT, Chelidura Berthold, 1827 (Class Insecta, Order Dermaptera), placed on the Official List of Generic ‘Names. in Zoology [as Name No. eins with as ante Charpentier, 1825, as type species 5 147 gender of name 688 Cimbex Olivier, 1790 (Class Insecta, Order Hymenoptera), all type selections for, set aside under the ae Powers, and Tenthredo lutea Linnaeus, 1758, designated as type species ; ae a ma or nas Ae, a 91 gender of name ie i ae be EBs aes is ae 687 placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology [as Name No. 571] 91 Colias Fabricius, 1807 (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera), validation of, under the Plenary Powers, and Papilio hyale Linnaeus, 1758, designated as type species 111 gender of name a tye A ae “ie ae sigs 688 placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology |as Name No. 572] 111 Conulinus von Martens, 1895 (Class Gastropoda), decision in Opinion 86 that Bulimus conulus Reeve, 1849 as the type species not to be affected by the discovery that this designation is antedated by the designation by Woodward in 1896 of Buliminus OEE) cat von Martens, 1895, as type species of this genus ay . ve he a be sia Sy 521—532 corus Fabricius, 1793, Papilio (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera), designated, under the Plenary Powers, to be the type species of Euploea Fabricius, 1807 .. 337, 624 Crabro Fabricius, 1775 (Class Insecta, Order Hymenoptera), all type selections for, set aside under the Plenary Powers, and Vespa cribraria Linnaeus, 1758, designated as type species ae ie eG ’ ok ae 91 gender of name * at ae is ve ae Be 687 placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology {as Name No. 570] 91 Volume 2 TAS Page Crabro Geoffroy, 1762 (Class Insecta, Order Hymenoptera), suppression of, under the Plenary Powers for the purposes both of the Law of ee and the Law of Homonymy i ; é Sit placed on the Official Index a elated and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology as Name No. 216 aoe : 634 cribraria Linnaeus, 1758, Vespa (Class Insecta, Order Hymenoptera), designated, under the Plenary Powers, to be the type species of Crabro Fabricius, 1775 Os 91 placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology as Name No. 248 a OSe Cryptus Fabricius, [1804—1805 | (Class Insecta, Order Hymenoptera), placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology as Name No. 602, with We vidua- torius Fabricius [1804—1805], as type species : 253 gender of name .. a ae Ee Se - xs sic cn eu ae OOre cupido Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Papilio cupido cae Insecta, Order Lepidoptera), type species of Helicopis Fabricius, 1807 .. E Be (9) Cynthia Fabricius, 1807 (Class Insecta, Order peeeileptea): not to be used in preference to Vanessa Fabricius, 1807 ; a 242—248 placed on the Official List as Generic Names in paces as Name No. 805 Coy note as above) on : 631 daplidice Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Papilio daplidice ce Insecta, Order Lepidoptera), type species of Pontia Fabricius, 1807 aD (9) Declaration on the importance of forming specialist groups for the study of the nomenclature of particular divisions of the animal kingdom (Declaration 10) i—vili, 727 Declaration on the need for a clear indication in the description of new genera or species of the Order and Family involved (Declaration 11) .. Me ix—xvi, 727 Declaration on the question of breaches of the Code of Ethics (Declaration 12) XVII—xxiv, 728 demodocus Esper, [1798]. Papilio, (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera), designated, under the Plenary Powers, to be the pe pec of EDS Hubner, Co and of Orpheides Hubner, [1819] Sie 559 placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology as Name No. 191 SRR ONG Diprion Schrank, 1802 (Class Insecta, Order Hymenoptera), placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Bee as Name No. 604, with Tenthredo pini Linnaeus, 1758, as type species is if bi =e bes a 25 gender of name .. aK ae Se ak ae oy ie ne an OS 746 Opinions and Declarations Dryinus Latreille, [1804] (Class Insecta, Order Hymenoptera), placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology as Name No. 597, with Dryinus formicarius Latreille, [1804—1805], as type species : bie wt ve gender of name enodis Linnaeus, 1767, as published in the combination Tenthredo enodis (Class Insecta, Order Hymenoptera), pine on on the ens Oiiele ial List of Specific Names in Zoology as Name No. 261 ) ae a WS ae Ephialtes Gravenhorst, 1829 (Class Insecta, Order Hymenoptera), all type selections for, set aside under the Plenary Powers, and Ichneumon manifestator, Linnaeus, 1758, designated as type species aN 1 a ais gender of name ae fy a Hel a sie a ch placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology as Name No. 608 Ephialtes Schrank, 1802 (Class Insecta, Order Hymenoptera), suppression of, under the Plenary Powers, for the purposes both of the Law of inom and the Law of Homonymy : my é ee i placed on the Official Index eh Paes and Invalid Generic Names in eee as Name No. 221 a - * Erlangen List’, 1801, anonymous paper commonly known as, suppression of placed on the Official Index of ea and Invalid Works in see Nomen- clature as Work No. 28 be esperi Kirby, 1871, Euchloé ausonia Hiibner [1819] var. (Class Insecta, Order Lepi- doptera) designated, under the one Powers, to be the type aa of Euchloé Hubner, [1819] Euchloé Hubner, [1819] (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera), designation, under the Plenary Powers, of Euchloé ausonia Hiibner var. esperi pny 1871, as Ee Pee of As wae ay Ag ur s oe Eumastax Burr, 1899 (Class Insecta, Order Orthoptera), placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Cosy ) Name No. ee with Mastax tenuis oh 1832, as type species ; gender of name .. Euploea Fabricius, 1807 (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera), validation of, under the Plenary Powers, and Papilio corus Fabricius, 1793, designated as type species gender of name placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology as Name No. 611 Euthalia Hubner, [1819] (Cis Insecta, Order Pepe ay validation of, under the Plenary Powers ae 401, gender of name placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology as Name No. 613, with Papilio lubentina Cramer, [1777], as type species .. Page 199 687 633 535 535) 147 707 33, 688 337 726 688 401 a Volume 2 747 Page extensorius Linnaeus, 1758, Ichneumon (Class Insecta, Order Hymenoptera), designated, under the Plenary Powers, to be the Re species of Ichneumon Linnaeus, 1758 ne aS sii a , oy te “ . Dh placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology as Name No. 264 634 correction of Name No. on above List to Name No. 263 699 Fabricius (J. C.), a paper entitled ‘‘ Die neueste Gattungs-Eintheilung der Schmetter- linge aus den Linneischen Gattungen Papilio und Sphinx ’’ in 1807, Magazin fiir Insektenkunde (Illiger) 6 : 277—295, generic names in, to have, under the Plenary Powers, precedence over names for identical genera published in the same year by Hiibner (J.) on the legends to a in vol. 1 of tae exotischer Schmetter- linge on Ns ar ‘ XY ne Ae : id ig . .23—28 placed on the Official List of Works deni oued as Available in Boca ey Nomen- clature as Work No. 14 (with above note) . : 636 falcata Poda, 1761, Gryllus (Class Insecta, Order Orthoptera), designated, under the Plenary Powers, to be the type species of Phaneroptera Serville, 1831.. Ree OA | placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology as Name No. 255.. 633 flavipennis Fabricius, 1793, Sphex, (Class Insecta, Order Hymenoptera), designated, under the Plenary Powers, to be the type species of Sphex Linnaeus, 1758 BOER TEb placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology as Name No. 192 616 formicarius Latreille, [1804—1805], as published i in the combination Dryinus formi- carius (Class Insecta, Order Hymenoptera), eres on the ey List eh res Names in Zoology as Name No. 254 .. 633 Freyer (C. F.), 1833—1858, Neuere Beitrdge zur Schmetterlingskunde, (7 vols.), method to be adopted in eee the generic names assigned by Freyer to species described in this book .. ‘ a a ae ae a a 3 placed on the Official List of Works sae alae as Available in ci a ate Nomen- clature as Work No. 12 sd 635 fuscicornis Jurine, 1807, Omalus (Class Insecta, Order Hymenoptera), designated, under the Plenary Powers, to be the type species of Dies Latreille, rar 1803] : : eee placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology as Name No. 253 633 Gampsocleis Fieber, 1852 (Class Insecta, Order Orthoptera), placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Baereny [as Name No. hae with Locusta es ha Herbst, 1786, as type species : 147 gender of name 688 gigantea Klug, 1820, as published in the combination Proscopia gigantea (Class Insecta, Order Orthoptera), placed on the aelouas List toh aneciiee Names in fede as Name No. 271 655 699 correction of Name No. on above List to Name No. 270 748 Opinions and Declarations Page glabra Herbst, 1786, as published in the combination Locusta glabra (Class Insecta, Order Orthoptera), pec on the ie List ar Bie die Names in Ore as Name Nor 272) 2 655 correction of Name No. on above List to Name No. 271 .. ah Pe Hesueh” \oe de) glandon Prunner, 1798, Papilio (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera), designated, under the Plenary Powers, to be the type species of Agriades Hiibner, [1819] .. 485 Gryllacris Serville, 1831 (Class Insecta, Order Orthoptera), placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology es Name No. ee with Gryllacris maculicollis Serville, 1831, as type species .. Me : a Leg af $e 147 gender of name .. as a ais Or aL i be Fe 5. 688 Gryllotalpa Latreille, [1802—1803], (Class Insecta, Order Orthoptera), placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology Name No. one with | SR talpa Linnaeus, 1758, as type species .. 147 gender of name .. sits fe >= ei Bh es ays bus Si 707 gryllotalpa Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Gryllus gryllotalpa (Class Insecta, Order Orthoptera), pe on the Piers List ee Species Names in Zoology as Name No. 273 5 655 correction of Name No. on above List to Name No. 272 .. he ae yee O99 Helicopis Fabricius, 1807 (Class Insecta, Order Ppp ae) in relation to Rusticus Hiibner [1807] .. a wn As ay ; 7 ee ig e 24 gender of name .. ne Pi ae: a a tal aes a .. 688 placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology as Name No. 565.. (9), (19) Hemimerus Walker, 1871 (Class Insecta, Order Dermaptera), placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ee Name No. 579], with Hemimerus talpoides Walker, 1871, as type species .. mt a at, ab A we ka gender of name .. ve ae i: ae me a a on se OOM Hubner (J.), 1806—[1838], Sammlung exotischer Schmetterlinge, (3 vols.), generic names published on the legends to plates in Vol. 1 of this work are not to take precedence over the names published by Fabricius earlier in 1807.. Ae ae 23 placed on the Official List of Works Approved as Available in Goclenias Nomen- clature as Work No. 15 (with above proviso) Hy 636 Hubner (J.), 1816—[1826], Verzeichniss bekannter Schmettlinge [sic], dates of publication to be ascribed to the various portions of this work .. a 161—167 placed on the Official List of Works Approved as Available in ae Nomen- clature as Work No. 16 with dates as specified in Opinion 150 .. 636 hyale Linnaeus, 1758, Papilio (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera), designated, under the Plenary Powers, to be the type species of Colias Fabricius, 1807 a oe Sid placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology as Name No. 250 22632 Volume 2 749 ae Page Hylaeus Fabricius, 1793 (Class Insecta, Order Hymenoptera), case for the use of the Plenary Powers not established .. 4s Ae ee 42 445—456, 732 hyperbius Linnaeus, 1763, as published in the combination Papilio hyperbius (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera), placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology as Name No. 184 ue ps aU ie se wie at a 616 icarus Rottemburg, 1775, Papilio, (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera), designated, under the Plenary Powers, to be the type species of Polyommatus Latreille, 1804. . ala Ichneumon Linnaeus, 1758 (Class Insecta, Order Hymenoptera), all type selections for, set aside under the Plenary Powers, and Ichneumon extensorius Linnaeus, 1758, designated as type species an ae ee a bea ie See w27/ 7) gender of name .. ay A is one Sis me ie Ae a OOH placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology as Name No. 606 pent 277) instigator Fabricius, 1793, Ichneumon (Class Insecta, Order Hymenoptera), designated, under the Plenary Powers, to be the type species of Pimpla Fabricius, [1804— 1805] ae ns ue nies as a we sig ue sie ee ea 7h7 placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology as Name No. 265 Sa O34 correction of Name No. on above List to Name No. 264 .. Be 2 be ERY) Labia Leach, 1815 (Class Insecta, Order Dermaptera), placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology [as Name No. 580], with Forficula minor Linnaeus, 1758, as type species a or ae Ae ah a i or ph 147 gender of name .. 4G is my Nee aa Ss i a ot 688 Lasius Fabricius, [1804—1805] (Class Insecta, Order Hymenoptera), all type selections for, set aside under the Plenary Powers, and Formica nigra Linnaeus, 1758, designated as type species the ee - ns id. ect ae 171 gender of name .. Ge A are A oe a ee aps ev LOOM placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology as Name No. 594 Bete all Lasius Panzer, [1801—1802] (Class Insecta, Order Hymenoptera), suppression of, under the Plenary Powers, for the purposes both of the Law of Priority and the Law of Homonymy i AD ue sits es te EY: if ae 171 placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology as Name No. 217 634 Latiorina Tutt, 1909 (synonym of Agriades Hubner, [1819]}) (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera), designation, under the Plenary Powers, of Papilio glandon Ae Prunner, 1798, as type species .. 750 Opinions and Declarations Latreille, 1810, Considérations générales sur ? Ordre naturel des Animaux composant les Classes des Crustacés, des Arachnides et des Insectes avec un Tableau méthodique de leurs Genres disposés en Familles, acceptance, under certain conditions, for nomenclatorial purposes, of entries in the Tableau a a at the end of this work (amplification of Opinion 11) . as ; ae placed on the Official List of Works eu ee as Available in ee Nomen- clature as Work No. 13 (with above note) . Leptophyes Fieber, 1852 (Class Insecta, Order Orthoptera), placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology [as Name No. 581], with Locusta punctatissima Bosc, 1792, as type species ie yk ut 15 gender of name lilifolia Fabricius, 1793, as published in the combination Locusta lilifolia (Class Insecta, Order Orthoptera), places on the ied List a ee: Names in fee as Name No. 256 Limnas Hiibner, [1806] (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera), suppression of, under the Pienary Powers, for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy.. : a placed on the Official Index a pees and Invalid Generic Names in Aap as Name No. 164 oe : Locusta Linnaeus, 1758 (Class Insecta, Order Orthoptera), validation of, under the Plenary Powers, and Gryllus migratorius Linnaeus 1758 designated as type species gender of name at Bs Us Ble ay si Ait ae placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology as Name No. 605 lubentina Cramer, [1777], as published in the combination Papilio lubentina (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera), Se on the ls List oh Spec Names in Zoology as Name No. 187 ¢ : lutea Linnaeus, 1758, Tenthredo, (Class Insecta, Order Hymenoptera), page under the Plenary Powers, to be the type species of Cimbex Olivier, 1790 placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology as Name No. 249 Lycaeides Htibner, [1819] (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera), designation, under the Plenary Powers, of Papilio argyrognomon Bergstrasser, [1779], as type species of maculicollis Serville, 1831, as published in the combination Gryllacris maculicollis (Class Insecta, Order Orthoptera), es on the mee List oO Spee Names in Zoology as Name No. 274 : correction of Name No. on above List to Name No. 273 Mancipium Hibner, [1807] ct Insecta, Order t Lapidore SuPP TSE under the Plenary Powers placed on the Official Index a Hoes and Invalid Generic Names in Zooley as Name No. 214 Bie Page 15 635 147 687 633 461 617 265 688 265 616 91 632 433 655 699 26 634 Volume 2 751 : Page manifestator Linnaeus, 1758, Ichneumon (Class Insecta, Order Hymenoptera), designated, under the Plenary Powers, to be the oie oe spruce of PO BHES, Graven- horst, 1829 “a Ls i : : eA i placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology as Name No. 266 634 correction of Name No. on above List to Name No. 265 .. 699 Mantis Linnaeus, 1767 (Class Insecta, Order Orthoptera), placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology las Name No. woo with Se aoe oe Linnaeus, 1758, as type species 147 gender of name 707 Meigen, (J.W.), 1800, Nouvelle Classification des Mouches a deux ailes, status of generic names of the Order Diptera first published in un 183—193, 729 Merope Newman, 1838 (Class Insecta, Order Meroptea) method of tore the family name for this genus . .47—53 gender of name ee mh ae ae ar Bae: Ay an ne. wood placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology as Name No. 803, with Merope tuber Newman, 1838, as type species 631 MEROPEIDAE (emend. of MEROPIDAE) Tillyard, 1919 (type genus : Merope Newman, 1838) (Class Insecta, Order Mecoptera), ee on the ek List 2 Family- Group Names in Zoology as Name No. 2 : 667 MEROPIDAE Lesson, [1830] (type genus : Merops Linnaeus, 1758) (Class Aves), Bae on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoologyas Name No.1... 667 MEROPIDAE Tillyard, 1919, placed on the Official Index a na ae and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology as Name No. 1 oe 667 Merops Linnaeus, 1758 (Class Aves), method of forming the coon name for this genus a sie ate - ay, bs a , 3 . 49—S51 gender of name a My a ie ot we Ai aia : 631 placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology as Name No. 802, with Merops apiaster Linnaeus, 1758, as type species ; 631 migratorius Linnaeus, 1758, Gryllus (Class Insecta, Order Orthoptera), designated, under the Plenary Powers, to be the type species of Locusta Linnaeus, 1758 ‘ 265 placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology as Name No. 263 633 deletion of above entry from the above List, because name already placed thereon (Opinion 299) i Sul bat ae i a eee "699 minor Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Forficula minor (Class Insecta, Order Dermaptera), placeay on the Qe! MUSE oh pueeine Names in Zoology as Name No. 275 : 655 correction of Name No. on above List to Name No. 274 699 752 Opinions and Declarations Page minutator Fabricius, 1798, Ichneumon, (Class Insecta, Order Hymenoptera), designated, under the Plenary Powers, to be the Ais eas of Bracon Fabricius, [1804—1805] a tie ‘ : ae : Be 692) | placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology as Name No. 185.. 616 Misocampe Latreille, 1818 (Class Insecta, Order Hymenoptera), suppression of, under the Plenary Powers, for the pe of the Law of re but not of the Law of Homonymy ey f a ate Kg , a 229 placed on the Official Index of pases and Invalid Generic Names in Zoey as Name No. 220 oe 635 monstrosus Drury, [1773], as published in the combination Gryllus monstrosus (Class Insecta, Order Orthoptera), placed on the oa List ue Specie Names in Zoology as Name IN AUD) oe 655 correction of Name No. on above List to Name No. 275 . 699 Morpho Fabricius, 1807 (Class Insecta, Order Pepeen ere) status of, in relation to Potamis Hiibner, [1807] DS gender of name ahs ae Bi Ae is ay Me Mg she 707 placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology as Name No. 564 (9), (19) Myrmecophilus Berthold, 1827 (Class Insecta, Order Orthoptera), placed on the Official List of Generic Names in AU [as Name No. ap with Blatta acervorum © Panzer, [1799], as type species ae ae up ise 147 | gender of name 687 nais Forster, 1771, as published in the combination Papilio nais (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera), place on the oS LIS Off ce Names in 20 as Name No. 188 _... § 616 nigra Linnaeus, 1758, Formica (Class Insecta, Order Hymenoptera), designated, under the Plenary Powers, to be the type species of Lasius Fabricius, [1804—1805] 171 placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology as Name No. 251 632 Nymphidium Fabricius, 1807 (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera), validation of, under the Plenary Powers, and Papilio caricae Linnaeus, 1758, a as ee species tk B Sa ae fl ee : 461 gender of name 688 placed on the Official jie of Gee. Noes in “Fe aly as Nae Noe 614 461 obscura Walker, 1869, as published in the combination Tarraga obscura (Class Insecta, Order Orthoptera), placed on the cies List oF ee Names in Zoology as Name No. 277 nS ; : 655 correction of Name No. on above List to Name No. 276 .. 699 Volume 2 753 Page Oedipoda Latreille, 1829 (Class Insecta, Order Orthoptera), placed on the Official List : of Generic Names in Zoology {as Name No. 584], with Gryllus caerulescens Linnaeus, 1758, as type species. . les ae M3 ae ie Pee an 147 gender of name .. ie ae So ais ee a a si 2 688 Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology, names placed on :— - MEROPIDAE Tillyard, 1919 are fe oe ae ee ia isd Bh IS7/ TINGIDAE Dohrn, 1859 .. Ne Bs as oe re a se see 668 TINGIDAE Westwood, 1840 veh a ie ab VS Be a L668 TINGIDARIA Distant, 1903 a fr ye af ae ae sea NOOS TINGIDES Amyot & Serville, 1843 hi Me ne ay ee oe Sa 668 TINGIDIDAE Fieber, 1861 ine as she a ne ae sie Ng 668 TINGIDIDEA Flor, I Mae ae oe ae ae es ea OOS TINGIDINA Douglas & Scott, 1865 ae aA sits Be ais gs ar 668 TINGIDINAE Van Duzee, ONG Se ek oe ie As bie big 668 TINGIDITES Laporte, 1833 a Me ie ie ne eps ce ie 668 TINGIDITES Spinola, 1837 a ne as as a Be x .. 668 TINGIDAE Baker (A.C.), 1922 .. wa 2s i ss a bs aes 668 TINGINI Costa (A.), 1838 ks ae a a Bs Me ae we 668 TINGITARIA Stal, 1873... ep a5 ae aos Bs ae a jas 668 TINGITIDAE Stal, 1873... Bue a a ie Ge ah re ae 668 TINGITINA Stal, 1873 ies a ab ie Ms as By os a 668 TINGITINI Champion, 1897 as a a ae me ie ahs se NgOOS Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology, names placed on :— Astatus Jurine, 1801 i Be a oy ae Be ae at ae 634 Callimome Spinola, 1811 sas 2 oe £5 bs as Be 3 LOSS Ceraphron Panzer, [1805] as se a ne ae ts 3 er 617 Crabro Geoffroy, 1762 ee ae ne ue i ae a -. 634 Ephialtes Schrank, 1802 oe ote ae ; ae Se ef a PhOSS Lasius Panzer, [1801—1802] .. ie 2 ie ae re ae ee 634 Limnas Hubner, [1806] .. ae va a ac ip is a i 617 Mancipium Hibner, [1807] she os Ny, ee ay oe oa .. 634 Misocampe Latreille, 1818 ue ns be es ne 4a He Pee os)s) Podalirius Latreille, 1802 ' es i ee a ve 635 Pompilus all uses of, prior to Fabricius, 1798 es om oe ne se a OMT Potamis Hubner, [1807] as ay Me me Ne av es a 634 Psammochares Latreille, 1796 .. Ms a a te ae nis ea Les Psopha Fieber, 1852 tie fey a Ky a ae ek a oF 656 Rusticus Hiibner, [1807] a: es ee ae we ne a ais 634 Serphus Schrank, 1780 we oN oe ai i ao fh ay MONT Sphingonothus Fieber, 1852 a ae Me, Ea ae ve eh yl 1656 Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Works in Zoological Nomenclature, works placed on :— ** Erlangen List’”’, 1801, pamphlet commonly known as ate aby ve Fie Vien BI! Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology, names placed on :— MEROPEIDAE Tillyard, 1919 ie oe oe oy ie we be 0 (O67 MEROPIDAE Lesson, [1830] Bs As we a ile oe a Pe 667 TINGIDAE Costa (A.), 1838 a a NT ee i ie we Sh Gil 754 Opinions and Declarations Official List of Generic Names in Zoology, names placed on :— Page Ammophila Kirby, 1798 nh tx ae A LA be wes ae 571 Anthophora Latreille, 1803 As ‘Ns he Bs alls as MD: a 171 Arge Schrank, 1802 * oe vy ue iy, fy iy ee pe 253 Argynnis Fabricius, 1807 she hi oe ne a es og Men 160), Argyreus Scopoli, 1777 .. of ae a Bes Be Ss a CeO Astata Latreille, 1796... ae ae a es Si Bacillus Le Peletier de Saint Fargeau & Serville, 1825 des Se ek ae 147 Bethylus Latreille, [1802—1803] oa ? a, es oe Ns? 199 Bracon Fabricius, [1804—1805] ee ays ais aie ud ns ots 321 Cephus Latreille, [1802—1803] .. Me A nt ate whe ay As 37 Ceraphron Jurine, 1807 .. ia sii ou ue ie Ms a ny 497 Chelidura Berthold, 1827 ve xi Le i Bye ne a J 147 Cimbex Olivier, 1790... a a ci ee mA 5 a se ce 91 Colias Fabricius, 1807 .. aie ak we ae Be ae ae ne 111 Crabro Fabricius, OT TS care we i uy ae oe AS fe 91 Cryptus Fabricius, [1804—1805] Hes i a oH af We 2S Diprion Schrank, 1802 oe : af ok ie a the hs 5 AEN ps) 4558 Dryinus Latreille, [1804]. . me se ee Ass ay ae if Me 199 Ephialtes Gravenhorst, 1829 sy are aig sete Me ae He PMY Arg) Eumastax Burr, 1899 ... Ne ou a oe Bee Le ais wy 147 Euploea Fabricius, 1807 bi ie sds AN #4 ae se aE 337 Euthalia Hubner, [1819] aye _ ti ms Ni sh x ae 401 Gampsocleis Fieber, 1852 1 4 ee ae ile me ihe wi 147 Gryllacris Serville, 1831 ai es My Ae oa, oe oe 147 Gryllotalpa Latreille, [1802—1803] abe Lt cuit ie oe af A 147 Helicopis Fabricius, 1807 a ae ais he ae §; as (9), (19) Hemimerus Walker, 1871 i oe a 2h ay ce ae 147 Ichneumon Linnaeus, 1758 oh ee me a 05 a ee BPN ai), Labia Leach, 1815 4 ie ie an As se the es 147 Lasius Fabricius, [1804-1805] oe ies Ws; th, ie i nd 171 Leptophyes Fieber, 1852 ; ne ay By it cs rs a 147 Locusta Linnaeus, 1758 oh wa ve ee Ae Pas ae et OO Mantis Linnaeus, 1767 .. a Ne aa Ue as Be aa aes 147 Merope Newman, 1838 a Wis Pe 33 aise 4m 53 : 631 Merops Linnaeus, 1758 as ats ee Me ch ae iy 631 Morpho Fabricius, 1807 ; Lad at aa ae hs hi ©), ie Myrmecophilus Berthold, O27, We, efi Bi ab Bs Si 147 Nymphidium Fabricius, 1807 Ais ies ae Re ve ue sip .. 461 Oedipoda Latreille, 1829 ae Ae ra ue nA Bs i Mie 147 Phaneroptera Serville, 1831 =f Be ue y, yh os ae co ata Phyllium Miliger, 1798 ai ue bale) Ue Me ie a a 147 Pimpla Fabricius, [1804—1805] he Ria bye uh Fe ni As Des Pompilus Fabricius, 1798 a Be ie a a se oe Sl Pontia Fabricius, 1SO7ee A ae wy ue Hib a i O. re Princeps Hubner, [1807] es ys de ne ce Ne 18 Proctotrupes Latreille, 1796 ait on vee, Ee hy 3 bie be {5 Prophalangopsis Walker, 1871 .. ae ‘e my se oe He ne 147 Proscopia Klug, 1820... ie a ae Ma a su Be we 147 Psophus Fieber, 1853 or es pe wns af se ue ss ih 147 Saga Charpentier, 1825 .. ss ae ee ae MS ois ae oe 147 Satyrus Latreille, 1810 .. Rie ay : om na ae a ie 69 Schizodactylus Brullé, 1835 ae ae ee see te As Me ae 147 Sphex Linnaeus, 1758 .. a oN ins aie We Bs a ay 571 Sphingonotus Fieber, 1852 an te de ays is ms 147, (18) Stenopelmatus Burmeister, 1gas) ae ie en ae a Af oe 147 Symphaedra Hibner, 1818 ee boi Oe ns i a au si OMS Tingis Fabricius, 1803 he e a me i ci ne a i 631 Torymus Dalman, 1820 we eh Me ae Eas Me on nit, 229 Tridactylus Olivier, 1789 Ee ie es bey A ses Bs bal 147 Tylopsis Fieber, 1853... oe ue ig a Ke Ne bh Meo 11! Vanessa Fabricius, 1807 a af ae ee a a a epi wi 72/41) Volume 2 TOS Official List of Specific Names in Zoology, names placed on :— Page abdominalis Panzer, [1798], Tiphia He ey ca a oh Bs ae 632 acervorum Panzer, [1799], Blatta a2 Ae a en a Pad te 655 achilles Linnaeus, 1758, Papilio. . iN Ki ay a, “ae fh as 631 actaea Esper, [1780], Papilio .. Ae a, in eee ee oe CHGS. apiaster Linnaeus, 1758, Merops Ue, ue Gs wi ane fu on 632 aptera Charpentier, 1825, Forficula .. ae 8 ne Ae bie ee eMOSD atalanta Linnaeus, 1758, Papilio 23 ee eh ee ae a ie OSS bedeguaris Linnaeus, 1758, Ichneumon Sh hk Ait a ae 633 brevipennis Latreille, [1802—1803], Procotrupes sie ie oe a ne 616 caerulans Linnaeus, 1767, Gryllus as Me AG He Ai sei GODS caerulescens Linnaeus, 1758, Gryllus .. xe bait a, ne Ps ee HOOD cardui Linnaeus, 1758, Cimex ne aN es HS SF WA =e Sa 632 cardui Linnaeus, 1758, Papilio .. we AW Me a ee Oe ne 633 cribraria Linnaeus, 1758, Vespa ... i: me iY ae Me Seam S872 demodocus Esper, [17981], Papilio ys sits het ae me uA As 616 enodis Linnaeus, 1767, Tenthredo me ae Beh ae ans i ue MGSO extensorius Linnaeus, 1758, Ichneumon a ie ae ay ae WA 634 falcata Poda, 1761, Gryllus ae i Ae Bh ie, a a iis OBO - flavipennis Fabricius, 1793, Sphex ae ae ae ay ac ae ase OG formicarius Latreille, [1804—1805], Dees Be uy Bi, By ay a 633 fuscicornis Jurine, 1807, Omalus ; a ae ats bas a SEG 38 gigantea Klug, 1820, Proscopia me ay ms ue Ri ut BEA 0)5)) glabra Herbst, 1786, IEOGUSTA 4). a tee Ath ee oil nh ie 655 gryllotalpa Linnaeus, 1758, Gryllus .. ue SP as | an Sas mee OS) hyale Linnaeus, 1758, Papilio .. a ee Ae iN, hiss a SOs hyperbius Linnaeus, 1763, Papilio cee ays ae as Hs ah ae, OG instigator Fabricius, 1793, Ichneumon Bes ae ie ay sie we 634 lilifolia Fabricius, 1793, Locusta oe ai ue a is ae Aen OS lubentina Cramer, [1777], Papilio ie Mp Wi ie cay ae ae 616 lutea Linnaeus, 1758, Tenthredo iy ue “ as ae i ie OOD maculicollis Serville, 1831, Gryllacris .. ie se as hs ine A AOOD manifestator Linnaeus, 1758, Ichneumon sid ajet we Ne st a 634 migratorius Linnaeus, 1758, Gryllus.. ae se at ae es oF 633 minor Linnaeus, 1758, Forficula Mi “hh ae ae ie ne Ae ODS minutator Fabricius, 1798, Ichneumon .. D, ae eh be ie .. 616 monstrosus Drury, [1773], Gryllus he a 7 Ne ahs my! Bethe D)S) nais Forster, 1771, Papilio me Be ae a we te ue .» + 616 ‘nigra Linnaeus, 1758, Formica ~ ef an we ita a wa 632 obscura Walker, 1869, Tarraga ie a ee Ba cae 3 Both vei 15) paphia Linnaeus, 1758, Papilio .. : AN ks as oe aoe SONG paradoxus Latreille, [1802—18031, Ti ridactylus as Ne Ss Wes 3s 656 pilipes Fabricius, 1775, Apis... ‘ A ie as ue hn ROO pini Linnaeus, 1758, Tenthredo .. ha a ns at a oe fe OO5 pulcher Fabricius, 1798, Pompilus a we 3: Re. os as bs ONO punctatissima Bosc, 1792, Locusta ay Ba ie a ag bl 25 1656 pygmaeus Linnaeus, 1767, Sirex pel Me ie ae ee te Ja) 265K religiosus Linnaeus, 1758, Gryllus ae 3 i te wl we bidd OSS rossia Rossi, 1790, Mantis pM Le ot 3 a ie es Brea 510) sabulosa Linnaeus, 1758, Sphex i hey Ls we it hye OL6 serrata Fabricius, 1793, Locusta ow ie ae ira ak »% #656 siccifolius Linnaeus, 1758, Gryllus un is a as Me Ae 5 O56 stridulus Linnaeus, 1758, Gryllus a ae aS ne a mi een OO sulcatus Jurine, 1807, Ceraphron Ae ae ah uA Mis ne a eG talpa Burmeister, 1838, Stenopelmatus ae ahs ae Ue ae So), 636 talpoides Walker, 1871, Hemimerus .. a ae of Ae ae Be ero Phe) tenuis Perty, 1832, Mastax ay un ye 2 a ie ts PES MEN SS (0) tuber Newman, 1838, Merops iW, SS ah a At , wl ae, viduatorius Fabricius, [1804—1805], Cryptus we a gt ay Be We OSS 756 Opinions and Declarations Official List of Works Approved as Available in Zoological Nomenclature, works placed on :— Fabricius (J.C.), 1807, Die neueste Gattungs- -Eintheilung der Schmetterlinge aus den Linneischen Gattungen ; Papilio: und" Sphinxs ig Freyer (C.F.), 1833—1858, Neuere Beitrdge zur Schmetterlingskunde, 7 vols. Hubner (J.), 1806—[{1838], Sammlung exotischer Schmetterlinge, 3 vols.. Hubner (J.), 1816—[1826], Verzeichniss bekannter Schmettlinge [sic] ; Latreille, 1810, Considérations générales sur Ordre naturel des Animaux com- posant les Classes des Crustacés, des Arachnides et des Insectes avec un Tableau méthodique de leurs Genres disposés en Familles Orpheides Hiibner, [1807], (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera), designation, under the Plenary Powers, of Papilio demodocus Esper, [1798], as type species of | paphia Linnaeus, 1758, Papilio (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera), designated, under the Plenary Powers, to be the type species of Argynnis Fabricius, 1807 .. placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology as Name No. 183 paradoxus Latreille, [1802—1803], as published in the combination Tridactylus paradoxus (Class Insecta, Order eae: Bee on the pea List of ae Names in Zoology as Name No. 278 . correction of Name No. on above List to Name No. 277 Phaneroptera Serville, 1831 (Class Insecta, Order Orthoptera), validation of, under the Plenary Powers, and Gryllus falcata Poda, 1761, designated as type species.. gender of name placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology as Name No. 598 Phyllium Mliger, 1798 (Class Insecta, Order Orthoptera), placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology [as Name No. 585], with Gryllus eae Linnaeus, 1758, as type species we Me ae ia is 5 : gender of name pilipes Fabricius, 1775, Apis (Class Insecta, Order Hymenoptera), designated, under the Plenary Powers, to be the type species of Anthophora Latreille, 1803. . placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology as Name No. 252 Pimpla Fabricius, [1804—1805], (Class Insecta, Order Hymenoptera), all type selections for, ‘set aside under the Plenary Powers, and Ichneumon instigator Fabricius, 1793, designated as type species ae gender of name ia ae a5 aie a mi i Mee placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology as Name No. 607 pini Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Tenthredo pini (Class Insecta, Order Hymenoptera), pieced on the nage List . Spee Names in Zoology as Name No. 262 . Page 636 635 636 636 635 59 309 616 656 699 211 688 Zio 147 688 17 632 2G 688 Pitt 633 Volume 2 TST Page Podalirius Latreille, 1802 (Class Insecta, Order Hymenoptera), suppression of, under the Plenary Powers, for the purposes both of the Law of Priority and the Law of Homonymy me ; A ae 171 placed on the Official Index a ees and Invalid Generic Names in eae _as Name No. 218 é 635 Polyommatus Latreille, 1804 (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera), designation, under the Plenary Powers, of Papilio icarus Rottemburg, 1775, as type species .. 511 Pompilus, all uses of, prior to Pompilus Fabricius, 1798, suppression of, under the Plenary Powers, for the purposes both of the Law of pny and the Law of Homonymy a 24 ‘ ; 3 Sil placed on the Official Index a ee and Invalid Generic Names in Ae as Name No. 163 oe 617 Pompilus Fabricius, 1798 (Class Insecta, Order Hymenoptera), all type selections for, set aside under the Plenary Powers, and Pompilus pulcher Fabricius, 1798, designated as type species a oe. 3 ae a satin SOME gender of name 687 placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology as Name No. 612 BIT Pompilus Schneider, 1784 ee fee ores Order Deemer declared a cheironym ori Pontia Fabricius, 1807 (Class Insecta, Order cae ie status of, in relation to Mancipium ‘Hiibner, [1807] . p : aye sa ke 24 gender of name 688 placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology as Name No. 566 ..(9), (19) Potamis Hubner, [1807] ues Insecta, Order een ay SUPE under the Plenary Powers 26 placed on the Official Index a page and Invalid Generic Names in oe as Name No. 212 ee ; 634 Princeps Hiibner, [1807], (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera), designation, under the Plenary Powers, of Papilio demodocus Esper, [1798], as type species of 559 gender of name | 615 placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology as Name No. 760 615 Proctotrupes Latreille, 1796 (Class Insecta, Order Hymenoptera), all type selections for, set aside under the Plenary Powers, and Proctotrupes brevipennis Latreille, [1802—1803], designated as type species Se xb ave He fe a gender of name 687 placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology as Name No. 616 547 758 Opinions and Declarations Page Prophalangopsis Walker, 1871 (Class Insecta, Order Orthoptera), placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology Es ‘Name No. Sac with eo obscura Walker, 1869, as type species .. 147 gender of name 707 Proscopia Klug, 1820 (Class Insecta, Order Orthoptera), placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology i ‘Name No. oe: with Proscopia bitin’ Ae 1820, as type species 147 gender of name 688 Prosopis Fabricius, [1804—1805] (Class Insecta, Order januari case for the use of the Plenary Powers not established : 445—456, 732 Prosopis Jurine, 1807 (Class Insecta, Order Eas bee case for the use of the Plenary Powers not established. . oe ae "445—456, 32 Psammochares Latreille, 1796 (Class Insecta, Order Hymenoptera), suppression of, under the Plenary Powers, for the Pimper of the Law of An but not of the Law of Homonymy ne ; ws a dt , a a a aoe placed on the Official Index A ada and Invalid Generic Names in pa as Name No. 162 se 617 Psopha Fieber, 1852 (Class Insecta, Order Orthoptera), placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology as Name No. 222 656 Psophus Fieber, 1853 (Class Insecta, Order Orthoptera), placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology is Name No. ee with eee stridulus Linnaeus, 1758, as type species 147 gender of name 687 pulcher Fabricius, 1798, Pompilus (Class Insecta, Order Hymenoptera), designated, under the Plenary Powers, to be the type species of Pompilus Fabricius, 1798 .. 377 placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology as Name No. 186 616 punctatissima Bosc, 1792, as published in the combination Locusta punctatissima (Class Insecta, Order Orthoptera), pines on the se List aie Specie’ Names in Zoology as Name No. 279 ; 656 correction of Name No. on above List to Name No. 278 699 pygmaeus Linnaeus, 1767, as published in the combination Sirex pygmaeus (Class Insecta, Order Hymenoptera), place on the nT List os Speci Names in Zoology as Name No. 242 631 Volume 2 7159 Régles Internationales de la Nomenclature Zoologique :— Page Article 4 method to be adopted in interpretion of.. ye .. 57—65, 722—723 Article 25 status of names originally rejected, or suppressed under the Plenary Powers, when republished with an indication. . Be Bie 101—105, 723 principles to be observed in interpretation of, in relation to the availability of generic names proposed as emendations of, or as substitutes for, earlier generic names of the same origin and meaning 133—140, (11)—(13), 724—725 Proviso (b), meaning of expression ‘‘ binary nomenclature ”’ as used in 291, 730 Proviso (c), interpretation of, in relation to the procedure to be adopted in publishing a name in substitution for another name .. i .. 31—34, 722 Article 30 principles to be observed in interpretation of, in relation to the type species of genera when two or more genera are united on taxonomic grounds 349—354, 725—726 principles to be observed in interpretation of, in relation to the names of genera based upon erroneously determined species .. Oy 413—426, 726 interpretation of, in relation to the selection, in abstracts and similar publica- tions, of the type species of genera, the names of which were Speen on, or before 31st December 1930 a ae pa : 473—479, 726 Article 34 principles to be observed in interpretation of, in relation to the rejection, as homonyms, of generic and a aed names of the same origin and meaning as names already published . a ai, .. 123—129, 723—724 principles to be observed in interpretation of, in relation to the homonymy of generic names proposed as emendations of, or as substitutes for, earlier generic names of the same origin and meaning 133—140, (11)—(13), 724—725 religiosus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Gryllus religiosus (Class Insecta, Order Orthoptera), pieces on the es List oo pore Names in eee as Name No. 280.. 656 removal of above puny from the above List, because name already Dies thereon 699 (Opinion 299) . oe a e a ae : ef rossia Rossi, 1790, as published in the combination Mantis rossia (Class Insecta, Order Orthoptera), Seen on the Pee List ee prec g Names in OE as Name No. 281... 656 correction of Name No. on above List to Name No. 279 .. bes i. sy 699 Rusticus Hubner, [1807] oes Insecta, Order are suDEresseiy under the Plenary Powers .. ; 26 placed on the Official Index of Fron and Invalid Generic Names in ie ee as Name No. 213 a 634 sabulosa Linnaeus, 1758, Sphex (Class Insecta, Order Hymenoptera), designated, under the Plenary Powers, to be the type species of Ammophila Kirby, 1798 era doh. Sie placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology as Name No. 193 62) bd 760 Opinions and Declarations Saga Charpentier, 1825 (Class Insecta, Order Orthoptera), placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology i Name No. vine: with Locusta serrata Fabricius, 1793, as type species gender of name Satyrus Latreille, 1810 (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera), validation of, under the Plenary Powers, and Papilio actaea Esper, [1780], designated as type species gender of name placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology [as Name No. 569] Schizodactylus Brullé, 1835 (Class Insecta, Order Orthoptera), placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ee ‘Name No. 590], with ores monstrosus Drury, [1773], as type species ts ee bie gender of name Scopoli, 1777, Introductio ad Historiam naturalem, status of generic names 147 | 687 | pUbliGhed aa AVWe 04k, Wa OAR bt Sarai OT OF santana Tam 301, 730—731. | Serphus Schrank, 1780 (Class Insecta, Order Hymenoptera), suppression of, under the Plenary Powers, for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy . as placed on the Official Index of ge and Invalid Generic Names in ae as Name No. 166 ; es serrata Fabricius, 1793, as published in the combination Locusta serrata (Class Insecta, Order Orthoptera), Biases on the Bee JLASE ae SHecine Names in Eaton as Name No. 282 correction of Name No. on above List to Name No. 280 .. siccifolius Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Gryllus siccifolius (Class Insecta, Order Orthoptera), Benny on the ee cial List ue Specie Names in gone as Name No. 283 correction of Name No. on Mat List to Name No. 281 .. Sphex Linnaeus, 1758 (Class Insecta, Order Hymenoptera), all type selections for, set aside under the Plenary Powers, and ee ve Fabricius, 1793, designated as type species ie ‘ <6 A au yy gender of name placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology as Name No. 617 Sphingonothus Fieber, 1852 (Class Insecta, Order tiene emendation to Sphingonotus, acceptance of placed on the Official Index of tage and Tang Generic Names in foe as Name No. 223 , 547 | 617 656 699. 656: 699: Volume 2 761 Page Sphingonotus (emend. of Sphingonothus) Fieber, 1852 (Class Insecta, Order Ortho- ptera), placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology Ee Name No. oot with Gryllus caerulans Linnaeus, 1767, as type species ue 147 gender of name .. me ay da ae Wy: Hi se of ae 687 emendation from Sphingonothus, acceptance of a Me ae ae . (18) ae Duponchel, 1835 (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera), designation, under the Plenary Powers, of Papilio alceae Esper, [1780], as type species of .. 591 Stenopelmatus Burmeister, 1838 (Class Insecta, Order Orthoptera), placed on the _ Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ae ‘Name No. ae with BL erases talpa Burmeister, 1838, as type species : 147 gender of name .. ays ay! os ae ae es st ee a OOr stridulus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Gryllus stridulus (Class Insecta, Order Orthoptera), Sai on the eieges List a pes Names in Zoology as Name No. 284 ‘ 656 correction of Name No. on above List to Name No. 282 .. a a an 699 Strymon Hubner, 1818 (Class Insecta, Order Pepiopil®)), case for use of the Plenary Powers not established. . : ; a8 361—373, 731 sulcatus Jurine, 1807, Ceraphron, (Class Insecta, Order Hymenoptera), designated, under the Plenary Powers, to be the type species of Ceraphron Jurine, 1807 arbre AO placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology as Name No. 189.. OLE Symphaedra Hubner, 1818 (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera), decision, under the Plenary Powers, not to invoke Bae precedence for this name as against Euthalia Hubner, [1819] ... ap AY Be ae a a .. 401 gender of name .. me: ia - fie devil Ay ee en ae Oo OS placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology as Name No. 759, with Symphaedra alcandra Hiibner, 1818, as type species (with note as above) Oks talpa Burmeister, 1838, as published in the combination Stenopelmatus talpa (Class Insecta, Order Orthoptera), placed on the pe List a ee Names in Zoology as Name No. 285 ae “ . 656 correction of Name No. on above List to Name No. 283 .. be m, i § CY talpoides Walker, 1871, as published in the combination Hemimerus talpoides (Class Insecta, Order Dermaptera), pieced on the ae List aA eee Names in Zoology as Name No. 286 i 656 correction of Name No. on above List to Name No. 284 ate ae a. 8 OOS tenuis Perty, 1832, as published in the combination Mastax tenuis (Class Insecta, Order Orthoptera), eos on the esc List ce cg Names in Roo: as Name No. 287... 656 correction of Name No. on above List to Name No. 285 .. a, oe Be 699 762 Opinions and Declarations TINGIDAE (emend. of TINGINI) Costa (A.), 1838 (type genus : Tingis Fabricius, 1803) (Class Insecta, Order Hemiptera), placed on the slain List oF Family-Group Names in Zoology as Name No. 3 , TINGIDAE Dohrn, 1859, placed on the Official Index 2 ia and Invalid oben Group Names in Zoology as Name No. 17... TINGIDAE Westwood, 1840, placed on the Official Index oe Relectas and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology as Name No. 16 .. TINGIDARIA Distant, 1903, placed on the eee Index wv Rare and Invalid ae Group Names in Zoology as Name No. 5 TINGIDES Amyot & Serville, 1843, placed on the Official Index a moe and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology as Name No.2 TINGIDIDAE Fieber, 1861, placed on the ae Index a ROE and Invalid ora Group Names in Zoology as Name No. 6 TINGIDIDEA Flor, 1860, placed on the Official Index a Soe and Invalid eee Group Names in Zoology as Name No. 7 Me TINGIDINA Douglas & Scott, 1865, placed on the Official Index a Re and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology as Name No.8 .... TINGIDINAE Van Duzee, 1917, placed on the Official Index » ee” and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology as Name No. 9 : TINGIDITES Laporte, 1833, placed on the ite Index of ROG and Invalid os Group Names in Zoology as Name No. 3 TINGIDITES Spinola, 1837, placed on the ae Index 2 sicaaaidee and Invalid page” Group Names in Zoology as Name No. 4 TINGIDAE Baker (A. C. ), 1922, placed on the Official Index a Rae and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology as Name No. 10 .. TINGINI Costa (A.), 1838, placed on the Official Index es pe apse and Invalid Rican Group Names in Zoology as Name No. 15... Tingis Fabricius, 1803 Clas Insecta, Order Hemp method of weir: the Family name for gender of name : ay te e pet i ft Be 5 placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology as Name No. 804, with Cimex cardui Linnaeus, 1758, as type species TINGITARIA Stal, 1873, placed on the Official Index Hh ace and Invalid Rie Group Names in Zoology as Name No. 11 .. TINGITIDAE Stal, 1873, placed on the Official Index of cei and Invalid pepe. Group Names in Zoology as Name No. 12... Page } 667 | 668 668 668 668 | 668 | 668 668 668 668 668 Specific Names in Zoology as Name No. 260.. Volume 2 763, Page TINGITINA Stal, 1873, placed on the Official Index oh peers and Invalid ees Group Names in Zoology as Name No. 13... 668 TINGITINI Champion, 1897, placed on the Official Index a Breed and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology as Name No. 14 668 Torymus Dalman, 1820 (Class Insecta, Order Hymenoptera), all type selections for, set aside under the Plenary Powers, and Ichneumon bedeguaris Linnaeus, 1758, designated as type species : ae ae sp ee BS IPAS gender of name , ae ae Be ty 687 placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology as Name No. 600 229 Tridactylus Olivier, 1789 (Class Insecta, Order Orthoptera), placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology [as ‘Name No. in with Tia ee isis Latreille, [1802—1803], as type species 147 gender of name 687 tuber Newman, 1838, as published in the combination Merops tuber (Class Insecta, Order Mecoptera), Ces on the ae List yok ae Names in Arey as Name No. 245... 632 Tylenchus Bastian, 1865 oes Nematoda): case for use of the Plenary Powers not established sie : Aa ae ia ae a 291—305, 731 Tylopsis Fieber, 1853 (Class Insecta, Order Orthoptera), placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology as Name No. 599, with Locusta lilifolia Fabricius, 1793, as type species We 5 ae a me eee PALL . gender of name 707 Vanessa Fabricius, 1807 (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera), placed on he Official List of Generic Names in Zoology as Name No. 601, with poe atalanta Linnaeus, 1758, as type species Me Le Rs sei ; oe wot 2at gender of name 688 viduatorius Fabricius, [1804—1805], as published in the combination Cryptus viduatorius (Class Insecta, Order Hymenoptera), paced ¢ on the ae List a : . 633 a Volume 2 765 PARTICULARS OF DATES OF PUBLICATION OF THE SEVERAL PARTS IN WHICH THE PRESENT VOLUME WAS PUBLISHED Part No. Page Nos. 1 Pl 36 y 7—12 3 13—20 Ae 1-28 5 — 29—34 6 35-46 7 A7T—54 8 566 es ~ 67—80 10 81—88 Teles 89—98 ea 99—108 13 109—121 14, © 123—132 te a 133-144 16 ~ 145—160 7 161—168 18 I—Vill 19 1X—xXVI1 20 169—180 21 181—196 22 XViI—XXIV 23 197—208 24 209—226 2S 22/—238 26 239—250 2h 251—262 28 263—274 29 275—290 30 291—306 30A (1)—(44) T.P.—XVI Contents of Part Opinion 134 Opinion 135 Opinion 136 Opinion 137 Opinion 138 Opinion 139 — Opinion 140 Opinion \41 Opinion 142 Opinion 143 Opinion 144 Opinion 145 Opinion 146 Opinion 147 Opinion 148 Opinion 149 Opinion 150 Declaration 10 Declaration 11 Opinion 151 Opinion 152 Declaration 12 Opinion 153 Opinion 154 Opinion 155 Opinion 156 Opinion 157 Opinion 158 Opinion 159 Opinion 160 Supplementary Notes and Indexes for Section A of Vol. 2 (Opinions 134—160) Foreword, Table of Contents for Section A Date of Publication 28th August 1939 28th August 1939 28th August 1939 30th October 1942 30th October 1942 30th January 1943 30th January 1943 30th January 1943 25th March 1943 25th March 1943 30th March 1943 30th September 1943 30th September 1943 30th September 1943 26th October 1943 9th December 1943 9th December 1943 24th May 1944 24th May 1944 24th May 1944 24th May 1944 12th July 1944 12th July 1944 12th July 1944 12th July 1944 17th October 1944 21st February 1945 21st February 1945 21st February 1945 17th April 1945 5th December 1945 5th December 1945 766 Part No. 31 32 33 34 a5 36 ay, 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 Sy) 53 54 DS, 56 Bil 58 59 Page Nos. 307—318 319—334 335—346 347—358 359—374 375—398 399—410 411—430 431—442 443—458 459—470 471—482 483—494 495—508 509—520 521—532 533—544 545—556 557—568 569—588 589—612 613—628 629—652 653—664 665—684 685—696 697—704 705—718 719—768 Opinions and Declarations Contents of Part Opinion 161 Opinion 162 Opinion 163 Opinion 164 Opinion 165 Opinion 166 Opinion 167 Opinion 168 Opinion 169 Opinion 170 Opinion 171 Opinion 172 Opinion 173 Opinion 174 Opinion 175 Opinion 176 Opinion 177 Opinion 178 Opinion 179 Opinion 180 Opinion 181 Direction 2 Direction 4 Direction 5 Direction 6 Direction 7 Direction 8 Direction 9 Appendices 1—3 Corrigenda, Indexes (whole volume) T.P. (whole volume)— (XXII) T.P. (Section B)—B. II Date of Publication 21st June 1945 21st June 1945 21st June 1945 21st June 1945 21st June 1945 21st August 1945 21st August 1945 25th September 1945 25th September 1945 25th September 1945 22nd January 1946 22nd January 1946 22nd January 1946 22nd January 1946 22nd January 1946 25th June 1946 25th June 1946 25th June 1946 25th June 1946 25th June 1946 28th February 1947 21st May 1954 lst October 1954 Ist October 1954 6th December 1954 6th December 1954 6th December 1954 6th December 1954 , | | 29th March 1954. Volume 2 767 INSTRUCTIONS TO BINDERS The present volume should be bound up as follows :— T.P. (for whole volume)—(XXII) T.P. (Section A)—XVI i—xxiv (°* Declarations ’’ 10—12) 1—306 (‘* Opinions ’’ 134—160) (1)—(44) (Supplementary Notes, etc.) T.P. (Section B)—B. III 307—612 (‘* Opinions *’ 161—181) 613—718 (‘* Directions ’”’ 2, 4—9) 719—768 (Appendices 1—3 ; Corrigenda ; Indexes) 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 59, 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 59 should be bound in at the end of the volume. wee WS Ne al pa a AT Printed in England by MetcatFe & Cooper LimiTED, 10-24 Scrutton St., London E C 2 Wud , « ot) > \sviap ie tis! tae yi i Vath ae SNR TEU TCP Ot RRR te UY a ee x awh ‘ 4 a i ; Wh Annie RY abit j en , ivi ] is Ay ea | \ 2 y ) ' 1 1 4 ‘ ‘ \ iw ee ‘ > 4 - i i 3 9088 a 971 0304 -... —