= as * 9) 7 ob) arn VER LATE ee Le a bd Pe ate id Wait ot et be te A wd ‘ec SMES MME Ra ARORA Kenya A Demat nas Rae ; enya Nh Boel 4 ' Pia’ iW, Vid gel ae)? ’ Me funy aN dt af a ate ey ten a BN f Nagy eaten He } ‘ , a Thi * ASTOR UA SA re 4 Bish ded vb bh MH HI i 1 idele ery : i 2 a c aaaRe na Moan AUNT SC ie CR ALN iter ited +} US eae Lk Re Mae rd Ts jeg AW aMPogea ser ftelydta atde ae hi) uo elit yihnyit i tts { a SRO OME MIMIMEM SKM NM SEN SpUouUNn Ham SMA T AG Aine Re ~ th ; rT WY, AN ei ] H eta : ha Let Aah ii Hl agi Wyn" in ili 4! Mh . R : ae ’ a att mina’ it te ieee DOR Mam On SA Ne baby Nee ti ty ) Mitt tte, aay x } ‘ |, ee. oa ‘ A aia? Pee RA M wa a Maa be " WHEL ae Wily] h ) 1 a i if 4 ‘ aaa ATT aque DART aD it ath ity rhe is'eldlh Tibet ty ate Thy tk aM Hep ti " ie ‘ Mt, I i i 4 Mat ts 44? Th) os ° inatieleiat $1. 1 iy big oy Hh is J mn ‘ ‘wists at i hs j | Met anit ik pret il i Mi ne Sa ay nae, Hones on J teh th) pa titeves " ve na " wan i ia, } ‘eat tn ' ; f ay ) i oe ite eh fi ’ . io ° 4 2 =< 2..s aT otaT = = - mia ‘ ibe } ‘ 4 4 , 4439 Ay U rf { a tear: ” . Nera) ae D we oe Pitas tee } ae nea he iennty ” be : y. ; Wee fi ith) Ae " ric Me nin peat? i j ‘ 1 ‘ “ : rf ie) th A a "he a ait 44 : ( Pi mn io ; ‘ re BRFSS i , “ nd ay se ahs i ale on an eee i ik: pith naltth “By | : etn ae aie * i oi ae “ESA N nie santa i x | x ' yee avi if mone i t ile wt \! i Mees ahi tatty BR hy #; ) Mh ‘ ! hi ab ie ; “a ni : " Af i | ; a raed Wa eek hat ft) no Se a to 4 A ‘ ana ik HN , i ga} ih By ‘f)) My . taht i i} ac } tt iy a ae wine “oh anal Puls ite Ayal ae i Pa NG ee eee meni Ahi, is Whi ait ¥ it AUBURN MINA DAT a SS Aiea LA AG : 4 vee ! Ph TaN NG \) it hi tab PHY) p04) ! Mh) we aN Hea me ith ah ty 44 ality Ok Goa ue { } a ft ne eG J if tip shi crane HE See ee ats a eee SSeS Ste cS SSS Se et Sn ee SS eee SSS SSS = ass Ss. i ee en SS aS oe Se eo a oe ee ee oe ee a a eS =o Ste Se ee Ses — m1 a ml aes . = =a ro Soee aes roms Mw tae —_ - ae eaten Se y = : a2 2B SS Sorte Hee Lane bali MG ite eat ratar eta ht} 088 G7 gh Anat suey 4! 8H Pt cat hakans Seat | Ailtt shay i isthe ; par otn ‘ ‘ f ath ine 4 Mt iat! t + wit { hae at i! atorecltcn tad , Hits : : ‘Wy a rant ia ais ayctt tote , i it ‘ me iy f4 HT M1 V4 q ee does ates RANE Lg br) Wee f Pa si) Pet aah nh : { ; } us nna ae a Aen ia me duties} pene) ae PMEL AMEN Arif uh |e TEU Tb ea a ie ¥ vane ' i cit A a i i a ii a i } } i : WW ' vt 0) Oe fe ‘ SCE al A it ae He AH ah eles >> es er ae 1 apd io tei be. vEAcwt a 1 ae “ i ely a * ¥ sie itt ari? wie: tah, Hn at Hs al ii eat sted “ i Heh Hes eK it iy aa a § Ri, 4 Bde" Be aoe TAR AY Het en LET pis ib ew ce @ ANN Wren cay ene THE AYN eS a a LG ie Lier 5 ey None 7 ‘i i ’ OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTER- NATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE VOLUME 6 Edited by FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E. Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature LONDON : Printed by Order of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature and Sold on behalf of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature by the International Trust at its Publications Office, 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7 1954-1955 (All rights reserved) _INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE COMPOSITION AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THE RULINGS GIVEN IN THE PRESENT VOLUME A. The Officers of the Commission President : Dr. Karl Jordan, Ph.D., F.R.S. (British Museum (Natural History), Zoological Museum, Tring, Herts, England). Vice-President: Dr. James L. Peters (Museum of Comparative Zoology, Cambridge, Massachusetts, U.S.A.). Secretary : Mr. Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. (London, England). B. The Members of the Commission Class 1949 Senor Dr. Angel CABRERA (La Plata, Argentina). Mr. Francis HEMMING (London, England) (Secretary to the Commission). Dr. Karl JorDAN (British Museum (Natural History), Zoological Museum, Tring, Herts, England) (President of the Commission). Dr. Th. MorTENSEN (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark). Dr. Joseph PEARSON (Tasmanian Museum, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia). Class 1952 Senhor Dr. Afranio do AMARAL (S. Paulo, Brazil). Professor J. Chester BRADLEY (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.). Professor Lodovico di CAPORIACCO (University of Parma, Italy). Professor J. R. DyMOND (University of Toronto, Canada). Dr. James L. Peters (Museum of Comparative Zoology, Cambridge, Massachusetts, U.S.A.) (Vice-President of the Commission). Dr. Harold E. Vokes (United States Geological Survey, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.). Class 1955 Professor Dr. Hilbrand BoscHMA (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands). Dr. William Thomas CALMAN (Tayport, Fife, Scotland). Professor Teiso ESAKI (Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan). Professor Béla HANKO (University of Debrecen, Hungary). Dr. Tadeusz JACZEWSKI (Polish Zoological Museum, Warsaw, Poland). Dr. Norman R. STOLL (Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, Princeton, New Jersey, U.S.A.). C. Alternate Members of the Commission at the Session held in Paris in 1948 Professor Enrique BELTRAN (Instituto Mexicano de Recursos Naturales Renovables A.C., Mexico City, Mexico). Dr. Edward HINDLE (Zoological Society of London, London, England). Dr. Arturo Ricardo JORGE (Museu Bocage, Lisbon, Portugal). Professor Harold Kirsy (University of California, Berkeley, California, U.S.A.). Dr. Henning LEMcCHE (Kgl. Veteriner- og Landbohgjskole, Zoologisk Labora- torium, Copenhagen, Denmark). Professor Kamel MANsouR (King Fouad University, Cairo, Egypt). Professor Z. P. METCALF (North Carolina State College of Agriculture and Engineering, University of North Carolina, Raleigh, North Carolina, U.S.A.). Mr. N. D. RiLey (British Museum (Natural History), London, England). Professor Ragnar SPARCK (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark). Professor Victor van STRAELEN (Institut Royal des Sciences Naturelles de Belgique, Bruxelles, Belgium). SecA) L. UsINGER (University of California, Berkeley, California, IV INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZCGOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE (continued) D. 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. {Ms J. H. Newman Secretariat: Mrs. E. M. Lewis (to 31st October, 1954) Miss D. G. Williams (from Ist November, 1954) Indexer: Miss Joan Kelley, B.Sc. Translator: Mrs. R. H. R. Hopkin INTERNATIONAL TRUST FOR ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Chairman: The Right Hon. Walter Elliott, 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. V FOREWORD The present volume—the sixth of the series entitled Opinions and Declarations rendered by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature—contains a further instalment of Opinions embodying decisions on the status of individual names and individual books taken by the International Commission at its Session held in Paris in 1948. The Opinions in question are Opinions 269 to 282. In the case of the last three of these Opinions the decisions taken in Paris were supplemented by further decisions taken by the Commission in 1954 for the purpose either of disposing of some point left unsettled in Paris or of amplifying or correcting points of detail in decisions taken during the Paris Session. The present volume completes the Opinions embodying decisions taken by the Commission in Paris, with the exception of the very important decisions then taken for the purpose of stabilising on the basis of existing practice the nomenclature of the human malaria parasites. The long series of decisions taken by the Commission on this subject has been embodied in Opinion 283, to which volume 7 of the present series has been allotted*. 2. A feature of the present volume to which special attention must be drawn is the inclusion in it of two Declarations. These are the first documents of this series to be published since 1944 when Declaration 12 was published in volume 2 of the present series. Five Declarations (Declarations 13—17) were however adopted by the Commission in 1952, but these were not formally rendered as Declarations at the time of adoption, it being con- sidered better at that time that the terms of the decisions so taken should be placed forthwith on the Agenda for the Meeting of the * The volume here referred to was published on 28th December 1954. VI Colloquium on Zoological Nomenclature and of the Inter- national Commission then being organised by the International — Trust for Zoological Nomenclature to be held at Copenhagen immediately before, and during, the meeting in 1953 of the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology. The decisions embodied in these Declarations were published in the second part of the Agenda for the Copenhagen Meetings (1953, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 19). The Declarations published in the present volume (Declarations 18 and 19) are the first Declarations adopted by the Commission since its Copenhagen Session. 3. The subject matter of the two Declarations included in the present volume is in each case one of exceptional importance. In Declaration 18 the International Commission prescribed Rules relating to the method to be followed in making entries on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology established by the Copenhagen Congress and on the corresponding Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology established by the same Congress. Declaration 19 contains a series of similar rules as to the method to be followed in inscribing specific names (i.e. the second portion of the binomen which constitutes the name of a species) on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology and on the corresponding Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology. 4. The adoption of Declaration 18 was an indispensable pre- liminary to the making of a start with the building-up of the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology -and of the corresponding Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names. By the early part of 1954 the need for such Rules had become a matter of urgency, for, until such were adopted, it was impossible for the Commission to codify the Rulings on the family-group names dealt with in the Opinions embodying certain decisions taken by it at Lisbon in 1935, and it was thus prevented from complying with the General Directive on this subject issued to the Commission by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948. 5. The special interest attaching to the Ruling given in Declaration 19 lies in the fact that it represents an important step VI taken to prepare the way for the publication of the first instalment of the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology and of the corres- ponding Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology at the same time that the first instalment of the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology and the corresponding Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology is pub- lished in book form. So great is the importance attached by the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature to the early publication of the first volume of the Official Lists and Official Indexes and so widespread is the demand for this volume by zoologists and palaeontologists that the International Trust has recently established a special post of Research Assistant, whose sole duty it is to work on matters connected with the Official Lists and the Official Indexes which require settlement before the stage of publication is reached. As announced in the Staff List on page IV of the present volume Miss D. N. Noakes, B.Sc. (Bedford College, London University) has been appointed to the Research post so established. Miss Noakes took up her appoint- ment on 20th September 1954, and it is hoped that it will now be possible to make much more rapid progress with the work on the Official Lists and Official Indexes than has hitherto been possible. 6. The present volume comprises 341 pages (T.P.—XIII, i—xl, 1—288). This is somewhat less than the number of pages comprised in the immediately preceding volumes. This is due to the fact that (as already explained) the next Opinion (Opinion 283, dealing with the names of the human malaria parasites) is so long that it would be impracticable to include it in the present volume. 7. Of the fourteen Opinions included in the present volume one deals with names belonging to two different Classes of the Animal Kingdom and another deals with a name and a book, thus bringing the total number of cases up to sixteen. Two of the applications relating to these cases were submitted by two appli- cants and one by five applicants. When account is taken of this fact, the total number of applicants is seen to amount to twenty- two. | 8. Four of the applications dealt with in the present volume were concerned with the status of books and the remaining vill twelve with individual names. Of this latter group, five (41.66 per cent.) involved the use by the Commission of its Plenary | Powers. The use of these Powers was involved also in one of the applications relating to the status of individual books. 9, The twelve applications relating to individual names dealt with in the Opinions published in the present volume, when grouped by reference to the Classes of the Animal Kingdom to which the genera or species concerned belong, are distributed as shown in the following table. In the same table the applications are arranged so as to distinguish those which involved the use of the Commission’s Plenary Powers from those which did not. TABLE 1 Distribution of applications (a) by Classes of the Animal Kingdom and (b) by whether they involved the use by the Commission of its Plenary Powers Number of applications Name of —-- a Class Involving the use of the Others Total Plenary Powers Cestoidea ] -- dal Insecta 3 5 8 Echinoidea 1 con 1 Aves a i 1 Mammalia l pel Totals 10. When the twenty-two applicants are arranged by reference to the countries in which they are resident, applications are seen IX to have been received from the following countries (arranged in alphabetical order) :— TABLE 2 Distribution of applicants by country of residence Country of Residence | Number of applicants Brazil Denmark Netherlands Switzerland United Kingdom United States of America Total 11. Under the Rulings given in the Opinions comprised in the present volume, 24 names were placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology and 27 names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. Inthe same Opinions, 21 names were placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology and 22 names on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology. Finally, in the same Opinions, the titles of four works were placed on the Official List of Works Approved as Available for Zoological Nomenclature and the titles of four works on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Works in Zoological Nomenclature. 12. The twelve Opinions dealing with individual names pub- lished in the present volume contain 50 comments received from interested specialists. In addition, seven comments were received on applications relating to the status of books. Of these 50, 49 related to the Class Insecta and one to the Class Echinoidea. 13. When the authors of the comments on individual names dealt with in the Opinions published in the present volume are Xx grouped by reference to their country of residence, the distribution is found to be as follows :— TABLE 3 Distribution of comments on applications relating to individual names, by country of residence of the specialists concerned | Country of Residence | Number of comments ——— Argentine | Brazil Dy Canada 4 France 1 Italy 1 Kenya l Netherlands 1 Union of South Africa H United Kingdom 15 United States of America Total 14. For the preparation of the indexes published in the con- cluding Part of the present volume the Commission is once again indebted to Miss Joan Kelley, B.Sc. In style these indexes follow the model laid down for volume 3 of the present series, which itself was based on the model followed in the preparation of indexes of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. FRANCIS HEMMING Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 28 Park Village East, Regent’s Park, LONDON, N.W.1. 6th December, 1954. TABLE OF CONTENTS Declarations DECLARATION 18 Adoption of Rules relating to the making of entries on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology and on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology. . DECLARATION 19 Adoption of Rules relating to the making of entries on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology and on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology Re Opinions OPINION 269 Validation, under the Plenary Powers, of the specific name idas Linnaeus, 1761, as published in the combination Papilio idas, and determination of the species represented by the nominal species Papilio idas Linnaeus, 1761, Papilio argyrognomon Bergstrasser, [1779], and Papilio argus Linnaeus, 1758 (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera) a ar ae OPINION 270 Addition to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology of the names of five nominal genera of butterflies (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera), originally established with misidentified type species, for which type species in harmony with accustomed usage were designated under the Pienary Powers in 1935 OPINION 271 Addition to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology of the generic names Equus Linnaeus, 1758 (Class Mammalia) and Alca Linnaeus, 1758 (Class Aves) (Opinion supplementary to Opinion 16). . OPINION 272 Designation, under the Plenary Powers, of a type species for the genus Jaenia Linnaeus, 1758 (Class Cestoidea) in harmony with accustomed nomen- clatorial usage (validation of an error in Opinion 84). . XI Page 9.41 ZS 4] XI OPINION 273 Suppression, under the Plenary Powers, of the anonymous pamphlet known as the Hildesheim List published in about the year 1840 and containing descriptions of new nominal species of mammals and birds from Java OPINION 274 Addition of the name _ Calliphora Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830 (Class Insecta, Order Dip- tera) to the Official List of Generic Names in So (Opinion supplementary to Opinion 82). . ie OPINION 275 Determination of the type species of the nominal genus Amplypterus Hubner, [1819] (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera) mm ee _ OPINION 276 Rejection, as not being of subgeneric status, of the intermediate terms used by Hubner (J.) between the generic and specific names of species in the first volume of the work entitled Sammlung exotischer Schmetierlinge, published in the period 1806—1823, and also in the work entitled Systematisch-alphabet- isches Verzeichniss aller bisher bei den Fiirbildungen zur Sammlung europdischer Schmetterlinge angegebenen Gattungsbennungen published in 1822.. OPINION 277 Validation, under the Plenary Powers, of the generic name Arachnoides Leske, 1778, and Echinarachnius Gray (J. E.), 1825 (Class Echinoidea), and designation, under those Powers, of type species for the genera so named.. OPINION 278 Addition to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology of the names of ten genera of the Sub-Order Rhopalocera of the Order Lepidoptera (Class Insecta), species of which were cited in the undated leaflet commonly known as the Tentamen, prepared by Jacob Hubner, which is believed to have been distributed to correspondents in 1806, a leaflet rejected in Opinion 97 Page 63 75 83 95 1 135 OPINION 279 Rejection, as of the status of a generic name, of any term placed between the generic name and the specific name of a species in the zoological works of Linnaeus and Fabricius (J. C.) (Opinion supplementary to Opinion 124) ; , OPINION 280 Emendation to Hygrobia of the generic name Hygriobia Latreille, 1804 (Class Insecta, Order Coleoptera) oe 5 a0 en ~, OPINION 281 Validation, under the Plenary Powers, of the generic name Corixa Geoffroy, 1762 (Class Insecta, Order Hemiptera) OPINION 282 Determination of the species to which the specific name plexippus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Papilio plexippus (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera) shall be held to apply Corrigenda Index to authors of applications dealt with in the present volume and of comments on those applications Subject Index .. Particulars of dates of publication of the several parts in which the present volume was published Instructions to binders XIII Page 179 189 205 22) 211 213 275 287 288 ane : x As Ay 5 ath & : ie 2 { ‘ = ' ' i i j ‘s ) freee yA y 1 4) te a = 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 6. Part 15. Pp. i—xx DECLARATION 18 Adoption of Rules relating to the making of entries on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology and on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology ENTHSON gS JAN & 1°55 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 Nine 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 DECLARATION 18 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 Naturrlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) (Ast January 1947) Senor Dr. Angel Cabrera (Eva Peron, F.C.N.G.R., Argentina) (27th July 1948) Mr. Francis Hemming (London, England) (27th July 1948) (Secretary) Dr. Joseph Pearson (Tasmania Museum, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia) (27th July 1948) Dr. Henning Lemche (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark) (27th July 1948) Professor Teiso Esaki (Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan) (17th April 1950) Professor Pierre Bonnet (Université de Toulouse, France) (9th June 1950) aoe Naosa 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, ‘Frankfurtea M., Germany) (5th July 1950) Professor Erich ‘Martin Hering (Zoologisches Museum der Humboldt-Universitéit zu Berlin, Germany) (5th July 1950) Senhor Dr. Afranio do Amaral (S. Paulo, Brazil) (12th August 1953) (Vice- President) Hae J. R. Dymond (University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada) (12th August 53 Professor J. Chester Bradley (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) (2th August 1953) (President) Professor Harold E. Vokes (Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, U.S.A.) 2th August 1953) Professor Béla Hanké (Mezdgazdasagi 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) DECLARATION 18 ADOPTION OF RULES RELATING TO THE MAKING OF ENTRIES ON THE ‘“ OFFICIAL LIST OF FAMILY- GROUP NAMES IN ZOOLOGY ” AND ON THE ‘OFFICIAL INDEX OF REJECTED AND INVALID FAMILY-GROUP NAMES IN ZOOLOGY ”’ DECLARATION :—In pursuance of the Directive issued by the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology, Copenhagen, 1953, that every family-group name which in any of its Opinions the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature may accept as a valid name shall be entered on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology and that every such name which the Commission may similarly reject or declare to be invalid shall be entered on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology, it is hereby directed that the making of entries on the foregoing Official List and Official Index shall be subject to the following Rules :— (1) Every entry of a family-group name on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology is to include, in addition to a full bibliographical reference for the family- group name concerned, the name of the type genus of the family-group concerned, the name of the author of the name of that genus and its date of publication, but is not to include bibliographical references in respect of that generic name, since in every case the generic name in question, if not already on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology, is to be placed on that List at the same time that the family-group name in question is placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in > A Aare & & .mws iV OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS Zoology and the requisite bibliographical references in respect of that generic name will be included in the entry in relation thereto made on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. (2) Where a family-group name based upon a generic name consisting of a word of Greek or Latin was originally published in a form contrary to that prescribed in Decision 50(1) (a) taken by the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology (1954, Copenhagen Decisions zool. Nomencl.: 34) and where in consequence it has been necessary, under Decision 50(1) (b) of the foregoing Congress (1954, ibid. : 34—35), to correct the spelling originally employed, the family-group name in question, on being placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology, (i) shall be attributed to the author by whom it was published in an incorrect form, (ii) shall rank for priority as from the date on which it was so published, but (111) shall be entered on the Official List in its corrected form with a statement as to the incorrect form in which it was originally published and with particulars as to the author by whom the incorrect form was corrected, and the date on which, and the place where, that correction was published. (3) The Rules prescribed in (1) above regarding the form of notation to be adopted in entering a family-group name on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology shall apply also to the notation to be adopted in entering a name belonging to the foregoing category on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family- Group Names in Zoology. (4) Where there is any reasonable doubt as to whether a given family-group name was published as a new name or merely as a record of a previously published name based upon the same generic name, that name shall be entered on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology as being a junior homonym of the earlier published name. DECLARATION 18 V fe THE STATEMENT OF THE CASE On the first occasion on which it became necessary in the day-to-day work of the International Commission to formulate proposals for the addition of names to the Official List of Family- Group Names in Zoology and to the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology serious difficulties were at once encountered by the Secretary. These difficulties were of two kinds. The first arose from the nature of certain of the provisions in relation to family-group names adopted by the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology, Copen- hagen, 1953; the second arose from the lack of clear guidance in those decisions as to the form of notation to be adopted in entering names on the Official List and Official Index then established for the recording of valid and invalid family-group names respectively. Mr. Hemming took the view as regards the first of these difficulties that, while it was clear the duty of the Commission to administer to the best of its ability the provisions prescribed by the Copenhagen Congress, this should not be held to exclude the right to commence an examination of the question whether it was desirable that an attempt should be made to devise proposals for a simpler and more readily applicable scheme for submission to the next (London, 1958) International Congress of Zoology. As regards the second of the difficulties referred to above, Mr. Hemming was of the opinion that, as these were concerned only with procedural matters it was within the com- petence of the International Commission, and indeed that it was its duty, at once to take the requisite decisions. In the light of the conclusions so reached, Mr. Hemming decided to submit to the Commission a paper giving particulars of the difficulties which he had encountered. In the same paper Mr. Hemming invited the Members of the Commission to furnish informal statements setting out their preliminary reactions as regards the problems disclosed in respect of certain of the provisions in regard to family-group names adopted by the Copenhagen (1953) Congress. In addition, he submitted proposals for overcoming the purely procedural difficulties which had arisen. These latter Mr. Hemming V1 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS recommended should form the subject of an immediate decision in order that the intention of the Copenhagen Congress, when establishing the Official List and Official Index of family-group names, should not be thwarted through lack of guidance as to the method to be followed in recording names in this way. 2. Mr. Hemming’s memorandum was submitted to the Com- mission—by airmail to Members of the Commission resident outside Europe—on 2nd July 1954. The memorandum so submitted was as follows :— Problems arising in the placing of family-group names on the ** Official List ’’ and ‘‘ Official Index ’’ established in 1953 for the recording of such names By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E., Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature Work has just been completed in this Office in connection with the preparation of the entries, which, under the decisions taken by the Commission in its vote on Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(54)4!, dated 5th April 1954, are now to be made in the Official List of Family- Group Names in Zoology, and in the corresponding Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Names in this group, in respect of (a) the family- group names based upon the generic names Merops Linnaeus, 1758 (Class Aves) and Merope Newman, 1838 (Class Insecta, Order Mecop- tera), both dealt with in Opinion 140, and (b) the generic name Tingis Fabricius, 1803 (Class Insecta, Order Hemiptera) dealt with in Opinion 143. Work has also been completed on the preparation of the entries which, under the decisions taken by the Commission in its vote on Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(54)3, dated 3rd April 1954, are now to be made in the foregoing Official List and Official Index in respect of the family-group names based upon the genera of the Acmaea/Acme/Acmea/Truncatella complex in the Phylum Mollusca?. 1 The decision taken by the International Commission on Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(54)4 has since been embodied in Direction 4 (1954, Ops. Decls. int. Comm. zool. Nomencl. 2 : 629—652). * The difficult questions arising at the family-name level in connection with generic names of the Acmaea/Acme|/Acmea|Truncatella complex were submitted to the Commission with Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(54)14 on 2nd July, 1954 (i.e., on the same day as that on which the memorandum—and associated Voting Paper—dealt with in the present Declaration was so submitted). The decision taken by the Commission in this case has been embodied in Opinion 344 (in the press). ; DECLARATION 18 Vil In each case assistance has been obtained from leading specialists : (1) for MEROPIDAE from Professor Ernst Mayr and Colonel R. Meinertzhagen; (2) for MEROPEIDAE from Mr. N. D. Riley and Mr. D. E. Kimmins ; (3) for TINGIDAE from Dr. W. E. China ; (4) for the ACMAEA complex from Dr. L. R. Cox. The thanks of the Commission are due to all these specialists for the valuable aid so rendered. 2. It is likely that the work on these names represents the first attempt that has so far been made to apply in detail the provisions relating to family-group names inserted in the Régles by the Copenhagen Congress. For this reason it will, I think, be of interest to the Commission to receive a short account of the problems which have been encountered. These problems are of two quite different kinds, namely ; (1) problems which raise doubts as to the wisdom—and, indeed, the practicability—of certain of the decisions taken by the fore- going Congress ; (2) problems relating to various procedural matters arising in connection with the placing of family-group names on the Official List and Official Index established for names belonging to this category. Each of these groups of problems is dealt with below. I. Difficulties encountered in applying certain of the decisions in regard to family-group names taken by the Copenhagen (1953) Congress 3. The difficulties which have been encountered in applying certain of the Copenhagen Congress’s decisions in regard to family-group names are: (1) the difficulty of determining the place where a given family-group name was first published ; (2) the difficulty of determining whether, subjectively as well as objectively, a given family-group name is the oldest available such name for the taxon concerned. 4. Difficulty of ascertaining where a given family-group name was first published: For almost every group in the Animal Kingdom attempts have been made at different times and with varying degrees of success to build up catalogues of the generic names published for taxa belonging to that group, while in many cases also catalogues of the specific and subspecific names bestowed upon taxa belonging to the group concerned have also been compiled. In addition, there exist two master works of reference for the nomenclature of the Animal Kingdom as a whole which, though inevitably not absolutely compiete, are nevertheless of the utmost value. These are :—(a) Sherborn’s monumental Index Animalium which contains a list of the generic and specific names published between 1758 and 1850 which a life-time’s Vill OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS industry and application made it possible for its author to assemble ; (b) Neave’s Nomenclator Zoologicus, which is concerned with generic names only but which covers a much longer period that the Index Animalium, extending, with its supplement, over the whole period up to the end of 1945. When, however, we consider family-group names, we find the position entirely different. Here there are no general works of reference such as those provided by Sherborn and Neave, and even for particular groups there exist for the most part no com- prehensive lists of the family-names concerned. In a large majority of instances, anyone who wishes to ascertain what is the oldest available family-group name for a given taxon is himself forced to undertake an original investigation of the literature of the group. It is therefore no matter for surprise that the specialists who have assisted in the searches undertaken in regard to the particular family-groups with which the present paper is concerned encountered difficulties, in some cases, very great difficulties, in ascertaining where in the literature the family-group names concerned and their subsequent variants were first published. In this matter, the difficulties were least marked in the case of the family-group name TINGIDAE, there being in existence lists of the name published for taxa of the family-group in the Order Hemiptera (Class Insecta) or at least for parts of it. The investigations undertaken in regard to the names MEROPIDAE and MEROPEIDAE disclosed that no such lists exist either for the Class Aves or for the Order Mecoptera of the Class Insecta. Nor, so Dr. Cox has reported in connection with the name ACMAEIDAE, does there exist any list of the family-group names established for taxa of this category in the Phylum Mollusca. Moreover, most of the specialists concerned have reported that, while they believe that the bibliographical references which they have supplied are the oldest such references for the family-group names concerned, they cannot be certain that this is so. The laborious and time-consuming nature of the searches necessary in some cases to ascertain where a given family-group name was first published is well illustrated by Dr. Cox’s report that the search of the literature for the purpose of finding where the family-group name ACMAEIDAE and associated family-group names were first published involved two and a half day’s work for his assistant and himself. That the search for this name occupied so long a period for two workers at the British Museum (Natural History), the institution which possesses probably tne finest zoological library in the world, creates a strong presumption that the search would have taken very much longer in institutions possessing less complete libraries and could not have been carried out at all in the much larger number of less favourably placed institutions. It seems to me that it is a serious and unexpected flaw in the decision of the Copenhagen Congress to apply the principle of priority to family- group names that its practical application involves so large a diversion of valuable time from systematic work to barren bibliographical investi- gations and that the nature of the searches involved is such that it can be carried through in many cases only in major institutions possessing very large libraries. DECLARATION 18 LX 5. Difficulty in determining whether a given family-group name is not only the oldest available such name based upon the type genus concerned but is also the oldest family-group for any genus subjectively associated on taxonomic grounds with the family concerned: The searches under- taken by the specialists who have assisted in the present cases give a reasonable, but no more than a reasonable, assurance that the refer- ence ultimately located in the literature is the oldest such reference— for example, to take the case of the family-name ACMAEIDAE, an assurance that Carpenter (1857, Catalogue of Mazatlan Shells : 202) was the first author to establish a family-group name based on the generic name Acmaea Eschscholtz, 1830. But behind the question of whether or not Carpenter in 1857 was the first author to establish the nominal family ACMAEIDAE, there is. the further question whether or not prior to 1857 some other author established a family-group having as its type genus some genus now regarded as belonging to the family currently known as ACMAEIDAE. In this particular case there is no reason to suppose that such a name exists, but the problem remains a serious one, in view of the decision by the Copenhagen Congress that the relative status of family-group names is to be governed by the principle of priority. It cannot be doubted that in many cases a protracted and difficult search will be required in order to make sure whether or not a given family-group name is the oldest available such name from the taxonomic standpoint. (in recent weeks I have looked at the family-group names in my own group, the butterflies, and it seems fairly clear—but, as yet, by no means certain—that one of the best known family-names is a subjective junior synonym of a family-group name which has not been used since the close of the eighteenth century). The fact that it is not sufficient merely to trace in the literature the first occasion on which a given family-group name was published—a formidable task in many cases, as we have seen—but that in addition it is necessary to search the literature for the purpose of ascertaining whether there exists some older family-group name based upon another genus currently (sub- jectively) regarded on taxonomic grounds as belonging to the same family sharpens the doubts expressed in the immediately preceding paragraph on the question whether the Copenhagen decision that family-group names should be regulated by the principle of priority is the best that could be devised—and, indeed, whether the application of that decision is really practicable outside a few institutions, so far as the older—and, therefore, in many cases, the most important— family-group names are concerned. 6. Request to Commissioners for a preliminary informal expression of opinion on the problems discussed in paragraphs 4 and 5 of the present paper: Even if with greater experience gained from further efforts to apply in particular cases the Copenhagen decisions in regard to family- group names, it was to be considered that an effort ought to be made to devise a similar and more readily applicable system, no definite action X OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS in this direction could be taken until the next (London, 1958) Congress, though, if it were to be found that there was a concensus of opinion that this was a matter which further required examination by that Congress, it would be necessary long before it met to take comprehensive action designed to elicit the views of zoologists and palacontologists on the lines of that taken in similar cases before the Copenhagen Congress. In the meantime, however, it would be most helpful to myself as Secretary to the Commission, if members of the Commission, after having read the report submitted in the preceding paragraphs, were to furnish me with at least a brief statement setting out informally their preliminary reaction towards the problems brought to light in the attempts so far made to apply in detail the Copenhagen decisions in regard to family-group names. Il. Problems of a procedural nature involved in the process of entering family-group names on the °° Official List ’’? and the ‘‘ Official Index ”’ established for the recording of such names 7. The problems discussed in the preceding Section of the present paper suggest the possibility that it may be found desirable to ask the London (1958) Congress to re-examine the provisions in regard to family-group names agreed upon at Copenhagen. In these circum- stances it is possible that the London Congress may introduce changes which would affect the basis on which family-group names will depend for availability. In view however, of the fact that it is the object of all zoologists to secure the maximum of stability in nomenclature at the family-name level, the possibility of a review in 1958 of some of the Copenhagen decisions does not, in my opinion, constitute any reason against proceeding, as hitherto proposed, with the gradual building up of the Official List of Family-Group Names, since decisions which have already been taken to place names on this List have all been prompted by the desire to preserve well-known names belonging to this category. It may be taken as certain that, if the 1958 Congress were to amend any of the Copenhagen decisions regarding family- group names, it would at the same time give protection to entries already made on the Official List, if such action were found to be necessary. Before, however, it is possible to give effect to the decisions already taken to codify the Rulings for placing on this Official List the names specified in Opinions 140 and 143, it is desirable that the Commission should take decisions on the minor, though important, procedural problems which, as already explained, have come to light in the investigations recently undertaken as a preliminary to placing these names on the Official List. These problems, together with certain similar problems concerned with the Official Index, are discussed DECLARATION 18 Xl briefly below. In the concluding paragraph of the present Section a proposal is submitted to the Commission for consideration. 8. Notation to be adopted for entries of family-group names on the * Official List’? of names of that group: In the case of generic names placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology, not only is a reference given to the place where the generic name in question was first published, but in addition full particulars are given as to the type species of the genus, including a bibliographical reference to the place where the name of that species was first published. In the case of the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology, it will be necessary to include in each entry (i) a bibliographical reference to the place where that family-group name was first published, (i1) the name of the type genus of the family-group concerned and the name of its author and the date on which it was published. In view, however, of the fact that in every case the type genus of a family-group the name of which is placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names will itself have been placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology, with full bibliographical particulars, it is proposed that—in the interests of economy in printing—these particulars should not be repeated in the corresponding entry in the Official List of Family-Group Names. 9. Notation to be adopted for the entry of a name on the “‘ Official List of Family-Group Names” when the name in question was originally published in an incorrect form and when in consequence it has been necessary to correct the orthography of the name in question: The Copenhagen Congress decided, amongst other things, that there should be inserted in the Rég/es a provision that a family-group name based upon a word of Greek or Latin origin is to be corrected when published in any form which contravenes the form when prescribed by the Congress (1953 Copenhagen Decisions Zool. Nomencl. : 34—35, paragraph 50). An example of the way in which this provision will operate is provided by the family-group name based on the generic name Jingis Fabricius, 1803. Each of the two first two family-group names based upon this generic name is a vernacular (French) word, and is therefore ineligible for consideration in the present context, and in each case the name so used is the same, namely, TINGIDITES. The first was published by Laporte in 1833 and the second by Spinola in 1837. The first author validly to publish a family-group name for this taxon was Costa who in 1838 published the name TINGINI for this unit which he regarded as being of family rank. The next (and fourth) name to be published is TINGIDAE Westwood, 1840. The form used for this name by Westwood is the form which in Opinion 143 the Commission has ruled to be the correct form. The problem arises as to how this name should be entered on the Official List of Family-Group Names. In view of the Ruling given in Opinion 143, it must be clearly entered Xli OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS in the form TINGIDAE. Equally clearly, however, the decision taken at Copenhagen to apply the principle of priority to family-group names requires that this name should rank not from Westwood, 1840, but from Costa, 1838, by whom it was published in the incorrect form TINGINI. Means must therefore be found for inserting in the Official List both the incorrect form TINGINI as from Costa, 1838, and also the correct form TINGIDAE independently published by Westwood in 1840. Westwood, however, did not publish his TINGIDAE as an emendation of Costa’s TINGINI, and it would be objectionable—because ritualistic and also historically incorrect—to treat Westwood’s form for this name as an emendation made by him in Costa’s name. I propose therefore (1) that the entry to be made in the Official List in respect of this name should (a) give the name in its correct form TINGIDAE, (b) show that this spelling is a correction made by the Commission in Opinion 143 of the name originally published as TINGINI (for a family), (c) attribute the name to Costa (the author who published this name in the incorrect form TINGINI), and (d) assign to this name the date 1838 (the date on which it was published by Costa), and (2) that the entry shall in addition contain a reference to the place where this name was first published in its correct form TINGIDAE, 1.e. a reference to the work by Westwood published in 1840. © 10. Notation to be adopted for entries of family-group names on the ** Official Index of Rejected and Invalid and Family-Group Names” ; In the case of generic names, the type genus is not specified against the name of a genus placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. This is partly because it is sufficient for the purposes of identification to cite the generic name itself and partly because in many cases no type species has ever been selected for the genus concerned and no such selection is required if the generic name is to be rejected. In the corresponding case of family-group names placed upon the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family- Group Names, the position is somewhat different. For family-group names are not independently established names but are names formed on the basis of generic names, and in many cases it 1s not clear from the family-name itself what is the name of thé genus which is its type genus, i.e. what is the generic name on which it is based. This con- sideration becomes one of special importance when family-group names are based upon generic names which although differing from one another in spelling have either the same, or very similar, stems, and in consequence the family-group names are either actually homonyms of one another or are extremely similar to one another. I propose, therefore, that in the case of every family-group name placed on the Official Index of such names, the entry to be made shall include the name (including the name of the author and date of publication) of the type genus of the family-group concerned. As in the case of family- group names inscribed on the Official List of Family-Group Names, I propose that the bibliographical reference for the name of the type DECLARATION 18 Xlil genus of names placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names shall not be included in the entry to be made in that Index, this being unnecessary in view of the fact that in every case the generic name concerned will have been entered either in the Official List of Generic Names or in the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names, with full bibliographical particulars. 11. Notation to be adopted for entries on the “ Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names” in cases where it is not clear whether or not a given name was published as a new name: The practical experience gained during the search of the literature for the family-group names discussed in the present paper shows that on occasion it is a matter of difficulty to determine whether a family- group name was published as a new name or not. An example of a name of this kind is provided by the (French) vernacular name TINGI- DiTEs published by Spinola in 1837, where the author gave no indication whatever on the question whether he regarded this as a new name then published by himself for the first time or whether he was aware that it had already been published by Laporte in 1833. Similar cases have been encountered in the past when placing generic names on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names and also when placing specific names on the Official Index established for recording rejected and invalid names of this category. In view of the fact that, contrary to the practice in the case of generic and specific names, it has hitherto been the exception rather than the rule, in the case of family-group names, for specialists to cite the name of the author or the date of publication of a family-group name, it is likely that examples of this kind will be found to be more numerous at the family-name level than at either the generic-name or specific-name level. Where doubts of the kind discussed above have arisen in connection with generic names or specific names, the practice has been to treat the name concerned as a new name and to place it on the Official Index as a junior homonym of the previously published identical name. I propose that a similar practice should be adopted in the case of family- group names. 12. Recommendation submitted: In order that the building-up of the Official List of Family-Group Names and of the corresponding Official Index may not be impeded by doubts as to the form of notation to be used, I recommend that the International Commission should adopt a Declaration prescribing the procedure to be followed in regard to the matters discussed above. The recommendation now submitted is that the proposed Declaration should provide that the regulations governing the foregoing Official List and Official Index shall include the following provisions :— (1) Every entry of a family-group name on the Official List of Family- Group Names in Zoology is to include the name of the type XIV OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS genus of the family-group concerned and to cite the name of the author of that generic name and its date of publication but is not to include the bibliographical reference for that name, since in every case the generic name concerned is to be placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology, where all the requisite bibliographical references will have been given. (See paragraph 8 above.) (2) Where a family-group name consisting of a word of Greek or Latin origin which was originally published in an incorrect form and which, in consequence, it has been necessary to correct is placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology, that name, on being entered on the Official List (a) shall be attributed to the author by whom it was published in an incorrect form, (b) shall rank for priority as from the date on which it was so published, but (c) shall be entered on the Official List in its corrected form with a statement as to the incorrect form in which the name was originally published and particulars as to the author by whom that incorrect form was corrected, and the date on which, and the place where, that correction was published. (See paragraph 9 above.) (3) The Rules prescribed in (1) above regarding the form of notation to be adopted in entering a family-group name on _ the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology shall apply also to the notation to be adopted in entering a name belong- ing to this category on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology. (See paragraph 10 above.) (4) Where there is any reasonable doubt as to whether a family- group name was published as a new name or merely as a record of a previously published name, that name shall be entered on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family- Group Names in Zoology as being a junior homonym of the earlier published name. (See paragraph 11 above.) Hil. The questions now submitted 13. Two papers on questions arising out of the problems discussed in the present paper are submitted herewith to the Commission for completion and return to this Office, namely :— (1) Circular Memorandum C.M.(O.M.)(54)1, in which members of the Commission are asked to furnish a short statement DECLARATION 18 XV setting out informally their preliminary reaction in regard to certain of the Copenhagen (1953) Congress’s decisions respecting family-group names (see paragraphs 3 to 6 of the present paper.) (2) Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(54)11, in which members of the Commission are asked to vote on the questions of procedure discussed in paragraphs 7 to 11 of the present paper, as summarised in paragraph 12 above.? 3. Registration of the present application: On receipt, the present application was allotted the Registered Number Z.NAS.) 844. Il. THE DECISION TAKEN BY THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 4. Issue of Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(54)11 : On 2nd July 1954 a Voting Paper (V.P.(O.M.)(54)11) was issued in which the Members of the Commissicn were invited to vote for, or against, “the adoption of a Declaration prescribing certain Regulations relating to the method to be adopted in making entries on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology and on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology recommended in paragraph 12 of the memorandum by the Secretary, numbered as above, submitted simultaneously with the present Voting Paper” [i.e. in paragraph 12 of the memorandum reproduced in paragraph 2 of the present Declaration]. 3 The statements received from Members of the Commission on the Circular Memorandum Paper C.M.(O.M.)(54)1 have been placed in Commission File Z.N.(S.) 835, the file reserved for documents relating to the possible amendment by the Fifteenth (London, 1958) International Congress of Zoology of certain of the provisions relating to family-group names adopted by the Fourteenth (Copenhagen, 1953) Congress. XVI OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 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 (J.R.)) had duly received the Voting Papers issued to them, the Secretary gave directions that the Voting Period should be extended for a period sufficient to enable the Commissioners concerned to record their Votes on the duplicate Voting Papers then issued to them. Ultimately, the Voting Period in this case was closed on 11th September 1954. 6. Particulars of the Voting on Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(54)11 : The state of the voting on Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(54)11 at the close of the Voting Period extended as explained in para- graph 5 above was as follows :— (a) Affirmative Votes had been given by the following seventeen (17) Commissioners (arranged in the order in which Votes were received): Holthuis; Hering; Cabrera; Esaki; Lemche; Hemming; Stoll; Sylvester-Bradley ; Pearson ; do Amaral ; Mertens ; Jaczewski; Bonnet ; Boschma ; Riley ; Bradley (J.C.) ; Dymond ; (b) Negative Vote, one (1): Vokes ; (c) Voting Paper not returned, one (1) : Hanko. 7. Declaration of Result of Vote: On 12th September 1954, Mr. Hemming, Secretary to the International Commission, DECLARATION 18 XVil acting as Returning Officer for the Vote taken on Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(54)11, 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. Addition of an Explanatory Preamble to the present ‘Declaration’: In a returning a negative vote on the proposal submitted with Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(54)11, Commissioner Harold E. Vokes expressed the view that the procedure laid down by the Copenhagen Congress was already sufficiently clear and added that, in view of the possible consideration by the London (1958) Congress of certain aspects of the Copenhagen decisions in regard to family-group names, the issue of the proposed Declaration might prove premature. In replying to Professor Vokes (on 22nd July 1954) Mr. Hemming, as Secretary, suggested that, having regard to the possibility that prior to the London Congress the Commission might receive a request that it should submit to that Congress proposals for amending certain of the decisions in regard to family-group names taken by the Copen- hagen Congress, it was desirable that, to prevent any possible misunderstandings, a preamble should be added to the proposed Declaration making it clear that, in adopting that Declaration, the Commission was concerned only with the limited question of providing means for carrying out the instructions given to it - by the Copenhagen Congress that it should build up an Official List and Official Index recording family-group names, in the former case, accepted by it as valid names and, in the latter case, rejected by it as invalid names. Such a preamble would, Mr. Hemming suggested, serve to avoid the risk of giving the impression that, when issuing this Declaration, the Commission had itself reviewed and re-affirmed the recommendations in regard to family-group names which, on its recommendation— and with the support of the Colloquium on Zoological Nomen- clature—had been adopted by the Copenhagen Congress. Mr. Hemming added that it might well be that at some later date it would be necessary for the Commission to consider whether it was desirable that it should recommend the next (Fifteenth) Congress to amend the Copenhagen provisions in certain respects, XVIill OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS but that question was in no sense involved in the present proposal which related to a purely procedural question only. On 12th September 1954, Mr. Hemming, as Secretary, placed on the Commission’s File Z.N.(S.) 844 (the File relating to the present case) a Minute formally directing that a Preamble in the following terms be inserted at the head of the proposed Declaration : “In pursuance of the Directive issued by the Fourteenth Inter- national Congress of Zoology, Copenhagen, 1953, that every family-group name which in any of its Opinions the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature may accept as a valid name shall be entered on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology and that every such name which the Commission may similarly reject or declare to be invalid shall be entered on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology, it is hereby directed that the making of entries on the foregoing Official List and Official Index shall be subject to the following Rules.” 9. On 12th September 1954 Mr. Hemming prepared the present Declaration and at the same time signed a Certificate that the terms of this Declaration 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)11, subject to the addition thereto of the explanatory preamble specified in para- graph 8 above. 10. The prescribed procedures were duly complied with by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature in dealing with the present case, and the present Declaration is accordingly hereby rendered in the name of the said International Com- mission by the under-signed Francis Hemming, Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, in virtue of all and every the powers conferred upon him in that behalf. 11. The present Declaration shall be known as Declaration Eighteen (18) of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. DECLARATION 18 XIX DonE in London, this Twelfth day of September, Nineteen Hundred and Fifty-Four. Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature FRANCIS HEMMING Printed in England by Mrtcatre & Cooper LimitTED, 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.oM.G., C.B.E. Secretary to the Commission VOLUME 6. Part 16. Pp. xxi—xl DECLARATION 19 Adoption of Rules relating to the making of entries on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology and on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology oN HSONig JAN S 1°55 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 1954 Price Nine 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 DECLARATION 19 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. ener Pearson (Tasmanian Museum, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia) (27th July 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, Germany) (Sth July 1950) Senhor Dr. Afranio do Amaral (S. Paulo, Brazil) (12th August 1953) (Vice- President) ee: J. R. Dymond (University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada) (12th August 5 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 (Mezdégazdasdgi 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) DECLARATION 19 ADOPTION OF RULES RELATING TO THE MAKING OF ENTRIES ON THE ‘“ OFFICIAL LIST OF SPECIFIC NAMES IN ZOOLOGY” AND ON THE * OFFICIAL INDEX OF REJECTED AND INVALID SPECIFIC NAMES IN ZOOLOGY ”’ DECLARATION :—In pursuance of the Directive issued by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948, that every specific name which in any of its Opinions the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature may accept as a valid name shall be entered on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology and that every such name which the Commission may similarly reject or declare to be invalid shall be entered on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology, it is hereby directed that the making of entries on the foregoing Official List and Official Index shall be subject to the following Rules, supple- mentary to the Rules in regard thereto prescribed by the foregoing Congress as specified in the Official Record of the Proceedings of the Commission in Conclusion 42 of the Ninth Meeting held by it during its Paris Session (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 270—272), as amplified in Conclusion 20 of its Twelfth Meeting and Conclusion 61 of its Fourteenth Meeting during that Session (1950, ibid. 4 : 334 and 627—628 respectively) :— (1) In order to minimise the risk (a) that through inadvertence the entry on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology of a specific name in connection with the generic name in combination with which it was originally published might be misinterpreted as indicating that approval had thereby been given not only to the specific name in question but also to the combination in which that name was cited in the foregoing Official List, or (b) that the insertion of a name on the foregoing Official List might be misinterpreted as implying that the taxon so named is to be regarded as a distinct species to the exclusion of the possibility of its being regarded ranma, -. _ XX1V OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS as a subspecies of some other species, the following Warning Notice shall be printed in bold type at. the head of each page of the said Official List: ‘‘(1) The generic name cited in connection with each specific name inscribed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology is the generic name in combination with which the specific name in question was originally published. The citation of that generic name carries no implication on the question of the name of the genus to which on taxonomic grounds the species in question should be referred. (2) Similarly, the insertion of a name on the foregoing Official List involves no implication on the question whether the taxon so named should on taxonomic grounds be regarded (a) as a distinct species or (b) as a subspecies of some other species ”’. (2) The entry to be made when a specific name is inscribed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology shall consist of the following items arranged in the order specified below and separated from one another by commas : (a) the specific name so placed on the Official List ; (b) the generic name in combination with which that specific name was originally published ; (c) the name of the author of the specific name; (d) the date of publication of that specific name; (e) the full biblio- graphical reference for that name. Example: When, as has already been decided shall be done, the specific name (machaon) of the Common European Swallowtail Butterfly, which was originally published in the com- bination Papilio machaon, is inscribed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology, the entry to be so made shall be as follows :—‘‘ machaon, Papilio, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 462”. (3) Wherever in an application published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature a _ specific name proposed for addition to the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology is cited without a bibliographical reference, the citation shall consist of the specific name in question, the name of the author of the specific name and its date of publication, followed by the words “ as DECLARATION 19 XXV published in the combination”, whatever that com- bination may have been. Example: “the specific name machaon Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Papilio machaon”’. (4) Wherever in a Ruling given in an Opinion or Direction rendered by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature directions are given that a given specific name shall be placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology and the bibliographical reference for that name is not cited in that Ruling, the specific name in question shall be cited in like manner as that prescribed in (3) above. (5) The Rules specified in (2), (3) and (4) above in relation to the entry or proposed entry of a specific name on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology shall apply also to the entry or proposed entry of any given specific name on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology. I—THE STATEMENT OF THE CASE When the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948, established the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology!, it adopted Rules prescribing its nature and scope, but it did not at the same time lay down in express terms the form of entry to be adopted when a specific name was inscribed on this List. It did, however, stress the need for adequate safeguards 1 The Paris Congress prescribed that the second portion of the binomen constituting the name of a species should be known as the “trivial name ”’ of that species, and, accordingly, when establishing the Official List here under discussion it directed that it should be styled the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 285—286). At Copenhagen in 1953 the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology substituted the expression ‘“‘ specific name’ for the expression “trivial name” and in consequence altered the title of the foregoing Official List to Official List of Specific Names in Zoology (1953, Copenhagen Decisions zool. Nomencl. : 21, Decision 17). XXV1 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS to ensure that the fact that, when a specific name was placed on this Official List, the entry to be made was to include the generic name in combination with which that specific name was first published was not to be held to constitute an expression of opinion on the question of the name of the genus to which on taxonomic grounds the species concerned should be referred. (See the discussion on paragraphs 44 and 45 of the draft of the Report prepared for submission by the International Com- mission on Zoological Nomenclature to the Paris Congress, as recorded in Conclusion 5 of the Official Record of the Pro- ceedings of the Commission at its Eleventh Meeting during its Paris Session held on 26th July 1948 jointly with the Section on Nomenclature of the above Congress (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4; 283—284).) Further, at an earlier meeting the Congress had decided to insert in the Régles a provision making it clear that the insertion of a specific name on the foregoing Official List was not to be held to imply an expression of opinion on the question whether the taxon so named should on taxonomic grounds be regarded as a distinct species or as a subspecies of some other species (1950, ibid. 4: 271, Point (d)). In the period which has elapsed since the Paris Congress the Commission has sought to obviate the first of the two dangers the need for safeguards against which was stressed by the Paris Congress (a) by requiring that in any application published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature regarding the proposed addition of a specific name to the Official List, that name, when cited without a bibliographical reference, shall be not cited in direct combination with the generic name with which it was originally published, that generic name being indicated by the addition, after the specific name, of the words “‘as published in the combination” so-and-so, and (b) by adopting a similar form of words in the Rulings given in its Opinions and Directions. It has always been recognised, however, that this matter would require further consideration— as also that concerned with the second of the questions stressed by the Paris Congress—before a start was actually made with the preparation of the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology for publication in book form. 2. In May 1954 a stage had been reached in the work of the Office of the Commission where it appeared to the Secretary that with the staff available and in prospect it would be possible DECLARATION 19 XXVII at an early date to make a start with the compilation and prepara- tion for publication of the first instalment of the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. It was clearly essential that, before a start was made on this task, a decision should be taken as to the form of notation to be adopted for entries on this Official List since, once a given formula had been adopted, it would be confusing —and therefore very unsatisfactory—if later it were deemed necessary to adopt some different form for entries on the foregoing Official List. Mr. Hemming accordingly judged that the time had come when it was necessary to ask the International Com- mission to take a definitive decision on the question discussed above. At the same time Mr. Hemming decided to seek a decision from the Commission as to the method to be adopted for providing the required safeguards in respect of the first of the two risks foreseen by the Paris Congress, for which, unlike the second, no express decision had been formulated by that Congress. At the end of June 1954 Mr. Hemming therefore prepared for the consideration of the International Commission a paper surveying the issues involved and submitting recom- mendations on both the issues discussed above. 3. Mr. Hemming’s memorandum was submitted to the Commission—by airmail to Members of the Commission resident outside Europe—on 9th July 1954. The memorandum so submitted was as follows :— ** Official List of Specific Names in Zoology ’’: proposed adoption of a ‘* Declaration’? regarding the method of notation to be adopted By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E., Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature The object of the present paper is to obtain from the International Commission a decision relating to the form of notation to be used in entering names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. This question is now somewhat urgent, for it is hoped that it will be possible at an early date to arrange for the preparation for the printer XXVIi1 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS of the entries so far made on this Official List, in order that it may be included in the first instalment of the Official Lists and Official Indexes to be published in book-form. 2. I must explain, for the information of those members of the Commission who were not present at its Session held in Paris in 1948 or at the Public Meetings which it then held with the Section on Nomenclature of the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, that the idea of asking the Congress to establish an Official List for the names of species parallel to the existing Official List for generic names arose spontaneously out of some of the discussions which took place during the earlier meetings of the Paris Session. It was first formally put forward in a paper (Paper I.C.(48)15, Point (63)), then submitted to the Commission by myself (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 3 : 114). When I put forward that proposal, I had in mind that the names of species placed on the proposed Official List would be entered thereon in much the same way as that adopted by Sherborn in entering such names in his Index Animalium, that is, that the specific name (at that time, styled the “‘ trivial name ’’) would come first, and that then would come the generic name in combination with which that specific name had originally been published, then the name of the author and finally the date of publication and the bibliographical reference, each item, being separated from that in front of it byacomma. Thus, my idea was that, if the specific name machaon Linnaeus, 1758, the name of the common European Swallowtail butterfly, were being placed on the proposed Official List, that name, which was originally published in the com- bination Papilio machaon on page 462 of vol. 1 of the 10th edition of the Systema Naturae, would be entered on the Official List as follows :— ** machaon, Papilio, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 462.” 3. The proposal to establish an Official List for the names of species on the lines indicated above was approved by the International Commission at the Ninth Meeting of its Paris Session (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 269—271) and was included in the draft of the Report by the International Commission which was considered by the Commission at the Eleventh Meeting of its Paris Session held on Monday, 26th July 1948 (1950, ibid. 4 : 283—284). At this meeting, which was held jointly with the Third Meeting of the Section on Nomenclature of the Paris Congress, the view was expressed that it was important, for the purpose of avoiding any possible misunderstandings, to make it clear in the proposed Official List in some appropriate fashion that, although the generic name in combination with which any specific name placed on the List was originally published must be included in each entry made on the List, the inclusion of the foregoing generic name “ did not confer any status on the binominal combination in which ”’ the specific name concerned “‘ had originally been published or imply any view on the taxonomic question of the genus to which the species so named should be referred’. It was agreed that “ an DECLARATION 19 XXIX explanation on the foregoing lines regarding the scope of this Official List should be prefixed to this List when it was published ”’. 4. In order to emphasise the point made by the Paris Congress, it has since been the practice to require that in any application for the addition of a specific name to the Official List the application should take the form of a request that such and such a name “as published in the combination so-and-so ’”’ should be placed on the List. Thus, if we continue to use the example adopted in paragraph 2 above, the form of request for the addition of the name in question to the Official List would be that the name “‘ machaon Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Papilio machaon’’ should be so added. 5. Now that the stage has been reached where it is hoped that it will be possible at an early date to prepare the first instalment of this Official List for publication, it is necessary to take a definite decision as to the form of notation to be adopted. In considering this question, I have been impressed by the fact that, if the formula “‘ name b, as published in the combination A b’’, were to be employed in the Official List itself, the entry would inevitably occupy two lines of print instead of one, with the result that the number of entries obtainable per printed page would be virtually halved. Moreover, it would, I consider, be unreasonable to incur the additional expense involved in using the foregoing formula for every entry. The extra cost would not be appreciable if it were a matter of a small number of entries only, but now that there are already several hundred names on this Official List and there is a prospect of substantial further additions, the extra cost would be considerable, both because of the additional typesetting involved and because of the increase in the number of pages which would be required. It is for these reasons that I now ask the Commission to consider this question. 6. For this purpose it would, I thought, be for the convenience of the Commission if I were to give a list of various methods of notation which might be adopted and to illustrate each with a practical example. The list so prepared is given in an Annexe to the present paper. Method (1) is the method which I hope that the Commission will reject because of the repetition and additional expense which it involves. Method (2) would involve less repetition than Method (1) and to this extent it is to be preferred, but it involves a novel and artificial method of citing a specific name and I do not recommend its acceptance. Method (3), for which two variants are given, involves no repetition, but in each case it involves placing the original generic name in round brackets (parentheses). For this reason this method of citation would, I think, be liable to give rise to confusion, for, although in the great majority of names, the generic name given to a new species was not placed in brackets (parentheses) by the original author, there have been cases in the old literature where this course was followed ; it would be misleading also in the case of any specific name published for a XXX OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS species, which the original author placed not only in a genus but also in a subgenus, since the Régles require that a subgeneric name, when used, is to be placed in brackets (parentheses). Accordingly, under either of the systems included in Method (3), situations would arise where both the subgeneric name and the generic name would be cited in brackets (parentheses), the first in compliance with the provisions of Article 10 of the Régles, the second in compliance with the method of notation prescribed for the entry of specific names on the Official List. On practical grounds either form of Method (3) seems to me therefore to be open to considerable objection. Moreover, it would, I think, be a mistake from a more general standpoint to adopt a form of notation which by the introduction of brackets (parentheses) involved a departure from the form in which the specific name concerned was originally published. Method (4) has the merit that it follows the practice normally adopted in drawing up alphabetical lists of specific names, that it is short and simple and that it involves no repetition at all. 7. There can, in my view, be no doubt that Method (4) is greatly superior to any of the other methods discussed above. The only question is, it seems to me, whether the safeguards which it is suggested should be adopted constitute an adequate insurance against the risk of misunderstanding on the part of zoologists who might consult the Official List without being fully acquainted with its scope and purpose. On this subject i thought it desirable, before submitting the present proposals, to consult Professor Robert L. Usinger (University of California, Department of Entomology and Parasitology, Berkeley, California, U.S.A.), since it was he who, when this aspect of the Official List was under consideration at Paris in 1948, had particularly stressed the need for adequate safeguards. Professor Usinger has now informed me (in /Jitt., 18th June 1954) that, after careful consideration of the relative merits of the four possible methods enumerated above and after discussing the matter with Dr. Ellsworth C. Dougherty of the same University, who was also present at the meeting in Paris at which this question was considered, he and Dr. Dougherty are both of the opinion that Method (4) should be used. In these circumstances I consider not only that the safeguards suggested are adequate but also that they are likely to be generally so regarded. 8. I accordingly recommend that the Commission should adopt a Declaration directing the insertion in the Regulations governing the Official Lists and Official Indexes of provisions prescribing (a) that the method of notation to be adopted for the purpose of entering a specific name on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology or on the corresponding Official Index shall be the method set out under the heading numbered Method (4) in Part 1 of the Annexe to the present note and (b) that the safeguards specified in Part 2 of the foregoing Annexe shall be adopted for the purpose of avoiding any misunder- standing as to the scope and purpose of the Official List. DECLARATION 19 XXXI ANNEXE ** Official List of Specific Names in Zoology ’’ : possible methods of notation to be adopted when entering a name on the foregoing ** Official List ’’ and safeguards suggested for the avoidance of risks of misunderstandings as to the scope and purpose of this ‘** Official List ’’ Part 1: Possible methods of notation for the entry of names on the ‘* Official List of Specific Names in Zoology ”’ The following are possible methods for entering a name on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. In the following statement the name Papilio machaon Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 462, is taken as an illustration. METHOD (1) This method involves the use of a formula strictly analogous to that already adopted for applications published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature for the addition of names to the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology, differing therefrom only by the insertion of the bibliographical reference. Example: machaon Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 462, as published in the combination Papilio machaon METHOD (2) Under this method the citation would consist of two parts. First would come the specific name, author and date, these particulars being followed by acolon. After which would be inserted the full reference, starting with the generic name in the ordinary way. Example : machaon Linnaeus, 1758 : Papilio machaon Linnaeus, 1758, sysce Nat. (ed; 10) 1.2462 METHOD (3) Under this method the generic name in combination with which the specific name was originally published would be indicated as such XXX OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS by placing round brackets (parentheses) around it. The generic name, so indicated, would either be placed at the end of the reference (Alternative (a)) or after the date (Alternative (b)). Example (Alternative (a)) : machaon Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed.10) 1 : 462 (Papilio) Example (Alternative (b)): machaon Linnaeus, 1758, (Papilio) Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 462 METHOD (4) Under this method the entry would follow the form adopted by Sherborn in his Index Animalium, except that (as in Methods (1) to (3) above) the date would follow immediately upon the name of the author instead of being placed at the end of the reference, since if placed in that position, the date might easily be (and often has been) mistaken for a page number. Example: machaon, Papilio, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 462. Part 2 : Safeguards proposed for the purpose of preventing any possible misunderstanding regarding the scope and purpose of the ‘* Official List of Specific Names in Zoology ”’ It is proposed that, whatever the form of notation which may be approved for the entry of names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology, the following safeguards shall be observed for the purpose of giving effect to the request made by the Paris (1948) Congress, that a warning should be inserted in the Official List drawing attention to its scope and purpose: (1) at the beginning of each instalment of the foregoing Official List to be published there shall be inserted a prominently displayed NOTICE drawing attention to the fact that the generic name cited in connection with each specific name entered on that Official List is the generic name in combination with which that specific name was originally published and that the citation of the generic name in question carries therefore no implication on the question of the name of the genus which on taxonomic grounds should be adopted for the species, the name of which is so entered on the Official List. (2) In any document published under the authority of the International Commission in connection with the placing of a specific name on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology, such as DECLARATION 19 XXXIli an application published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature or a Ruling given in an Opinion, the formula to be used if no biblio- graphical reference is quoted, shall consist of the citation of the specific name in question, the name of its author and its date of publication, followed by the words ‘“‘as published in the combination . . Example: “ the specific name machaon Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Papilio machaon”’ 4. Registration of the present application: On receipt, the present application allotted the Registered Number Z.N.(S.) 845. Il—THE DECISION TAKEN BY THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON: ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 5. Issue of Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(54)15 : On 9th July 1954 a Voting Paper (V.P.(O.M.)(54)15) was issued in which the Members of the Commission were invited to vote for or against * the adoption of the proposal relating to the form of the notation to be adopted for entering names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology specified in paragraph 8 of the note numbered Z.N.(S.) 845 submitted by the Secretary simultaneously with the present Voting Paper” [i.e. in paragraph 8 in the paper reproduced in paragraph 3 of the present Declaration]. The proposal submitted in paragraph 8 of the Secretary’s paper consisted of two parts, Part (a) being concerned with the method of notation to be adopted in making entries on the foregoing Official List, a subject which was discussed in Part 1 of the Secretary's paper, while Part (b) of the proposal submitted dealt with the safeguards to be adopted to prevent misunderstand- ings as to the nature and scope of the Official List, a subject discussed in Part 2 of the Annexe to the Secretary’s paper. In recording their Votes on Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(54)15, some of the Members of the Commission dealt separately with the two parts of the proposal so submitted for decision. 6. The Prescribed Voting Period: As the foregoing Voting Paper was issued under the One-Month Rule, the Prescribed XXXIV OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS Voting Period was due to close on 9th August 1954. In view, however, of doubts which arose on the question whether two members of the Commission (Bradley (J.C.) ; Dymond) had duly received the Voting Papers issued to them, the Secretary gave directions that the Voting Period should be extended for a period sufficient to enable the Commissioners concerned to record their Votes on the duplicate Voting Papers then issued to them. Ultimately, the Voting Period in this case was closed on 11th September 1954. 7. Particulars of the Voting on Proposal (a) in Voting Paper V.P.(.O.M.)(54)15 (proposal relating to the form of notation to be adopted in making entries on the “ Official List of Specific Names in Zoology’): The state of voting on Proposal (a) in Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(54)15 (proposal relating to the form of notation to be adopted in making entries on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology) at the close of the Voting Period extended as explained in paragraph 6 above was as follows :— (a) The following sixteen (16) Commissioners (arranged in the order in which Votes were received) voted in favour of the Method specified as Method (4) (in the Annexe to the Secretary's paper Z.N.(S.)845 submitted simultaneously with Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(54)15) : Holthuis; Hering; Esaki; Lemche; Hemming ; Sylvester-Bradley ; Mertens; Jaczewski; Bonnet ; Boschma ; do Amaral; Riley; Vokes*; Cabrera ; Bradley (J.C.) ; Dymond ; (b) The following one (1) Commissioner voted in favour of the Method specified as Method (2) in the Annexe to the Secretary's paper Z.N.(S.) 845, modified by the proposed repetition at the end of the second portion of the entry, of the date of publication of the name, the date so repeated to be cited in brackets (parentheses) : Pearson ; 2 In returning a vote in favour of Method (4), Commissioner Vokes added a note that he could not see any need for the adoption of a formal Declaration in this matter, it being sufficient, in his view, if a simple introductory note were to be included when the Official List was first published. DECLARATION 19 XXXV (c) The following one (1) Commissioner voted in favour of the Method specified as Method (1) in the Annexe to the Secretary's paper Z.N.(S.) 845 : Stoll ; (d) Voting Paper not returned, one (1) : Hanko. 8. Particulars of the Voting on Proposal (b) in Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(54)15 (proposal relating to the safeguards to be adopted against the risk of misunderstandings regarding the nature and scope of the “ Official List of Specific Names in Zoology ’’) : The state of voting on Proposal (b) in Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(54)15 (proposal relating to the safeguards to be adopted against the risk of misunderstandings regarding the nature and scope of the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology) at the close of the Voting Period extended as explained in paragraph 6 above was as follows : (a) Affirmative Votes had been given by the following eighteen (18) Commissioners (arranged in the order in which Votes were received) : Holthuis; Hering; Esaki; Lemche; Hemming; Sylvester-Bradley ; Mertens; Jaczewski; Bonnet ; Boschma; do Amaral; Riley; Pearson; Vokes ; Cabrera ; Stoll? ; Bradley (J.C.) ; Dymond ; (b) Negative Votes: None ; 3 In voting for the adoption of safeguards Commissioner Stoll recommended that the proposed Warning Notice should be printed on every page of the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology instead of, as previously proposed, at the head of the first page only. See paragraph 10 below. XXXVI OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS (c) Voting Paper not returned, one (1) : Hanko. 9. Declaration of Result of Vote: On 12th 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)15, signed a certificate that the Votes cast on the two issues involved in the foregoing Voting Paper were as set out in paragraphs 7 and 8 above respectively and declaring that the proposals submitted in the foregoing Voting Paper had been duly adopted and that the decision so taken was the decision of the Commission in the matter aforesaid. 10. Reinforcement of the proposed safeguard against the risk of misunderstanding of the nature and scope of the “* Official List of Specific Names in Zoology” : As noted in paragraph 7 of the present Declaration, Commissioner Norman R. Stoll, when voting on the method of notation to be adopted in entering names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology, voted in favour of the Method styled Method (1) in the Annexe to the Secretary’s Paper Z.N.(S.) 845 (see paragraph 3 of the present Declaration), and on the question of the safeguards to be adopted recommended a re-inforcement of the measures proposed in the foregoing paper (see paragraph 8 above). In a note dated 3lst August 1954 annexed to his. Voting Paper, Dr. Stoll explained:that he took this course because he attached the greatest importance to securing the maximum of clarity in the form of notation to be adopted ; he believed that of the four methods set out in the annexe to the Secretary’s paper Method (1) was “‘ the most nearly fool-proof ”’. Dr. Stoll added that, if the Commission were to decide in favour of Method (4), he desired strongly to urge that the proposed Warning Notice should be printed on every page of the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology instead of only at the head of the first page of each published instalment of that List. In a letter dated 22nd August 1954 Mr. Hemming replied that he fully shared Dr. Stoll’s view that of the four methods set out in the Annexe to his paper of 9th July 1954 (reproduced in paragraph 3 DECLARATION 19 XXXVI of the present Declaration) the method which he had styled Method (1) was more “‘ fool-proof ”’ than the method (Method (4)) which he had recommended but that he was of the opinion that the advantage so secured was outweighed by the much greater expense which would be involved in adopting Method (1), provided that the safeguards adopted against the risk of mis- understandings were adequate. Mr. Hemming added, as regards this latter question, that he saw great advantage in Dr. Stoll’s proposal that the proposed Warning Notice should be printed on every page of the Official List, for it was certainly true that a casual reader of a book could not be relied upon to turn back to the first page of a book for the purpose of ascertaining whether any informative notes appeared on that page ; there was therefore a risk that the safeguard represented by the proposed Notice would prove insufficient unless it appeared, as suggested by Dr. Stoll, on every page of the Official List. Mr. Hemming concluded by stating that he had consulted the International Trust which was quite agreeable to meeting the additional cost of repeating the proposed notice in the manner suggested, and that as Managing Director of the Trust he had therefore issued a formal direction that the proposed Warning Notice should be printed in bold type at the head of every page of the Official List. Mr. Hemming added that he had decided in favour of this method of printing the proposed Notice in preference to Dr. Stoll’s tentative suggestion that it might be sufficient if that Notice were to be printed as a footnote, because he (Mr. Hemming) believed that footnotes were as likely to be overlooked by casual readers as would be a single notice printed at the head of the Official List. 11. Incorporation in the Warning Notice to be inserted in the * Official List of Specific Names in Zoology” of words making it clear that the insertion of a name on that “‘ List” did not involve any implication on the question whether the taxon so named should on taxonomic grounds be regarded as a distinct species or as a subspecies of some other species: On 12th September 1954, Mr. Hemming, as Secretary, placed the following Minute on the Commission’s File Z.N.(S.) 845 directing the insertion in the portion of the present Declaration dealing with the Warning Notice to be inserted in the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology of an additional clause embodying a decision on another XXXVIll OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS aspect of this matter expressly taken by the Thirteenth Inter- national Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1954 :— Notice to be inserted in the ‘* Official List of Specific Names in Zoology ’’, Supplementary Direction MINUTE by FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E., Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature In its vote on Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(54)15 the International Com- mission has taken the requisite decisions on all matters outstanding in regard to the Warning Notice to be inserted in the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology for the purpose of insuring against the risk of misunderstandings arising in regard to the purpose and scope of that List. It must be noted, however, that in addition to indicating its desire for the insertion in this Official List of safeguards in regard to the matters which have now been voted upon by the Commission, the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948, itself expressly specified one further safeguard which it desired should be adopted. Under this decision the Congress decided to insert in the Reégles a provision “* that the insertion in the Official List of a given specific trivial name is not to be interpreted as an expression of opinion on the taxonomic question whether the animal so named should be regarded as being on the one hand a distinct species or on the other hand a subspecies of some other species ’’ (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 271, Conclusion (1)(d)). 2. Now that, as a result of the vote taken on the foregoing Voting Paper the Warning Notice designed to prevent misunderstandings regarding the purpose and scope of the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology is to be inserted in the forthcoming Declaration, it is desirable for the sake of completeness that the notice so included shall include not only the matters dealt with by the Commission in its vote on the Voting Paper referred to above but also the matter expressly dealt with by the Paris (1948) Congress in the passage quoted in paragraph 1 of the present Minute. 3. Accordingly, as Secretary to the International Commission, I hereby direct that the following additional clause be added to the Warning Notice referred to above in the portion of the forthcoming Declaration dealing with this part of the subject matter of the Vote taken on Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(54)15 :—‘‘ Similarly, the insertion of a name on the foregoing Official List involves no implication on the question whether the taxon so named should on taxonomic grounds be regarded (a) as a distinct species or (b) as a subspecies of some other species ”’. 12. On 12th September 1954, Mr. Hemming prepared the present Declaration and at the same time signed a Certificate that DECLARATION 19 XXXIX the terms of this Declaration 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)15, subject to the amplifica- tions specified in paragraphs 10 and I1 above. 13. The prescribed procedures were duly complied with by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature in dealing with the present case, and the present Dec/aration 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. 14. The present Declaration shall be known as Declaration Nineteen (19) of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Done in London, this Twelfth day of September, Nineteen Hundred and Fifty-Four. Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature FRANCIS HEMMING NOTICE TO SUBSCRIBERS (1) The present Part concludes Volume 6, except for the final Part containing the Title Page and Indexes for this volume. These Indexes have now been prepared and it is hoped that this final Part will be published at an early date. (2) Volume 7, which is concerned exclusively with the problem of the nomenclature of the human malaria parasites, is now in proof and will be published on the 28th December 1954. Owing, however, to certain production problems, this volume was not ready for publication at the time of the publication of Part 14 of volume 6, the last Part of that volume, exclusive of the Parts (Parts {5 and 16) containing ‘‘ Declarations ’’ 18 and 19. It was accordingly decided to proceed forthwith with the publication of the earlier Parts of volume 8. (3) Parts 1 to 10 of volume 8 were published on 12th October 1954, and Parts 11 to 21 on 26th October 1954, Parts 22 to 25 of volume 8 are being published simultaneously with the present ‘* Direction ”’. Printed in England by MretcatFe & Cooper LIMITED. 10-24 Scrutton St., London EC 2 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTER- NATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Edited by FRANCIS HEMMING, c.M.c., C.B.E. Secretary to the Commission KGeg pa |/= ie | ro Ye < \ ome We oy | VOLUME 6. Part 1. Pp. 1—24, 1 plate OPINION 269 Validation, under the Plenary Powers, of the specific name idas Linnaeus, 1761, as published in the combination Papilio idas, and determination of the species represented by the nominal species Papilio idas Linnaeus, 1761, Papilio argyrognomon Bergstrasser [1779], and Papilio argus Linnaeus, 1758 (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera) LONDON : Printed by Order of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature and Sold on behalf of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature by the International Trust at its Publications Office 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7 1954 Price Thirteen Shillings and Sixpence (All rights reserved) Tssued 10th September, 1954 INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE COMPOSITION AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THE RULING GIVEN IN OPINION 269 A. The Officers of the Commission President : Dr. Karl Jordan, Ph.D., F.R.S. (British Museum (Natural History), Zoological Museum, Tring, Herts, England). Vice-President: Dr. James L. Peters (Museum of Comparative Zooey, Cambridge, Massachusetts, U.S.A.). Secretary : Mr. Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. (London, England). B. The Members of the Commission Class 1949 Senor Dr. Angel CABRERA (La Plata, Argentina). Mr. Francis HEMMING (London, England) (Secretary to the Commission). Dr. Karl JoRDAN (British Museum (Natural History), Zoological Museum, Tring, Herts, England) (President of the Commission). Dr. Th. MorTENSEN (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark). . Dr. Joseph PEARSON (Tasmanian Museum, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia). Class 1952 Senhor Dr. Afranio do AMARAL (S. Paulo, Brazil). Professor J. Chester BRADLEY (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.). Professor Lodovico di CAPorRIACCO (University of Parma, Italy). Professor J. R. DyMOND (University of Toronto, Canada). Dr. James L. Peters (Museum of Comparative Zoology, Cambridge, Massachusetts, U.S.A.) (Vice-President of the Commission). Dr. Harold E. VOKES (United States Geological SUNG Washington, D.C., U.S.A.). Class 1955 Professor Dr. Hilbrand BoscHMA (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands). Dr. William Thomas CALMAN (Tayport, Fife, Scotland). Professor Teiso ESAKI (Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan). Professor Béla HANKO (University of Debrecen, Hungary). Dr. Tadeusz JACZEWSKI (Polish Zoological Museum, Warsaw, Poland). Dr. Norman R. STOLL (Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, Princeton, New Jersey, U.S.A.). C. Alternate Members of the Commission at the Session held in Paris in 1948 Professor eneiaue BELTRAN (Instituto Mexicano de Recursos Naturales Renovables A.C., Mexico City, Mexico). Dr. Edward HINDLE (Zoological Society of London, London, England). Dr. Arturo Ricardo JoRGE (Museu Bocage, Lisbon, Portugal). Professor Harold Kirsy (University of California, Berkeley, California, U.S.A.). Dr. Henning LEMCHE (Kgl. Veteriner- og Landbohojskole, Zoologisk Labora- torium, Copenhagen, Denmark). Professor Kamel MANsSouR (King Fouad University, Cairo, Egypt). Professor Z. P. METCALF (North Carolina State College of Agriculture and Engineering, University of North Carolina, Raleigh, North Carolina, U.S.A.). Mr. N. D. RILey (British Museum (Natural History), London, England). Professor Ragnar SpARCK (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark). Professor Victor van STRAELEN (Institut Royal des Sciences Naturelles de Belgique, Bruxelles, Belgium). Et oresser Nt UGE L. USINGER (University of California, Berkeley, California, U.S.A.). OPINION 269 VALIDATION, UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS, OF THE SPECIFIC NAME ‘“IDAS”’ LINNAEUS, 1761, AS PUBLISHED IN THE COMBINATION ‘‘ PAPILIO IDAS ”, AND DETERMINATION OF THE SPECIES REPRESENTED BY THE NOMINAL SPECIES ** PAPILIO IDAS ”’ LINNAEUS, 1761, ‘‘ PAPILIO ARGYROGNOMON ” BERGSTRASSER, [1779], AND ** PAPILIO ARGUS ” LINNAEUS, 1758 (CLASS INSECTA, ORDER LEPIDOPTERA) RULING :—(1) Under the Plenary Powers, the specific name idas Linnaeus, 1758, as published 1n the combination Papilio idas, is hereby suppressed for the purposes both of the Law of Priority and of the Law of Homonymy. (2) The following directions are hereby given for the determination of the species represented by the nominal species specified below :—(a) The specific name idas Linnaeus, 1761, as published in the combination Papilio idas,is to be applied to the species, the nominate subspecies of which was collected by Linnaeus in Sweden, the male genitalia of which show the characters exhibited in the photograph reproduced as figure 7 on plate HI in volume 14 of Oberthur, Etudes de Lépidoptérologie comparée. (b) The specific name argyrognomon Bergstrasser [1779], as published in the combination Papilio argyrognomon, is to be applied to the species, the nominate subspecies of which was described by Bergstrasser from specimens collected in the “‘ Bruchkébler Wald ” in the “* Grafschaft Hanau-Miinzenberg ’’, the male genitalia of which show the characters exhibited in the photograph reproduced as figure 23 on plate VIII in the volume cited in (a) above. (c) The specific name argus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Papilio argus, 1s to be applied to the species, the nominate subspecies of which was described OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS by Linnaeus from specimens collected in Sweden, the male genitalia of which show the characters exhibited in the photograph reproduced as figure 1 on plate XX in volume 3 of Tutt, Natural History of the British Butterflies. (3) The specific name idas Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Papilio idas, as suppressed under (1) above, is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology as Name No. 23. (4) The under-mentioned specific names, determined as prescribed in (2) above, are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology as Names Nos. 85 to 87 :—(a) idas Linnaeus, 1761, as published in the combination Papilio idas ; (b) argyrognomon Bergstrasser [1779], as published in the combination Papilio argyrog- nomon ; (c) argus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Papilio argus. I.—THE STATEMENT OF THE CASE On 2nd December 1936 M. Henry Beuret (Neuewelt, Basel, Switzerland) addressed to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature a preliminary communication, drawing attention to the serious confusion which had arisen in the nomen- clature of certain allied Lycaenid butterflies, following the discovery that the name Papilio argyrognomon Bergstrasser [1779], which was habitually applied to one of these species, rightfully belonged to another of these species. In this communication, M. Beuret suggested that a solution of the difficulties which had arisen should be provided by the use by the International Com- mission of its Plenary Powers for the purpose of suppressing the specific name idas Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Papilio idas (a name belonging to some species of Oriental Hesperiid, which no specialist had ever been able definitely to OPINION 269 5 identify), for this action would have the effect of validating the name idas Linnaeus, 1761, as published in the combination Papilio idas, a name published for the Lycaenid species to which until recently it had been thought that the specific name argyrog- nomon Bergstrasser [1779], as published in the combination Papilio argyrognomon, was applicable. This, it was urged, appeared to be the only practicable way by which to provide the foregoing species with a name which was not compromised through having been applied to another of the allied species concerned and which would be readily recognisable by specialists in the group concerned. 2. Following the receipt of the foregoing communication, extensive consultations took place between Mr. Francis Hemming who had recently succeeded Dr. C. W. Stiles as Secretary to the Commission, and M. Beuret and other interested specialists. These discussions led ultimately to the submission to the International Commission of the following formal application prepared jointly by Mr. Hemming (in his capacity as a lepidopterist) and M. Henry Beuret :— Proposed use of the Plenary Powers to validate the trivial name ‘‘ idas ”’ Linnaeus, 1761, as published in the combination ‘‘ Papilio idas ”’, for use for the species now referred to the genus ‘* Lycaeides ”’ Hiibner, [1819], and formerly commonly but incorrectly known by the trivial name ‘‘ argyrognomon ”’ Bergstrasser, [1779], as published in the combination ‘‘ Papilio argyrognomon ”’ (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera) By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E. (London) and HENRY BEURET (Neuewelt, Basel, Switzerland) The purpose of the present application is to invite the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to use its Plenary Powers in such a way as to put an end to the inextricable confusion in which the nomenclature of three species has become involved—a state of confusion which cannot be remedied in any other way. The species principally concerned is a widespread European Lycaenid (Class 6 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS Insecta, Order Lepidoptera). The confusion which it is the object of this application to resolve arises from the misidentification in the past of this species with two other species, very similar in appearance, and the repeated mis-application of the names published for these species. 2. In order to present this complicated case in as simple a manner as possible and in a way which will be intelligible to the zoologists who will be called upon to consider the present proposals but who are not themselves personally conversant with the species concerned, it appears to us that the most convenient course will be at the outset of the present application briefly to characterise the three species involved under the titles Species ‘‘ A ’’, Species ‘‘B’”’, and Species ““C”’, and thereafter to refer to these species under these titles. The indications given below are not intended to provide full diagnostic characters for the species concerned, the present object being merely to provide in the simplest form means by which these three species may be separated from one another. The characters most easily recognisable for this purpose—and also the characters most commonly relied upon by specialists in this group—are those provided by the male genitalia. (1) Species ‘‘A ”’ Species ““ A ”’ is widely distributed throughout the Palaearctic Region and, unlike Species ‘‘B” and “‘C”’, occurs in the West Palaearctic Region in England and Wales, where it is known as the “‘ Silver-Studded Blue ”’. Structurally, Species “‘ A’ is very distinct from Species ‘“‘ B” and Species “‘C’’, with which it is not now regarded as being congeneric. Species ““A’’ is the type species of the genus Plebejus Kluk, 1802 (Zwierz. Hist. nat. pocz. gospod. 4 : 89), having been so selected by Hemming in 1933 (Entomologist 66 : 224). Species “‘C” is the type species of the genus Lycaeides Hubner, 1819 (Verz. bekannt. Schmett. (5): 69). This latter genus was based upon a misidentified type species, and Species ““C” only became its valid type species by action taken by the International Commission under its Plenary Powers at Lisbon in 1935 (see 1943, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 1 : 24). The Commission’s decision in this case was in 1943 formally embodied in Opinion 169, which was published in 1945 (Ops. Decls. int. Comm. zool. Nomencl. 2 : 431-442). Species “‘ B”’ is treated by all specialists as being congeneric with Species “‘C”’. The male genitalia in Species “‘ A” differ very markedly from those in Species “VB “and ©.» In-Species) Av-. themtwe portions of the uncus are slender and of almost equal breadth throughout their length. When mounted flat on a slide—the position in which they can most conveniently be studied—these OPINION 269 7 processes assume—as was pointed out many years ago by Dr. Thomas Algernon Chapman—an outline remarkably similar to that of the tail of the Lyre Bird. The lateral apophyses to the uncus are long and slender, being nearly straight after the bend at their point of origin until at their extremity they bend slightly outwards, where they taper to a hook. The clasps of the male genitalia bear along the spiracular branch a series of large, coarse spines, some five or six in number. The general appearance of the male genitalia of Species ““ A” is well shown in a slide prepared by Chapman and figured by Tutt in 1909 (Nat. Hist. brit. Butts. 3 : pl. XX, fig. 1). In the same work the uncus and its lateral apophyses are shown on a larger scale on pl. XXII, fig. 1, and the extremity of the clasps on plate XXII, fig. 1. Other species of the genus Plebejus Kluk exhibit structures similar in general form to those found in Species *“‘ A ’’, but the corresponding structures in other Plebeid genera, particularly in the genus Lycaeides Hiibner, to which, as already explained Species ““B” and “CC” are referable , are strikingly different. (2) Species ‘*B’’ and ‘‘ C ”’ : common characters Species “ B ”’ is widely distributed in West, Central and Southern Europe and extends also into Scandinavia. It does not occur, however, in the British Isles. Its distribution eastwards is at present imperfectly known, for the eastern subspecies formerly associated with this species have been found to belong to the (relatively) recently separated species, Species ““C’”’. The dis- tribution of Species ““C’”’ in Europe resembles broadly that of Species ““B’”’, but it does not extend so far to the west. Like species" 1b, Species ““C”*’ does not occur in the British Isles. As already noted (under (1) above), Species “C” is the type species of the genus Lycaeides Hiibner, [1819], to which also Species 7 2 Siteterred. The male genitalia of the foregoing and other species of the genus Lycaeides present an appearance totally different from that exhibited by those of the genus Plebejus (Species *‘ A” and others). The two portions of the uncus are relatively shorter than in Plebejus, are much more massive, and exhibit, when mounted flat on a slide, the appearance of a narrowly based isosceles triangle, thus entirely lacking the lyre-like appearance so characteristic of Plebejus. The lateral apophyses of the uncus are also strikingly different from Plebejus, for instead of being nearly straight throughout their length, they are sickle shaped. The terminal portion of the clasp also differs greatly from that in Plebejus, for the few coarse spines which render this process in Plebejus so characteristic are replaced in Lycaeides by a much larger number of fine pointed teeth. 8 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS EXPLANATION TO PLATE 1 MALE GENITALIA OF THE THREE SPECIES DISCUSSED IN THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED JOINTLY BY MR. FRANCIS HEMMING (LONDON) AND M. HENRY BEURET (NEUEWELT NEAR BASEL) Figure ‘‘A”’ : Male genitalia of the species referred to in the present application as Species ‘‘A”’ The species here portrayed is the widely distributed Palaearctic species which in the West extends as far as England and Wales, where it is known as the “ Silver-Studded Blue’. This species is Papilio argus Linnaeus, 1758, which is the type species of the genus Plebejus Kluk, 1802. This species is therefore now commonly known as Plebejus argus (Linnaeus, 1758). The photograph here reproduced was published in 1909 in Tutt (J.W.), Natural History of the British Butterflies as Figure 1 on Plate XX. In the present application the Inter- national Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is asked to use its Plenary Powers to designate this figure as the standard to be used for the identification of the taxonomic species represented by the nominal species Papilio argus Linnaeus, 1758. Figure ‘‘B’”’: Male genitalia of the species referred to in the present application as Species ‘‘ B ”’ The species here portrayed is widely distributed in West, Central and Southern Europe but does not extend to the British Isles, although occurring in Scandinavia. This species was first separated from Species “‘A”’ in 1775, by Schiffermuller & Denis, who gave the new name Papilio aegon to Species “‘A’’ and misidentified the present species as Papilio argus Linnaeus, 1758. From 1871 up to 1935 this species was commonly, though incorrectly, known by the trivial name argyrognomon Bergstrasser, [1779], with which it had first been so identified by Kirby when he established that the trivial name argus Linnaeus, 1758, was not available for this species, being the name properly applicable to Species “‘A”’. In order to end the great confusion which at present exists regarding the name applicable to Species “‘ B”’, the present applicants ask the Commission to use its Plenary Powers in such a way as to make the name Papilio idas Linnaeus, 1761, the oldest available for this species. Species “‘ B’’ is commonly considered to be congeneric with the type species of the genus Lycaeides Hubner, [1819], and accordingly, if the present application is approved, this species will, on the foregoing taxonomic view, be known as Lycaeides idas (Linnaeus, 1761). The photograph here reproduced was published in 1917 in volume 14 of Oberthur’s Etudes de Lépidoptérologie comparée as figure 7 on Plate III. In the present application the International Commission is asked to use its Plenary Powers to designate this figure as the standard to be used for the identification of the taxonomic species represented by the nominal species Papilio idas Linnaeus, 1761. Figure *‘C ’’: Male genitalia of the species referred to in the present application as Species ‘‘ C ”’ The species here portrayed was first detected as being distinct from Species ‘‘ B”’ in 1917 by Chapman who gave the new name Plebejus aegus to the subspecies of this species which he was then examining. Later investigations by various authors showed that a considerable number of subspecies of this species had already been named by authors who had regarded those subspecies as being referable to Species “‘B’’. Ultimately, Beuret (1935) established that the oidest available name for this species was Papilio argyrognomon Bergstrasser, [1779] (a name which had previously been widely used for Species “* B’’). Bergstrasser’s species is the type species of the genus Lycaeides Hiibner, [1819], and the present species is therefore commonly known as Lycaeides argyrognomon (Bergstrasser, [1779}). The photograph here reproduced was published in 1917 in volume 14 of Oberthur’s Etudes de Lépidoptérologie comparée as figure 23 on Plate VIII. Inthe present application the International Commission is asked to use its Plenary Powers to designate this figure as the standard to be used for the identification of the taxonomic species represented by the nominal species Papilio argyrognomon Bergstrasser, [1779]. Opinions and Declarations. Volume 6. Plate \. ne A Red OPINION 269 9 (3) Species ‘‘ B ”’ and ** C ”’ : conspicuous differences While, as was to be expected, the male genitalia in Species ““B” and Species “‘C”’ exhibit the same general pattern, the various structures show marked differences. (a) Uncus : This is noticeably shorter and more masssive in Species “ B”’ than in Species ““C’’, the base of the isosceles triangle being relatively longer and the two other sides relatively shorter than in Species **C”’, in which species the whole structure has a much lighter and more slender appearance. (2) Lateral apophyses to the uncus : In Species *‘B”’ the lateral apophyses of the uncus are fairly broad and have a regular sweeping curve from the point of origin for a distance equal to about one half of the total length, the outer portion being much straighter and bending slightly inwards. In Species “‘C’’, the basal portion is more sharply bent than in Species ““B” and, unlike that species, extends for less than half the total length of the process. In consequence, the outer portion of this process is, in Species “‘C”’ noticeably longer than in Species *B”. It is moreover much straighter than in Species “B”’. (3) Terminal portion of the clasps : In Species *“‘ B’’, the terminal toothed portion of the clasp has a marked angular bend at the neck, whereas in Species “‘ C ’”’ this bend is only poorly developed. In Species “ B ”’ this structure bears a series of well marked teeth, the number present varying in different examples and ranging from nine to twelve. In Species .“ C’’, these teeth are rather more numerous but are very much smaller than in Species ““B’’. The characters which distinguish the male genitalia of Species ““ B” and “C”’ are beautifully shown in the long series of micro- photographs published in volume 14 of Oberthur’s Etudes de Lépidoptérologie comparée in the learned and masterly paper by Thomas Algernon Chapman published in that volume. Of the genitalia so illustrated that reproduced as figure 7 on plate III of the above volume may be taken as typifying Species “‘B’”’, and that reproduced as figure 23 on plate VIII of the same volume as typifying Species “C”’. 3. Linnaeus in 1758 recognised only one of these species to which he gave the name Papilio argus (Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 483). The species so named was Species ‘“‘ A’”’ and is the species now always known as Plebejus argus (Linnaeus, 1758). There is a male syntype of this species preserved in the Linnean collection at Burlington House. This species occurs over a fairly wide area in Sweden and was known to Linnaeus from his own country, as it was included by him in the First (pre-1758) edition of his Fauna svecica, the reference to which (‘* Fn. svec. 803, 804 ’’) was the first of the numerous references cited by Linnaeus in 1758. For this reason “‘ Sweden ”’ has been commonly treated as the “ restricted’ locality for the nomino- typical subspecies of this nominal species and is here formally selected as such. 10 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 4. In 1761, while retaining his Papilio argus in the Swedish list, Linnaeus introduced a new nominal species to which he gave the name Papilio idas (Linnaeus, 1761, Faun. svec. (ed. 2) : 284, no. 1075). This name is invalid, as it is a junior homonym of the name Papilio idas Linnaeus, 1758 (Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1: 488, no. 192). This latter name applies to some species of Oriental Hesperiid, the identity of which it has never been possible to determine with certainty. On the ground, presumably, of homonymy, the name Papilio idas Linnaeus, 1761, was rejected by contemporary authors. It was treated by Schiffermiiller and Denis in 1775 (Ankiindung syst. Werk. Schmett. wien. Gegend : 184, no. N.14) as applying to a female of Species “‘ B”’, which, as we shall see (paragraph 5 below) those authors mis- identified with the nominal species Papilio argus Linnaeus, 1758. The identity of the species to which the invalid name Papilio idas Linnaeus, 1761, is applicable has been the subject of much discussion during the last three decades. It will be convenient, however, to postpone the further consideration of this aspect of the question until we reach the appropriate point in our historical survey. 5. The first major element of confusion in the nomenclature of the species with which we are here concerned was introduced by Schiffer- miller and Denis in 1775 in their Ankiindung eines systematischen Werkes von der Schmetterlingen der Wienergegend, better known by the title Systematisches Verzeichniss der Schmetterlinge der Wiener- gegend under which, in an edition identical except for the title page, it was published in 1776. These authors were well aware of the existence of two similar species—Species “*A’”’ and Species ‘“‘ B’’—and were in fact the first authors to recognise the existence of the latter species. Unfortunately, however, they applied the trivial name argus Linnaeus, 1758, not to the species (Species ‘‘ A’) so named by Linnaeus, but to their newly detected species, Species ““B’”’. This left Species “‘ A ”’ without a name, and they accordingly gave it a new name, Papilo aegon Schiffermiiller and Denis, 1775 (Ankiindung syst. Werk. Schmett. Wienergegend ; 185, no. N.15). 6. So eminent were the merits of Schiffermuller and Denis’ great work and so commanding their influence that their unfortunate misidentification of Papilio argus Linnaeus was widely followed and, indeed, persisted unchallenged for almost exactly one hundred years. For it was not until 1871 that Kirby (Syn. Cat. diurn. Lep. : 357) restored the name Papilio argus Linnaeus to its rightful owner, Species G6 A oa 7. This left Species ‘‘B’”’, the distinctness of which from Species ** A” was by this time recognised by all workers, once more without a trivial name. It was at this point unfortunately that Kirby introduced the second great element of confusion into the nomenclature of the species with which we are here concerned, though the mistake so made OPINION 269 1] was unavoidable in the then state of knowledge of these species. What Kirby did was to examine the literature for the purpose of determining what was the first name to be published for Species “*B”’ by any author subsequent to the publication in 1775 of Schiffermiiller’s Ankiindung. This examination led Kirby to the conclusion that the oldest such name was Papilio argyrognomon Bergstrasser, [1779] (Nomencl. Beschr. Ins. Grafschaft Hanau-Miinzenberg 2 : 76, pl. 46, figs. 1, 22). Kirby was perfectly correct in concluding that the species so named by Bergstrasser was not Species ““A” and it followed automatically at that time that he should conclude that it was Species ‘**B”’, the only species then known to which it could be referred. By an extraordinary stroke of ill-luck, it was found some sixty years later that this nominal species represents not Species “‘ B”’ (as Kirby thought) but Species “* C”’, the existence of which as a separate species was not detected until 1917. Kirby’s use of the trivial name argyrog- nomon Bergstrasser for Species ““B’’ won rapid acceptance, except among a few workers who obstinately continued to apply the name argus Linnaeus to this species, refusing to abandon the Schiffermiiller system for the naming of this, and Species ““A’”’. Subject to the foregoing qualification, the trivial name argyrognomon ultimately became the universally accepted name for the Species ““B’”’ and it retained this unchallenged position until in 1935 a fresh taxonomic examination of Bergstrasser’s description and figures showed that this name applied not to Species “ B” but to Species “C”’. 8. The opening phase of the next stage was marked by the discovery by Chapman of a third species closely allied to, but quite distinct mom, species B~. The species so discovered was Species “C’”’, but at this early date it was considered that the species was entirely new in the sense that it was not realised that other subspecies of it had already been described as belonging to Species ““B”.. Chapman gave to his new species the trivial name aegus (Plebejus aegus Chapman, 1917, in Oberthur, Et. Lép. comp. 14 : 41-57, pl. VII, figs. 19-21 (male genit.), pl. VIII, figs. 22-24 (male genit.), pl. XII, fig. 39 (female genit.), pl. XIX, fig. 57 (male androconia), pl. XX, fig. 60 (male underside)). This species was based upon specimens taken in the immediate neighbour- hood of Geneva (Veyrier; Versoix; Trelex). Chapman did not designate a holotype, but in this as in other cases he gave his types to the British Museum (Natural History). 9. It was not long before Chapman’s discovery led to a search among the described subspecies of Species ““B”’ for other represen- tatives of Species ““C’’. Following a suggestion thrown out by Chapman himself (:49) in the paper in which he described Plebejus aegus, the first previously described subspecies definitely to be found to be referable to Species “‘C”’ and not to Species ““ B”’ was that to which in 1910 Courvoisier had given the trivial name /igurica (Lycaena argus var. ligurica Courvoisier, 1910, Ent. Z. 24:81 “ Ufern des 12 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS Luganersees * ; id., 1911, Deuts. ent. Z. Iris 25 : 103, pl. 2; figs. 16): In consequence, for a time, the collective species ‘“*C’’ was known by the trivial name /igurica. Very shortly afterwards, however, it became evident that the subspecies from Japan and the Far East till then referred to Species “‘B’”’ should be referred either to Species “C”’ or to a fourth species closely allied to it. Unfortunately, the literature at this point is again confused by errors of identification, for Reverdin, in associating the Japanese subspecies with Species “* C ”’ (Reverdin, 1917, in, Oberthur, 1917, Er. Lép. comp. 14 : 25), following an earlier error of identification by Oberthur (1910, Et. Lép. comp. 4 : 200, pl. 42, figs. 30534, 3069), applied to that subspecies the name insularis Leech (Lycaena argus var. insularis Leech, 1893, Butts. China Japan Corea (2) : 302, pl. 31, figs. 59, 8¢ “Island of Yesso, Hakodate’’). The name insularis Leech is, as Hemming has shown (Hemming, 1932, Stylops 1 : 176, pl. 3, figs. 1, 2 (genitalia of holotype)), a junior synonym of the name pseudaegon Butler, 1881 (Lycaena pseudaegon Butler, 1881, Proc. zool. Soc. Lond. 1881 : 851, ‘‘ Iburi Hokkaido”), and is a subspecies of Species “* A ” (Plebejus argus (Linnaeus, 1758)). By this unfortunate chance, therefore, the collective species ““C”’ came to be known by a name which rightfully belonged to Species ““ A’. In the years 1930 to 1933, discussion turned to the question of the identity of the nominal species Polyommatus ismenias Meigen, 1829 (Syst. Beschr. europ. Schmett. 2 (1) : 33, pl. 49, figs. A, Bg, C, D9). The leaders of this discussion were : Heydemann, 1930, 1931, 1932 ; Beuret, 1931, 1932 ; Stemppfer and Schmidt, 1932 ; Stemppfer, 1932, 1933. As a result, it became evident that the name ismenias Meigen (for which, unfortunately, no locality had been cited by its author) applied to a subspecies of Species ““C”’. In consequence, the name ismenias Meigen was treated as the name of the collective species ““C”’, of which by this time there was a considerable group of named subspecies. 10. The final stage of this complicated story was reached in 1935 when Beuret (Lambillionea 35 : 162-172) demonstrated that the insect described and figured by Bergstrasser in 1779 as Papilio argyrognomon, for so long and so universally identified with Species “ B ’’, was in fact referable not to that species but to Species *‘C”’. To make matters worse, this trivial name was by far the oldest applied to any subspecies of Species *‘C”’ and accordingly, under the Régles, became the name applicable to the collective species as a whole. This discovery had a catastrophic effect upon the nomenclature of the species with which we are here concerned, for not only (1) did it involve (as noted above) the disastrous transfer of the name argyrognomon Bergstrasser from Species ““B”’ to Species ‘‘C’’, but (2), in addition, it re-opened the question of the name properly applicable to the collective Species “ B”’. This latter result created the most serious difficulties, since the inade- quacy of the original descriptions for many of the older names which might be applicable to Species “‘ B”’, the crude nature of the original OPINION 269 13 figures, in those cases where figures had been published by the original authors, and the absence of type specimens made it impossible to determine with certainty whether any, and, if so, which, of the names given by early authors to nominal species, the names of which had hitherto been synonymised with Species ““B’’, really belonged to that species or whether they were applicable to Species ““C”’. So great were the difficulties that, if an attempt had been made to apply the ordinary rules strictly in the present case, it would have been necessary to pass over a large number of names as being nomina dubia before in the historical sequence a name was reached which was indubitably applicable to Species ““B” and not to Species **C”’. Clearly, such a situation could not have failed to lead to the utmost instability in the nomenclature of this species, for inevitably attempts would be made by one author or another at different times to identify with Species “‘ B”’ one of the names passed over as nomina dubia. 11. Beuret himself was appalled by the situation created by his discovery, and it was in an attempt to avoid the confusion which would inevitably follow the transfer of the name argyrognomon Bergstrasser from Species “‘ B”’ to Species “* C ”’ that he actually suggested that this name should be retained for Species ““B’”’, notwithstanding the fact that he had himself clearly shown that Bergstrasser had applied it to Species ““C’’. Moreover, as Beuret had shown, a subspecies of Species “‘ B ” occurred in the same locality as argyrognomon Bergstrasser (Species ““C’’). A solution on these lines would therefore have called for a complicated series of acts by the International Commission under its Plenary Powers. The objections involved were generally considered too serious to make this course acceptable, and _ this suggestion was accordingly dropped. Thereafter, attention was concentrated upon the question of finding an acceptable name for Species ““B”’ and no action was taken to prevent the transfer of the name argyrognomon Bergstrasser from Species “‘ B”’ to Species “*C”’, although the confusion resulting from that transfer was likely to be fully as great as that caused by uncertainties as to the name to be applied to Species “C’’. In retrospect, it is now clear that the best course would have been to secure from the International Commission a decision under its Plenary Powers, (a) suppressing the name argyrognomon Bergstrdsser for the purposes of the Law of Priority, and (b) expressly validating in some appropriate manner the name ismenias Meigen for use for Species ““C”’. For the use of the name argyrognomon Bergstrasser for Species “B”’ ever since 1871 had so deeply compromised that name that its use for the closely allied species Species “‘C”’ could not fail to give rise to serious and enduring confusion, while the validation of the name ismenias Meigen for Species *‘C’’ would have had the great advantage that it would have provided that species with a name which, though often placed in the synonymy of Species “B”’, had never been used for that species. No doubt the reasons which in the mid-thirties militated against the submission to the International Commission of an application on the foregoing lines were the extreme 14 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS reluctance for many years shown by that body to make use of its Plenary Powers and the state of disorganisation into which it had fallen, following the disputes which occurred at the meeting of the International Congress of Zoology held at Padua in 1930. Now that these impedi- ments have been swept away, it must be a matter for serious considera- tion whether, despite the lapse of time which has occurred, a proposal in the above sense should not now be submitted to the International Commission, for, although the correct application of the name argyrognomon Bergstrasser is clearly understood by specialists in this group, the utmost confusion still obtains in its use in general entomological literature. 12. The nomenclatorial impasse created by the impossibility of determining what is the oldest available name for Species “‘ B”’ has led to renewed consideration of a proposal originally put forward in a rather different form, by Verity in 1913 (J. linn. Soc. Lond. (Zool.) 32 : 189), namely that the International Commission should be asked to suppress the trivial name idas Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Papilio idas, thus rendering available for Species “ B”’ the name idas Linnaeus, 1761, as published in the same combination. This proposal has many important advantages: (1) It involves no disturbance whatever in the nomenclature of other groups, for (as explained in paragraph 4 of the present application) it has never been found possible to identify the species to which the name Papilio idas Linnaeus, 1758, is applicable and, in consequence, the suppression of the name idas Linnaeus, 1758 under the Commission’s Plenary Powers would not cause a ripple anywhere. (2) The name idas Linnaeus, 1761, has never been applied to any of the species here under consideration, with the exception of Species ““B’”’. If therefore it were now to be applied specifically to Species “‘ B ’’ and, subspecifically, to the Swedish subspecies of that species, every worker would in future know to what species reference was being made when the name idas was used. (3) The very early date (1761) of the name idas Linnaeus provides an insurance against the risk of there being some earlier name which would take priority over idas Linnaeus as the name for the collective species ““B’’. (4) A settlement on the foregoing lines would not in any way prejudice the taxonomic question of the relationship of the insects here referred to as Species “‘ B”’ and Species ‘“‘ C ”’, since any worker who (contrary to the present general opinion) may regard the popula- tions in question as conspecific would be free to treat, as the name of a subspecies of the collective species ‘““B’’ ( = idas Linnaeus, 1761), the name argyrognomon Bergstrdasser (the oldest available name for the group of subspecies treated by the present applicants as together constituting the collective species “‘C’’). 13. Under the foregoing proposal, the determination of the identity of the taxonomic species represented by the nominal species “ B”’ OPINION 269 15 would rest exclusively upon a decision taken by the International Com- mission under its Plenary Powers. It is therefore not necessary — because not relevant—to consider in detail the question of the surviving material of Papilio idas Linnaeus, 1761, in the Linnean collection in Burlington House. This nominal species was undoubtedly based upon a blue female with orange submarginal lunules on the upperside of the hindwings, as is shown by the diagnosis given by Linnaeus which reads as follows :—*‘ alis ecaudatis caeruleis : posticis fascia terminali rufa ocellari: subtus rotundatis pupillis caeruleo- argenteis ’. A specimen agreeing with this diagnosis is still extant in the Linnean collection. This specimen was examined by Verity who took the view (1913, J. linn. Soc. Lond. (Zool.) 32 : 189) that it was certainly referable to the species to which Staudinger in 1901 (Cat. Lepid. pal. Faunengeb. 1 : 78) had applied the name argyrognomon Bergstrasser, i.e., to Species ““ B’’. In addition, the Linnean collection contains under Papilio idas a brown female, which it is agreed is of Linnean origin. This specimen was examined in 1913 by Verity (/.c.) who considered that it might be referable to Papilio argus Linnaeus (i.e., to Species ‘“A’”’) but was of the opinion that it was more probably referable to argyrognomon Bergstradsser, as interpreted by Staudinger (i.e., to Species ““B’’). Quite recently, however, this specimen has been re-examined by Dr. A. Steven Corbet (British Museum (Natural History), London) who informs us (in /itt.) that he is definitely of the opinion that it is referable to Papilio argus (i.e., to Species ““ A”). At first sight, therefore, the Linnean collection appears to suggest that Papilio idas Linnaeus, 1761, as conceived by Linnaeus included a blue female of Species “‘B’’, which Linnaeus probably regarded as the male of idas, and a brown female of Species “A ”’, which Linnaeus no doubt, regarded as the female of his new species. This possibility is supported by the fact that in 1761, after describing the blue female under the name Papilio idas, Linnaeus retained the description of the brown female which in the First Edition (1746) he had treated as his species No. 805. In view, however, of the fact that already in 1758 (in the Tenth Edition of the Systema Naturae) Linnaeus had recognised that his species No. 804 of 1746 was no more than the (brown) female of the species which he then named Papilio .argus and which in 1746 he had treated as species No. 803, it is extremely unlikely that three years later (1761) he would have once more separated from Papilio argus the brown female which belonged to it and have thus repeated the mistake made in 1746. A much more probable explanation is that the inclusion in 1761 under Papilio idas of the description given in 1746 for species No. 804 ( = the brown female of argus) was due to an inadvertent slip in the preparation of the Second Edition of the Fauna svecica. That edition, it must be noted, is substantially the same book as the First Edition, subject to (1) the addition throughout of binominal names, (2) certain re-arrangements in the order in which the species are listed, (3) the addition of a few new species. The text of 1761 for the species noted in the First Edition is the same as that given for those species in the earlier edition, subject here and there 16 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS to a few minor changes and additions. It cannot be doubted therefore that the 1761 edition was prepared for the printer by the addition of manuscript changes in a copy of the edition of 1746. This being so, it would not be surprising to find that occasionally obsolete passages belonging to the First Edition were carried over inadvertently into the Second Edition. This is what seems to have happend in the present case, for in the Second Edition (a) the entry for Papilio argus gives only the reference to the species numbered “* 803 ”’ in 1746 (i.e., the male of argus) and the description and references then given for this species (notwithstanding the fact that in 1758 Linnaeus had recognised that species no. 804 of 1746, as well as species no. 803, belonged to argus), (b) the entry for the next species, Papilio idas, under the number “* 1075 ”’, contained not only the newly written diagnosis for that species but also the diagnosis written for the species (no. 804) ( = the brown female of argus) which in 1746 immediately followed the species then numbered 803 (named Papilio argus in 1758) which again in 1761 was the immediately preceding species. It may therefore reasonably be concluded that it was only by inadvertence that in the 1761 edition the diagnosis given in 1746 for species no. 804 was retained under the number 1075 (Papilio idas) in the copy sent to the printer, instead of being deleted and that it was for the same reason that in the 1761 edition no reference was made under the number “ 1074” (Papilio argus) to the view expressed in 1758 (Sysz. Nat.) that the species no. 804 of 1746 as well as the species no. 803, was referable to argus, the description given for argus in 1761 being almost identical with that given in 1746 for species no. 803. If the retention in 1761 of the brown female under Papilio idas was due to the reasons suggested above, it would be no matter for surprise that in his collection Linnaeus also retained that insect under that name. While it is interesting to speculate as to what was the reason for the contradictory character of the statements made by Linnaeus in 1761 in regard to his Papilio idas, it is the diagnosis then given for that species and not the quotations from earlier editions then cited which must determine the identity of the species to which the name idas Linnaeus must apply. The diagnosis applies only to the blue female of Species “‘B” and it is therefore that species to which the name idas is applicable. Similarly, it is the blue female specimen of Species “‘ B”’ now preserved in the Linnean collection which can alone be regarded as a surviving syntype of that species. 14. The application now submitted has the support of all the leading specialists in this group, including, in addition to the applicants : Dr. Roger Verity (Florence, Italy); Mr. N. D. Riley (British Museum (Natural History), London); Dr. A. Steven Corbet (British Museum (Natural History), London) ; Dr. V. Nabokov (Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass., U.S.A.) ; Mr. B. J. Lempke (Amsterdam, The Netherlands). OPINION 269 17 15. The application now submitted may be summarised as being a request to the International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature :— (1) to suppress under its Plenary Powers the trivial name idas Linnaeus, as published in the combination Papilio idas, thus validating the name idas Linnaeus, 1761, as published in the combination Papilio idas ; (2) to provide a definitive basis for the interpretation of the under- mentioned trivial names by directing that the species so named shall be determined in the manner there specified :— (a) the trivial name idas Linnaeus, 1761, as published in the combination Papilio idas : The above name, as validated under (1) above, to be applied to the species, the nominotypical subspecies of which was collected by Linnaeus in Sweden, the male genitalia of which show the characters exhibited in the photograph reproduced as figure 7 on plate III in volume 14 of Oberthur, Etudes de Lépidop- térologie comparée, here refigured as figure ‘“‘B”’ on plate le: (b) the trivial name argyrognomon, 1779, as published in the combination Papilio argyrognomon : The above name to be applied to the species, the nomino- typical subspecies of which was described by Berg- strasser from specimens collected in the “‘ Bruchk6obler Wald” in the “ Grafschaft Hanau-Miinzenberg’’, the male genitalia of which show the characters exhibited in the photograph reproduced as figure 23 on plate VIII in the volume cited in (a) above, here refigured as figure “‘C’”’ on plate 1 ; (c) the trivial name argus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Papilio argus : The above name to be applied to the species, the nomino- typical subspecies of which was described by Linnaeus from specimens collected in Sweden, the male genitalia of which show the characters exhibited in the photograph reproduced as figure | on plate XX in volume 3 of Tutt, Natural History of the British Butterflies, here refigured as figure “‘ A” on plate 1. 18 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS Il.—THE SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF THE CASE 3. On the receipt of M. Beuret’s preliminary communication, the problem raised in the present case was given the Registered Number Z.N.(S.) 60. Consultations in regard to the problem so raised were opened shortly afterwards, but these had not reached a decisive stage by the time that in September 1939 the outbreak of war in Europe led to the evacuation of the records of the Commission from London to the country as a precaution against the risk of destruction through air raids. The Secretariat in London was re-opened in 1942 and steps were immediately taken to establish the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature as a means for bringing to the attention of zoologists applications submitted to the Commission for decision. Work was at once started on outstanding applications with a view to arranging for their publication in the newly established Bulletin. It was decided at that stage that preference should be given to those cases for which formal applications had already been received, since those cases required, for the most part, but little further work before being sent to the printer for publication in the Bulletin. In consequence, it was not until 1946 that work on the present case was resumed. 4. The consultations conducted before the war and in the period 1946/47 showed that the principal specialists in the group concerned shared the view advanced by M. Beuret that the only practicable means for restoring order in the nomenclature of the association of Lycaenid species concerned was to secure, with the help of the International Commission, that the specific name idas Linnaeus, 1761, as published in the combination Papilio idas, should be made available for the species until then habitually known by the specific name argyrognomon Bergstrasser [1779], as published in the combination Papilio argyrognomon. The specialists who supported this solution included: Dr. Roger Verity (Florence, Italy); Mr. N. D. Riley (Keeper, Department of Entomology, British Museum (Natural History), London) ; Dr. A. Steven Corbet (British Museum (Natural History), London) ; Dr. V. Nabokov (Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard University, Mass., U.S.A.) ; Mr. B. J. Lempke (Amsterdam, The Netherlands); Mr. B. C. S. Warren (Winchester, England) ; Mr. Francis Hemming (London, England). OPINION 269 19 5. Ultimately, as explained in paragraph 1 of the present Opinion, it was agreed that a formal application should be sub- mitted to the International Commission jointly by Mr. Francis Hemming and M. Henry Beuret. This application, it was further agreed, should be of a comprehensive character and should be designed not only to secure availability for the specific name idas Linnaeus, 1761, as published in the combination Papilio idas, but in addition to obtain from the International Commission an authoritative ruling both as to the way in which this name should be applied but also how the names currently accepted by specialists for the two other species involved should be applied, it being hoped thereby to achieve a final solution for the nomenclature to be used for these species. The joint application prepared on these lines was completed in May 1947 and was at once submitted to the Commission. 6. At Paris in 1948 the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature suspended its By-Laws for the duration of that Session (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 7-8), and it was in virtue of that decision that the present case was brought before the Commission later during that Session. Iii—THE DECISION OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 7. The present application was considered by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature at the Fourteenth Meeting of its Paris Session held at the Sorbonne in the Amphi- theatre Louis-Liard on Monday, 26th July 1948 at 2030 hours. The following is an extract from the Official Record of the Proceedings of the International Commission, summarising the discussion of this case at the foregoing meeting after the problem 20 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS involved had been presented by the Acting President (Mr. Francis. Hemming) (1950, Bull, zool. Nomencl. 4 : 478-479) :— | ALTERNATIVE COMMISSIONER N. D. RILEY (UNITED KINGDOM) said that, as had been indicated by the Acting President, he strongly supported the present proposal. He was convinced that stability would never be attained in the nomen- clature of this group of species without the use by the Commission of their Plenary Powers. The settlement proposed would, he felt confident, be welcomed warmly by all interested specialists. IN DISCUSSION it was agreed that this was a particularly clear case for the use of the Plenary Powers to put an end to a state of confusion in nomenclature which could be remedied in no other way. 8. The following is an extract from the Official Record of the Proceedings of the International Commission at the foregoing’ meeting, setting out the decision then reached by the Commission in this case (Paris Session, 14th Meeting, Conclusion 23) (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 475-480) :— THE COMMISSION agreed :— (1) to use their Plenary Powers :— (a) to suppress the trivial name idas Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binominal combination Papilio idas ; (b) to validate the trivial name idas Linnaeus, 1761, as published in the binominal combination Papilio idas ; OPINION 269 21 (c) to direct :— (i) that the trivial name ‘das Linnaeus, 1761, as published in the binominal combination Papilio idas, validated as specified in (b) above, should be applied to the species (the nominotypical subspecies of which was described by Linnaeus from specimens collected in Sweden), the male genitalia of which show the characters exhibited in the photograph published by Chapman (T.A.) in 1917 as figure 7 of plate HI in Volume 14 of Oberthur’s Etudes de Lépidoptérologie comparée (photograph of the male genitalia of a specimen collected at Allos (Basses- Alpes, France) and figured as “ Plebeius argus var. alpina’’) ; (ii) that the trivial name argyrognomon Berg- strasser [1779], as published in the bi- nominal combination Papilio argyronomon, should be applied to the species (the nominotypical subspecies of which was described by Bergstrasser from specimens collected in the “ Bruchk6ébler Wald ”’ in the ** Grafschaft Hanau-Munzenberg ’’), the male genitalia of which show the characters exhibited in the photograph published by Chapman (T.A.) in 1917 as figure 23 on plate VIIJ in Volume 14 of Oberthur’s Etudes de Lépidoptérologie comparée (photograph of the male genitalia of a specimen collected at Versoix (Switzerland) and figured as “* Plebeius aegus”?) ; (111) that the trivial name argus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binominal combination Papilio argus, should be applied to the species (the nominotypical subspecies of which was described by Linnaeus from specimens collected in Sweden), the male genitalia of which show the characters exhibited in the photograph published by Chapman (T.A.) in 1909 as figure 1 on DD OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS plate XX in Volume 3 of Tutt’s Natural History of the British Butterflies (photograph of the male genitalia figured as “ Plebeius argus’’) ; (2) to place the trivial name idas Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binominal combination Papilio idas, suppressed under (1) (a) above, on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Trivial Names in Zoology ; (3) to place the under-mentioned trivial names on the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology :— idas Linnaeus, 1761, as published in the binominal combination Papilio idas, as validated under (1) (b) above and as defined in (1) (c) (4) above ; argyrognomon Bergstrasser [1779], as published in the binominal combination Papilio argyrognomon, as defined in (1) (c) (11) above ; argus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binominal combination Papilio argus, as defined in (1) (c) (iil) above ; (4) to render an Opinion recording the decisions specified in (1) to (3) above. 9. The following are the original references for the names which appear in the decisions set out in the immediately preceding paragraph :— argus, Papilio, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 483 argyrognomon, Papilio, Bergstrasser, [1779], Nomencl. Beschr. Ins. Grafschaft-Miinzenberg 2 : 76, pl. 46, figs. 1, 2° idas, Papilio, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 488 idas, Papilio, Linnaeus, 1761, Fauna svec. (ed. 2) : 284, no. 1075 10. The decision taken in the present case was reported to, and approved by, the Section on Nomenclature of the Thirteenth OPINION 269 23 International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948, at its Sixth Meeting held on Monday, 26th July 1948 (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 5 : 115). 11. The Ruling given in the present Opinion was concurred in by the sixteen (16) Commissioners and Alternate Commissioners present at the Paris Session of the International Commission, namely :— Beltran vice Cabrera ; Boschma ; Bradley ; di Caporiacco ; Hemming ; Hindle vice Jordan ; Jorge vice Amaral ; Kirby vice Stoll; Lemche vice Dymond ; Mansour vice Hank ; Metcalf vice Peters; Riley vice Calman; Rode; Sparck vice Mortensen ; van Straelen vice Richter ; Usinger vice Vokes. 12. The Ruling given in the present Opinion was dissented from by no Commissioner or Alternate Commissioner present at the Paris Session. 13. At the time of the adoption of the Ruling given in the present Opinion, the expression prescribed for the second portion of the binomen which constitutes the scientific name of a species was the expression “trivial name” and the Official List reserved for recording such names was styled the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology, the word “ trivial” appearing also in the title of the Official Index reserved for recording rejected and invalid names of this category. Under a decision taken by the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology, Copenhagen, 1953, the expression “ specific name’ was substituted for the expression “ trivial name ”’ and corresponding changes were made in the titles of the Official List and Official Index of such names (1953, Copenhagen Decisions zool. Nomencl : 21). The changes in terminology so adopted have been incorporated in the Ruling given in the present Opinion. 14. It must be noted also that at the time when the Ruling given in the present Opinion was adopted by the International Commission, the expression prescribed to denote, in the case of polytypic species, the subspecies upon which the nominal species concerned was originally based was the expression 24 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS ‘*“nominotypical subspecies ’’ (Paris Session, 7th Meeting, Con- clusion 2) (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4:191), but that at its meeting held at Copenhagen in 1953 the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology decided to substitute for the foregoing expression the expression “ nominate subspecies ” (1953, Copen- hagen Decisions zool. Nomencl. : 21). The change in terminology so adopted has been incorporated in the Ruling given in the present Opinion. 15. The prescribed procedures were duly complied with by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature in dealing with the present case, and the present Opinion is accord- ingly hereby rendered in the name of the said International Commission by the under-signed Francis Hemming, Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, in virtue of all and every the powers conferred upon him in that behalf. 16. The present Opinion shall be known as Opinion Two Hundred and Sixty-Nine (269) of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Donk in London, this Ninth day of January, Nineteen Hundred and Fifty-Four. Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature FRANCIS HEMMING Printed in England by Mrtcatrr & Cooper LimiteD, 10-24 Scrutton St., London E C2 i r\ V OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTER- NATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZLOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Edited by FRANCIS HEMMING, c.M.G., C.B. B Secretary to the Commission VOLUME 6. Part 2. Pp. 25—40 \” "hs A s Issued 10th September, 1954 \ SEP 3 195 NG / Mra INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE COMPOSITION AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THE RULING GIVEN IN OPINION 274 A. The Officers of the Commission President : Dr. Karl Jordan, Ph.D., F.R.S. (British Museum (Natural History), Zoological Museum, Tring, Herts, England). Vice-President: Dr. James L. Peters (Museum of Comparative Zoology, Cambridge, Massachusetts, U.S.A.). Secretary : Mr. Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. (London, England). B. The Members of the Commission Class 1949 Senor Dr. Angel CABRERA (La Plata, Argentina). Mr. Francis HEMMING (London, England) (Secretary to the Commission). Dr. Karl JoRDAN (British Museum (Natural History), Zoological Museum, Tring, Herts, England) (President of the Commission). Dr. Th. MorRTENSEN (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark). Dr. Joseph PEARSON (Tasmanian Museum, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia). Class 1952 Senhor Dr. Afranio do AMARAL (S. Paulo, Brazil). Professor J. Chester BRADLEY (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.). Professor Lodovico di CAPportAcco (University of Parma, Italy). Professor J. R. DyMOND (University of Toronto, Canada). Dr. James L. PETERS (Museum of Comparative Zoology, Cambridge, Massachusetts, U.S.A.) (Vice-President of the Commission). Dr. es E. Vokes (United States Geological Survey, Washington, D.C., S.A.). Class 1955 Professor Dr. Hilbrand BoscHMA (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands). Dr. William Thomas CALMAN (Tayport, Fife, Scotland). Professor Teiso ESAKI (Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan). Professor Béla HANKO (University of Debrecen, Hungary). Dr. Tadeusz JACZEWSKI (Polish Zoological Museum, Warsaw, Poland). Dr. Norman R. STOLL (Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, Princeton, New Jersey, U.S.A.). C. Alternate Members of the Commission at the Session held in Paris in 1948 Professor Enrique BELTRAN (Instituto Mexicano de Recursos Naturales Renovables A.C., Mexico City, Mexico). Dr. Edward HINDLE (Zoological Society of London, London, England). Dr. Arturo Ricardo JoRGE (Museu Bocage, Lisbon, Portugal). Professor Harold Kirsy (University of California, Berkeley, California, U.S.A.). Dr. Henning LEMCHE (Kgl. Veteriner- og Landbohojskole, Zoologisk Labora- torium, Copenhagen, Denmark). Professor Kamel MANsouR (King Fouad University, Cairo, Egypt). Professor Z. P. METCALF (North Carolina State College of Agriculture and Engineering, University of North Carolina, Raleigh, North Carolina, U.S.A.). Mr. N. D. RILEy (British Museum (Natural History), London, England). Professor Ragnar SpARCK (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark). Professor Victor van STRAELEN (Institut Royal des Sciences Naturelles de Belgique, Bruxelles, Belgium). peotser Robert L. UsinGer (University of California, Berkeley, California, SA OPINION 274 ADDITION OF THE NAME ‘** CALLIPHORA ” ROBINEAU- DESVOIDY, 1830 (CLASS INSECTA, ORDER DIPTERA) TO THE “OFFICIAL LIST OF GENERIC NAMES IN ZOOLOGY” (°° OPINION ” SUPPLEMENTARY TO ‘‘ OPINION ”’ 82) RULING :—(1) The generic name Ca//iphora Robineau- Desvoidy, 1830 (gender of name: feminine) (type species, by original designation: Musca vomitoria Lin- naeus, 1758) (Class Insecta, Order Diptera) is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology as Name No. 692. (2) The specific name vomitoria Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Musca vomitoria, is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology as Name No. 96. I—THE STATEMENT OF THE CASE On 28th November 1945 Professor Dr. H. Boschma (Rijks- museum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) drew attention to the fact that, although Dr. W. Dwight Pierce in the application dealt with in the Commission’s Opinion 82 (1925, Smithson. misc. Coll. 73 (No. 3) : 1—7) had raised the question of the status not only of the generic name Musca Linnaeus, 1758, but also of the generic name Calliphora Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830 (Class Insecta, Order Diptera), the Commission in the foregoing Opinion had dealt only with the status of the first of these names. Professor Boschma criticised the incomplete character of the decision given in Opinion 82 and expressed the view that its shortcomings should now be remedied by the International Commission. After an exchange of correspondence between the Secretary and Dr. Boschma (terminating with a letter from the 78 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS latter dated Sth January 1946), the following formal application was submitted to the International Commission by Dr. Boschma:— Proposed addition of ‘‘ Calliphora ’’ Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830 (Class Insecta, Order Diptera) to the ‘‘ Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ”’ (request for an ‘*‘ Opinion ’’ Supplementary _ to ** Opinion ”’ 82) By H. BOSCHMA (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) In the application dealt with by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature in Opinion 82 (published in 1925) the Com- mission were asked to take a two-fold action as regards each of two names of genera belonging to the Order Diptera (Class Insecta). That is to say they were asked :— (A) (1) to validate the name Musca Linnaeus, 1758, with Musca domestica Linnaeus, 1758, as type ; (2) to place the name Musca Linnaeus, with the above species as type, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ; (B) (1) to validate the name Calliphora Robineau-Desvoidy with Musca vomitoria Linnaeus, 1758, as type; and (2) to place the name Calliphora Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830, with the above species as type, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. For some reason which is not apparent, the only one of the foregoing requests dealt with in express terms in Opinion 82 is that regarding the validation of Musca Linnaeus, with Musca domestica Linnaeus, as type. No reference was made in that decision either to the type of Calliphora R.-D. or to the question of placing that name and Musca Linnaeus on the Official List. Recently it has been ruled in connection with Opinion 137 (Jordan, 1945, in Opinions and Declarations rendered by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 2 : (8)) that, where (as in the case of Musca Linnaeus) the International Commission used _ their Plenary Powers to validate a given generic name, the decision so taken carried with it automatically a decision to place the name so validated on the Official List, irrespective of whether or not the last-named decision was expressly recorded in the Opinion rendered by the Commis- sion. Under this ruling, therefore, no further action is required as regards the name Musca Linnaeus, 1758, since it has now been placed on the Official List and thereby stabilised. It is unfortunate that no action was taken by the International Commission as regards the name Calliphora Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830, OPINION 274 719 at the time when Opinion 82 was adopted, since the decision then taken as regards the name Musca Linnaeus, 1758, cleared away all difficulties as regards the name Calliphora. In order to dispose of the case submitted in connection with Opinion 82, the Commission are now asked to place the name Calliphora Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830, type species, Musca vomitoria Linnaeus, 1758, by original designation by Robineau-Desvoidy, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. Il—THE SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF THE CASE 2. Registration of the present application: On receipt the present application was given the Registered Number Z.N. (S.) 201. At the same time, a note was placed in the file suggesting that, although the present application was concerned only with the failure of the International Commission to deal with one of the two names raised in the application submitted by Dr. Pierce which formed the subject of the Ruling given in Opinion 82, Dr. Boschma’s present application raised also an important question of principle—namely the need for ensuring that Rulings given in Opinions should cover the whole of the subject matter submitted for decision—to which it was desirable that the Com- mission should give consideration at the same time as it gave a decision on the narrower question (of the status of the name Calliphora Robineau-Desvoidy) raised expressly by Dr. Boschma. 3. Submission of the present application to the Commission in Paris in 1948 : On 25th July 1948 Mr. Hemming, as Secretary, submitted to the International Commission a Paper (I.C.(48)19), containing summaries of the principal points arising on a number of individual cases. The first two points included in this paper were concerned (1) with the general question of the need for securing that Rulings given in Opinions should be complete, and (2) with the individual case of the name Calliphora Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830. This portion of Mr. Hemming’s paper contained a summary of the twofold application by Professor Boschma reproduced in paragraph | of the present Opinion. Later, Mr. Hemming’s Paper was published as part of the historical record of the Proceedings of the International Commission during its Paris Session (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 3 : 135—138). 80 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS I1l.—THE DECISION OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 4. As a preliminary to the consideration of the individual name Calliphora Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830, the International Commission at the Thirteenth Meeting of its Session held in Paris in 1948, took into consideration the question of the need for ensuring that Rulings given in Opinions should cover the whole of the required ground. The decision reached by the Commission on this subject is set out in the following extract from the Official Record of its Proceedings (Paris Session, 13th Meeting, Conclusion 2) (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 355) :— THE COMMISSION :— (1) took note, with disapproval, of the practice by which in the past an Opinion had sometimes been rendered which dealt with part only of the application submitted, no decision having been taken either then or at a later date on the remainder of the application in question ; (2) agreed to invite the Secretary to the Commission to examine all the Opinions so far rendered by the Commission, with a view to ascertaining every instance where part only of an application had been dealt with, and to submit proposals as soon as possible for the rendering as a matter of urgency, of supplementary Opinions dealing with the questions left unanswered in the earlier Opinions concerned. 5. Having thus reached a decision on the general question of principle raised in Dr. Boschma’s application, the International Commission turned to consider the proposals submitted in regard to the name Calliphora Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830, at the Thirteenth Meeting of its Paris Session held at the Sorbonne in the Amphithéatre Louis-Liard on Monday, 26th July 1948 at 1730 hours. The following extract from the Official Record of the Proceedings of the International Commission sets out the decision reached by it in the present case at the foregoing meeting OPINION 274 81 (Paris Session, 13th Meeting, Conclusion 3) (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 355—356) :— THE COMMISSION agreed :— (1) to place the generic name Calliphora Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830 (Class Insecta, Order Diptera) (type species by original designation : Musca vomitoria Linnaeus, 1758) on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology and the trivial name vomitoria Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binominal combination Musca vomitoria, on the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology ; (2) to render an Opinion setting out the decision recorded in (1) above. 6. The following are the original references for the names placed on Official Lists by the Ruling given in the present Opinion :— Calliphora Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830, Mém. présentés Acad. roy. Sci. Inst. France 2 : 433 vomitoria, Musca, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 595 7. The gender of the generic name Calliphora Robineau- Desvoidy, 1830, referred to in the decision quoted in paragraph 5 above, is feminine. 8. The decision taken in the present case was reported to, and approved by, the Section on Nomenclature of the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948, at its Fifth Meeting held on Monday, 26th July 1948 (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 5 : 104—105). 9. The Ruling given in the present Opinion was concurred in by the sixteen (16) Commissioners and Alternate Commissioners present at the Paris Session of the International Commission, namely :— Beltran vice Cabrera ; Boschma ; Bradley ; di Caporiacco ; Hemming; Hindle vice Jordan; -Jorge vice do Amaral ; Kirby vice Stoll; Lemche vice Dymond; Mansour vice 82 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS Hanko ; Metcalf vice Peters; Riley vice Calman; Rode ; Sparck vice Mortensen ; van Straelen vice Richter ; Usinger vice Vokes. 10. The Ruling given in the present Opinion was dissented from by no Commissioner or Alternate Commissioner present at the Paris Session. 11. At the time of the adoption of the Ruling given in the present Opinion, the expression prescribed for the second portion of the binomen which constitutes the scientific name of a species was the expression “ trivial name” and the Official List reserved for recording such names was styled the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology, the word “ trivial’ appearing also in the title of the Official Index reserved for recording rejected and invalid names of this category. Under a decision taken by the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology, Copenhagen, 1953, the expression “‘ specific name” was substituted for the expression ‘trivial name” and corresponding changes were made in the titles of the Official List and Official Index of such names (1953, Copenhagen Decisons Zool. Nomencl.: 21). The changes in terminology so adopted have been incorporated in the Ruling given in the present Opinion. 12. The prescribed procedures were duly complied with by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature in dealing with the present case, and the present Opinion is accordingly hereby rendered in the name of the said International Commission by the under-signed Francis Hemming, Secretary to the Inter- national Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, in virtue of all and every the powers conferred upon him in that behalf. 13. The present Opinion shall be known as Opinion Two Hundred and Seventy-Four (274) of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Done in London, this Fifteenth day of January, Nineteen Hundred and Fifty-Four. Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature FRANCIS HEMMING Printed in England by MretcALFe & CoopEeR LimITED, 10-24 Scrutton St., London EC 2 Issued 10th September, 1954 (f of 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 6. Part 7. Pp. 83—94 OPINION 275 Determination of the type species of the nominal genus Amplypterus Hiibner [1819] (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera) LONDON : Printed by Order of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature and Sold on behalf of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature by the International Trust at its Publications Office 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7 1954 Price Six Shillings (All rights reserved) ts! aS INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE COMPOSITION AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THE RULING GIVEN IN OPINION 275 A. The Officers of the Commission President : Dr. Karl Jordan, Ph.D., F.R.S. (British Museum (Natural History), Zoological Museum, Tring, Herts, England). Vice-President: Dr. James L. Peters (Museum of Comparative Zoology, Cambridge, Massachusetts, U.S.A.). Secretary : Mr. Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. (London, England). B. The Members of the Commission Class 1949 Senor Dr. Angel CABRERA (La Plata, Argentina). Mr. Francis HEMMING (London, England) (Secretary to the Commission). Dr. Karl JoRDAN (British Museum (Natural History), Zoological Museum, Tring, Herts, England) (President of the Commission). Dr. Th. MorTENSEN (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark). Dr. Joseph PEARSON (Tasmanian Museum, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia). Class 1952 Senhor Dr. Afranio do AMARAL (S. Paulo, Brazil). Professor J. Chester BRADLEY (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.). Professor Lodovico di CAPORIACCO (University of Parma, Italy). Professor J. R. DyYMOND (University of Toronto, Canada). Dr. James L. Prrers (Museum of Comparative Zoology, Cambridge, Massachusetts, U.S.A.) (Vice-President of the Commission). Dr. Harold E. Voxes (United States Geological Survey, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.). Class 1955 Professor Dr. Hilbrand BoscHMA (Rijksmuseum van Natuurliike Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands). Dr. William Thomas CALMAN (Tayport, Fife, Scotland). Professor Teiso EsAki (Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan). Professor Béla HANKO (University of Debrecen, Hungary). Dr. Tadeusz JACZEWSKI (Polish Zoological Museum, Warsaw, Poland). Dr. Norman R. STOLL (Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, Princeton, New Jersey, U.S.A.). C. Alternate Members of the Commission at the Session held in Paris in 1948 Professor Enrique BELTRAN (Instituto Mexicano de Recursos Naturales Renovables A.C., Mexico City, Mexico). Dr. Edward HINDLE (Zoological Society of London, London, England). Dr. Arturo Ricardo JoRGE (Museu Bocage, Lisbon, Portugal). Professor Harold Kirspy (University of California, Berkeley, California, U.S.A.). Dr. Henning LEMCHE (Kgl. Veteriner- og Landbohojskole, Zoologisk Labora- torium, Copenhagen, Denmark). Professor Kamel MANsouR (King Fouad University, Cairo, Egypt). Professor Z. P. METCALF (North Carolina State College of Agriculture and Engineering, University of North Carolina, Raleigh, North Carolina, U.S.A.). Mr. N. D. RILEy (British Museum (Natural History), London, England). Professor Ragnar SPpARCK (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark). Professor Victor van STRAELEN (Institut Royal des Sciences Naturelles de Belgique, Bruxelles, Belgium). ee Sues L. UsiINGEeR (University of California, Berkeley, California, U.S.A,). OPINION 275 DETERMINATION OF THE TYPE SPECIES OF THE NOMINAL GENUS ‘“ AMPLYPTERUS ” HUBNER [1819] (CLASS INSECTA, ORDER LEPIDOPTERA) RULING :—(1) The statement by Grote (1865) that Hubner, when establishing the nominal genus Amplypterus Hubner [1819] (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera), had evidently regarded A. ganascus (Stoll) “as the typical species of his genus” does not constitute the selection by Grote, under Rule (g) in Article 30, of that species as the type species of the foregoing genus, for Grote gave no indication that he himself accepted the above species as the type species of this genus. (2) In view of (1) above, the type species of the genus Amplypterus Hibner [1819], 1s Sphinx panopus Cramer [1779], by selection by Kirby (1892), the first species to be selected as the type species of this genus in conditions which satisfy the requirements of Rule (g) in Article 30, as clarified by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948. (3) The generic name Amplypterus Hiibner [1819] (gender of name: masculine), with the type species specified in (2) above, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology as Name No. 693. (4) The specific name panopus Cramer [1779], as published in the combination Sphinx panopus, 1s hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology as Name No. 97. I—THE STATEMENT OF THE CASE On 28th November 1945 Senhor José Oiticica Filho (Museu Nacional, Rio de Janeiro, Brasil) submitted to the International 86 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS Commission on Zoological Nomenclature the following applica- tion asking for a clarification of the meaning of Rule (g) in Article 30 of the Reégles (relating to the selection, by subsequent authors, of type species of nominal genera), with special reference to the question of the species to be accepted as the type species of the Sphingid genus Amplypterus Hiibner [1819] (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera) :— Question of the type species of ‘‘ Amplypterus ’’ Hiibner [1819] By JOSE OITICICA FILHO (Museu Nacional, Rio de Janeiro, Brasil) I am writing to you to ask for the opinion of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature on the following problem that I have met with in a Revision of the generic names of the SPHINGIDAE (Lepidoptera). 1. Grote, 1865 (Proc. ent. Soc. Philadelphia 5 : 64), under ‘‘ Ambulyx ganascus”’ wrote as follows: ‘‘ Amplypterus Htbn. (Amplypterus Walk., Clemens) contains discordant material, while A. Ganascus is regarded evidently as the typical species of his genus by Hubner ’”’. In this sentence Grote was not correct, as Hiibner never designated nor even attempted to designate type species for genera. 2. But the foregoing action by Grote raises the following problem : Does that action constitute the selection of a type species for Amplyp- terus Hubner under the International Rules ? 3. I have discussed this question with some of my colleagues and they are of the opinion that, in the sense of the International Rules, no selection of a type species was made by Grote, as in the passage in question there is no clear indication that Grote himself regarded ganascus as the type species of Amplypterus. They are of the opinion that Grote made a mistake and nothing more. 4. Let us, for example, compare the above passage with the following sentence by Crotch (Cistula Entomologica 1 : 60): “* The type of the genus Sphinx is, according to Lamarck (1801), S. convolvuli. Latreille (1805), figured S. atropos as its type, which was separated by Ochsen- heimer (1816).”’ In this sentence Crotch made two mistakes, similar to the one made by Grote, for neither Lamarck nor Latreille selected a type species for the genus Sphinx. Nobody would claim that Crotch selected a type species for Sphinx in the above passage. Why? Was OPINION 275 87 it because he cited two authors, Lamarck and Latreille, instead of only one, as was the case with Grote ? I would answer “* No’”’. Nobody accepts Crotch’s action as constituting the selection of a type species for the genus Sphinx ; this is because Crotch made two mistakes and for no other reason. 5. If one were to accept the passage from Grote quoted in paragraph 1 above as constituting the selection of a type species for Amplypterus, one would be forced to accept also the passage in Crotch’s paper as constituting the selection of S. convolvuli as the type species of Sphinx, for this is the first of the two mistaken statements by Crotch and has line priority over the other. I think that nobody has ever reasoned in this way in this or in any similar case. Logically, I think, we should take the same line in the case of Grote’s action. 6. However this may be, it is very important from my point of view that all doubt should be removed on the question of what species is the type species of the genus Amplypterus. It is for this reason that I now ask the International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature to give a ruling on the question whether in the passage cited in paragraph | above Grote did or did not select a type species for the foregoing genus. II—THE SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF THE CASE 2. Registration of the present application : On receipt, the present application was allotted the Registered Number Z.N.(S.) 204. 3. Supplementary statement by Senhor José Oiticica Filho (Museu Nacional, Rio de Janeiro, Brasil): On 24th May 1946 the following supplementary statement relating to the present case was received from Senhor Oiticica :— ‘* Amplypterus ’’? (Addendum) An historical account of the generic name ‘*‘ Amplypterus ’’ Hubner, 1819 By JOSE OITICICA FILHO (Museu Nacional, Rio de Janeiro, Brasil) Hiibner (1819 : 133), proposed the generic name Amplypterus for three species: ‘* 1429—Amplypterus ganascus Stoll; 1430—A. Panopus Cram. ; 1431—A. bubastus Cram.”’. 88 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS Of these three species A. gannascus Stoll [1791] (misspelt ganascus by Hubner) and A. panopus Crammer [1779], are the only relevant species in this historical account and they are not congeneric species. Grote (1865 : 64) under ‘‘ Ambulyx, Boisduval”’ cited the two following species (with a synonymic bibliography): ‘“* Ambulyx stringilis”?> and ‘‘ Ambulyx Ganascus’’, also misspelt ‘* ganascus”’ instead of gannascus. Under ** Ambulyx Ganascus’’ he wrote : “* This genus shows certain remote affinities to Smerinthus. Amplypterus Hiibn. (Ambd/ypterus Walk., Clemens), contains discordant material, while A. Ganascus 1s regarded evidently as the typical species of his genus by Hiibner”’. This passage from Grote has been overlooked by all authors. Rothschild & Jordon (1903 : 181, sub Amplypterus gannascus) cited Grote’s paper, but under the name Ambulyx only. This is the only reference by Grote to the genus Amplypterus in the whole of his entomological work. Kirby (1892 : 674) selected as the type species of the genus Amplyp- terus the species “*.A. panopus Stoll (Sphinx panopus), 1779”. This 1s the species that Rothschild & Jordan (1903 : 188) made the type species of their genue Campsogene. Rothschild & Jordan (1903 : xxi—xxv) introduced a_ special system of nomenclature on which they based their whole work of 1903. But, unhappily, as their system was different to the International Code, much confusion was caused in the nomenclature of the SPHINGIDAE by their, otherwise, monumental work. Based on their particular system Rothschild & Jordan selected (1903 : 180) as the type species of Amplypterus Hubner “* gannascus”’, that is Sphinx gannascus Stoll. Raymundo (1933: 22), following Rothschild & Jordan, cited as type species *‘ Amplypterus gannascus Stoll”. Raymundo (1937 : 61) takes the same action as in 1933. Oiticica Filho (1939 ; 271), being unaware of Grote’s paper of 1865 said that the type species of Amplypterus Hiibner was the species Sphinx panopus Stoll, selected by Kirby in 1892 and then proposed the new name Adhemarius (type species : Sphinx gannascus Stoll [1791]) for the species included by Rothschild & Jordan (1903 : 180—185) in the genus which they called Amplypterus, because these species would otherwise have been without an available generic name. The species included by Rothschild & Jordan under Amplypterus were all of them known under the generic name Ambulyx Westwood, 1849— type species : Sphinx (Ambulyx) substrigilis Westwood, 1848, a species not congeneric with them—except S. gannascus, that had been included under Amplypterus first by Hubner in [1819] and afterwards by Rothschild & Jordan in 1903. OPINION 275 89 Oiticica Filho (1942 : 98), having by this time become aware of Grote’s passage of 1865 (see above) thought that Grote had selected “ Sphinx gannascus Stoll, 1791” as the type for Amplypterus and he therefore rejected his name Adhemarius, 1939, as being isogenotypical with Amplypterus. After so many discussions about this matter | am now convinced that Grote’s action of 1865 was only a mistake, as nobody can tell what were Grote’s own views as to the type species of Amplypterus. I no longer hold the view which I did in 1942. The present state of the generic names of SPHINGIDAE related with the type of ‘*‘ Amplypterus ”’ (1) If Grote did not select a type species for Amp/ypterus in 1865. In this case we have : Amplypterus Hibner, [1819] ; logotype Sphinx panopus Stoll [1779]. Campsogene Rothschild & Jordan, 1903, with the same species as orthotype, falls to the ground. Adhemarius Oiticica Filho, 1942; orthotype Sphinx gannascus Stoll, 1791. (2) If Grote did select a type species for Amplypterus in 1865. In this case we have : Amplypterus Hiibner [1819]; logotype Sphinx gannascus Stoll [1791]. Adhemarius Oiticica Filho, 1942, falls to the ground, with the same species as orthotype. Campsogene Rothschild & Jordan; orthotype Sphinx panopus Stoll, 1779. Bibliographical references : Cramer, P. 1779—Papillons éxotiques des trois parties du monde V Asie, LP Afrique et Amérique. The same title in Dutch and text in Dutch and French. 1 [in part] : 1—132; pl. 1—84. Grote, A. R. 1865 (August)—Notes on Cuban Sphingidae. Proc. ent. Soc. Philadelphia 5 : 33—84; pl. 1—2. I have a separate copy of the above paper with the title “* Notes on the Sphingidae of Cuba” and the sub-title ‘‘ Notes on Cuban Sphingidae”’. The pages are numbered 1—52. The plates 1—2 are coloured. Grote (1886, North American Lepidoptera. The Hawk Moths of North America : 15, footnote) said that this separate copy was very rare. Hubner, J. 1819—Verzeichniss bekannter Schmettlinge [sic]. — [in part] : 17—176. Date from Hemming, F. (1937. Hiibner). 90 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS Kirby, W. F. 1892—-A synonymic Catalogue of Lepidoptera Heterocera [Moths]. 1. Sphinges and Bombyces: xii + 951 p. (London and Berlin). Oiticica Filho, J. 1939 (31-5-39)—Sphingidae—in Relatorio excursao cientifica do Instituto Oswaldo Cruz. Bol. Bioldgico. (N.S.) 4 (2) : 269—277. } 1942 (30-11-42)—Sphingidae capturados em Porto Cabral (Margem Paulista do Rio Paranaé) com notas sdébre nomenclature. Papéis Avulsos, Dep. Zool. S. Paulo 2 (no. 5) : 97—102. Raymundo, B. 1933 (Junho)—Nomenclature popular dos lepidopteros do Distrito Federal e seus arredores. O Campo 4 (6) : 22—24; fig. 216—223. 1937—Castnideao e Esfingideos do Brasil. (Estudo sobre algumas sps. dessas familias). An. Col. Pedro WI, 8 (1928—1934) : [3]— 161 + taboas 1—37 (with 138 fig.) + [201]—302. Rothschild, W. & Jordan, K. 1903 (April)—A revision of the lepidop- terous family Sphingidae. Novit. Zool. 9 (Suppl.) : i—cxxxv + 1—972 ; pl. i—Ixvii (7 col.). Stoll, C. [1791]—in Cramer, Papillons éxotiques [etc.|; Suppl. : 8 + 184 p. [all the pages]. Date from Brown, F. M. in Ann. Ent. Soc. America 34 (1) : 127—138 (March, 1941). lil—THE DECISION OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 4. At an early stage of its Session held in Paris in 1948 (Paris Session, 6th Meeting, Conclusion 72) (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4: 181—182) the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature submitted proposals, for the consideration of the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, for the clarification of the provisions of Rule (g) in Article 30 of the Régles, and these proposals, together with other proposals relating to the clarifica- tion and amendment of the Rég/es, were later approved by the Congress in Plenary Session (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 5: 131). As will be seen from the extract quoted in the immediately following paragraph from the Official Record of the Proceedings OPINION 275 91 of the Commission when it came to consider the case of Amplypterus Hubner, the revised provisions of Rule (g) in Article 30 completely resolved the difficulty of principle originally involved in Senhor Oiticica Filho’s application regarding the foregoing generic name. 5. The application relating to the question of the type species of the nominal genus Amp/lypterus Hubner [1819], was con- sidered by the International Commission at the Fourteenth Meeting of its Paris Session held at the Sorbonne in the Amphi- théatre Louis-Liard on Monday, 26th July 1948 at 2030 hours. The following is an extract from the Official Record of the Proceedings of the International Commission, giving a summary of the discussion on this case, which took place at the foregoing meeting (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 508) :— IN DISCUSSION it was pointed out that, as the wording of Rule (g) in Article 30 had stood at the opening of the present Session, it had undoubtedly been too restrictive in character, for the then existing wording was such as to exclude from the scope of that Rule the very numerous cases where the currently accepted type selection rested upon a statement by a given author either (1) that a given previous author had selected a certain species to be the type species of the genus concerned in cases where no such previous selection had been made or (2) in the case of the older authors, that such a species was the type species of the genus in question as the result of the action of previous authors in “ elimi- nating” from the genus the other originally included species. To meet cases of this kind the Commission had, during their present Session, agreed upon a liberalisation of the provisions of Rule (g). In so doing, they had agreed that while the revised wording should be such as to bring within the scope of the Rule cases where an author clearly stated that a given nominal species was the type species of the genus concerned, even where that author expressly stated that he was not himself then selecting that species for this purpose, the Rule in its amended form should provide also that it should be a condition of the acceptance of such a statement as a valid type selection that the author should make it clear that he himself regarded (for whatever reason) the species in question as the type species of the genus under 92 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS consideration. In these circumstances, it was now clear that Senhor Oiticica had interpreted Article 30 correctly when he had rejected Grote’s action in 1865 as not complying with the require- ments of Rule (g) in that Article. In view of the clarification of that Rule agreed upon during the present Session, no question of principle arose any longer in connection with the present applica- tion, for it was evident from the words used by Grote that, while he had there expressed an opinion regarding the view held by Hubner, he had given no indication regarding his own opinion on the question at issue. 6. The following extract from the Official Record of Proceedings of the International Commission sets out the decision reached by it in this case at the foregoing meeting (Paris Session, 14th Meeting, Conclusion 31) (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 507— 509) :— THE COMMISSION agreed :— (1) that the statement by Grote (1865) that Hubner, when establishing the genus Amplypterus Hubner [1819| (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera), had evidently regarded A. ganascus Stoll “‘as the typical species of his genus”’, did not constitute the selection by Grote, under Rule (g) in Article 30, of that species as the type species of the foregoing genus, for he had given no indication that he (Grote) himself accepted the above species as the type species of that genus ; (2) that, in view of (1) above, the type species of this genus was the species first subsequently so selected in con- ditions which satisfied the requirements of the fore- going Rule (i.e. Sphinx panopus Cramer [1779], so selected by Kirby (1892)) ; (3) to place the generic name Amplypterus Hubner [1819] (type species by selection by Kirby, 1892: Sphinx panopus Cramer [1779]) on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ; OPINION 275 93 (4) to place the trivial name panopus Cramer [1779], as published in the binominal combination Sphinx panopus Cramer, on the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology ; (5) to render an Opinion recording the decisions specified in (1) to (4) above. 7. The following are the original references for the names placed on Official Lists by the Ruling given in the present Opinion :— Amplypterus Hubner [1819], Verz. bekannt. Schmett. (9) : 133 panopus, Sphinx, Cramer [1779], Uitl. kapellen 3 : 50, pl. 124, figs. A, B The reference for the type selection for the genus Amplypterus Hubner, [1819], is :—Kirby, 1892, Syn. Cat. Lep. Het. 1 : 674. 8. The gender of the generic name Amplypterus Hubner [1819], referred to in the decision quoted in paragraph 6 above, is masculine. 9. The decision taken in the present case was reported to, and approved by, the Section on Nomenclature of the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948, at its Sixth Meeting held on Monday, 26th July 1948 (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 5 : 116). 10. The Ruling given in the present Opinion was concurred in by the sixteen (16) Commissioners and Alternate Commissioners present at the Paris Session of the International Commission, namely :— Beltran vice Cabrera ; Boschma ; Bradley ; di Caporiacco ; Hemming ; Hindle vice Jordan; Jorge vice do Amaral ; Kirby vice Stoll; Lemche vice Dymond; Mansour vice Hanko ; Metcalf vice Peters; Riley vice Calman; Rode ; Sparck vice Mortensen ; van Straelen vice Richter ; Usinger vice Vokes. 94 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 11. The Ruling given in the present Opinion was dissented from by no Commissioner or Alternate Commissioner present at the Paris Session. 12. At the time of the adoption of the Ruling given in the present Opinion, the expression prescribed for the second portion of the binomen which constitutes the scientific name of a species was the expression “ trivial name” and the Official List reserved for recording such names was styled the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology, the word “ trivial” appearing also in the title of the Official Index reserved for recording rejected and invalid names of this category. Under a decision taken by the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology, Copenhagen, 1953, the expression “* specific name” was substituted for the expression “* trivial name ”’ and corresponding changes were made in the titles of the Official List and Official Index of such names (1953, Copenhagen Decisions zool. Nomencl. : 21). The changes in terminology so adopted have been incorporated in the Ruling given in the present Opinion. 13. The prescribed procedures were duly complied with by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature in dealing with the present case, and the present Opinion is accord- ingly hereby rendered in the name of the said International Commission by the under-signed Francis Hemming, Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, in virtue of all and every the powers conferred upon him in that behalf. 14. The present Opinion shall be known as Opinion Two Hundred and Seventy-Five (275) of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. DONE in London, this Fifteenth day of January, Nineteen Hundred and Fifty-Four. Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature FRANCIS HEMMING Printed in England by Metcatre & Cooper Limirep, 10-24 Scrutton St., London EC 2 fc 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 6. Part 8. Pp. 95—118 OPINION 276 Rejection, as not being of subgeneric status, of the intermediate terms used by Hubner (J.) between the generic and specific names of species in the first volume of the work entitled Sammlung exotischer Schmetterlinge, _ published in the period 1806—1823, and also in the work entitled Systematisch-alphabetisches Verzeichniss aller bisher bei den Fiirbildungen zur Sammlung europdischer Schmetterlinge angegebenen Gattungsbennungen published in 1822 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 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 OPINION 276 | A. The Officers of the Commission President : Dr. Karl Jordan, Ph.D., F.R.S. (British Museum (Natural History), Zoological Museum, Tring, Her ts, England). Vice-President: Dr. James L. Peters (Museum of Comparative Zoology, Cambridge, Massachusetts, U.S.A.). Secretary : Mr. Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. (London, England). B. The Members of the Commission Class 1949 Senor Dr. Angel CABRERA (La Plata, Argentina). Mr. Francis HEMMING (London, England) (Secretary to the Commission). Dr. Karl JoRDAN (British Museum (Natural History), Zoological Museum, Tring, Herts, England) (President of the Commission). Dr. Th. MorTENSEN (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark). Dr. Joseph PEARSON (Tasmanian Museum, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia). Class 1952 Senhor Dr. Afranio do AMARAL (S. Paulo, Brazil). Professor J. Chester BRADLEY (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.). Professor Lodovico di CAPORIACCO (University of Parma, Italy). Professor J. R. DyYMOND (University of Toronto, Canada). Dr. James L. PETERS (Museum of Comparative Zoology, Cambridge, Massachusetts, U.S.A.) (Vice-President of the Commission). Dr. Harold E. Voxes (United States Geological Survey, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.). Class 1955 Professor Dr. Hilbrand BoscHMA (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands). Dr. William Thomas CALMAN (Tayport, Fife, Scotland). Professor Teiso ESAKI (Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan). Professor Béla HANKO (University of Debrecen, Hungary). Dr. Tadeusz JACZEWSKI (Polish Zoological Museum, Warsaw, Poland). Dr. Norman R. STOLL (Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, Princeton, New Jersey, U.S.A.). C. Alternate Members of the Commission at the Session held in Paris in 1948 Professor Enrique BELTRAN (Instituto Mexicano de Recursos Naturales Renovables A.C., Mexico City, Mexico). Dr. Edward HINDLE (Zoological Society of London, London, England). Dr. Arturo Ricardo JoRGE (Museu Bocage, Lisbon, Portugal). Professor Harold Kirpy (University of California, Berkeley, California, U.S.A.). Dr. Henning LEMCHE (Kgl. Veteriner- og Landbohgjskole, Zoologisk Labora- torium, Copenhagen, Denmark). Professor Kamel MANSOUR (King Fouad University, Cairo, Egypt). Professor Z. P. METCALF (North Carolina State College of Agriculture and Engineering, University of North Carolina, Raleigh, North Carolina, U.S.A.). Mr. N. D. Ritry (British Museum (Natural History), London, England). Professor Ragnar SpARCK (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark). Professor Victor van STRAELEN (Institut Royal des Sciences Naturelles de Belgique, Bruxelles, Belgium). Professor Robert L. UstNGer (University of California, Berkeley, California, U.S.A.). OPINION 276 REJECTION, AS NOT BEING OF SUBGENERIC STATUS, OF THE INTERMEDIATE TERMS USED BY HUBNER (J.) BETWEEN THE GENERIC AND SPECIFIC NAMES OF SPECIES IN THE FIRST VOLUME OF THE WORK ENTITLED ‘*‘ SAMMLUNG EXOTISCHER SCHMETTER- LINGE ” PUBLISHED IN THE PERIOD 1806—1823 AND ALSO IN THE WORK ENTITLED ** SYSTEMATISCH-ALPHABETISCHES VERZEICHNISS ALLER BISHER BEI DEN FURBILDUNGEN ZUR SAMMLUNG EUROPAISCHER SCHMETTERLINGE ANGEGEBENEN GATTUNGSBENNUNGEN ” PUBLISHED IN 1822 RULING :—(1) Where, in the first volume of the work entitled Sammlung exotischer Schmetterlinge pub- lished in the period 1806—1823 Hubner (J.) cited a species under a name having an apparently trinominal form (e.g. the name Princeps dominans capys), the generic name (Princeps) and the specific name (capys) are to be accepted as satisfying the provisions of Article 25 and therefore as being available names, but the inter- mediate term (dominans) is not to be treated as having acquired the status of a subgeneric name in virtue of having been so published. (2) The Ruling given in (1) above applies also to terms placed between generic names and specific names—thus forming apparent trinominals used by Hiibner (J.) in the work entitled Systematisch-alphabetisches Verzeichniss aller bisher bei den Fiirbildungun zur Sammlung euro- padischer Schmetterlinge angegebenen Gattungsbennungen published in the year 1822. (3) The works specified in (1) and (2), including, in the former case all three volumes of the Sammlung, are 98 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS hereby placed on the Official List of Works Approved as Available for Zoological Nomenclature as Works. Nos. 7 and 8 respectively, the Rulings given above to be incorporated in the entries to be made in that List. I—THE STATEMENT OF THE CASE On 18th March 1946 Senhor José Oiticica Filho (Museu Nacional, Rio de Janeiro, Brasil) submitted the following applica- tion to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature asking for a Ruling on the status to be accorded to each of the three terms employed collectively to form the scientific names of species by Jacob Hubner (a) in volume 1 of his Sammlung exotischer Schmetterlinge published in the period 1806—1823, and (b) in the work entitled Systematisch-alphabetisches Ver- zeichniss aller bisher bei den Fiirbildungen zur Sammlung europdischer Schmetterlinge angegebenen Gattungsbennungen (com- monly known as the “ Syst.-alph. Verz.”) published in the year 1822 :— (a) Letter from Senhor José Oiticica Filho dated 18th March 1946 I write to call your attention to the paper which I have written with d’Almeida about trinominal combinations by Hiibner. I am very sorry that we do not agree with your opinion in this case, but, as you know well, it is necessary to discuss these cases in order to bring matters to their proper place. (b) Enclosure to Senhor Oiticica Filho’s letter of 18th March 1946 (Note :—With the exception of the ‘“* Addendum” (which was coinmunicated in typescript under cover of Senhor Oiticica Filho’s letter of 18th March 1946), the following paper had been published prior to its submission to the International Commission, in Volume 4 (No. 3) of the serial publication *“* Revista Agronomia’”’ on 12th January 1946.) OPINION 276 99 An opinion, placed before the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, on the status of trinominal combinations by Hiibner By R. FERREIRA d@ALMEIDA (Museu Nacional, Rio de Janeiro) and JOSE OITICICA FILHO (Museu Nacional, Rio de Janeiro) We publish the present note on Hiibner’s trinominal combinations for the consideration of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. (1) Hemming (1934—1937) endeavoured to revalidate the so-called generic names appearing in the trinominal works of Hiibner, namely : Sammlung exotischer Schmetterlinge (vol. 1, cl806—1819) and Systematisch-alphabetisches Verzeichniss, (etc.), (1822). (2) Apparently with the object of justifying the revalidation of such names as of generic standing, Hemming (1937 : 13—19) wrote a chapter with the title ‘“‘ Hubner’s views on the classification of the Lepidoptera’’. In this chapter Hemming explained and interpreted in his own way Hubner’s various classifications and arrived at the following conclusion (see table on page 19): in a name, for example, Nereis fulva Polymnia Hiibner, 1806, pl. 7, the name Nereis represents the genus, fu/va the sub-genus, and Polymnia the species. This opinion of Hemming’s, if accepted, would introduce enormous confusion in the nomenclature of Lepidoptera. As we shall see: (3) A name such as Nereis fulva Polymnia can, under the Inter- national Rules of Zoological Nomenclature, be interpreted only in one or other of the two following ways : (a) as interpreted by Hemming (1937), (see paragraph 2) that is, Nereis genus, fulva sub-genus and Polymnia species. (b) or Nereis genus, fulva species and Polymnia sub-species. (4) Hiuibner’s names, interpreted in the sense of (a) (fu/va as sub- genus), would oblige us to accord to the name fu/ya and many others a status, from a nomenclatural point of view, of the same value as that of a genus. It is Article 6 of the International Rules of Zoological Nomenclature that so states. We are unaware, however, that any author, at any time, has so acted, not even Hemming himself. The facts speak for themselves, thus making Hemming’s interpretations untenable. 100 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS (5) The names as interpreted in the sense of (b) in paragraph (3), would cause analogous nomenclatural confusion. There has not been in the past, nor is there now, any author who has considered fulva a species and Polymnia a sub-species, not even Hiibner himself. (6) All students of the Order Lepidoptera know perfectly well that all the old-time authors and even also modern authors have always rejected the so-called generic names of Hiibner’s trinominal works. It is true that names such as Manduca and many others were in fact used, but always in reference to Htibner’s Tentamen, a binominal work accepted by the older authors. As an example of the rejection by modern authors of Hiuibner’s trinominal combinations we have : Rothschild and Jordan (1903: 52) who cited Manduca obscura ; Stichel (1938 : 66) who wrote “ Dryas phalerata, Jac. Huebner, Samm. exot. Schmett. 1, 1, 43 (especici nom. ternar. quod. vanum) ”’ and who immediately afterwards criticised the Hemming name “ Dryas, Gen. Nam Holarct. Butterfl., p. 56 (type Pap. julia F.) constitut. vana, vide antea’’. D’Almeida (1942 : 190) and (1943 : 92) considered that Hiibner’s trinominal designations should not be accepted and criticised Hemming for trying to prove that such names are binominals. (7) On the other hand, the specific names proposed for the first time in the works referred to above have been, and are, accepted by all authors. We are in agreement with this conclusion, for there would be still greater confusion than uniformity if we were to reject in toto the works by Hubner referred to above, applying to this case, in all its severity, provisions of Article 2 of the International Rules of Zoological Nomenclature. Precedents exist, however, where specific names published in works which are clearly non-binominal, for example, those of Linnaeus (see Opinion 124), those of Cramer and Stoll (1775—1791), and those of Fabricius (1775, 1781, 1787, 1793, 1798) and others, have been considered as valid in nomenclature by all entomologists, both old-time and modern. (8) Hemming (who strenuously endeavoured to validate Hubner’s trinominal names) in 1934 (: 35—40) had advanced a series of arguments to the end of invalidating Retzius’ work (1783) which contains trinominal combinations as good as, or even better than, Hiibner’s. It is interesting to compare the arguments propounded by Hemming (1934 : 37) to invalidate the work by Retzius referred to above, with those we present above. (9) In these circumstances, we propose that the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature should take steps for the promulgation of an Opinion to the following effect : The combinations used by Hiibner in his Sammlung exotischer Schmetterlinge (vol. 1, 1806—1819) and in the Systematisch- OPINION 276 101 alphabetisches Verzeichniss etc. (1822), for example Princeps dominans Capys, are not to be accepted as trinominals in the sense of the International Rules of Zoological Nomenclature, that is, as representing a genus, species and sub-species. Only the specific names (capys for example) are to be accepted in the works referred to above, for greater confusion than uniformity would result from the rejection of those names. The other names in the combination (Princeps dominans for example) have no status in nomenclature. Thus, the names Princeps, dominans, etc., can be employed, if used by authors in valid combinations in accordance with the International Rules of Zoological Nomenclature. References Cramer, Pieter & Stoll, Gaspar (1775—1791). Papillons exotiques des trois Parties du Monde (etc.), Amsterdam, 400 col. plat. Text mole -- 155,23 151;3: 176, 4: 252+ 29. Supplement by Stoll, 181 pp., 42 col. plat. D’Almeida, R. Ferreira (7/XII/1942). Alguns tipos de géneros da ordem Lepidoptera. la nota: Rhopalocera, fam. Mechanitididae. Papéis Avulsos Departamento de Zoologia, S. Paulo, 2 : 179—192. D’Almeida, R. Ferreira (7/XII/1942). Alguns tipos de géneros da ordem Lepidoptera, S. Paulo. ibid. 3 : 73—106. 2a nota: Rhopalocera, fam. Pierididae. Papéis Avulos Departa- mento de Zoologia, Fabricius, Johann Christ. (1775). Systema Entomologiae. 832 pp. Fabricius, Johann Christ. (1781). Species Insectorum. 1 : 552. 2 : 494. Fabricius, Johann Christ. (1787). Mantissa Insectorum 1 : 348. Bs 302. Fabricius, Johann Christ. (1793—1798). Entomologia systematica, 3 (1) : 487, suppl. 572. Hemming, Francis (28/VII/1934). The Generic Names of the Holarctic Butterflies. London. VII + 184 pp. Hemming, Francis (26/11/1937). Hiibner. A_ bibliographical and systematic Account of the entomological works of Jacob Hiibner and of the supplement thereto by Carl Geyer, Gottfried Franz yon Frélich and Gottlieb August Wilhelm Herrich-Schdffer. Vol. 1: XXXIV + 605 and vol.2: IX + 274. 102 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS Opinion 124 (28/X/1936). Opinions rendered by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Opinions 124 to 133. Smithsonian miscellaneous Collections, 73 (No. 8) : 1—44. Retzius, A. S. (783). Caroli De Geer Genere et Species Insectorum, ClC ea leet 22.0) Rothschild, Walter and Jordan, Karl. (1903). A _ revision of the Lepidopterus family Sphingidae. MNovitates Zoologicae, 9 (supple- ment) : CXXXV + 972, 6 fig. text., 67 pl. Stichel, H. (29/VIHI/1938) Lepidopterum Catalogus editus a F. Bryk. Pars 86. Nymphalidae 1, sub-fam. Dioninae, Anetiinae, Apar- turinae. 374 pp. Addendum It is as well to note for the better understanding of our proposal that when we state, for example, “‘ Nereis genus, fulva subgenus and Polymnia species”? we are employing an abbreviated language, con- sistently used. In reality, what we are saying is—WNereis generic name, fulva subgeneric name and Polymnia trivial name of the species. We know perfectly well that the name of the species is the complete binomen. In the same way, when writing *“‘ Nereis genus, fulva species and Polymnia subspecies’’ our intention is clearly to indicate the following meaning: “* Nereis generic name, fu/va trivial name of the species and Polymnia trivial name of subspecies’. We know perfectly well that the subspecies name is the complete trinomen. When we write “‘only the specific name” (capys for example), written in accordance with the International Rules, we are perfectly aware that ‘* capys’”’ is the trivial name of the species referred to. Il.—THE SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF THE CASE 2. Registration of the present application: On the receipt of the present application, the question of the status to be accorded to certain terms published by Jacob Hiibner was allotted the Registered Number Z.N.(S.) 218. OPINION 276 103 3. Supplementary statement submitted by Senhor Oiticica Filho : On 18th May 1946 Senhor Oiticica Filho forwarded, on behalf of Senhor Ferreira d’Almeida and himself, the following supplementary statement which he asked might be attached to the application already submitted :— Supplementary Statement submitted by Senhor Oiticica Filho under cover of his letter of 15th May 1946 Addendum 2 We have received a very kind letter (dated 28th April 1946) from Hemming expressing an opinion (for the first time, we think) about Hubner’s trinominals. In this letter Hemming says: ‘‘ The reason that I took the view that I did in the present case is a two-fold one : (1) It seemed to me that this case was governed by the principle previously laid down by the Commission in Opinion 124 in regard to the Linnean subdivisions of genera and (2) that, quite apart from the foregoing consideration, the intermediate words used by Hiibner in his trinominals were adjectives and thus ineligible as generic or subgeneric names, since the Rég/es (Article 8) provide that such names must be nouns (“ mot... employé comme substantif...’)” In view of this letter we beg permission to discuss this case further as follows : (1) We have already discussed together the hypothesis of Hiibner’s trinominals being the same as those of Linnaeus and in paragraph (7) of our paper! we have cited some non-binominal works and called attention to Opinion 124. We are of the opinion that Linnaeus’ trinominals are not the same as Hiibner’s and therefore that Opinion 124 cannot be applied to both these cases. Our reasons are the following : (a) In commenting on the proposal dealt with in Opinion 184 (1944, Opin. Decl. Rend. Int. Com. Zool. Nom. 2 : 32, point (e)) Hemming wrote: “ Where a not-strictly binominal author places an intermediate term between the generic name and the specific trivial name (as Linnaeus did in 1758 in some parts of the 10th edition of the Systema Naturae), no subgeneric status is thereby accorded to the intermediate term so used (Opinion 124)’’. We beg permission to say that the foregoing opinion by Hemming is a generalisation not contained in Opinion 124. On the contrary, in the discussion of the latter Opinion we read (1936, Smithson misc. Coll. 73 (No. 4) : 1—2): ** After a discussion of the so-called subgenera in Linnaeus, 1758a, 1 Reproduced in paragraph | of the present Opinion. 104 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS the Secretary was instructed to prepare an Opinion to the effect that these are not subgenera, but if any group of specialists finds that because of the literature on said group this Opinion will produce greater confusion than uniformity, the Commission is prepared to take up individual cases under arguments which may be submitted ”’. As we see, Opinion 124 refers strictly to Linnaeus? and is subject to discussion if “‘ any group of specialist’? so desires. This Opinion is a very great exception in Linnaeus’ work, because by Article 26 of the Rules this work “‘ inaugurated the consistent general application of binary nomenclature in Zoology ’’? and therefore it cannot be a “ not- strictly binominal ”’ work. (b) The Linnean trinominals (as we see them ; Opinion 124 is not clear in this matter) are very well formed in accordance with the International Rules. We see for example (Linnaeus, 1758 : 468) ‘*-Rapae. 59. P.D.” and at the top of page “‘ Papilio Danaus”’. Each of the two words is single, simple, written with a capital letter and employed as a substantive in the nominative singular, in plain accordance with Article 8 of the Rules and Opinion 183. Danaus could be a sub-genus. We agree with Opinion 124, but not with the discussion in that Opinion. We think that the best argument against Linnaeus’ subgenera is the great confusion they would introduce in the nomenclature, if accepted as such (at the least in the Order Lepidoptera). (c) Hubner’s trinominals, at first sight, are not formed in the same way as those of Linnaeus. Take, for example: “ Nereis fulva Polymnia”’ ; fulva is not written with a capital letter and is a classical Latin adjective. But this is not sufficient to invalidate the name fulva as the name of a subgenus. The case of a capital initial letter could be defended as of minor importance as at Hiibner’s time and the fact that fulva is a classical Latin adjective could well be defended, as we shall see in paragraph 2 of the present discussion. (d) What we see in “‘ Nereis fulva Polymnia” is a clear intention on the part of Htibner to write the name of the insect in a different * Subsequent to the preparation of the above paper, the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948, extended to all the works both of Linnaeus and of Fabricius (J.C.) the Ruling given in Opinion 124 in relation to the Tenth Edition of the Systema Naturae of Linnaeus (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 266—267). The decision so taken has now been embodied in Opinion 279, which is being published simultaneously with the present Opinion as Part 11 of the present volume. 3 The foregoing quotation of the English translation of Article 26 of the Régles was correct at the time when the above paper was prepared, but at Paris in 1948 the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology amended this Article by substituting the word “* binominale’’ for the word “ binaire’’ at the same time that it made a corresponding amendment in Article 25 (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl, 4 : 65). OPINION 276 105 way from that accepted by Linnaeus, that is : fu/va with a small letter and employed as an adjective, making part of the insect’s name, only to show that his system was not like the Linnean system. (e) Our reason for seeing things as above is as follows : Linnaeus employed as an adjective, for designating some lower categories, names that were not written as part of the insect’s name. Take for example : Danai festivi ; the word festivi employed as an adjective, was not written as part of the insect’s name. But in the Hiibnerian nomen- clature, we see just the opposite. In Nereis festiva Thales for example, taking festiva Hubner, by employing it as an adjective, made it part of the insect’s name, an action of a type which it is impossible to find in Linnaeus, 1758. (f) We are not the only ones to see the position as above. Take, for example, Rothschild and Jordan (1903: 52); they wrote ** Manduca obscura’’. Stichel (1938 : 66) wrote ‘‘ Dryas.phalerata’’. In the facsimile edition of the Sammlung by Wytsmann the intermediate word of Hiuibner’s trinominals are written with capital letters and with the same type of letter as the third name ; for example: ‘‘ Nereis Fulva Polymnia” instead of ** Nereis fulva Polymnia”’ as in the original edition. This shows that the editor of the facsimile did not see any intention on the part of Hubner to treat fu/va as not being part of the insect’s name. 2. Hemming’s second argument, namely that the intermediate word in Hubner’s trinominals were adjectives and thus ineligible as generic or subgeneric names is open to discussion, as we shall see. (a) Article 8 of the Reég/es is as follows : “* Art. 8. Le nom générique consiste en un mot unique simple ou composé, écrit par une premiére lettre capitale et employé comme substantif au nominatif singulier. Exemples : Canis, Perca, Ceratodus, Hymenolepis’’. When we examine this Article, we find that it provides that a generic name to be eligible under the Code must be employed as (employé comme) a substantive in the nominative singular; but it does not say that a name originally a classical Latin adjective (or ‘other part of speech) is not to be employed as a substantive in the nomenclatorial language of genera, a language not strictly a classical one. And this Rule is a very wise one, because the use of adjectives (or other parts of speech) is a well known philological fact as sub- stantives in all classical and modern languages. (b) The wording used in the summary of Opinion 183 (which interprets only part of Article 8), namely ‘‘ The provision in Article 8 of the 106 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS International Code that a generic name is to consist of a noun in the nominative singular ...”’, as also the wording used by Hemming both in his comment published in Opinion 183 (p. 18 and 19) and in the letter that he sent to us, namely that a generic name “* must be a noun ”’ under Article 8 of the Régles, do not constitute a very precise way of referring to that Article. When Opinion 183 says ‘‘ a generic name is to consist of a noun ” or Hemming says ‘“‘ a generic name must be a noun’’, the immediate answer is: the generic name must be a noun from its classical origin or when it is employed as such ? But Article 8 leaves no doubt when it says ““Le nom générique consiste en un mot. . . employé comme substantif .. .”’ and in point (a) above we have shown why this very wise wording is used. (c) Let us take, for example, the name fulva (employed by Hubner), originally a classical Latin adjective and also a very good Portuguese one. If this word were to be used as the name of a girl, say as Fulva Miranda, it is very clear that the adjective “‘fulva’’ would be employed as a substantive, because it is a grammatical rule that proper nouns are substantives (nouns). In the same way if, by way of example, we were to take the Hibnerian name “ Nereis fulva Polymnia’’? and to make the word Fulva the name of a genus, with the combination Fulva polymnia, nobody could reject the name Fulva as being originally a classical Latin adjective or used as such, because we could employ this adjective as a substantive in classical Latin and a fortiori in non-classical Latin such as the nomenclatorial language is. (d) Itis very interesting in this connection to compare recommendation (c) of Article 8 in the Rules. The simple fact that the so-called adjec- tives Prasina and the past participle Productus are only not recom- mended (we do not know why), is a clear indication that they can be used as generic names, that is, employed as substantives in the nominative singular. But this recommendation is not a wise one because both Prasina and Productus were also substantives in classical Latin. In connection with Productus, we may cite the following rule of classical Latin grammar: ‘“ Any verb can be the origin of a Latin substantive through the supine and declined in the fourth declination ”’. (ec) In the same way in the Hibnerian trinominal ‘‘ Mancipium vorax monuste’’, the name vorax is both a very good classical Latin adjective and also a substantive. OPINION 276 107 (f) On the other hand, we find in the entomological literature some generic names that were classical Latin adjectives. For example, the generic names, in the Order Lepidoptera, Nymphalis and Heliconius (sec Hemming 1934 : 54 and 70), were adjectives in classical Latin. But we have no means under the Rules to reject these names as being classical Latin adjectives, because they can be employed as_ sub- stantives in the nominative singular as non-classical Latin names or as names derived from the classical Latin adjectives and they have been employed as such since their creation by Kluk in 1802. (g) If Article 8 were not so wise and so clear in its meaning, 1t would be impossible to justify the use of barbarous names, because it would be very difficult, if not impossible, to ascertain to what part of speech these names belonged in their original barbarous use. (h) We are even permitted to use words which at their origin did not belong to any part of speech, because by recommendation (k) in Article 8, we may take as generic names “* words formed by an arbitrary combination of letters’. Such words can be used as generic names, if they are employed as substantives in the nominative singular. (i) We agree with Hemming if, when saying that ‘‘ the intermediate words used by Hiibner were adjectives’’, he intended to convey the more precise concept :— the intermediate words were employed by Hubner in his trinominals as adjectives. We think that this was Hubner’s intention and, in our opinion, this is another proof (see paragraph | of the present discussion), that, under the Rules, the Hubnerian trinominals are not acceptable and that we cannot apply to them the same reasoning as that applicable to the Linnean trinominals. (j) In the foregoing discussion we have used the word “* substantive ”’ employed in the original English translation for the French “ sub- stantif’’, as we think that this translation is well within the content of Article 8 of the original French text of the Rég/es. In effect, if we open Webster’s New International Dictionary of the English Language, Second Edition—1943—we see on page 2515: ‘‘ substantive—2— Gram. (a) A noun—(b) A pronoun, verbal noun, or any part of speech used as a noun equivalent (the good die young; the why is not explained)’’. As we see, a substantive can be a word that was originally a noun, but it can also be any part of speech used as (that is, employed as, ““employé comme ’’) a noun equivalent and we have shown in the foregoing discussion that this is the meaning of the word ‘* substantif ’’ in Article 8 of the Rég/es. 4. Comment by Dr. Charles D. Michener (American Museum of Natural History, New York): On 7th July 1946 the following 108 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS copy of a letter dated 24th June 1946 addressed by Dr. Charles D. Michener (then of the American Museum of Natural History, New York) to Senhor Ferreira d’Almeida was received in the Office of the Commission under cover of a letter bearing the same date from Dr. Ernst Mayr (also then of the American Museum of Natural History) :— , I have recently read with interest your paper entitled ‘“* An Opinion, Placed Before the International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature on the Status of Trinominal Combinations by Hiibner ”’. It seems to me that you may have, to a certain extent, misunderstood Hemming’s meaning in his works on Hubner. In item 3 of your paper you say : 3. A name such as Nereis fulva Polymnia under the International Rules of Zoological Nomenclature can only be interpreted in the two following ways : (a) as interpreted by Hemming (1937) (see item 2), that 1s, Nereis genus, fulva sub-genus and Polymnia species. (b) or then, Nereis genus, fulva species and Polymnia sub- species. I do not think that Hemming interpreted Hiibner’s trinominals in either of these ways. On page 14 of Hemming’s ‘“‘ Hubner ”’ (1937), he states concerning Volume | of the Sammlung Exotischer Schmet- terlinge, ** Each Stirps [genus] was, however, subdivided into groups intermediate between what would now be called the genus and the species’’. Furthermore, on page 15 he says, ‘The name of the species is given at the foot of the plate as Neréis fulva Polymnia. It is clear that Hiibner did not regard the words which he employed to denote the category intermediate between the genus (Stirps) and the species as forming part of the actual name of the insect, for he printed the Latin words employed to denote these terms with a small initial letter, while he printed both the generic and specific names with capital initial letters. Further, he employed some of these terms as sub- divisions of more than one genus. For example, he used the word * festivae’’ as a sub-division, both of the Stirps, which he called the Neréides and of that which he called the Diphtherae ”’. Concerning Hiibner’s Systematisch-Alphabetisches Verzeichniss, Hemming, in the work referred to (page 566) says, ‘* Thus the name of each species consisted of three Latin words, (a) the generic name, OPINION 276 109 (b) an intermediate term more or less subgeneric in sense, and (c) the specific name’. (The italics are mine.) To me it is clear that Hemming does not consider the middle name in a combination such as Nereis fulva Polymnia as subgeneric from the nomenclatorial point of view. From Hemming’s practice in other publications as well as from the above quotations, I believe that he regarded Nereis as the genus, fu/va as a group name of no nomen- clatorial significance (comparable to the Linnaean “‘ phalanges’”’), and polymnia as the species. In this interpretation I fully agree. I do not think that it is reasonable to accept only the third (specific) name and exclude both the others from the nomenclature, as you have proposed. I believe that if the International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature is to promulgate an opinion on this matter, it should be to the following effect : In the combination (e.g. Nereis fulva Polymnia) used by Hubner in his Sammlung exotischer Schmetterlinge, Volume 1, and in _ his Systematisch-Alphabetisches Verzeichniss, the first name (e.g. Nereis) is the genus, the last name (e.g. Polymnia) is the species, and the middle name (e.g. fu/va) is a group name of no nomenclatorial value. 5. Comment by Mr. Francis Hemming (London): In view of the fact that the application received in the present case was, in part, a commentary on views previously published by Mr. Francis Hemming, an invitation was addressed to Mr. Hemming to furnish a further statement of his views, should he so desire. This invitation was accepted by Mr. Hemming who on Ist November 1946 submitted the following paper for consideration :— On the status of the terms comprised in Jacob Hiibner’s so-called trinominals By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E. (London) As a lepidopterist, I welcome the move made by Senhor José Oiticica Filho to secure from the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature an authoritative ruling as to the status to be accorded to each of the three terms employed collectively to form the names of species in Volume | of Jacob Hiibner’s Sammlung exotischer Schmet- terlinge published in the period 1806—1823. For I recognise that, until such a Ruling has been given, it cannot be expected that these terms 110 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS will be interpreted in a uniform fashion by all specialists. Iam glad also that Senhor Oiticica Filho has asked that the Ruling to be given by the International Commission should cover not only the names used by Hubner in the foregoing volume but also the names used by that author in the work commonly known as the Syst.-alph. Verz. published in 1822, for the problem raised in each work is identical. I am, however, unable to agree with all the conclusions reached by the applicants as to the interpretation of these terms or with all the recommendations which they submit. 2. The attitude which I have taken in the matter of the interpretation of the so-called trinominals used in the first volume of Hubner’s Sammi. exot. Schmett. is set out in the section devoted to Hiibner’s ideas on the classification of the Lepidoptera included in the intro- ductory portion of my book on that author’s entomological publications (Hemming, 1947, Hiibner 1 : 13—19), while my interpretation of the individual names concerned is set out in detail in the chapter on the Sammi. exot. Schmett. 11 the same work (Hemming, 1947, ibid. 1 : 327 —437). It will, however, be convenient if I briefly restate as follows my point of view in this matter. 3. When in the early thirties | was engaged in the preparation of my book the Generic Names of the Holarctic Butterflies, | had to-consider carefully what treatment should be given to the three terms comprised in the names given to species figured on the plates in volume 1 of Hiubner’s Sammi. exot. Schmett. Of the three terms comprised in these names, the third offered, it seemed to me, no difficulty at all, for in a number of cases the species figured had been previously described by other authors and the third term used by Hiibner corresponded with the trivial name used by the earlier author for the species in question. Thus, the legend on plate [22] of volume | of the Sammlung is “ Limnas feruginea [sic] Chrysippus’’ and the species so figured is Papilio chrysippus Linnaeus, 1758 (Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1: 471). This is no mere isolated example but represents the practice followed by Hubner, whenever he figured a species under a name previously bestowed upon it by an earlier author. 4. Having thus established beyond possibility of argument the interpretation to be given to the third of the terms used by Hiibner in these trinominal combinations, I turned to consider the status of the first of the three terms concerned. Here I was immediately struck by the fact that these terms consisted of noun substantives and the first letter of each of these words was printed with a capital letter. In form, therefore, these names complied fully with the requirements for generic names prescribed by Article 8 of the Régles. I had to note also, however, that few, if any, of these terms had hitherto been accepted as generic names and that, so far at least as the butterflies OPINION 276 111 were concerned, none was at that time in current use. This, I realised, might well provide an argument for asking the International Com- mission in individual cases to suppress a particular name in order to prevent the confusion which might follow its acceptance. But this consideration raised an issue which was entirely separate and one which was quite irrelevant, when considering the status to be accorded to these terms. I accordingly concluded that the first term in each of these trinominals must be regarded as being a generic name. 5. It was the second of the terms used in Hiibner’s trinominals which proved the most difficult to interpret. The first point to note was that all these terms were adjectives and that the first letter of the word constituting each of them was printed with a small letter. This seemed to rule out altogether the possibility of regarding these terms as being in the nature of subgeneric names, even if, in dealing with names published as long ago as the first two decades of the last century, it would have been permissible to regard these terms in that light, having regard to the fact that such an interpretation would have been extremely artificial and would have involved imputing to Hubner a view which he could not possibly have held. Another possibility would have been to conclude that in the first volume of the Sammlung exotischer Schmetterlinge Hiibner employed a special nomenclature of his own, instead of the Linnean system. Such a view would, however, have been impossible to reconcile with the consistent use by Hubner of the Linnean system for twenty years prior to the start of the publication of the Sammlung and again for twenty years afterwards, and would have been inherently improbable. On balance, it seemed much more probable that the system of nomenclature adopted in the first volume of the Sammi/ung represented an experimental develop- ment or the elaboration of the Linnean system which Hubner had attempted in 1806 in his Tentamen (since declared by the International Commission in Opinion 97 not to have been “ published ”’ within the meaning of Article 25). For many of the first terms used in the trinominals of the Sammlung (i.e. the terms accepted by myself as being generic names) were the same as those used in the Tentamen, the essential difference between the nomenclature used in these two works being that, whereas in the Tentamen the nomenclature used was strictly binominal, in the first volume of the Sammlung a third term —consisting of an adjective—was interposed in each name between the generic name and the specific trivial name. It seemed to me therefore—and it still so seems—that the logical view to take was that the system of nomenclature used by Hiibner in the first volume of the Sammlung was the Linnean system but that in this volume Hibner, like Linnaeus himself on certain occasions, had interpolated between the generic names and the specific trivial names Latin words which were intended to be not names but terms of taxonomic significance only. On this view, a name such as Limnas feruginea [sic] Chrysippus as used by Hiibner in the first volume of the Sammlung exotischer Schmetterlinge (paragraph 3 above) was strictly comparable with the 112 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS name Papilio Danaus Chrysippus, the form of which in the name in question was originally published by Linnaeus in 1758. 6. Having reached this conclusion, I felt justified in rejecting, as possessing no nomenclatorial significance, the intermediate terms used by Hubner (for example, in the case cited above, the term ** feruginea’’), for already the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature had rejected in a similar manner the intermediate terms used by Linnaeus in 1758 between the generic names and the specific trivial names of the species of butterflies which he then des- cribed (for example, the term “‘ Danaus ”’ as used by Linnaeus in the case cited above). The decision so given in the Commission’s Opinion 124 (1936, Smithson. misc. Coll. 73 (No. 8) : 1—2) was, it was true, limited to the terms used in this way by Linnaeus in 1758, but it was evident that this was not an intentional restriction but was due to the fact that the applicant in question had raised the problem only in relation to the Tenth Edition of the Systema Naturae. 7. To sum up, the conclusions which I reached in 1932—1933, when preparing my Generic Names of the Holarctic Butterflies were that of the three terms comprised in the names applied to species in the first volume of Htibner’s Sammlung exotischer Schmetterlinge, (a) the first term could properly be accepted as a generic name, (b) the second term could not be regarded as possessing any nomenclatorial status (application to this work of Hiibner’s of the principle laid down in the Commission’s Opinion 124), and (c) the third term was the specific trivial name applied by Hiibner to the species concerned. (I should add at this point that in the application now submitted to the International Commission Senhor Oiticica Filho and Senhor Ferreira d’Almeida have inadvertently attributed to me the view that the middle terms of Hiubner’s trinominals should be regarded as the names of sub-genera. As explained in paragraphs 5 and 6 above, I never held this view. If I had done so, I should have included all these terms as subgeneric names in my Generic Names of the Holarctic Butterflies, instead of deliberately omitting them, as I then did.) 8. On re-examining the available evidence, I see no reason for modifying in any way the conclusions which I formerly reached in this matter. I now think, however, that there is a danger of confusion arising if in the future, as in the past, the Opinions of the Commission are used by zoologists as being in the nature of mines from which it is permissible to extract rulings by way of analogy on subjects not dealt with expressly in the Opinions in question. I have in mind therefore to suggest to the International Commission at its next Session that it should give consideration to the question of making a pronouncement as to the way in which its Opinions are to be inter- preted. The solution which I favour is the issue of a pronouncement, preferably one formalised in some binding provision, that the only OPINION 276 113 meaning to be attached to any given one of the Commission’s Opinions is that expressly borne by the words used in the opening so-called “Summary ’’*. Whether or not, a general principle of this kind is laid down by the Commission, it is, I think, desirable that the Commission should now render an Opinion defining in express form the status to be accorded to the various terms included by Hubner in the trinominal combinations discussed in the present note. 9. While, for the reasons which I have explained, I cannot agree in all respects with the theoretical discussion of this problem by Senhor Oiticica Filho and Senhor Ferreira d’Almeida in the application which they have submitted to the International Commission, | fully share their view that it is desirable that the Commission should reject in some appropriate manner the intermediate terms used by Hubner between what I regard as his generic names and his specific trivial names respectively. I do not consider that there are any grounds on which the first term (7.e. the term which I regard as constituting the generic name) in Hiibner’s trinominals could properly be rejected as having no nomenclatorial status under the Régles. Nor am I in favour of the suppression en bloc of these names by the Commission under its Plenary Powers. For, so far as the butterflies are concerned, the acceptance of these terms leads neither to confusion nor to any significant name-changing, since in a large number of cases these names are junior synonyms (either subjectively or objectively) of older names or are applicable to genera not possessing well established names. I have not studied the generic names applied in the Sammlung . to genera of Heterocera, and it may be that in this sector there would be grounds for suppressing some of the names in question under the Plenary Powers. 10. As to the form of the decision to be given in this case, my recommendation is that the International Commission should adopt an Opinion, supplementary to Opinion 124, expressly extending to the intermediate terms (i.e. the adjectives interpolated between generic names and specific trivial names) used by Hiibner for the names of species in the first volume of his Sammlung exotischer Schmetterlinge published in the period 1805—1823 the decision given in the foregoing Opinion in relation to the comparable intermediate terms used by Linnaeus in the Tenth Edition of the Systema Naturae. 1 recommend further that a similar decision should be given in relation to the intermediate terms used by Hiibner in the Syst.-alph. Verz. of 1822. 4 This question was considered in Paris in 1948 both by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature and by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology. It was then decided that in the case of any Opinion rendered by the Commission after the foregoing Congress the decision given therein “is to be looked for only in the ‘summary’ of that Opinion, that every such ‘ summary ’ is to be rigidly construed, and that no deductions, other than those expressly specified therein, are to be drawn therefrom’’ (1950, _ Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 137). 114 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 6. Note submitted to the Commission in Paris in 1948 : Reference to this case was made in Paper I.C.(48)16 (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 3: 115), submitted by the Secretary, to the Commission on 24th July 1948, in which the proposal formulated by Mr. Hemming in his paper of Ist November 1946 was briefly summarised as follows :— (65) “ Opinion”? 124 (proposal supplementary to Proposal (61)) : Consequential upon the decision already taken to clarify the contents of Opinion 124, it is suggested that it should be made clear that the terms (consisting of adjectives in the nominative singular) inserted between the generic name and the specific trivial name of each species figured in the first volume of Huibner’s Sammlung exotischer Schmetter- linge are not to be treated as subgeneric names as from the date of publication of that volume. II.—THE DECISION OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 7. The present application was considered by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature at the Eleventh Meeting of its Paris Session held at the Sorbonne in the Amphi- théatre Louis-Liard on Monday, 26th July 1948 at 0930 hours. After examining the views expressed (i) in the application sub- mitted by Senhor José Oiticica Filho and Senhor Ferreira d’Almeida, (ii) in the letter on this subject written to the last- named specialist by Dr. Charles D. Michener and (ii) in the paper submitted by Mr. Hemming, the Commission took a decision in the terms set out as follows in the Official Record of its Proceedings at the foregoing meeting (Paris Session, 11th Meeting, Conclusion 9) (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 289— 290) :— THE COMMISSION agreed :— (1) that, where in volume | of the work Sammlung exotischer Schmetterlinge or in the Systematisch-alphabetisches OPINION 276 115 Verzeichniss Hubner (J.) cited a species under a name having an apparently trinominal form (e.g. the name Princeps dominans capys), the generic name (Princeps) and the specific trivial name (capys) are to be accepted as satisfying the requirements of Article 25 of the Régles but that the intermediate term (dominans) is not to be treated as having acquired the status of a subgeneric name by virtue of having been so published ; (2) to render an Opinion supplementary to Opinion 124, embodying the decision specified in (1) above. 8. The decision taken in the present case was reported to, and approved by, the Section on Nomenclature of the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948, at its Third Meeting held on Monday, 26th July 1948 (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 5 : 91—93). 9. The Ruling given in the present Opinion was concurred in by the sixteen (16) Commissioners and Alternate Commissioners present at the Paris Session of the International Commission, namely :— Beltran vice Cabrera ; Boschma ; Bradley ; di Caporiacco ; Hemming; Hindle vice Jordan; Jorge vice do Amaral ; Kirby vice Stoll; Lemche vice Dymond; Mansour vice Hanko ; Metcalf vice Peters; Riley vice Calman; Rode ; Sparck vice Mortensen ; van Straelen vice Richter ; Usinger vice Vokes. 10. The Ruling given in the present Opinion was dissented from by no Commissioner or Alternate Commissioner present at the Paris Session. 116 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 11. At its meeting held at Copenhagen in August 1953, the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology decided to insert a provision in the Régles establishing an “ Official List’? to be styled the Official List of Works Approved as Available for Zoological Nomenclature and directing the insertion therein of the title of any work which the International Commission might either validate under its Plenary Powers or declare to be an available work, together with any supplementary decisions which the International Commission might take in regard to any aspect of the work in question (1953, Copenhagen Decisions zool. Nomencl. : 24). Since the foregoing decision applies to past, as well as to future, decisions by the International Commis- sion in cases of this kind, the opportunity presented by the preparation of the present Opinion has been taken to record the insertion in the foregoing Official List of the titles of the two works by Jacob Hubner dealt with in the present Opinion, with particulars of the decisions in regard thereto set out in the Ruling now given, namely (a) the work entitled Sammlung exotischer Schmetterlinge, three volumes (vol. 1, 1806—{1823] ; vol. 2, [1819—1827] ; vol. 3 (continuation by Geyer), [1827— 1838]) ; (b) the work entitled Systematisch-alphabetisches Ver- zeichniss aller bisher bei den Fiirbildungen zur Sammlung europaischer Schmettéerlinge angegebenen Gattungsbennungen pub- lished in 1822. : 12. At the time of the adoption of the Ruling given in the present Opinion, the expression prescribed for the second portion of the binomen which constitutes the scientific name of a species was the expression “trivial name’’. Under a decision taken by the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology, Copenhagen, 1953, the expression “ specific name’”’ was substituted for the expression “trivial name” (1953, Copenhagen Decisions Zool. Nomencl, : 21). The change in terminology so adopted has been incorporated in the Ruling given in the present Opinion. 13. The prescribed procedures were duly complied with by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature in dealing with the present case, and the present Opinion is accord- ingly hereby rendered in the name of the said International - Commission by the under-signed Francis Hemming, Secretary OPINION 276 iy | to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, in virtue of all and every the powers conferred upon him in that behalf. 14. The present Opinion shall be known as Opinion Two Hundred and Seventy-Six (276) of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Done in London, this Seventeenth day of January, Nineteen Hundred and Fifty-Four. Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature FRANCIS HEMMING Printed in England by MraircatFe & Cooper LimiteD, 10-24 Scrutton St., London EC 2 | an , 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 6. Part 9. Pp. 119—134 OPINION 277 Validation, under the Plenary Powers, of the generic name Arachnoides Leske, 1778, and Echinarachnius Gray (J. E.), 1825 (Class Echinoidea), and designation, under those Powers, of type species for the genera so named ae \\n QUIN 4, NN (f oS iY \ OFA }} ( oct 21 1954 ) Aff Sx LIBR ARY A Ss 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 Eight Shillings (All rights reserved) Issued 1st October, 1954 INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE COMPOSITION AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THE RULING GIVEN IN OPINION 277 A. The Officers of the Commission President : Dr. Karl Jordan, Ph.D., F.R.S. (British Museum (Natural History), Zoological Museum, Tring, Herts, England). Vice-President: Dr. James L. Peters (Museum of Comparative Zoology, Cambridge, Massachusetts, U.S.A.). ; Secretary : Mr. Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. (London, England). B. The Members of the Commission Class 1949 Senor Dr. Angel CABRERA (La Plata, Argentina). Mr. Francis HEMMING (London, England) (Secretary to the Commission). Dr. Karl JorRDAN (British Museum (Natural History), Zoological Museum, Tring, Herts, England) (President of the Commission). Dr. Th. MorTENSEN (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark). Dr. Joseph PEARSON (Tasmanian Museum, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia). Class 1952 Senhor Dr. Afranio do AMARAL (S. Paulo, Brazil). Professor J. Chester BRADLEY (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.). Professor Lodovico di CAPoRIACCcO (University of Parma, Italy). Professor J. R. DyMOND (University of Toronto, Canada). Dr. James L. PrETeERS (Museum of Comparative Zoology, Cambridge, Massachusetts, U.S.A.) (Vice-President of the Commission). Dr. Harold E. VoKes (United States Geological Survey, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.). Class 1955 Professor Dr. Hilbrand BoscHMA (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands). Dr. William Thomas CALMAN (Tayport, Fife, Scotland). Professor Teiso EsAKI (Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan). Professor Béla HANKO (University of Debrecen, Hungary). Dr. Tadeusz JACZEWSKI (Polish Zoological Museum, Warsaw, Poland). Dr. Norman R. STOLL (Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, Princeton, New Jersey, U.S.A.). C. Alternate Members of the Commission at the Session held in Paris in 1948 Professor Enrique BELTRAN (Instituto Mexicano de Recursos Naturales Renovables A.C., Mexico City, Mexico). Dr. Edward HINDLE (Zoological Society of London, London, England). Dr. Arturo Ricardo JoRGE (Museu Bocage, Lisbon, Portugal). Professor Harold Kirsy (University of California, Berkeley, California, U.S.A.). Dr. Henning LEMCHE (Kgl. Veteriner- og Landbohgjskole, Zoologisk Labora- torium, Copenhagen, Denmark). Professor Kamel MANSouR (King Fouad University, Cairo, Egypt). Professor Z. P. METCALF (North Carolina State College of Agriculture and Engineering, University of North Carolina, Raleigh, North Carolina, U.S.A.). Mr. N. D. Rivey (British Museum (Natural History), London, England). Professor Ragnar SpArRcCK (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark). Professor Victor van STRAELEN (Institut Royal des Sciences Naturelles de Belgique, Bruxelles, Belgium). Professor Robert L. Usincer (University of California, Berkeley, California, U.S.A.). OPINION 277 VALIDATION, UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS, OF THE GENERIC NAMES ‘** ARACHNOIDES ” LESKE, 1778, AND ‘*‘ ECHINARACHNIUS ” GRAY (J. E.) 1825 (CLASS ECHINOIDEA), AND DESIGNATION, UNDER THOSE POWERS, OF TYPE SPECIES FOR THE GENERA SO NAMED RULING :—(1) The name Arachnoides Klein, origin- ally published in 1734 (i.e., prior to the starting point of zoological nomenclature) acquired no rights under the Law of Priority in virtue of its inclusion either (a) in the edition of Klein’s book published in 1778, which was merely a re-issue of the 1734 edition and in which the names used by Klein were not re-inforced by adoption or acceptance, or (b) in Leske’s Additamenta also pub- lished in 1778, in which this name was not only not reinforced in the foregoing manner but was actually rejected in favour of the name Echinarachnius Leske, 1778. (2) The name Echinodiscus Breynius, originally published in 1732 (/.e., prior to the starting point of zoological nomenclature) did not acquire availability by being re-inforced by adoption or acceptance after 1757 and prior to the publication of the name Echinodiscus Leske, 1778, and accordingly the latter name is an available name and not (as alleged by Pomel in 1883) an invalid junior homonym of Echinodiscus Breynius. (3) Under the Plenary Powers :—(a) The generic name Arachnoides is hereby validated as from Leske, 1778, and Echinus placenta Linnaeus, 1758, is hereby designated as the type species of the genus so named ; (b) The generic name Echinarachnius Leske, 1778, together with all uses of that name prior to the publication of the name Echinarachnius Gray, 1825, is hereby suppressed for the 122 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS purposes both of the Law of Priority and of the Law of Homonymy ; (c) The generic name Echinarachnius Gray, 1825, is hereby validated and Scutella parma Lamarck, 1816, is hereby designated as the type species of the genus so named. (4) The under-mentioned generic names (Class Echinoidea) are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology as Names Nos. 694 to 696 :— (a). Arachnoides Leske, 1778 (gender of name : masculine), as validated, and with the type species designated in (3)(a) above; (b) Echinarachnius Gray (J. E.), 1825 (gender of name : masculine), as validated, and with the type species designated, in (3)(c) above ; (c) Echinodiscus Leske, 1778 (gender of name: masculine) (type species, by selection by Clark (H.L.) (1911): Echinodiscus bisperforatus Leske, 1778). (5) The under-mentioned generic names or reputed generic names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology as Names Nos. 70 to 73 :—(a) the reputed but non-existent name Arachnoides Klein, 1778; (b) Echinarachnius Leske, 1778; (c) Echinarachnius, all use of, subsequent to- Leske, 1778, and prior to Gray, 1825; (d) Lobophora Agassiz (L.), 1841. (6) The under-mentioned specific names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology as Names Nos. 98 to 100 :—(a) bisperforatus Leske, 1778, as published in the combination Echinodiscus bisperforatus ; (b) parma Lamarck, 1816, as published in the combination Scutella parma ; (c) placenta Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Echinus placenta. OPINION 277 123 I.—THE STATEMENT OF THE CASE On Sth November 1947 Dr. Th. Mortensen (Universitetets Zoologiska Museum, Copenhagen) submitted the following application asking the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to take such action as might be necessary to provide a valid foundation for the use of the names of the following widely known genera of Echninoids :—Arachnoides Klein as republished by Leske in 1778; Echinarachnius Gray, 1825 ; Echinodiscus Leske, 1778 :— On the relative status of the names ‘* Echinarachnius ’’ Gray (1825), **Arachnoides ”’ Klein (1734) and ‘* Echinodiscus ’’ Leske (1778) (Class Echinoidea) By TH. MORTENSEN (Zoological Museum, Copenhagen) The name Echinarachnius is first found in Leske’s Addimenta ad J. Th. Kleinii naturalis dispositio. Echinodermatum (1778) p. 217, as a translation of the Dutch name “ Egelspinneweb” of v. Phelsum (1774, Brief aan Corn. Nozeman over de Gewely-Slekken of Zee-Egelen: 38), but only as either an emendation of the name Arachnoides of Klein for the same species (Naturalis disp. Echinod. 1734: 26), or perhaps a mis- print for Arachnoides. It was certainly not proposed as a new generic name. Leske correctly cited the name Arachnoides as of Klein. The species concerned is the Echinus placenta of Linnaeus, which Klein called Arachnoides placenta. The Echinarachnius placenta of Leske is thus directly synonymous with Klein’s Arachnoides placenta. In 1825 J. E. Gray in his “‘Attempt to divide the Echinida, or Sea- Eggs, into Natural Families ’’ (Annals of Philosophy 26 : 428) was the first author who really established a genus named Echinarachnius ; he referred to it, in addition to the species placenta Linnaeus, the Scutella parma of Lamarck. Gray did not designate a type species for this genus, but in i84i L. Agassiz, in his Monographie des Scutelles (: 88) definitely selected the species Echinus placenta Linnaeus to be the type species of Arachnoides and the species Scutella parma of Lamarck to be the type species of Echinarachnius. Since then, these two names Arachnoides placenta and Echinarachnius parma were unanimously used in the whole echinological literature, until Lambert & Thiéry (1914) in their Zssai de nomenclature raisonnée des Echinides (: 315), again used the name Echinarachnius for Scutella placenta Lamarck ; the name Arachnoides was dropped as a synonym of Echinarachnius by these authors, because it was said to be pre-occupied by Linck, 1733, in his De Stellis Marinis (: 59, pl. CII) for an Astrophytid. But in fact Linck did not establish a genus Arachnoides, or even refer 124 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS to any definite species or to any figure, only saying ‘‘ hoc nomen Rumphius tribuit stellis arborescentibus ’’. I cannot find this name in Rumphius’s d@’Amboinische Rareteitkamer of 1705 in his description of * caput medusae’’, the only Astrophytid he mentions. But as Pre- Linnean and non-binominal authors, neither Linck nor Rumphtius count in this connection. The matter is further complicated by the fact that Pomel (1883) in his Classification méthodique et genera des Echinides vivants et fossiles (: 69) used the name Echinodiscus of Breynius (1732, Schedi- asma de Echinis : 63) for Echinus placenta Linnaeus, the name Arach- noides and Echinarachnius. being dropped as synonyms of Echinodiscus. For the recent species (bisperforatus, etc.) he published a new name, Tretodiscus, this has been used only in paleontological works, and there generally in the corrupt form Tetrodiscus. The non-binominal author Breynius did not cite by name any species of Echinodiscus, but he figured (Tab. VII) as an Echinodiscus a Laganid (unidentifiable), a Rotula, and Arachnoides placenta. It 1s thus the last of the species referred by Breynius to Echinodiscus that Pomel took as the type species, whereas Lambert & Thiéry in their Essai de nomenclature raisonnée took the first as the type species, identifying the figures given by Breynius with the species Echinodiscus orbicularis of Leske (Addita- menta : 208, Tab. XLV. figs. 6, 7) which may perhaps be the same as our Peronella orbicularis. A nominal genus named Echinodiscus was first validly established by Leske in his Additamenta (: 195). He referred to this genus a great number of species now placed in various genera ; but the first species, bisperforatus (Tab. XXI. A.B.) may naturally be regarded as typical. L. Agassiz in his Monographie des Scutelles (1841) entirely disregarded the genus Echinodiscus, but created a new genus, Lobophora, for the forms corresponding with Leske’s Echinodiscus bisperforatus. As the name Lobophora was pre-occupied, A. Agassiz in his Revision of the Echini (1872—74) revived the genus Echinodiscus for the same species as those included by L. Agassiz in his genus Lobophora. Since then these species—all of them recent—have unanimously been designated as Echinodiscus by authors on recent Echinoids. Agassiz did not, however, designate any of them as the type species. It was not till 1911 that the species bisperforatus of Leske was designated as the type species of Echinodiscus by H. L. Clark (The genera of recent Clypeastroids. Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist. (8) 7 : 597.) In view of the very great confusion in the nomenclature of three of the most commonly known genera of Echinoids, Arachnoides, Echina- rachnius, and Echinodiscus introduced by Pomel and Lambert & Thiéry, through basing themselves on the work of pre-Linnean, non-binominal authors, I must ask the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, under the Plenary Powers conferred on it by the OPINION 277 | P25. International Zoological Congress, to validate and place on the Official List of Zoological Names the following generic names : (a) Arachnoides Klein, with typesspecies Echinus placenta Linnacus. (b) Echinarachnius Gray, with type species Scutella parma Lamarck. (c) Echinodiscus Leske, with type species Echinodiscus bisperforatus Leske. Note.—The quotations from Leske’s Addimenta are taken from the Edition “‘cum” J. Th. Kleinit Naturalis dispositio Echinodermatum 1778. II—THE SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF THE CASE 2. Registration of the present application: On the receipt of Dr. Mortensen’s application, the problem presented by the names Arachnoides and Echinodiscus was allotted the Registered Number MINAS.) 322. 3. Report on the present application by the Secretary: When this application was submitted to the normal routine examination in the Office of the Commission it appeared to the Secretary that, while Dr. Mortensen had fully developed his argument from the standpoint of securing stability in the nomenclature of the Echinoid genera concerned, he had not presented clearly the present status of those generic names under the Rég/es. Accord- ingly, on 28th January 1948 Mr. Hemming placed the following aide-mémoire in the Registered File relating to these names :— On Dr. Th. Mortensen’s application relating to the Echinoid generic names ‘‘Arachnoides ’’ Klein, 1778 and ‘‘ Echinodiscus ’’ Leske, 1778 By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E. (Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) Although Dr. Mortensen’s object in submitting the present applica- tion to the International Commission is clearly stated to be to secure an official repudiation of the views expressed in the case of the name Arachnoides, by Lambert & Thiéry (1914) and, in the case of the name Echinodiscus, by Pomel in 1883, he nevertheless, as it seems to me, 126 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS attaches much too great weight to the views of these authors. His application would have been both more forcible and also clearer if at the outset he had pointed out the contentions advanced by Lambert & Thiéry and by Pomel respectively were entirely fallacious and con- trary to the express provisions of the Rég/les. 2. The present case becomes much simpler if we bear constantly in mind :—(a) that, under Article 26 of the Régles, the starting point of zoological nomenclature is Ist January 1758, and therefore that no action taken by any author prior to the foregoing date possesses any nomenclatorial significance whatever; (b) that, under Opinion 5 (1910, Smithson. Publ. 1938 : 6), a name published before the starting point of zoological nomenclature and subsequently republished does not acquire the status of availability under Article 25 of the Reégles, unless it is re-inforced, by adoption or acceptance, by the author by whom it is republished. 3. Point (a) above immediately rules out as inadmissible under the Régles the argument advanced by Lambert & Thiéry (1914) that action by an author (Linck) on some date (1733) before the starting point of zoological nomenclature could have any effect on the status of a pre- 1758 generic name (Arachnoides) when republished after 1757. For the same reason the contention advanced by Pomel (1883) that action by Breynius in 1732 could have some effect on the status, after the starting point of zoological nomenclature, of the name Echinodiscus, when republished on some date subsequent to 1757 is entirely without foundation and is not even open to discussion. 4. In the light of the foregoing considerations, we find that the name Echinodiscus Leske, 1778, one of the names which Dr. Mortensen is anxious to preserve, is an available name, As, in addition, its type species (Echinodiscus bisperforatus Leske, 1778) by selection by H. L. Clark (1911, Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (8) 7 : 597) is in harmony with currently accepted usage, there is therefore nothing for the International Commission to do in this case, beyond placing the name Echinodiscus Leske, 1778 (with the above species as type species) on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology, thereby formally recognising that the status of this name is as set out above. 5. Point (b) (paragraph 2 above) raises a difficulty not taken into account by Dr. Mortensen, for in 1778 Leske, when citing Klein’s (1734) name Arachnoides, did not confer upon it the status of avail- ability by re-inforcing it by adoption or acceptance ; on the contrary, he deliberately rejected this name in favour of the name Echinarachnius, a name which he was the first to use after the starting point of zoological nomenclature and of which therefore for nomenclatorial purposes he isthe author. Thus, if, as Dr. Mortensen desires, the name Arachnoides is to be accepted as an available name as from 1778, the date on which OPINION 277 127 this old Kleinian name was re-published by Leske, it will only be possible to secure this end by the use by the International Commission of its Plenary Powers to validate this name as from the foregoing date. Even if this action were to be taken by the International Commission, it would not be possible to credit the name Arachnoides to Klein, 1778, as asked for by Dr. Mortensen, and it would be necessary to attribute it to Leske, the only author in 1778 to make use of this name at all. 4. At Paris in 1948 the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature suspended its By-Laws for the duration of that Session (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 7—8), and it was in virtue of that decision that the present case was brought before the Commission later during that Session. I1I—THE DECISION OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 5. The present application was considered by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature at the Fourteenth Meeting of its Paris Session held at the Sorbonne in the Amphi- theatre Louis-Liard on Monday, 26th July 1948 at 2030 hours. The following is an extract from the Official Record of the Pro- ceedings of the International Commission summarising the dis- cussion which took place on the present case at the foregoing meeting (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 533) :— IN THE DISCUSSION which ensued it was generally agreed that a case had been established regarding the likelihood of confusion arising in the event of current nomenclatorial practice in regard to the generic names Arachnoides, Echina- rachnius and Echinodiscus being disturbed in the manner which would be inevitable if either the contention advanced by Lambert and Thiéry (1914) or that advanced by Pomel (1883) were to be accepted. The Plenary Powers should, it was agreed, be used to such extent as might be necessary to prevent this from happening. On the other hand, care would need to be taken to restrict the use of the Plenary Powers to those portions of the application (for example, the validation of the 128 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS name Echinarachnius Gray, 1825, as against the earlier identical generic name Echinarachnius Leske, 1778), which could only be granted after the use of those Powers. Those Powers should not be used in respect of those portions of the application which dealt with difficulties arising from erroneous interpre- tations of the Rég/es, such as those arising from the action of Pomel (1883) and Lambert and Thiéry (1914) in claiming for names originally published before 1758 (i.e. before the starting point of zoological nomenclature as prescribed in Article 26) either (a) rights of priority prior to the date on which, subse- quent to 1757, they had been given availability through being reinforced (by adoption or acceptance) by the same or another author or (b) the power, before being so reinforced, of influencing the availability of the same name as published by a binominal author subsequent to 1757. At the conclusion of this discussion the Acting President, as Secretary to the Commission, was invited in this case to examine the application from the foregoing point of view after the close of the present Session and, in the light of that examin- ation, to draft the Conclusion on this matter in such a way as, in his opinion, would meet fully the objects set out in the application and also the points made in the discussion as recorded above. 6. The decision taken by the International Commission in this case is set out as follows in the Official Record of its Proceedings at the foregoing meeting (Paris Session, 14th Meeting, Con- clusion 37) (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 530-——535) :— THE COMMISSION agreed :— (1) that, having regard to the interpretation of Article 25 given in Opinion 5 (the relevant provisions of which were now to be incorporated in the Rég/les) :— (a) the name Arachnoides Klein, 1734 (a name published prior to the starting point of zoological nomen- OPINION 277 129 clature, as prescribed in Article 26) acquired no rights under the Law of Priority in virtue of Klein’s work in which it originally appeared being re-published in 1778, since this was merely a re-issue of the 1734 work, or in virtue of having been published in Leske’s Additamenta (1778) to the foregoing work, since on that occasion Leske not only did not reinforce the name by adoption or acceptance (as prescribed by Opinion 5) but actually rejected it, publishing a new name, Echinarachnius, as a substitute for it ; (b) the name Echinodiscus Breynius, 1732 (a name published prior to the starting point of zoological nomenclature), not having been given avail- ability under the Régles by being re-inforced (through adoption or acceptance) prior to the publication of the name Echinodiscus Leske, 1778, possessed no status in zoological nomenclature as at that date and accordingly (contrary to the view erroneously expressed by Pomel in 1883) the name Echinodiscus Leske, 1778, is not to be rejected under Article 34 as an invalid homonym ; (2) to use their Plenary Powers :— (a) to validate as from Leske, 1778, the generic name Arachnoides and to designate Echinus placenta Linnaeus, 1758, to be the type species of that genus ; (b) to suppress the generic name Echinarachnius Leske, 1778, and all uses of that name prior to the publication of the name Echinarachnius Gray, S2573 (c) to validate the generic name Echinarachnius Gray, 1825, and to designate Scutella parma Lamarck, 1816, to be the type species of that genus ; (3) to place the under-mentioned generic names on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology:— Arachnoides Leske, 1778, validated as in (2)(a) above (type species, by designation under the Plenary 130 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS Powers, as specified in (2) (a) above: Echinus placenta Linnaeus, 1758) | Echinarachnius Gray, 1825, validated as in (2) (c) above (type species, by designation under the Plenary Powers, as specified in (2) (c) above: Scutella parma Lamarck, 1816) ; Echinodiscus Leske, 1778 (type species, by selection by Clark (H. L.), 1911: Echinodiscus bisperforatus Leske, 1778) ; (4) to place the under-mentioned generic names on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology:— Arachnoides Klein, 1778 (a reputed name rejected in (1) (a) above) Echinarachnius Leske, 1778 Echinarachnius as used by any other author subse- quent to Leske, 1778, and prior to Gray, 1825 Lobophora Agassiz (L.), 1841 ; (5) to place the under-mentioned trivial names on the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology:— bisperforatus Leske, 1778, as published in the binominal combination Echinodiscus bisperforatus ; parma Lamarck, 1816, as published in the binominal combination Scutella parma ; placenta Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the bi- nominal combination Echinus placenta ; (6) to render an Opinion recording the decisions specified in (1) to (5) above. 7. In accordance with the invitation addressed to him by the International Commission at its Paris Session—see the last paragraph of the Official Record of the discussion in this case, OPINION 277 131 quoted in paragraph 5 of the present Opinion—Mr. Hemming, as Secretary to the Commission, made a close examination of the problems involved in the present application with the object of determining precisely the limits within which action by the Commission under its Plenary Powers was necessary to give effect to the decision taken by the Commission, namely to grant the relief sought in this case by Dr. Mortensen. In accordance with a request made by the Commission at the same time, the decision (Conclusion 37) of the Commission in this case was drafted in the light of the Report so made by the Secretary. That Report, which was dated 23rd August 1949, was submitted to, and approved by, the International Commission by Postal Vote at the same time that it approved the draft of the Official Record of its Paris Proceedings (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : xiii—xv). Mr. Hemming’s Report, which was annexed to the Official Record of the Proceedings of the International Commission in regard to the present case (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 535— 536), was as follows :— Report dated 23rd August 1949 by the Secretary to the Commission : In accordance with the request of the Commission, I have re-examined the application in this case for the purpose of determining how the objects set forth therein can be attained with the minimum use of the Plenary Powers. In the course of this re-examination I have had the benefit of the advice of Dr. Mortensen. In addition, I have consulted a number of the books and papers cited in the present application. The conclusions which I have reached are as follows :— (1) Arachnoides: The Plenary Powers are certainly needed to validate this name as from 1778, the first date subsequent to the starting point of zoological nomenclature (1758), on which this name was published, for, as then published by Leske, it was a name taken from a pre-1758 author (Klein) which Leske not only did not re-inforce by adoption or acceptance (the conditions laid down in Opinion 5 as the sole means by which such a name can be given availability under the Régles), but which he actually rejected in favour of a new name (Echinarachnius) proposed by himself. This being so, the Plenary Powers will be needed also to designate a type species for this genus. (2). Echinarachnius Gray, 1825: Gray (: 428) did not look upon himself as publishing Echinarachnius as a new name, for he correctly referred this name to Leske, by whom (as shown in (1) above) it had 132 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS been published in 1788. In order to be able validly to treat Echinarach- nius as an available name first published by Gray in 1825, it will thus be necessary to use the Plenary Powers to suppress the name Echi- narachnius Leske, 1788, and all subsequent uses of that name prior to Gray, 1825, to validate the name Echinarachnius Gray, 1825, and to designate a type species for the genus so named. (3) Echinodiscus Leske, 1778: This is an available name, the objection raised against it by Pomel (1883) being totally groundless, being based upon a misconceived belief that a use put to a generic name by an author (Breynius) at a date (1732) prior to the starting point of zoological nomenclature (1758) can affect the status of the same name as published after 1758. There is therefore no need for the Plenary Powers to be used to validate this name. Nor is there any need for those Powers to be used to designate a type species for this genus, for the species (Echinodiscus bisperforatus Leske, 1778) which it is desired should be recognised as such was in fact so selected by Clark (H. L.) in 1911. In the light of the foregoing conclusion, I have drafted the record of the Commission’s decision in this case in the terms set forth in Conclusion 37 of the Minutes of the 14th Meeting of the Paris Session, at which it was discussed, those terms giving effect to the decision of the Commission to meet the objects sought by the Commissioner Mortensen in the present application and at the same time involving, as desired by the Commission, the minimum use of the Plenary Powers consistent with securing the objects referred to above. 8. The following are the original references for the names placed on Official Lists and Official Indexes by the Ruling given in the present Opinion :— Arachnoides Leske, 1778, Addit. Klein. nat. Disp. Echinodermat. : 218 (attributed to Klein and treated as a synonym of Echina- rachnius Leske) Arachnoides Klein, 1778, Leske’s Ed., Nat. Disp. Echinodermat. : 26 (reprint, without reinforcement, by adoption or acceptance, of the 1734 edition) bisperforatus, Echinodiscus, Leske, 1778, Addit. Klein. nat. Disp. Echinodermat. : 198 Echinarachnius “Leske, 1778, Addit. Klein. nat. Disp. Echino- dermat. : 217—218 Echinarachnius Gray (J. E.), 1825,. Ann. Phil. 26 : 428 Echinodiscus Leske, 1778, Addit. Klein. nat. Disp. Echinodermat. LS Lobophora Agassiz (L.), 1841, Mon. Ech. 2 : 62 OPINION 277 [33 parma, Scutella, Lamarck, 1816, Hist. nat. Anim. sans Vertebr. 3 ei placenta, Echinus, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 666 9. The gender of the generic names Arachnoides Leske, 1778, Echinarachnius Gray (J. E.), 1825, and Echinodiscus Leske, 1778, referred to in the decision quoted in paragraph 6 above, 1s masculine. 10. The decision taken in the present case was reported to, and approved by, the Section on Nomenclature of the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948, at its Sixth Meeting held on Monday, 26th July 1948 (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 5 : 117). 11. The Ruling given in the present Opinion was concurred in by the sixteen (16) Commissioners and Alternate Commissioners present at the Paris Session of the International Commission, namely :— Beltran vice Cabrera ; Boschma ; Bradley ; di Caporiacco ; Hemming; Hindle vice Jordan; Jorge vice do Amaral ; Kirby vice Stoll; Lemche vice Dymond; Mansour vice Hanko ; Metcalf vice Peters; Riley vice Calman; Rode ; Sparck vice Mortensen ; van Straelen vice Richter ; Usinger vice Vokes. 12. The Ruling given in the present Opinion was dissented from by no Commissioner or Alternate Commissioner present at the Paris Session. 13. At the time of the adoption of the Ruling given in the present Opinion, the expression prescribed for the second portion of the binomen which constitutes the scientific name of a species was the expression “ trivial name” and the Official List reserved for recording such names was styled the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology, the word “ trivial”? appearing also in the title of the Official Index reserved for recording rejected and invalid names of this category. Under a decision taken by the 134 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology, Copenhagen, 1953, the expression “‘ specific name’’ was substituted for the expression “* trivial name ” and corresponding changes were made in the titles of the Official List and Official Index of such names (1953, Copenhagen Decisions zool. Nomencl. : 21). The changes in terminology so adopted have been incorporated in the Ruling given in the present Opinion. 14. The prescribed procedures were duly complied with by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature in dealing with the present case, and the present Opinion is accordingly hereby rendered in the name of the said International Com- mission by the under-signed Francis Hemming, Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, in virtue of all and every the powers conferred upon him in that behalf. 15. The present Opinion shall be known as Opinion Two Hundred and Seventy-Seven (277) of the International Com- mission on Zoological Nomenclature. Done in London this Nineteenth day of January, Nineteen Hundred and Fifty-Four. Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature FRANCIS HEMMING Printed in England by MEetcaLre & Cooper LimiTED, 10-24 Scrutton St., London E C 2 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTER- NATIONAL COMMISSION ON AQOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Edited by FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E. Secretary to the Commission y vas joes: | \ [> oa IN . awe iS. eat VOLUME 6. Part 10. Pp. 135—178 | tr a kt \S KR | | C5 | = £ Grew OPINION 278 e8 J Addition to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology of the names of ten genera of the Sub-Order Rhopalocera of the Order Lepidoptera (Class Insecta), species of which were cited in the undated leaflet commonly known as the Tentamen, prepared by Jacob Hiibner, which is believed to have been distributed to correspondents in 1806, a leaflet rejected in Opinion 97 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 (All rights reserved) | 1 Price One pound, one shilling and sixpence | Issued 1st October, 1954 INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE COMPOSITION AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THE RULING GIVEN IN OPINION 278 A. The Officers of the Commission President : Dr. Karl Jordan, Ph.D., F.R.S. (British Museum (Natural History), Zoological Museum, Tring, Herts, England). Vice-President: Dr. James L. Peters (Museum of Comparative Zoology, Cambridge, Massachusetts, U.S.A.). Secretary : Mr. Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. (London, England). B. The Members of the Commission Class 1949 Senor Dr. Angel CABRERA (La Plata, Argentina). Mr. Francis HEMMING (London, England) (Secretary to the Commission). Dr. Karl JorDAN (British Museum (Natural History), Zoological Museum, Tring, Herts, England) (President of the Commission). Dr. Th. MORTENSEN (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark). Dr. Joseph PEARSON (Tasmanian Museum, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia). Class 1952 Senhor Dr. Afranio do AMARAL (S. Paulo, Brazil). Professor J. Chester BRADLEY (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.). Professor Lodovico di CAPORIACCO (University of Parma, Italy). Professor J. R. DyMOND (University of Toronto, Canada). Dr. James L. PETERS (Museum of Comparative Zoology, Cambridge, Massachusetts, U.S.A.) (Vice-President of the Commission). Dr. Harold E. Voxes (United States Geological Survey, Washington, D.C., StA.): Class 1955 Professor Dr. Hilbrand BoscHMA (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands). Dr. William Thomas CALMAN (Tayport, Fife, Scotland). Professor Teiso ESAKI (Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan). Professor Béla HANKO (University of Debrecen, Hungary). ‘Dr. Tadeusz JACZEWSKI (Polish Zoological Museum, Warsaw, Poland). Dr. Norman R. STOLL (Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, Princeton, New Jersey, U.S.A.). C. Alternate Members of the Commission at the Session held in Paris in 1948 Professor Enrique BELTRAN (Instituto Mexicano de Recursos Naturales Renovables A.C., Mexico City, Mexico). Dr. Edward HINDLE (Zoological Society of London, London, England). Dr. Arturo Ricardo JORGE (Museu Bocage, Lisbon, Portugal). Professor Harold Kirpy (University of California, Berkeley, California, U.S.A.). Dr. Henning LEMCHE (Kgl. Veteriner- og Landbohgjskole, Zoologisk Labora- torium, Copenhagen, Denmark). Professor Kamel MANSouR (King Fouad University, Cairo, Egypt). Professor Z. P. MegtTcaALF (North Carolina State College of Agriculture and Engineering, University of North Carolina, Raleigh, North Carolina, U.S.A.). Mr. N. D. Rivey (British Museum (Natural History), London, England). Professor Ragnar SpPARCK (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark). Professor Victor van STRAELEN (Institut Royal des Sciences Naturelles de Belgique, Bruxelles, Belgium). Professor Robert L. Usincer (University of California, Berkeley, California, U.S.A.). OPINION 278 ADDITION TO THE ‘°° OFFICIAL LIST OF GENERIC NAMES IN ZOOLOGY” OF THE NAMES OF TEN GENERA OF THE SUB-ORDER RHOPALOCERA OF THE ORDER LEPIDOPTERA (CLASS INSECTA), SPECIES OF WHICH WERE CITED IN THE UNDATED LEAFLET COMMONLY KNOWN AS THE ‘*“‘ TENTAMEN ”’, PREPARED BY JACOB HUBNER, WHICH IS BELIEVED TO HAVE BEEN DISTRIBUTED TO CORRESPON- DENTS IN 1806, A LEAFLET REJECTED IN ** OPINION 97” RULING :—(1) The genera to which the species cited in the undated leaflet commonly known as the Tentamen prepared by Jacob Hiibner and believed to have been distributed to correspondents in 1806, which has been rejected for nomenclatorial purposes under Opinion 97, are either (i) referable by reason of being the type species of the genera concerned or (ii) are currently referred by reason of being considered by specialists to be congeneric with the type species of the genera in question are cited below, together with the generic name under which those species were cited in the Tentamen, these latter names being here cited in brackets (parentheses) :—({a) Apatura Fabricius, 1807 (Potamis) ; (b) Argynnis Fabricius, 1807 (Dryas) ; (c) Aulocera Butler, 1867 (Oreas); (d) Consul Hiibner, [1807] (Consul) ; (e) Danaus Kluk, 1802 (Limnas) ; (f) Euphydryas Scudder, 1872 (Lemonias) ; (g) Limenitis Fabricius, 1807 (Najas) ; (h) Mechanitis Fabricius, 1807 (Neréis) ; () Nymphalis 138 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS Kluk, 1802 (Hamadryas); (j) Papilio Linnaeus, 1758 (Princeps); (k) Pieris Schrank, 1801 (Mancipium) ; (1) Plebejus Kluk, 1802 (Rusticus) ; (m) Pyrgus Hiibner, [1819] (Urbanus). (2) Of the generic names specified in (1) above, the following have already been placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology in the Opinions severally noted below :—(a) Apatura Fabricius, 1807 (Opinion 232) ; (b) Argynnis Fabricius, 1807 (Opinion 161) ; (c) Mechanitis Fabricius, 1807 (Opinion 232). (3) The generic names specified in (1) above, other than the three names specified in (2) above, are hereby placed as follows on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology as Names Nos. 697 to 706 :—(a) Aulocera Butler, 1867 (gender of name: feminine) (type species, by original designation : Satyrus brahminus Blanchard, 1844); (b) Consul Hiibner, [1807] (gender of name: masculine) (type species, by monotypy: Papilio fabius, Cramer, [1776]); (c) Danaus Kluk, 1802 (gender of name : masculine) (type species, by selection by Hemming (1933) : Papilio plexippus Linnaeus, 1758) ; (d) Euphydryas Scudder, 1872 (gender of name : feminine) (type species, by original designation : Papilio phaeton Drury, [1773)) ; (ce) Limenitis Fabricius, 1807 (gender of name : feminine) (type species, by selection by Dalman (1816): Papilio populi Linnaeus, 1758); (f) Nymphalis Kluk, 1802 (gender of name: masculine) (type selection, by Hem- ming (1933): Papilio polychloros Linnaeus, 1758) ; (g) Papilio Linnaeus, 1758 (gender of name: masculine) (type species, by selection by Latreille (1810): Papilio machaon Linnaeus, 1758); (h) Pieris Schrank, 1801 (gender of name : feminine) (type species, by selection by Latreille (1810): Papilio brassicae Linnaeus, 1758) ; (1) Plebejus Kluk, 1802 (gender of name: masculine) (type species, by selection by Hemming (1933): Papilio argus Linnaeus, 1758); (j) Pyrgus Hitibner, [1819] (gender of name: masculine) (type species, by selection by Westwood (1841): Papilio alveolus Hiibner, [1800— 1803}). OPINION 278 139 (4) The thirteen generic names included in the Tentamen and specified in brackets (parentheses) in (1) above are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology as Names Nos. 74 to 86. (5) The specific name of the type species of the genus Plebejus Kluk, 1802, has already (Opinion 269) been placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology ; the specific name of the type species of the genus Danaus Kluk, 1802, will be so placed in an Opinion now in preparation'. (6) The specific name a/veolus Hubner, [1800—1803], as published in the combination Papilio alveolus, the name of the type species of the genus Pyrgus Hubner, [1819], is currently regarded as a subjective junior synonym of the name malvae Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Papilio malvae. Accordingly, the specific name alveolus Hiibner, [1800—1803], as published in the foregoing combination is not now placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology, but in its stead the name malvae Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Papilio malvae, is hereby so placed as Name No. 101. (7) The following specific names, being the names of the type species of the nominal genera, the names of which have been placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology under (3) above, other than the names of the type species of the nominal genera specified in (5) and (6) above, are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology as Names Nos. 102 to 108 :—(a) brahminus Blanchard, 1844, as published in the combination Satyrus brahminus ; (b) fabius Cramer, [1776], as published in the combination Papilio fabius ; (c) phaeton Drury, [1773], as published in the combination Papilio phaeton; (d) populi Linnaeus, 1758, as pub- lished in the combination Papilio populi ; (e) polychloros Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Papilio polychloros ; (£) machaon Linnaeus, 1758, as published in 1 See Opinion 282 (pp. 225—268 of the present volume). 140 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS . the combination Papilio machaon ; (g) brassicae Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Papilio brassicae. (8) The undated leaflet known as the Tentamen, the full title of which is Tentamen determinationis digestionis atque denominationis singuiarum stirpium Lepidopterorum, peritis ad inspiciendum et dijudicandum communicatum, a Jacobo Hiibner, which is believed to have been dis- tributed to correspondents in 1806 and which has been rejected for nomenclatorial purposes under Opinion 97, is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Works in Zoological Nomenclature as Work No. 14. I—THE STATEMENT OF THE CASE On 28th January 1948 Mr. Francis Hemming, Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, submitted a paper containing proposals for eliminating remaining doubts regarding the generic names properly applicable to the species of the Order Lepidoptera (Class Insecta) cited in the undated leaflet commonly known as the Tentamen prepared by Jacob Hubner and believed to have been distributed to corres- pondents in 1806, a leaflet which, it will be recalled, has been rejected for nomenclatorial purposes in Opinion 97 (1926, Smithson. misc. Coll. 73 (No. 4) : 19—30). In submitting this paper, Mr. Hemming explained that, while he had been of the opinion for a long time that further action by the Commission was required to clarify the situation created by the rejection of the Tentamen, he was prompted to submit the present proposals by the extensive discussions on this subject which he had held in Washington some four or five weeks earlier with Dr. John G. Franclemont (then of the United States Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Entomology and Plant Quarantine), Dr. W. D. Field (United States National Museum, Washington) and Professor Wm. T. M. Field (Cornell University, Division of Entomology, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.). In submitting his proposals, Mr. Hemming added that it was, in his view, very desirable that a determined effort to grapple with this long-outstanding problem should be made by the International Commission at its Session then due to be held in about six months’ time at Paris OPINION 278 14] during the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology. The paper submitted by Mr. Hemming was as follows :— On the status of the names of one hundred and two genera in the Order Lepidoptera (Class Insecta) proposed by Jacob Hiibner in the ‘* Tentamen ’’, with special references to the names proposed for thirteen genera of the Sub-Order Rhopalocera By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E. (Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) In Opinion 97 (1926, Smithson. misc. Publ. 73 (No. 4) : 19—30), the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature discussed the question “Did Hubner’s Tentamen, 1806, create monotypic genera ?”’. The answer given by the Commission to this question was that the Tentamen was not published in accordance with the provisions of Article 25 of the Rég/es and therefore that the new generic names included in it possessed no status as from the date (1806) on which it was distributed by Hubner. The Commission added that: “If published with more definite data at later dates, these names have their status in regard to availability as of their date of such republication.” If matters had rested without further change, it would have been possible to determine the status of each of the generic names proposed in the Jentamen by ascertaining the next place in which each name was published, determining whether on this occasion it had been duly published in accordance with the Régles and, if so, determining its type species in accordance with the provisions of Article 30. This process has never been fully carried out, for already before Opinion 97 was published, the case was carried a stage further by the submission to the International Commission of an application that it should use its Plenary Powers to suspend the Rég/es for the purpose of validating such of the Tentamen names as would have been available if this leaflet had been duly published. This second application was duly advertised in the manner prescribed in the Plenary Powers Resolution (Declaration 5) and its receipt was actually recorded in Opinion 97 itself in a brief note appended by the then Secretary to the Commission (: 30). Unfortunately however no progress was ever made in the consideration of this application and even its text was not included in the archives when these were transferred to me on my election as Secretary to the Commission. It is extremely unfortunate that no action should have been taken on the application to validate the Tentamen names under the Plenary Powers, for as long as that application remained undecided specialists were left in doubt as to the ultimate status of those names. If the International Commission is adequately to meet the demands of zoo- logists, it is clearly essential that it should arrange to give a definite answer one way or another as quickly as possible on every application 142 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS submitted to it. It is especially important also that, when a particular case is submitted to the Commission, the answer given by the Com- mission should cover the whole ground and not (as the in case of Opinion 97) a part of it only. It is the intention of the Commission to guide itself by these principles in dealing with future cases. As regards other cases, the Commission are anxious to repair the omissions of the past by giving definite answers on all outstanding questions. The so far undecided application before the Commission in regard to the Tentamen asks for the use by the Commission of its Plenary Powers to suspend the Rég/es in favour of certain of the generic names which first appeared in print in that leaflet, on the ground that the strict application of the Rég/es in that case (i.e. the abandonment of those names in accordance with the provisions of Opinion 97 and the use in their place of the next published generic names applicable to the species cited by Hubner) would clearly result in greater confusion than uniformity. When an application of this kind is received by the Commission, it is necessary for it closely to scrutinise each case on its merits in the light of data supplied by specialists in the group concerned. From particulars recently obtained it is clear that the outstanding application for the use of the Plenary Powers in this case did not include such data and this fact may have contributed to the failure of the Commission to make any progress in regard to that application. In such circumstances, however, the applicants should have been informed by the Commission—as they would be in similar circumstances today—that it would not be possible for the Commission to take the application into consideration until it was re-submitted with sufficient supporting material to enable the Commission to reach a decision on each of the names involved. The Tentamen contained 107 generic names, of which 5 had been previously published by other authors and 102 were new. The Order Lepidoptera was divided into 9 Phalanges, among which the generic names employed were distributed as follows :— Previously New generic published names — generic names Total Papiliones Ke Re 13 —- 13 Sphinges He on 7 3 10 Bombyces MT Se 16 2 18 Noctuae sc en D5 — Dp Geometrae ah ne L — 17) Pyralides ne - 7 _ 7 Tortrices hf ae 6 — 6 Timeae + oe A 9 — 9 Alucitae Ws Ys 2 — 2 5 OPINION 278 143 It is clearly important for the stability of the generic nomenclature of the Order Lepidoptera that a final decision should be given as soon as possible in regard to each of the 102 names concerned. If any of these names are to be preserved through the use of the Commission’s Plenary Powers, those names (with their type species) should be placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. Where no adequate case for the use of the Plenary Powers is established, a clear decision should be given to that effect. In these latter cases, it would be desirable at the same time to place on the Official List the names of those genera to which are referable the species which would have been the type species of the Tentamen genera if the names used therefor had been available nomenclatorially. The work involved in preparing the necessary material for the Commission will be considerable. As a start, I am myself, as a lepidopterist, submitting an application? in regard to the 13 generic names of butterflies which appear in the Tentamen. If, as I hope, this application is followed by corresponding applications in respect of the moth names prepared by specialists in the various groups of the Heterocera, it should be possible for the Commission finally to dispose of the long-outstanding nomenclatorial problems raised by the Tentamen. 2. The following is the text of the second paper referred to by Mr. Hemming in the concluding paragraph of the paper containing his proposals as to the procedure to be adopted for the purpose of eliminating doubts as to the generic names properly applicable to the species of the Order Lepidoptera cited by Jacob Hubner in the Tentamen. In this second paper Mr. Hemming submitted concrete proposals in relation to the generic names applicable to the thirteen species of the Sub-Order Rhopalocera cited in the foregoing leaflet. On the status of the names of thirteen genera of butterflies (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera) proposed by Jacob Hiibner in the ‘‘ Tentamen’’, [1806] By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E. (London) The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature has before it an application for the use by it of its Plenary Powers to suspend the Rég/es for the purpose of validating certain of the generic names proposed by Jacob Hiibner in the Tentamen, a leaflet which the Commission has ruled in Opinion 97 was not duly published * The text of the application here referred to is given in paragraph 2 of the present Opinion. 144 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS in accordance with the provisions of Article 25 (Law of Priority). This application was not supported with data relating to the names concerned or evidence to show why it was considered that the strict application of the Rég/es (i.e. the rejection of the generic names con- cerned as of the reputed date (1806) of the Tentamen) would result in greater confusion than uniformity. In consequence it has not been possible for the Commission to make any progress with this application. The present paper, which is concerned only with the names of the 13 genera of butterflies recognised by Hiibner in the Tentamen, has been prepared with the purpose of providing the Commission with the material necessary for it to reach decisions as regards this group of the Tentamen names. In the Tentamen Hubner placed in each genus one species only. In consequence each of his new genera is monotypical. All that is necessary therefore is to ascertain in each case what would be the effect—whether of maintaining or of disturbing existing practice— if the generic name in question were to be preserved under the Com- mission’s Plenary Powers and in consequence became the nomen- clatorially valid generic name for the species concerned. It should be noted that in the Jentamen Hiibner (in common with numerous other authors of the time) did not cite the authors of the trivial names of the species referred in the Tentamen to the new monotypical genera there established. This omission on the part of Hiibner led the author of the “summary” of Opinion 97 to insert the following obiter dictum: “*‘ Even if it be admitted that the binomials represent combinations of generic plus specific names, they are essentially nomina nuda (as of the date in question) since authors ‘who do not possess esoteric information in regard to them are unable definitely to interpret them without reference to later literature”’. All that is necessary to note as regards this unfortunate comment is that it is totally misconceived and incorrect. No reference to /ater literature is needed to identify the species cited in the Tentamen ; nor is any “esoteric information’ required for the purpose. All that is needed is an adequate knowledge of the literature published prior to the preparation of the Tentamen. Without knowledge of this kind no reader of a scientific paper could be expected to understand the latest contribution to his speciality, but this affords no grounds for rejecting as nomina nuda names cited in such a contribution. As will be seen from the particulars given in the annex to this present paper there is no difficulty whatever in identifying the species cited by Hiibner under the thirteen genera of butterflies recognised by him in the Tentamen. In the light of the data brought forward in the annex to the present paper, it is possible to summarise as follows what would have been the status of each of the 13 generic names of butterflies introduced by Hiibner in the Tentamen if (contrary to Opinion 97) the Commission OPINION 278 145 had decided that that leaflet had been duly published and what would have been the effect of that decision on current nomenclatorial practice :— Generic name as used by Hiibner in the Tentamen (1) Nereis Htibner Limnas Hubner Lemonias Hubner Dryas Huibner Hamadryas Hiibner Type species if name in column (1) had been available as from the Tentamen (2) Papilio mechanitis Linnaeus, 1758 Papilio chrysippus Linnaeus, 1758 Papilio maturna Linnaeus, 1758 or Papilio iduna_ Dal- man, 1816 (if the International Com- mission acting under Opinion 168, so designated the type) Papilio paphia Lin- naeus, 1758 Papilio io Linnaeus, Effect on current nomenclatorial practice of accepting names in column (1) as from the Tentamen (3) Mechanitis Fabricius, 1807, of which the same species is type, would have fallen as an objec- tive synonym of Nereis Hubner, [1806]. Limmas Hiibner, [1806], would have been a subjective synonym of Danaus Kluk, 1802 (type: Papilio plexippus Lin- naeus, 1758). Both Papilio maturna Linnaeus, 1758, and Papilio iduna Dalman, 1816, are commonly treated as being con- generic with Papilio Phaeton Drury, 1773, the type of Euphydryas Scud- der, 1872, which would therefore have fallen as a subjective synonym of Lemonias Hubner, [1806]. Dryas Hiibner, [1806], would have had the same type as Argynnis Fabri- cius, 1807, but could not have replaced that name, for Argynnis Fabricius has been validated by the International Commis- sion under their powers (Opinion 161). Papilio ie Linnaeus, 1758, is commonly treated as being congeneric with 146 Generic name as used by Hiibner in the Tentamen Type species if name in column (1) had been available as from the Tentamen (1) (2) Hamadryas Hubner Papilio io Linnaeus, —contd. —contd. Najas Hubner Papilio populi Linnaeus, 1758 Potamis Hiibner Papilio iris Linnaeus, 1758 Oreas Hubner Papilio proserpina [Denis & Schiffer- miiller], 1775 Rusticus Hubner Papilio argus Lin- naeus, 1758 or Papilio idas Linnaeus, 1761 (if the Inter- national Commis- sion, acting under Opinion 168, so designated the type) OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS Effect on current nomenclatorial practice of accepting names in column (1) as from the Tentamen Papilio polychloros Lin- naeus, 1758, the type of Nymphalis Kluk, 1802, of which, therefore, Hama- dryas Hibner, [1806] would have become a subjective synonym. Limenitis Fabricius, 1807, of which the same species is the type, would have fallen as an object- ive synonym of Najas Hubner, [1806]. Apatura Fabricius, 1807, of which the same species is the type, would have fallen as an _ objective synonym of Potamis Hubner, [1806]. Papilio proserpina {Denis & Schiffermiiller], 1775, is commonly treated as being congeneric with Satyrus brahminus Blanchard, 1844, the type of Aulocera Butler, 1867, which would therefore have become a subjective synonym of Oreas Hub- ner, [1806]. If Papilio argus Linnaeus, 1758, were the type of Rusticus Hubner, [1806], that name would become an objective synonym of Plebejus Kluk, 1802, of which the same species is the type. If Papilio idas Linnaeus, 1761, were to be declared to be the type of Rusticus Hiibner, [1806], that name would Generic name as used by Hiibner in the Tentamen (1) Rusticus Hubner —contd. Princeps Hubner Mancipium Hubner Consul Hiibner Urbanus Hiibner OPINION 278 Type species if name in column (1) had been available as from the Tentamen (2) Papilio argus Lin- naeus, 1758 —contd. Papilio machaon Linnaeus, 1758 Papilio brassicae Linnaeus, 1758 Papilio fabius Cramer, [1776| Papilio malvae Linnaeus, 1758 or Papilio alceae Esper, [1780] Gif the Inter- national Commis- sion, acting under Opinion 168, so designated the type) 147 Effect on current nomenclatorial practice of accepting names in column (1) as from the Tentamen (3) replace Lycaeides Htb- ner, [1819], of which the same species is the type. Princeps Hubner, [1806], would have been an ob- jective synonym of Papi- lio Linnaeus, 1758, of which also Papilio machaon Linnaeus, 1758, is the type. Mancipium Hubner, [1806], would have been an objective synonym of Pieris Schrank, 1801, of which also Papilio bras- sicae Linnaeus, 1758, is the type. No change in nomen- clature would have been caused if Consul Hubner, [1806], had been a valid name, for Consul Hubner [1806] would merely have replaced Consul Hubner, [1807], of which also Papilio fabius Cramer [1776], is the type. If Papilio malvae_ Lin- naeus, 1758, were the type of Urbanus Hubner, [1806], that name would replace Pyrgus Hubner, [1819], of which the same species is the type. ~ If Papilio alceae Esper, [1780], were to be de- clared to the the type of Urbanus Hiibner, [1806], that name would replace Carcharodus Hibner, [1819], of which the same species is the type. 148 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS The evidence summarised above makes it possible for us to see that a decision by the International Commission to use its Plenary Powers to make available the thirteen generic names first used in the Tentamen would have the following results :— Effect of making names available, No. of if not otherwise invalid, either Tentamen names names objectively or subjectively concerned (1) 1 name already available would be- Consul Hiibner come available from an earlier date with the same species as type (2) 3 names would be invalid, because Mancipium Hiibner they would become objective syno- Princeps Hiibner nyms of older generic names, having. Rusticus Hubner the same species as type (3) 2 names would become subjective Mamadryas Hiibner synonyms of older generic names Limnas Hubner (4) 1 name would become the oldest name Dryas Hiibner for genus concerned, but would be invalid, because the name which would become the younger synonym has already been validated by the International Commission under its Plenary Powers (5) 3 names would become subjectively Lemonias Hubner identical with, and would replace, Oreas Huibner later names in common use Urbanus Hubner (6) 3. names would become objectively Najas Hubner identical with, and would replace Nereis Hiibner names in universal use, having the Potamis Hubner same species as types 13 The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature are authorised (Declaration 5) to use its Plenary Powers to suspend the Régles only in those cases where it is satisfied that the strict application of the Régles would clearly result in greater confusion than uniformity. When we apply this criterion to the thirteen names listed in the preceding paragraph, we find that there is not even the faintest prima facie case in favour of the use of the Commission’s Plenary Powers. The use of the Commission’s Plenary Powers to make available as from the Tentamen any of the six names comprised in Classes (1) to (3) in the table given in the preceding paragraph would be utterly pointless and therefore improper, for the name in Class (1) is already available in the same sense as from a slightly later date, while the five names comprised in Classes (2) and (3) are all synonyms (either objective or subjective) of older generic names. Under the OPINION 278 149 Commission’s existing Powers, the name in Class (4) could not be rendered available as from the Tentamen, for this would involve the reversal of an Opinion (Opinion 161) rendered under the Plenary Powers, a reversal which the Commission have no power to make. When we turn to the six names in Classes (5) and (6), we find that in every case a decision to use the Plenary Powers to render these names available as from the Tentamen would result in the overturning of later generic names now in common use. Clearly, no one could argue in such a case that there were any grounds for the use of the Commission’s Plenary Powers to make these names available, for such action, far from preserving names, the suppression of which might lead to greater confusion than uniformity, would itself actually lead to the suppression of names in common use. Whatever therefore may be the case in favour of the use by the Commission of its Plenary Powers to make available as from the Tentamen some of the generic names used for the moths in that leaflet, it is perfectly clear that there is no case whatever for the use of those powers as regards any of the generic names used there for the butterflies. This being so, it would be of great advantage if the Inter- national Commission were at once to dispose of that portion of the application which relates to the names used by Hubner in the Tentamen for the butterfly genera by rendering an Opinion rejecting that applica- tion in so far as it relates to those names. Such an Opinion would in no way prejudice the consideration at a later date of the portion of the application relating to the names used for the moths by Hubner in the Tentamen. Indeed, such an Opinion would facilitate the consideration of the portion of the application which relates to the names of those genera, for it would show the nature of the evidence required by the Commission and the criteria regarded by the Commission as relevant in weighing that evidence. For a number of years past the International Commission has acted on the principle that, where its Plenary Powers are used to validate a generic name, that name should at the same time be placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. This principle, which is clearly sound, is equally applicable where the Commission rejects an application to use its Plenary Powers to validate a given generic name, for to place on the Official List the name which under the Reégles is the oldest available name for the genus concerned represents the most effective way of recording the view of the Com- mission that that name and no other should be used for that genus. I desire, therefore, to recommend that in the Opinion rejecting the application for the use of the Plenary Powers for the names used by Hubner in the Tentamen for the genera there recognised for the butterflies, the Commission should place on the Official List the names which are in fact available under the Régles for the genera in question, in so far as those names have not already been so placed or proposals for such treatment are not already before the Commission. 150 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS Of the thirteen genera of butterflies recognised by Hiibner in the Tentamen, the correct name of one has been determined by the Commission under its Plenary Powers as Argynnis Fabricius, 1807 (type: Papilio paphia Linnaeus, 1758). The Tentamen name con- cerned is Dryas Hibner, of which also Papilio paphia Linnaeus would have been the type. The name Argynnis Fabricius was placed on the Official List by the Commission in Opinion 161. No further action is therefore called for in regard to this name. In the case of another genus, of which the type is Papilio iris Linnaeus, 1758, an application has already been submitted to the International Commission for the addition to the Official List of the oldest available name for the genus, namely Apatura Fabricius, 1807 (see Hemming, 1947, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 1 : 269). The name used by Hiibner in the Tentamen for this genus is Potamis Hiibner. In view of the application already submitted, no further recommendation is called for in regard to the name of this genus’. if therefore we leave on one side the two names discussed above, we are left with the names of eleven genera, none of which has been placed on the Official List but each of which is available nomen- clatorially and is the oldest available name for one of the genera which would have been established by Hiibner in the Tentamen, if that leaflet could have been deemed to have been published within the meaning of Article 25 of the Régles. I accordingly recommend that the names of these eleven genera should now be placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology, with the type species which have been duly designated therefor in accordance with the Rules prescribed in Article 30 of the Régles. The names in question, with their types, are as follows :— Name of genus Type species Method by which type designated Aulocera Butler, Satyrus brahminus Type selected by Butler in 1867, Ent. mon. Blanchard, 1844, February 1868, Ent. mon. Mag. 4: 121 in Jacquemont, Mag. 4 : 194 (and also Voy. Inde 4:22 © slightly later in 1868, Cat. diurn. Lep. Satyridae B.M. : 49) Consul Hibner, Papilio fabius Monotypical [1807], Samml. Cramer, [1776], exot. Schmett. Uitl. Kapellen1 1: pl. [148] (8) : 141 Danaus Kluk, Papilio plexippus Type selected by Hemming, 1802, Zwierz. Linnaeus, 1758, 1933, Entomologist 66 : 222 Hist: Nab. POCZ a SVSt Nat. cea. gospod. 4 : 84 10) 1 : 471 3 The generic name Apatura Fabricius, 1807, has since been placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology by Opinion 232 (1954, Ops. Decls. int. Comm. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 249—274). Name of genus Euphydryas Scud- der, 1872, 4th Ann. Rep. Pea- body Acad. Sci. 1871 : 48 Limenitis Fabri- cius, 1807, Mag. f. Insektenk. (Illiger) 6 : 281 Mechanitis Fab- BLCI WS, 1807, Mag. f. Insek- tenk. (illiger) 6 : 284 Nymphalis Kluk, PSO2. Zwierz. Hist. nat. pocz. gospod. 4 : 86 Papilio Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1: 458 Pieris Schrank, 1801, Faun. boic. Pech 2 152, 161 Plebejus Kluk, 1802, Zwierz. Hist. nat. pocz. gospod. 4 : 89 Pyrgus Hubner, prst9], Verz. bekannt. senmett. (7) : 109 OPINION 278 Type species Papilio phaeton Pemey.. (1773; Ht nat. Hist.1 : index & 42 Papilio populi Exnnaeus., 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 476 Papilio polymnia Linnaeus, 1758, Spst.eNat. (ed. 10) : 466 Papilio poly- chloros Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. Ced-elO)) 1477 Papilio machaon Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nato (ed. 10) 1 : 462 Papilio brassicae innacus, 1758; Syst Wat. (ed: 10) 1 : 467 Papilio arcus Linnaeus, 1758, Systa Nat: (ed. 10) 1 : 483 Papilio alveolus Hubner, [1800— 1803], Samml. europ. Schmett. : pl. Pap. 92 figs. 466—467 (= Papilio malvae Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1. : 485) 151 Method by which type designated Type designated by Scudder in 1872 in original des- cription Dalman, Handl. Type selected by ISIG:. ke "Ver “Ac: 1816 (1) : 55 Type selected by Scudder, 1875, Proc. Amer. Acad. Arts Sci., Boston 10 : 212 Type selected by Hemming, 1933, Entomologist 66 : 223 Type selected by Latreille, 1810, Consid. gén. Anim. Crust. Arachs lnss +440 (Opinion 11, as ampli- fied by Opinion 136) Type selected by Latreille, 1810, Consid. gén. Anim. Crust=Arach. Ins: =440 (Opinion 11) Type selected by Hemming, 1933, Entomologist 66 : 224 Type selected by Westwood, 1841, in Humphreys & Westwood, Brit. Butt. Transformations (ed. 1) : 120 152 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS ANNEX On the identity of the species cited by Hubner under the thirteen genera of butterflies recognised by him in the ‘‘ Tentamen ”’ Nereis polymnia The insect referred to by Hiibner in the Tentamen as “‘ Nereis Polymnia’”’ is, no doubt, Papilio polymnia Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 466, for the same species was figured by Hiibner under the name Nereis fulva Polymnia on plate [7] of volume 1 of his Sammlung exotischer Schmetterlinge. This plate of the Sammlung I have shown (Hemming, 1937, Hiibner 1 : 401) was published in the year 1806 between some date in August and iS5th November. Papilio polymnia Linnaeus, 1758, is the type of Mechanitis Fabricius, 1807, Mag. f. Insektenk. (illiger) 6 : 284 (Hemming, 1934, Gen. Names hol. Butts. 1 : 27). The generic name Mechanitis Fabricius, 1807, has been in use for many years and is extremely well-known. No one could possibly argue that the stability of nomenclature would be promoted by the Suppression of this generic name in favour of the totally unknown name Nereis. Limnas chrysippus The insect referred to by Hiibner in the Tentamen as “ Limnas Chrysippus’”’ 1s, no doubt, Papilio chrysippus Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1: 471, for the same species was figured by Hubner under the name Limnas feruginea [sic] Chrysippus on plate [22] of volume 1 of the Sammlung exotischer Schmetterlinge. This plate was published in 1809 between 10th April and 31st December (Hemming, 1937, Hiibner 1 : 401). Papilio chrysippus Linnaeus, 1758, is regarded by all lepidopterists as congeneric with Papilio plexippus Linnaeus, 1758. As the latter species is the type of Danaus Kluk, 1802, Zwierz. Hist. nat. pocz. gospod. 4:84 (Hemming, 1934, Gen. Names hol. Butts. 1 : 22), the name Limnas, even if the Tentamen were a valid publication or were to be validated as such, would still be a name that was not required, for it would be a subjective synonym of Danaus Kluk, 1802 (published four years earlier than the date (1806) on which the Tentamen is believed to have been printed). Lemonias maturna The insect which Hiibner thought that he was referring to in the Tentamen under the name ‘‘ Lemonias Maturna’’? was, no doubt, Papilio maturna Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1: 480. This well-known Palaearctic species was never correctly identified by Hiibner, by whom it was misidentified with Papilio cynthia [Denis and OPINION 278 153 Schiffermiiller], 1775 (and figured as such in 1799—1800, Sammi. europ. Schmett. : pl. Pap. 1, figs. 1, 2), the true Papilio cynthia appearing on the same plate (fig. 3) as Papilio mysia (which was the first appearance of this name). Later, however, in 1805 (Sammi. europ. Schmett. (Ziefer) : 5) Hiibner applied the name Papilio mysia to the insect figured by him as Papilio cynthia in figs. | and 2 on plate Pap. 1, i.e., he then applied the name Papilio mysia to the true Papilio maturna Linnaeus. On the same page (: 5) Hubner applied the name Papilio maturna to the insect which he had figured under that name as figs. 598—601 on plate Pap. 117, a plate which was published in the same year (1805) (Hemming, 1937, Hubner, 1 : 230). The insect on this occasion identified by Htibner as Papilio maturna was in fact not that species but the allied Papilio iduna Dalman, 1816, K. Vet. Acad. Handl. 1816 (No. 1) : 75. Only once again did Hiibner use the name Papilio maturna, this time for figs. 807—808 on pl. Pap. 162, published between December 1823 and December 1824 (Hemming, 1937, Hiibner 1 : 234). The species then figured under this name was again Papilio iduna Dalman. In these circumstances it may be regarded as certain that, when Hubner inscribed the words “ Lemonias Maturna”’ in the Tentamen, the species which he had in mind was not Papilio maturna Linnaeus, 1758 (a species which at no time in his life did Hiibner correctly identify) but Papilio iduna Dalman, 1816. If the Tentamen were a work the names in which were valid or had been validated by the International Commission under its Plenary Powers, the genus Lemonias Hubner of the Tentamen would be a genus based upon a misidentified type species. It would not be possible to state with absolute certainty what was the species which Hiibner had in mind when he placed “‘ maturna”’ in his genus “* Lemonias’’ but it is (for the reasons given above) almost certain that it was Papilio iduna Dalman. Before the genus Lemonias Hubner could become determinate, it would in those circumstances be necessary to obtain from the International Commission an Opinion determining the type of this genus in the manner laid down in Opinion 168 for determining the types of genera in such cases?. Both the true Papilio maturna Linnaeus, 1758 (which Hubner certainly was not referring to when he wrote of Lemonias maturna) and Papilio iduna Dalman, 1816 (which Hiibner almost certainly was referring to when he wrote of Lemonias maturna) are regarded as congeneric with Papilio phaeton Drury, [1773], I//. nat. Hist. 1 : index and 42, the type of the well-known Nearctic and Palaearctic genus Euphydryas Scudder, 1872, 4th Ann. Rep. Peabody Acad. Sci. 1871 : 48. The suppression of Euphydryas Scudder in this way in favour of Lemonias Hiibner of the Tentamen would not only be very objectionable in itself but it would also be calculated to create great confusion, for 4 The ruling given in Opinion 168 was expanded by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948 and, so revised, was then incorporated into the Régles (see 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 158—159). 154 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS the name Lemonias was in the past widely used as a name for a Neotropical genus of the family RIODINIDAE and even for a time formed the stem of the family name LEMONIIDAE (a synonym of RIODINIDAE) (e.g., in Kirby, 1871, Syn. Cat. diurn. Lep. : 282—334). Dryas paphia The species referred to by Hubner as ~ Dryas paphia’ imate Tentamen was undoubtedly Papilio paphia Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1: 481. This species is the type of Argynnis Fabricius, 1807, Mag. f. Insektenk (iliger) 6 : 283. The generic name Argynnis Fabricius, 1807, is such a well-known and important genus in the family NYMPHALIDAE that in 1934 a special application was made to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to protect this name from the risk of being superseded by the little used name Argyreus Scopoli, 1777. This application was approved by the International Commission which in 1935 decided to use its Plenary Powers to validate the name Argynnis Fabricius, 1807 (type: Papilio paphia Linnaeus, 1758). The name so validated was thereupon placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology as Name No. 609. The Commission’s decision in this case was subsequently embodied in Opinion 161 (1945, Opinions and Declarations rendered by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 2 : 307—318). The position is therefore that, even if the name Dryas were available as from 1806, the date of Hiibner’s Tentamen, it would still not be a name which could be used for Papilio paphia Linnaeus, 1758, because of the special action taken by the International Commission to validate the name Argynnis Fabricius, 1807, of which also that species is the type. Hamadryas Jo The insect referred to by Hubner in the Tentamen as ‘‘ Hamadryas Jo” is, no doubt, Papilio io Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 472, for at the time when the Tentamen was prepared, that was the only species of butterfly to which the specific trivial name io had been given. This common European species was, of course, well-known to Hiibner by whom it had been figured six years earlier as Papilio io [1799—1800], Sammi. europ. Schmett. : pl. Pap. 16 figs. 77, 78. Papilio io Linnaeus is not the type of a genus and, being commonly regarded as congeneric with Papilio polychloros Linnaeus, 1758, is referred to the genus Nymphalis Kluk, 1802, Zwierz. Hist. nat. pocz. gospod. 4: 86. Thus even if the Tentamen were a valid publication and if in consequence there were a genus possessing the valid name Hamadryas Hubner, 1806, and having Papilio io Linnaeus, 1758, as its OPINION 278 155 type by monotypy, the name Hamadryas Hiibner, 1806, would not be required, for it would be a subjective synonym of Nymphalis Kluk, 1802. Najas Populi The insect referred to by Hubner in the Tentamen as ** Najas Populi ”’ is, no doubt, the well-known Palaearctic species Papilio populi Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 476, for at the time when the Tentamen was prepared, that was the only species of butterfly to which the specific trivial name populi had been given. This species was known to Hubner, for he had already figured it, as Papilio populi, by the time that he drew up the Tentamen (Hubner, [1799—1800], Sammi. europ. Schmett. : pl. Pap. 23 figs. 108—110). Papilio populi Linnaeus, 1758, is the type of Limenitis Fabricius, 1807, Mag. f. Insektenk. (illiger) 6 : 281 (Hemming, 1934, Gen. Names hol. Butt. 1 : 88). The generic name Limenitis Fabricius, 1807, has been in use for many years and is extremely well known. No one could possibly argue that the stability of nomenclature would be promoted by the suppression of this generic name in favour of the name Najas Hiibner as used in the Tentamen. Potamis [ris The insect referred to by Hibner in the Tentamen as “ Potamis Iris”’ is, no doubt, the well-known Palaearctic species Papilio iris Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 476, for at the time when the Tentamen was prepared, that was the only species of butterfly to which the specific trivial name iris had been given. This species was known to Hubner, for he had already figured it, as Papilio iris (Hubner, [1799—1800], Sammi. europ. Schmett. : pl. Pap. 25 figs. 177, 118), by the time that he drew up the Tentamen. Papilio iris Linnaeus, 1758, is the type of Apatura Fabricius, 1807, Mag. f. Insektenk. (Illiger) 6 : 280 (Hemming, 1934, Gen. Names hol. Butt. 1 : 76—77). The generic name Apatura Fabricius, 1807, has been in use for many years and is extremely well known. No one could possibly argue that the stability of nomenclature would be promoted by the suppression of this generic name in favour of the name Pofamis is used in the Tentamen. Oreas Proserpina The insect referred to by Hiibner in the Tentamen as “ Oreas Proserpina’’ is, no doubt, the well-known European species Papilio proserpina {Denis and Schiffermiiller], 1775, Schmet. Wien : 155, 156 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 169 pl. la fig. 9, pl. 1b figs. 9a, 9b, for at the time when the Tentamen was prepared, this was the only species of butterfly to which the specific trivial name proserpina had been given. This species was known to Hubner, for he had already figured it, as Papilio proserpina (Hubner, [1799—{800], Samml. europ. Schmett. : pl. 26 figs. 119—121), by the time that he drew up the Tentamen. By most workers who have recently examined this group of the family SATYRIDAE the species Papilio proserpina [Denis and Schifter- miller], 1775, 1s regarded as congeneric with Satyrus brahminus Blanchard, 1844, in Jacquemont, Voy, Inde 4 (Zool.) : 22 pl. 2 fig. 44 [nec 5, 6], the type of Aulocera Butler, 1867, Ent. mon. Mag. 4 : 121. No. great inconvenience—and certainly no confusion—would result from the substitution of the generic name Oreas for that of Aulocera, if that were necessary under the Rég/es. On the other hand there could be no possible case for inviting the International Com- mission on Zoological Nomenclature to use its Plenary Powers for the purpose of validating the name Oreas as from the-7entamen, for (as shown above) such action would not serve to prevent confusion through the suppression of a well-known name as the result of the strict application of the Régles but would on the contrary merely suppress an established name (Aulocera Butler) in favour of a name (Oreas Hiibner) not now in use at all. Rusticus Argus At the time when Hiibner drew up the Tentamen, only one species of butterfly had received the specific trivial name argus, namely Papilio argus Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 483. There is no doubt at all that, when in the Tentamen Hubner placed the species “‘ argus ”’ in the genus “‘ Rusticus”’, the species which he regarded himself as placing in that genus was Papilio argus Linnaeus, 1758. Equally, however, there is no doubt that, in so acting, Hiibner misapplied the specific trivial name argus Linnaeus, owing to his having failed to identity that species correctly. For already before the Tentamen was drawn up, Hubner had applied the specific name Papilio argus {1799— 1800], Sammi. europ. Schmett. : pl. Pap. 64 figs. 316—318) to a super- ficially similar species, of which the oldest (but not the oldest available) name is Papilio idas Linnaeus, 1761, Faun. svec. (ed. 2) : 384. The same misidentification was made by Hubner in 1819 in his celebrated Verz. bekannt. Schmett. on page 69, where (under No. 670) he again applied the trivial name argus to the above species and (as oreviously on figs. 313—315 on pl. 64 of the Sammi. europ. Schmett.) applied the name Papilio aegon [Denis and Schiffermiller], 1775, Schmett. Wien : 182 to the species to which in fact Linnaeus had given the name Papilio argus in 1758. The position is therefore that, if the generic name Rusticus were available as from the Tentamen, the genus Rusticus so established OPINION 278 Lo would be a genus based upon an erroneously determined type species. The status of a generic name having such a type has been dealt with by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature in Opinion 65 and more recently in greater detail in Opinion 168, where it has been laid down (1) that in the first instance it is to be assumed that an author establishing a new genus has correctly identified the species which he places in it but (2) that, where there appear to be prima facie grounds for believing that an error of identification has been made, the case is to be submitted to the International Commission for decision®. If therefore the name Rusticus were available as a generic name as from the Tentamen, it would be necessary to assume that its type (by monotypy) was the species to which the name Papilio argus was given by Linnaeus in 1758. In that event, the generic name Rusticus would be an objective synonym of Plebejus Kluk, 1802, Zwierz. Hist. nat. pocz. gospod. 4 : 89, of which the same species is the type. In view of the fact that the name Rusticus (as of the Tentamen) is not in use, there would clearly be no case for asking the International Commission to use its Plenary Powers to designate as the type of the genus the species intended by Hubner, for such action, if taken, would not only not eliminate confusion but would actually be harmful, since it would substitute the (at present) not recognised name Rusticus for the name Lycaeides Hubner, [1819], Verz. bekannt. Schmett. (5) : 69 (the type of which has been fixed by Opinion 169° as Papilio argyrognomon Bergstrasser, 1779, Nomencl. Ins.2 : 76), a generic name now universally used for this group of species. Princeps Machaon The insect referred to by Hubner in the Jentamen as “ Princeps Machaon”’ is, without doubt, the well-known Holarctic species Papilio machaon Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 462, for at the time when the Tentamen was prepared, that was the only species of butterfly to which the specific trivial name machaon had been given. This common European species was well-known to Hiibner by whom, prior to the preparation of the Tentamen, it had already been figured as Papilio machaon (Hubner, [1799—1800], Samml. europ. Schmett. : pl. Pap. 77 figs. 390, 391). Papilio machaon Linnaeus, 1758, is the type of Papilio Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 458 (Hemming, 1934, Gen. Names hol. Butt.1: 145—146). If, therefore, the name Princeps were available as from the Tentamen, it would be no more than an objective synonym of Papilio Linnaeus, 1758. Mancipium Brassicae The insect referred to by Hiibner in the Tentamen as ** Mancipium Brassicae’’ is no doubt the common Palaearctic species Papilio brassicae Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 467, for at the time > See footnote 4. € See 1945, Ops. Decls. int. Comm. zool. Nomencl. 2 : 431—442. 158 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS when the Tentamen was prepared, that was the only species of butterfly to which the specific trivial name brassicae had been given. This common European species was, of course, well-known to Hubner, by whom, prior to the preparation of the Tentamen, it had already been figured as Papilio brassicae (Hiibner, [1799—1800], Samml. europ. Schmett. : pl. Pap. 80 figs. 401—403). ) Papilio brassicae Linnaeus, 1758, is the type of Pieris Schrank, 1801, Faun. boic. 2 (1) : 152, 161 (Hemming, 1934, Gen. Names hol. Butt. 1: 128). If therefore the name Mancipium were available as from the Tentamen, it would be no more than an objective synonym of Pieris Schrank, 1801. Consul Fabius The insect referred to by Hiibner in the Tentamen as “ Consul Fabius”’ is without doubt, the Neotropical species Papilio fabius Cramer, [1776], Uitl. Kapellen 1 (8): 141. This species was known to Hubner, by whom in the early part of 1807 it was figured as Consul fabius ({1807], Samml. exot. Schmett. 1 : pl. [148]). Papilio fabius Cramer is the type (by monotypy) of the genus Consul Hubner, [1807], Samml. exot. Schmett. 1 : pl. [148], it having been the sole species assigned to that genus on the plate referred to above. If therefore the name Consul were available as from the Tentamen, there would be no change in the existing name of this genus but it would be necessary to refer the name Consul not (as at present) to the Sammi. exot. Schmett. but to the slightly older Tentamen. In these circumstances there would clearly be no case for asking the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to use its Plenary Powers to validate the name Consul as from the Tentamen, for (as shown above) it is already available under the Rég/es in exactly the same sense as that in which it was used in the Tentamen. Urbanus Malvae At the time when Hubner drew up the Tentamen, only one species of butterfly had received the specific trivial name malvae, namely Papilio malvae Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1: 485. There is no doubt at all that, when in the Tentamen Hibner placed the species ‘““ malvae’’ in the genus “* Urbanus’’, the species which he regarded himself as placing in that genus was Papilio malvae Linnaeus, 1758. Equally, however, there is no doubt that, in so acting, Hiibner misapplied the specific trivial name malvae Linnaeus, owing to his having failed to identify that species correctly. The identity of the true Papilio malvae Linnaeus has been discussed at length in the Commis- sion’s Opinion 181’ and it is only necessary here to note that, prior to the preparation of the Tentamen, Hiibner gave the new name Papilio ? See 1947, Ops. Decls. int. Comm. zool. Nomencl. 2 : 589—612. OPINION 278 159 alveolus Hiibner, [1800—1803], Sammi. europ. Schmett. : pl. Pap. 92 figs. 466—467 to the true Papilio malvae of Linnaeus and misapplied the name Papilio malvae Linnaeus by using it for the species of which the oldest available name is Papilio alceae Esper, [1780], Die Schmett. 1 (Bd. 2) Forts. Tagschmett. : 4 pl. 61 fig. 3. If the name Urbanus were available as from the Tentamen, it (like Rusticus discussed above) would be the name of a genus based upon a misidentified genotype. For the reasons explained under Rusticus, it would be necessary to assume in the first instance that Hubner had correctly identified the type of Urbanus and accordingly to treat the true Papilio malvae of Linnaeus as the type of this genus. In that event the name Urbanus (as of the Tentamen) would have priority over, and would replace, the well-known name Pyrgus Hubner, [1819], Verz. bekannt. Schmett. (7): 109, of which the type is Papilio alveolus Hiibner, [1800—1803] (which, as explained above, is a subjective synonym of Papilio malvae Linnaeus, 1758). There could clearly be no possible case for asking the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to use its Plenary Powers for the purpose of validating the name Urbanus (as of the Tentamen) and thereby suppressing as a synonym the well-known and commonly used name Pyrgus Hiibner, [1819]. Nor could there be any justification for combining a request for the validation of Urbanus (as of the Tentamen) with a request that its type should be fixed as the species which Hubner had in mind when in the Jentamen he made the entry “* Urbanus Malvae’’, for the effect of granting such a request would merely to be to substitute the name Urbanus (as of the Tentamen) for well-known and universally used name Carcharodus Hubner, [1819], Verz. bekannt. Schmett. (7) : 110, the type of which is the same species as that which would then become the type of Urbanus (i.e., Papilio alceae Esper, [1780]). Il.—THE SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF THE CASE 3. Registration of the present application: Immediately upon the receipt of the present application, the problem of the stabilisation of the names of genera in the Sub-Order Rhopalocera involved in Hiibner’s Tentamen was allotted the Registered Number Z.N.(S.)314. 4. Arrangements made for the stabilisation of the names of genera of the Sub-Order Heterocera on lines similar to those proposed in the present application for names of genera of the 160 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS Sub-Order Rhopalocera: Since Hibner’s Tentamen involved the names of genera of the Sub-Order Heterocera as well as those of genera of the Sub-Order Rhopalocera, Mr. Hemming’s application relating to the latter Sub-Order would not suffice to dispose of the problems raised in Httbner’s Tentamen, unless supplemented by a corresponding application regarding the names involved in the Sub-Order Heterocera. An approach was accordingly made by the Secretary to Mr. John G. Franclemont, to whom copies of both of Mr. Hemming’s papers (i.e., the papers repro- duced respectively in paragraphs 1 and 2 of the present Opinion) were communicated in view of his known interest in this subject (paragraph 1 above). Later, Dr. Franclemont replied that, in response to the appeal contained in the first of these papers, he was then engaged in examining the Tentamen with a view to submitting proposals in regard to the names of genera of the Heterocera involved®. 5. Submission to the Commission in Paris of proposals for the clarification of the Ruling regarding the status of MHiibner’s ** Tentamen’”’ given in the Commission’s “ Opinion’? 97: At a meeting held during its Paris Session on the morning of Thursday, 22nd July 1948, the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature agreed to submit to the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology a recommendation that there should be added to the Régles a Schedule in which should be recorded particulars of all decisions taken by the International Commission under its Plenary Powers (Paris Session, 4th Meeting, Conclusion 3 (3) (a) Gi)) (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4:65). Later, the International Commission—at a meeting held on the evening of Friday, 23rd July 1948—agreed to supplement the foregoing recommendation by a proposal that there should be added to the Régles a further Schedule in which should be inscribed par- ticulars of interpretative decisions taken by the International Commission as to the availability of individual books or individual names without resort to its Plenary Powers (Paris Session, 9th Meeting, Conclusion 31) (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 8 Dr. Franclemont’s application regarding the names of genera in the Sub- Order Heterocera involved in Hiibner’s Tentamen was received on 4th June 1952 when it was allotted the Registered Number Z.N.(S.)684. It is hoped that it will be possible to publish this application in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature at an early date. OPINION 278 161 4:261). Prior to the consideration by the International Com- mission of the foregoing proposals, it had been recognised that their adoption would probably call for the clarification of the decisions given in some of the older Opinions, the wording of which was unsuitable for incorporation in a Schedule annexed to the Régles. The Secretary to the Commission had accordingly already made a study of the older Opinions with a view to the submission to the Commission of proposals on this subject in sufficient time to permit of decisions being taken by the Com- mission before the close of its Paris Session. One of the Opinions which clearly called for consideration from the foregoing point of view was Opinion 97 relating to the status of Hiibner’s Tentamen. The Secretary’s proposals for the clarification of the Rulings given in certain of the older Opinions prior to their incorporation in a Schedule to the Rég/es were submitted to the International Commission on 24th July 1948 in Paper I.C.(48)17. This document was later published as part of the historical record of the Proceedings of the International Commission at its Paris Session (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 3 : 121—130). The proposals on the foregoing question were included as Point (90) ( : 127—129) in the paper referred to above. The passage relating to Opinion 96 was as follows :— Sr OGG), OL, G 6S). Ol, 6) Oe 84'S). 0. 6 10 Ke" ee 1e1.e se) ©..6 6) © ee Hubner’s Tentamen : It would be impossible to include in the Third Schedule the tortuous and evasive statement given in the “* Summary ”’ of this Opinion. It is proposed therefore clearly to state that Hiibner’s Tentamen was not published within the meaning of Article 25 and that therefore the new names in it have no availability as from the date (1806) on which this sheet was distributed by its author. (The decision in this Opinion is agreeable now to the vast majority of specialists, there now being only a minute handful who support the Tentamen and these only in respect of a few of the names included in it.) Op Oy Oh C2041 97 O10) 16 181 67,18), 0) 0) Oe) 8 8 6) C6 8 (a> eel .0) @ oe 6. Clarification by the Commission in Paris of the Ruling in regard to the status of Hiibner’s *‘ Tentamen”’: The Secretary’s Paper I.C.(48)17, from which the foregoing passage has been extracted, was considered by the Commission at a meeting held on Monday, 26th July 1948 at 1445 hours. The following is an 162 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS extract from the Official Record of the Proceedings of the Inter- national Commission setting out the decision reached by it in regard to Opinion 97 at the foregoing meeting (Paris Session, 12th Meeting, Conclusion 22) (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4: 337—338) :— THE COMMISSION agreed :— Oe: 0. rye; Se) “Fe iinie) Ven i.e, fe: "e'Ule) Jone) eee (3) that, as regards Opinion 97 (“ Did Hibner’s Tentamen, 1806, create monotypic genera?’’), the entry to be made in the appropriate Schedule should be that this leaflet was not published within the meaning of Article 25 and therefore that the new names which appeared therein did not acquire availability as from the date on which copies of that leaflet were distributed by its author ; eo” er ie) Se. “sel Jee se: 09 en> sei) Beye) Pere Ii1l—THE DECISION OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 7. Having taken the decision set out in the immediately preceding paragraph, re-affirming and clarifying the Ruling given in Opinion 97, in which the generic names in Hubner’s Tentamen, were rejected for nomenclatorial purposes, the International Commission was in a position to deal (a) with the proposals submitted by Mr. Hemming (paragraph 1) as to the procedure to be adopted for the purpose of eliminating doubts as to the generic names properly applicable to the individual species cited OPINION 278 163 by Hubner in the Tentamen, and (b) with Mr. Hemming’s recom- mendations (paragraph 2) for the immediate determination of all outstanding questions, so far as concerned the thirteen species of the Sub-Order Rhopalocera cited in the foregoing leaflet. These matters were considered by the International Commission at the Fourteenth Meeting of its Paris Session held at the Sorbonne in the Amphitheatre Louis-Liard on Monday, 26th July 1948 at 2030 hours. The following is an extract from the Official Record of the Proceedings of the International Commission, giving a summary of the opening statement then made by the Acting President (Mr. Francis Hemming) and of the discussion which ensured (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 488—490) :— THE ACTING PRESIDENT (MR. FRANCIS HEMMING) said that at this point he desired the Commission to take into consideration the question of the names to be used for the genera cited by Jacob Hubner in 1806 in the leaflet known as the Tenta- men, having regard to the fact that Opinion 97 had ruled that the names there used for those genera were not available as from their appearance in that leaflet. This subject was dealt with in the Commission File Z.N.(S.)314, which he now invited the Com- mission to examine. It had to be admitted that the handling of this case in the past had been unfortunate, for, although an application to validate the Tentamen names under the Plenary Powers had been received before Opinion 97 had actually been published in October 1926 (as could be seen from the note appended at the end of that Opinion), no action had ever been taken in regard to that application, apart from the publication of an announcement of its receipt. Moreover, none of the papers relating to that application had been included among the documents transferred to his (the Acting President’s) custody on his election as Secretary to the Commission. On learning from Mr. N. D. Riley (British Museum (Natural History), London) in 1947 that Professor Wm. T. M. Forbes (Cornell University, Ithaca, U.S.A.) was interested in this matter, he had entered into correspondence with him about it. As a result Professor Forbes had furnished him with a copy of the petition referred to at the end of Opinion 97, from which it appeared that the date of the petition was 1926 and that its signatories had been “Wm. Schaus, August Busck, Carl Heinrich and others ”’. 164 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS Continuing, the Acting President said that, as was inevitable, the situation had been gravely prejudiced from the standpoint of the supporters of the Tentamen names by the interval of over 20 years that had elapsed since they had submitted their applica- tion, for in the meantime specialists had taken Opinion 97 as constituting a final decision against the Tentamen names. Subject. to certain possible exceptions among the generic names in the Sub-Order Heterocera, even those of the Tentamen names which, prior to the publication of Opinion 97, had enjoyed a certain currency had dropped out of use. Clearly, in these circumstances it could not be claimed for these names that there was any justi- fication for the Commission now using their Plenary Powers to validate them, for such action, far from leading to greater uni- formity, would in existing conditions merely introduce a new source of confusion. Equally it was desirable that an end should be put to the confusion created by the Tentamen controversy of a generation ago by determining which were the oldest available names under the Rég/es for each of the genera recognised by Hubner in the Tentamen (i.e. which were the oldest available names of the genera to which were referable the species cited by Hubner in the Tentamen). During his visit to the United States at the end of 1947, he (the Acting President), while in Washington, had had the benefit of a full discussion of this problem with Professor Forbes and with Dr. J. G. Franclemont and Dr. W. D. Field (Smithsonian Institution). At this conference Professor Forbes had explained that all that he now sought was that the Commission should take action under their Plenary Powers to validate such of the Tentamen names for genera of the Sub-Order Heterocera as were still in general use but which were invalidly so used, either because those names under the Reég/es (i.e. published on the first occasion subsequent to the Tentamen) properly applied to some other genus or because there existed older available names for the genera in question. The problem did not arise in the case of the Sub-Order Rhopalocera, for one Tentamen name only was employed to-day for a genus belonging to that Sub-Order and that as from a later date. He (the Acting President) had felt that there was force in the view advanced by Professor Forbes and he accordingly suggested that, in so far as either he or any other specialist in the Sub-Order Heterocera desired to see the preservation of a Tentamen name, he or they should submit applications suitably documented, to the Commission for the OPINION 278 165 use of the Plenary Powers in those cases. Professor Forbes had replied that (as was indeed the case) the generic nomenclature of the Sub-Order Heterocera was in such a state that extensive bibliographical investigations might well be required before it was possible to establish the action which would be needed in order to validate the Tentamen names in question. At this point Professor Forbes had reverted to certain discussions which he had had with Mr. N. D. Riley in 1928. For his part, Professor Forbes said, he would be satisfied with any selection of the Tentamen names which Mr. Riley might decide to place before the Commission. He (the Acting President) had then given an undertaking that any adequately documented proposal on this subject which might be received from any source would be laid before the Commission as soon as possible ; in the meantime, he would himself, as a specialist in the Sub-Order Rhopalocera, prepare for the consideration of the Commission a proposal for the addition to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology of the names of the genera properly applicable to the species of that Sub-Order cited by Hiibner in the Tentamen ; this proposal would be entirely non-controversial, for (as already noted) no Tentamen name was now in use in that Sub-Order, except one with priority from a later date. Very shortly after his return to London from the United States, he had sent (on 28th January 1948) the promised paper in draft to Dr. Franclemont, in order to make sure that that specialist had no objection of any kind to the action proposed. He (the Acting President) had not since then received any comments from Dr. Franclemont, who, he therefore concluded, saw no objection to the action proposed. In conclusion the Acting President recommended the Commis- sion to place on the Official List the oldest available names for ten of the genera in the Sub-Order Rhopalocera dealt with in the present application (the names of the remaining three genera having already been placed on the Official List), thereby settling once and for all the generic names applicable under the Rég/es to the species of that Sub-Order cited by Hubner in the Tentamen. As regards the corresponding names of genera of the Sub-Order Heterocera, he recommended that the Commission should place on record their desire that the earliest available names for the genera in question should also be placed on the Official List with as little further delay as possible (thereby putting an end to discussion as to the names applicable under the Rég/es to the 166 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS genera of which the species so cited by Hubner were severally the type species) and that they should add a further declaration stating their willingness to give sympathetic consideration to any application for the use of the Plenary Powers to validate any generic name in the Sub-Order Heterocera that had originally appeared in the Tentamen, where it could be shown that the name in question was in general use, that confusion would ensue if, under the Rég/es, the name in use had to be changed, but that such change was inevitable, unless the Commission, by using their Plenary Powers, rendered such a change unnecessary. IN DISCUSSION the view was generally expressed that it was desirable to lay the ghost of this old controversy by placing on the Official List the names of the genera which, under the Régles, were properly applicable to the species cited by Hubner in the Tentamen, exceptions being made in favour of Tentamen names where it could be shown that otherwise confusion was to be expected. The proposals submitted by the Acting President were calculated to secure this end and should therefore be accepted. 8. The decision reached by the International Commission in the present case is set out in the following extract from the Official Record of its Proceedings at the foregoing meeting (Paris Session, 14th Meeting, Conclusion 26) (1950, Bui/. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 488—496) :— THE COMMISSION :— (1) agreed to take steps with as little further delay as possible to eliminate doubts regarding the generic names properly applicable to the 102 species of the Order Lepidoptera (Class Insecta) for which new generic names would have been provided in the leaflet entitled OPINION 278 167 the Tentamen, which had been distributed to corre- spondents by Jacob Hubner in 1806, if it had not been for the fact that the names which appeared in that leaflet had been ruled to be unavailable for nomenclatorial purposes under Opinion 97, which, as agreed upon at the meeting noted in the margin”, was, after clarification, now to be incorporated in the Schedule to the Reégles in which all such decisions were now to be recorded ; (2) agreed that the object specified in (1) above could best be secured by placing the generic names concerned on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ; (3) took note :— (a) that, so far as concerned the Sub-Order Rhopalo- cera, no generic names which had originally appeared in the Jentamen were now in use in the sense in which they had been applied in that leaflet with the exception of one name which now ranked for priority from a later date, that there was no difference of opinion among specialists regarding the generic names which, under the Regles, were properly applicable to the genera in question, and therefore that the way was now clear for placing on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the names of the 13 genera in question, in so far as this had not already been done ; (b) that, as regards the Sub-Order Heterocera, the present state of knowledge regarding the literature was not sufficient to make it possible, without further investigation by specialists, to determine what were the generic names properly applicable under the Rég/les to the species of that Sub-Order cited by Hibner in the Tentamen under generic names which, for the reason specified in (1) above were not available under the Rég/es as from the date of their appearance in that leaflet, and that, in consequence it was not at present possible to determine what were the generic names in this ® The decision here referred to has been reproduced in paragraph 6 of the present Opinion. 168 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS Sub-Order which should be placed on the One List of Generic Names in Zoology ; (4) took note :— (a) that, of the names of the 13 genera referred to in (3)(a) above, the following three names had already been placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology :— Apatura Fabricius, 1807 (the equivalent of Potamis of the Tentamen) Argynnis Fabricius, 1807 (the equivalent of Dryas of the Tentamen) Mechanitis Fabricius, 1807 (the equivalent of Nereis of the Tentamen) (b) that the names of the remaining ten genera referred to in (3)(a) above, with their Tentamen equi- valents, were as follows :— Name of Genus ** Tentamen ” equivaient of generic name cited in Col. (1) (1) (2) Aulocera Butler, Oreas 1867 (SSdtyrus brahminus Blanchard, 1844, (the type species of Aulocera Butler) being subjectively congeneric with Papilio proserpina [Schiffermiiller and Denis], 1775, which would have been the type species of Oreas of the Tentamen, if that had been an available name) Consul Hubner, Consul [1807] (which, if it had been an available name, would have had the same type species as the later name Consul Hubner [1807]) OPINION 278 169 Name of Genus ** Tentamen ”’ equivalent of generic name cited in Col. (1) (1) (2) Danaus Kluk, Limnas 1802 (Papilio plexippus Linnaeus, 1758 (the type species of Danaus Kluk) being sub- jectively congeneric with Papilio chrysippus Linnaeus, 1758, which would have been the type species of Limnas of the Tentamen, if that had been an available name) Euphydryas Lemonias Scudder, 1872 (Papilio phaeton Drury, [1773] (the type species of Euphy- dryas Scudder) being sub- jectively congeneric with Papilio maturna Linnaeus, 1758, which would have been the type species of Lemonias of the Tentamen, if that had been an available name) Limenitis Najas Fabricius, (which, if it had been an 1807 available name, would have had the same type species as Limenitis Fabricius) Nymphalis Hamadryas Kluk, 1802 (Papilio polychloros Lin- naeus, 1758 (the type species of Nymphalis Kluk) being subjectively congeneric with Papilio io Linnaeus, 1758, which would have been the type species of Hamadryas of the Tentamen, if that had been an available name) 170 Name of Genus (1) Papilio Linnaeus, 1758 Pieris Schrank, 1801 Plebejus Kluk, 1802 Pyrgus Hubner, [1819] OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS ** Tentamen ”’ equivalent of generic name cited in Col. (1) (2) Princeps | (which, if it had been an available name, would have had the same type species as Papilio Linnaeus) Mancipium (which, if it had been an available name, would have had the same type species as Pieris Schrank) Rusticus (which, if it had been an available name, would have had the same type species as Plebejus Kluk) Urbanus (which, if it had been an available name, would have had the same type species as Pyrgus Hubner) (5) agreed to place the undermentioned generic names, with the type species severally specified below, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology:— Name of genus (1) Aulocera Butler, 1867 Consul Hubner [1807] Type species of genus specified in Col. (1) (2) Satyrus brahminus Blanchard, 1844 (type species selected by Butler, 1868) Papilio fabius Cramer [1776] (type species by monotypy) OPINION 278 171 Name of Genus Type species of genus specified in Col. (1) (1) (2) Danaus Kluk, Papilio plexippus Linnaeus, 1758 1802 (type species selected by Hem- ming, 1933) Euphydryas Papilio phaeton Drury [1773] Scudder, 1872 (type species designated by Scudder, 1872) Limenitis Papilio populi Linnaeus, 1758 Fabricius, 1807 (type species selected by Dal- man, 1816) Nymphalis Kluk, Papilio polychloros Linnaeus, 1802 1758 (type species selected by Hemming, 1933) Papilio Linnaeus, Papilio machaon Linnaeus, 1758 1758 (type species selected by Latreille, 1810) Pieris Schrank, Papilio brassicae Linnaeus, 1758 1801 (type species selected by Latreille, 1810) Plebejus Kluk, Papilio argus Linnaeus, 1758, 1802 as identified in Conclusion 23 above (type species selected by Hemming, 1933) Pyrgus Hubner Papilio alveolus Hubner, [1800— [1819] 1803] [ = Papilio malvae Lin- naeus, 1758] (type species selected by Westwood, 1841) ; (6) agreed to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology the thirteen ‘‘ Tenta- men ”’ names specified in (4) above ; (7) took note that the trivial names of the type species of the undermentioned genera, the names of which had been placed on the Official List of Generic Names in 172 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS Zoology under (5) above, had already been placed on the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology :— Danaus Kluk, 1802 (type species : Papilio plexippus Linnaeus, 1758) Plebejus Kluk, 1802 (type species: Papilio argus Linnaeus, 1758) ; (8) agreed to place on the Official List of Specific Trivial _ Names in Zoology the undermentioned names, being the names of the type species of the genera placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology under (5) above, other than the genera specified in (6) above, save that in the case of the type species of the genus Pyrgus Hubner [1819], the trivial name now placed on the Official List is not the trivial name of the type species of that genus but is the trivial name of the nominal species subjectively identified with that species which has the oldest trivial name :— brahminus Blanchard, 1844, as published in the binominal combination Satyrus brahminus brassicae Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the bi- nominal combination Papilio brassicae fabius Cramer [1776], as published in the binominal combination Papilio fabius machaon Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the bi- nominal combination Papilio machaon malvae Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binominal combination Papilio malvae, as identified in (5) above phaeton Drury [1773], as published in the binominal combination Papilio phaeton polychloros Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binominal combination Papilio polychloros populi Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binominal combination Papilio populi ; (9) with reference to (1), (2) and (3) (b) above, agreed to invite the Secretary! to confer with specialists in the 10 For the action taken under this invitation see paragraph 4 of the present Opinion. OPINION 278 173 Sub-Order Heterocera and to submit proposals as soon as possible for the addition to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology of the names applicable to the genera for which names would have been provided as from 1806 in Hubner’s Tentamen, if the names introduced in that leaflet had been available under the Rég/es, and, with reference to that request, to place on record their readiness to use their Plenary Powers to validate, as from the Tentamen, 1806, the name for any of the genera in question where it could be shown to their satisfaction (i) that the name in question was in general use for the genus concerned, (11) that it was nevertheless not the oldest available name for the genus concerned, but (i) that confusion would ensue unless the Commission used their Plenary Powers to validate the name in question as from the foregoing date ; (10) agreed to render an Opinion recording the decisions relating to generic and specific trivial names in the Sub-Order Rhopalocera of the Order Lepidoptera (Class Insecta) specified in (5) and (7) above, and, as regards the corresponding names in the Sub-Order Heterocera of the foregoing Order, to invite the Secretary to the Commission to bring to the urgent attention of specialists in that Sub-Order the con- clusions recorded in (1), (2) and (3) (b) above and the request recorded 1n (8) above. 9. The following are the original references for the names which appear in the decision set out in the paragraph 8 above :— alveolus, Papilio, Hiibner, [1800—1803], Sammi. europ. Schmett. : pl. Pap. 92, figs. 466, 467 Aulocera Butler, 1867, Ent. mon. Mag. 4: 121 brahminus, Satyrus, Blanchard, 1844, in Jacquemont, Voy. Inde 4 : 22 174 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS brassicae, Papilio, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 467 Consul Hubner, [1806], Tentamen : {1] Consul Hubner, [1807], Sammi. exot. Schmett. 1 : pl. [148] Danaus Kluk, 1802, Zwierz. Hist. nat. pocz. gospod. 4 : 84 Dryas Hubner, [1806], Tentamen : [1] Euphydryas Scudder, 1872, 4th Ann. Rep. Peabody Acad. Sci. 1871 : 48 fabius, Papilio, Cramer, [1776], Uitl. Kapellen 1 (8) : 141, pl. 90, figs. C, D Hamadryas Hubner, [1806], Tentamen : [1] Lemonias Hubner, [1806], Tentamen : [1] Limenitis Fabricius, 1807, Mag. f. Insektenk. (Illiger) 6 : 281 Limnas Hubner, [1806], Tentamen : [1] machaon, Papilio, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 462 malvae, Papilio, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 485 Mancipium Hubner, [1806], Tentamen : [1] Najas Hubner, [1806], Tentamen : [1] Neréis Hubner, [1806], Tentamen : |1] Nymphalis Kluk, 1802, Zwierz. Hist. nat. pocz. gospod. 4 : 86 Oreas Hubner, [1806], Tentamen : [1] Papilio Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 4 : 458 Phaeton, Papilio, Drury, [1773], I. nat. Hist. 1: index & 42, pl. 21, figs. 3, 4° Pieris Schrank, 1801, Faun. boic. 2 (1) : 152, 161 Plebejus Kluk, 1802, Zwierz. Hist. nat. pocz. gospod. 4 : 89 populi, Papilio, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 476 polychloros, Papilio. Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 477 Potamis Hubner, [1806], Tentamen : [1] Princeps Hubner, [1806], Tentamen : [1] Pyrgus Hubner, [1819], Verz. bekannt. Schmett. (7) : 109 Rusticus Hubner, [1806], Tentamen : [1] Urbanus Hubner, [1806], Tentamen : [1] 10. The following are the references for the type selections specified in the decision set out in paragraph 8 above :—. For Danaus Kluk, 1802 : Hemming, 1933, Entomologist 66 : 222 ,, Limenitis Fabricius, 1807: Dalman, 1816, K. Vet. Ac. Handl. 1816 (1) : 55 | » Nymphalis Kluk, 1802: Hemming, 1933, Entomologist 66 : 223 OPINION 278 175 For Papilio Linnaeus, 1758: Latreille, 1810, Consid. gén. Anim. Crust. Arach. Ins. :440 (Opinion 11, as clarified by Opinion 136) ,, Pieris Schrank, 1801: Latreille, 1810, Consid. gén. Anim. Crust. Arach. Ins. : 440 (Opinion 11). ,, Plebejus Kluk, 1802 : Hemming, 1933, Entomologist 66 : 224 ,, Pyrgus Hubner, 1819: Westwood, 1841, in Humphreys & Westwood, Brit. Butts. Transformations (ed. 1) : 120 11. The genders of the following generic names, referred to in the decision quoted in paragraph 8 above, are :— Aulocera Butler, 1867—feminine Consul Hubner, [1807|—masculine Danaus Ktuk, 1802—masculine Euphydryas Scudder, 1872—feminine Limenitis Fabricius, 1807—feminine Nymphalis Kluk, 1802—masculine Papilio Linnaeus, 1758—masculine Pieris Schrank, 1801—feminine Plebejus Kluk, 1802—masculine Pyrgus Hubner, [1819|—masculine 12. The decision taken in the present case was reported to, and approved by, the Section on Nomenclature of the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948, at its Sixth Meeting held on Monday, 26th July 1948 (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 5 : 116). 13. The Ruling given in the present Opinion was concurred in by the sixteen (16) Commissioners and Alternate Commissioners present at the Paris Session of the International Commission, namely :— Beltran vice Cabrera ; Boschma ; Bradley ; di Caporiacco ; Hemming; Hindle vice Jordan; Jorge vice do Amaral ; Kirby vice Stoll; Lemche vice Dymond; Mansour vice Hank6 ; Metcalf vice Peters; Riley vice Calman; Rode ; Sparck vice Mortensen ; van Straelen vice Richter ; Usinger vice Vokes. 176 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 14. The Ruling given in the present Opinion was dissented from by no Commissioner or Alternate Commissioner present at the Paris Session. 15. At its meeting held at Copenhagen in August 1953, the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology decided to insert a provision in the Rég/es establishing an “ Official Index ”’ to be styled the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Works in Zoo- logical Nomenclature and directing the insertion therein of the title of any work which the International Commission might either reject under its Plenary Powers or declare to be invalid for the purposes of zoological nomenclature (1953, Copenhagen Decisions zool. Nomencl. : 23—24). Since the foregoing decision applies to past, as well as to future, decisions by the International Commission in cases of this kind, the opportunity presented by the preparation of the present Opinion has been taken to record ~ the insertion in the foregoing Official Index of the title of the leaflet by Jacob Hubner commonly known as the Tentamen, the full title of which is Tentamen determinationis digestionis atque denominationis singularum stirpium Lepidopterorum, peritis ad inspiciendum et dijudicandum communicatum, a Jacobo Hiibner, believed to have been distributed to correspondents in the year 1806, which was rejected for nomenclatorial purposes in the Commission’s Opinion 97, a rejection which was explicitly re-affirmed by the International Commission at Paris in 1948 (paragraph 6 of the present Opinion). 16. At the time of the adoption of the Ruling given in the present Opinion, the expression prescribed for the second portion of the binomen which constitutes the scientific name of a species was the expression “trivial name” and the Official List reserved for recording such names was styled the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology, the word “ trivial ’’ appearing also in the title of the Official Index reserved for recording rejected and invalid names of this category. Under a decision taken by the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology, Copenhagen, 1953, the expression “ specific name” was substituted for the expression “ trivial name ’’ and corresponding changes were made in the titles of the Official List and Official Index of such names (1953, Copenhagen Decisions zool. Nomencl. : 21). The changes OPINION 278 LTT in terminology so adopted have been incorporated in the Ruling given in the present Opinion. 17. The prescribed procedures were duly complied with by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature in dealing with the present case, and the present Opinion is accordingly hereby rendered in the name of the said International Commission by the under-signed Francis Hemming, Secretary to the Inter- national Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, in virtue of all and every the powers conferred upon him in that behalf. 18. The present Opinion shall be known as Opinion Two Hundred and Seventy-Eight (278) of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Done in London, this Twenty-Second day of January, Nineteen Hundred and Fifty-Four. Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature FRANCIS HEMMING oT Printed in England by MutcatFe & Cooper LimiTED, 10-24 Scrutton St., London E C2 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTER- NATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Edited by FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E. Secretary to the Commission VOLUME 6. Part 11. Pp. 179—188 OPINION 279 Rejection, as of the status of a generic name, of any term placed between the generic name and the specific name of a species in the zoological works of Linnaeus and Fabricius (J.C.) (Opinion supplementary to Opinion 124) 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 Four Shillings and Sixpence (All rights reserved) Issued Ist October, 1954 INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE COMPOSITION AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THE RULING GIVEN IN OPINION 279 A. The Officers of the Commission President : Dr. Karl Jordan, Ph.D., F.R.S. (British Museum (Natural History), Zoological Museum, Tring, Herts, England). Vice-President: Dr. James L. Peters (Museum of Comparative Zoology, Cambridge, Massachusetts, U.S.A.). Secretary : Mr. Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. (London, England). B. The Members of the Commission Class 1949 Senor Dr. Angel CABRERA (La Plata, Argentina). Mr. Francis HEMMING (London, England) (Secretary to the Commission). Dr. Karl JoRDAN (British Museum (Natural History), Zoological Museum, Tring, Herts, England) (President of the Commission). Dr. Th. MorTENSEN (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark). Dr. Joseph PEARSON (Tasmanian Museum, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia). Class 1952 Senhor Dr. Afranio do AMARAL (S. Paulo, Brazil). Professor J. Chester BRADLEY (Corneli University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.). Professor Lodovico di CAPORIACCO (University of Parma, Italy). Professor J. R. DyYMOND (University of Toronto, Canada). Dr. James L. PETERS (Museum of Comparative Zoology, Cambridge, Massachusetts, U.S.A.) (Vice-President of the Commission). Dr. Harold E. Voxes (United States Geological Survey, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.). Class 1955 Professor Dr. Hilbrand BoscHMA (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands). Dr. William Thomas CALMAN (Tayport, Fife, Scotland). Professor Teiso EsAxi (Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan). Professor Béla HANKO (University of Debrecen, Hungary). Dr. Tadeusz JACZEWSKI (Polish Zoological Museum, Warsaw, Poland). Dr. Norman R. STOLL (Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, Princeton, New Jersey, U.S.A.). C. Alternate Members of the Commission at the Session held in Paris in 1948 Professor Enrique BELTRAN (Instituto Mexicano de Recursos Naturales Renovables A.C., Mexico City, Mexico). Dr. Edward HINDLE (Zoological Society of London, London, England). Dr. Arturo Ricardo JoRGE (Museu Bocage, Lisbon, Portugal). Professor Harold Kirpy (University of California, Berkeley, California, U.S.A.). Dr. Henning LEMCHE (Kgl. Veteriner- og Landbohgjskole, Zoologisk Labora- torium, Copenhagen, Denmark). Professor Kamel MANSouR (King Fouad University, Cairo, Egypt). Professor Z. P. METCALF (North Carolina State College of Agriculture and Engineering, University of North Carolina, Raleigh, North Carolina, U.S.A.). Mr. N. D. Rivey (British Museum (Natural History), London, England). Professor Ragnar SpArcK (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark). Professor Victor van STRAELEN (Institut Royal des Sciences Naturelles de Belgique, Bruxelles, Belgium). EO ese Robert L. Ustncer (University of California, Berkeley, California, S.A.). OPINION 279 REJECTION, AS OF THE STATUS OF A SUBGENERIC NAME, OF ANY TERM PLACED BETWEEN THE GENERIC NAME AND THE SPECIFIC NAME OF A SPECIES IN THE ZOOLOGICAL WORKS OF LINNAEUS AND FABRICIUS (J.C.) (* OPINION ?? SUPPLEMENTARY TO “OPINION” 124) RULING :—(1) Where in any zoological work either Linnaeus or Fabricius (J.C.) placed a term between the generic name and the specific name of a species, the intermediate term so employed is not to be treated as having acquired the status of a subgeneric name by reason of having been published in this manner. (2) It is hereby directed that entries recording the foregoing decision are to be made in respect of Linnaeus (all works) and Fabricius (J.C.) (all works) both in the Official List of Works Approved as Available in Zoological Nomenclature, as Entries No. 9 and No. 10, and in the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Works in Zoological Nomenclature as Entries No. 15 and No. 16. I.—THE STATEMENT OF THE CASE On 9th February 1948, Mr. Francis Hemming, Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, submitted the following application to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature asking that the Ruling given in Opinion 124 (1936, Smithson. misc. Coll. 73 (No. 8) : 1—2) that the terms placed between the generic names and the specific names of species by Linnaeus in 1758 in the Tenth Edition of the Systema Naturae are not to be treated as having acquired the status of subgeneric names by reason of having been so published, should 182 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS be extended to cover such intermediate terms as used (a) in any of the other zoological works of Linnaeus, and (b) in any of the works of Fabricius (J.C.) :— Proposed extension to all the works of Carolus Linnaeus and also to all the works of Johann Christian Fabricius of the decision given in the Commission’s ‘‘ Opinion ’’ 124 directing that the terms used between the generic names and the trivial names of species by Linnaeus in 1758 in the Tenth Edition of the *¢ Systema Naturae ’’ are not to be accepted as being of subgeneric status as of that date By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E. (Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) While I was in Washington during my recent visit to the United States, Dr. Ashley B. Gurney (United States Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Entomology and Plant Quarantine, Division of Insect Identification) drew my attention to the unsatisfactory nature of the Ruling given in the Commission’s Opinion 124 (1936, Smithson. misc. Coll. 73 (No. 8) : 1—2), entitled ‘‘ Linnaeus, 1758, Subdivisions of Genera’’. In that Opinion the Commission ruled that the terms which in certain instances in the Tenth Edition of the Systema Naturae Linnaeus had interposed between the generic name of a species and the specific trivial name of that species were not to be treated as having acquired the status of subgeneric names by reason of having been published in this way. Dr. Gurney was at a loss as to how this decision was to be interpreted : Was it a decision binding only as regards these intermediate terms as used by Linnaeus in 1758 or did it apply also to similar terms used in other works published by Linnaeus? Further, if the answer was that the Ruling given in Opinion 124 applied to all the works of Linnaeus, did it apply also to the exactly similar—and in many cases identical—intermediate terms used in the entomological works of Johann Christian Fabricius ? 2. Dr. Gurney has undoubtedly drawn attention to a serious flaw in the Ruling given in Opinion 124, for, although that Ruling clarifies the position as regards the single book—the Tenth Edition of the Systema Naturae of Linnaeus—to which it expressly refers, the restrictive way in which it was drafted leaves it a matter for argument whether or not that Ruling applies to similar situations in other works by Linnaeus. Ever since Opinion 124 was rendered by the Commission, it has tacitly been assumed by systematists that the Ruling given in it applies to the whole of the zoological works of Linnaeus, since, if this were not the intention of that Opinion, the Ruling given in it would have contributed nothing towards the stabilisation of nomen- clature and would indeed have caused unnecessary confusion, since, if it had been necessary to accept the terms in question as having the OPINION 279 183 status of subgeneric names as from the first occasion on which they were used after the publication of the Tenth Edition of the Systema Naturae, the result would almost certainly have been even more unsatisfactory than if these terms had been accepted as from the publication of that Edition, when at least these terms were used in a comprehensive manner. Nevertheless, it must be admitted that in Opinion 124 the emphasis placed on the date 1758 and therefore upon the Tenth Edition of the Systema Naturae is so marked that on any ordinary construction of the wording used in the Ruling given in that Opinion, the natural interpretation would be that for some reason not stated in the Ruling, the intention of the Commission was to limit that Ruling to the single case of the Tenth Edition of the Systema Naturae. 3. The defect in the Ruling given in Opinion 124 is similar in character to that in the Ruling given in Opinion 82, to which attention has been drawn by Professor H. Boschma (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) (File Z.N.(S.) 201). Professor Boschma has suggested that in this and similar cases where the Rulings given in Opinions already published do not cover the whole ground, an early opportunity should be taken by the Commission to repair the defects in question by rendering supplementary Opinions dealing with the matters left unsettled in the early Opinions concerned. I entirely agree with the view expressed by Professor Boschma in this matter, and I hope that supplementary action of this kind will be taken by the Commission at its forthcoming Session 1n Paris to complete the decision given in Opinion 124. It is my hope that the decision now to be taken will cover not only all the zoological works of Linnaeus but, in addition, also the entomological works of Fabricius (J.C.), whose use of terms intermediate between the generic names and the specific trivial names of species is indistinguishable from the use of such terms by Linnaeus. I recognise that, in addition to Linnaeus and Fabricius, a number of XVIIIth-century authors placed between the generic and specific names of species intermediate terms identical in character with those which it is now asked should be rejected. In so far as such usage is shown in the work concerned to be directly derivative either from Linnaeus or Fabricius, the terms in question would be covered by—and therefore rejected under—the Ruling now asked for. Where in other cases difficulties are encountered, it will be necessary for the specialists encountering these difficulties to make special application to the International Commission, for owing to the different methods of usage adopted by various authors, it would be extremely unsafe for the Commission to attempt to give a general Ruling in this matter without having before it a complete list of the works concerned, the compilation of which would clearly involve a great deal of bibliographical research. To carry out this would unduly delay the obtaining of a decision on the pressing question of the works of Linnaeus and Fabricius, if no action were to be taken by the Commission until a complete survey of the works of XVIIIth- century zoologists had been completed. 184 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 4. The proposal which I now submit to the International Commission is that it should render an Opinion supplementary to Opinion. 124, directing that, where in any zoological work either Linnaeus or Fabricius (J.C.) placed a term between the generic name and the specific trivial name of a species, the intermediate term so employed is not to be treated as having acquired the status of a subgeneric name by reason of having been published in this manner. Il—THE SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF THE CASE 2. Registration of the present application: On receipt, the present application was at first given the Registered Number Z.N.<(S.) 352, a File used at that time for miscellaneous matters which it was desired should be brought before the International Commission at the Session which it was about to hold in Paris during the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology. Later, it was judged more convenient to allot a separate Registered Number to the present case which was thereupon registered as Z.N.(S.) 394. 3. Proposal submitted to the Commission in Paris in 1948: During the Paris Session of the International Commission the present problem was brought before the International Com- mission in a paper (I.C.(48)15) which was submitted by the Secretary on 23rd July 1948. In this paper, which later was published as part of the historical records of the International Commission during its Paris Session (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 3: 114), the present subject was dealt with as follows under Point (61) :— (61) “ Opinion” 124 (proposed extension of application) : Opinion 124 states that under the Régles the various subdivisions of genera published by Linnaeus in 1758 are not to be accepted as of that date (1758) as of subgeneric value. It is desirable that it should be made clear that this decision carries with it a similar treatment of names given to subdivisions of genera by Linnaeus in all subsequent editions of the Systema Naturae. \t implies also that names given to subdivisions of genera by Fabricius should be treated in the same way, for the method adopted by these two authors is identical. It is proposed that this should now be made clear. OPINION 279 185 IiI.—THE DECISION OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 4. The present application was considered by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature at the Ninth Meeting of its Paris Session held at the Sorbonne in the Amphithéatre Louis-Liard on Friday, 23rd July 1948 at 2030 hours. The following is an extract from the Official Record of the Proceedings of the International Commission, setting out the decision reached by it in this case at the foregoing meeting (Paris Session, 9th Meeting, Conclusion 40) (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 266— 267) :— THE COMMISSION agreed :— (1) that, where in any of his works (and not merely in the 10th edition of the Systema Naturae) Linnaeus, when citing the name of a species, placed an inter- mediate term or intermediate terms between the name of the genus and the trivial name of the species, an intermediate term so used was not to be treated as having thereby acquired the status of a subgeneric name as from the date of being so published ; (2) that the decision set out in (1) above applies also to intermediate terms placed between the generic name and the trivial name of a species by Fabricius (J.C.) in any of his works ; (3) to render an Opinion recording the decision specified in (1) and (2) above. 5. The decision taken in the present case was reported to, and approved by, the Section on Nomenclature of the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948, at its Second Meeting held on Monday, 26th July 1948 (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 5 : 74, 76). 186 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 6. The Ruling given in the present Opinion was concurred in by the sixteen (16) Commissioners and Alternate Commissioners present at the Parts Session of the International Commission, namely :— Beltran vice Cabrera ; Boschma ; Bradley ; di Caporiacco ; Hemming; Hindle vice Jordan; Jorge vice do Amaral ; Kirby vice Stoll; Lemche vice Dymond ; Mansour vice Hanko ; Metcalf vice Peters; Riley vice Calman; Rode ; Sparck vice Mortensen ; van Straelen vice Richter ; Usinger vice Vokes. 7. The Ruling given in the present Opinion was dissented from by no Commissioner or Alternate Commissioner present at the Paris Session. 8. At its meeting held at Copenhagen in August 1953, the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology decided to insert a provision in the Rég/es establishing an “ Official List ” to be styled the Official List of Works Approved for Zoological Nomen- clature and directing the insertion therein of the title of any work which the International Commission might either validate under its Plenary Powers or declare to be an available work, together with any supplementary decisions which the International Commission might take in regard to any aspect of the work in question (1953, Copenhagen Decisions zool. Nomencl. : 24). At the same time the Congress decided to insert a provision in the Régles establishing an “ Official Index ”’ to be styled the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Works in Zoological Nomenclature and directing the insertion therein of the title of any work which the International Commission might either reject under its Plenary Powers or declare to be invalid for the purposes of zoological nomenclature (1953, ibid. : 23—24). Since the fore- going decisions apply to past, as well as to future, decisions by the International Commission in cases of this kind, the opportunity presented by the preparation of the present Opinion has been taken to give effect to the foregoing decisions by recording (a) the insertion in the foregoing Official List of particulars of the decision to reject, as not being subgeneric names, the terms placed by Linnaeus and Fabricius (J.C.) between the generic and specific names of species, and (b) the OPINION 279 187 insertion of particulars of the same decision in the Official Index referred to above. 9. At the time of the adoption of the Ruling given in the present Opinion, the expression prescribed for the second portion of the binomen which constitutes the scientific name of a species was the expression “trivial name”. Under a decision taken by the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology, Copenhagen, 1953, the expression “specific name” was substituted for the expression “trivial name” (1953, Copenhagen Decisions zool. Nomencl. : 21). The changes in terminology so adopted have been incorporated in the Ruling given in the present Opinion. 10. The prescribed procedures were duly complied with by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature in dealing with the present case, and the present Opinion is accordingly hereby rendered in the name of the said International Commission by the under-signed Francis Hemming, Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, in virtue of all and every the powers conferred upon him in that behalf. 11. The present Opinion shall be known as Opinion Two Hundred and Seventy-Nine (279) of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Done in London, this Twenty-Third day of January, Nineteen Hundred and Fifty-Four. Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature FRANCIS HEMMING Pe a ee gee es ae a a Printed in England by Mrrcatre & Cooper LimiTED, 10-24 Scrutton St., London E C2 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTER- NATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Edited by FRANCIS HEMMING, C..G., C.B.E. Secretary to the Commission VOLUME 6. Part 12. Pp. 189—204 OPINION 280 Emendation to Hygrobia of the generic name Hygriobia Latreille, 1804 (Class Insecta, Order Coleoptera) OCT 21 bale LONDON : Printed by Order of the Internitional 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 Seven Shillings and Sixpence (All rights reserved) Issued \st October, 1954 i { ———————— INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE COMPOSITION AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THE RULING GIVEN IN OPINION 280 A. The Officers of the Commission President : Dr. Karl Jordan, Ph.D., F.R.S. (British Museum (Natural History), Zoological Museum, Tring, Herts, England). Vice-President: Dr. James L. Peters (Museum of Comparative Zoology, Cambridge, Massachusetts, U.S.A.). Secretary : Mr. Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. (London, England). B. The Members of the Commission Class 1949 Senor Dr. Angel CABRERA (La Plata, Argentina). Mr. Francis HEMMING (London, England) (Secretary to the Commission). Dr. Karl JoRDAN (British Museum (Natural History), Zoological Museum, Tring, Herts, England) (President of the Commission). Dr. Th. MORTENSEN (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark). Dr. Joseph PEARSON (Tasmanian Museum, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia). Class 1952 Senhor Dr. Afranio do AMARAL (S. Paulo, Brazil). Professor J. Chester BRADLEY (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.). Professor Lodovico di CAPoRIACCcO (University of Parma, Italy). Professor J. R. DyYMOND (University of Toronto, Canada). Dr. James L. PeTERS (Museum of Comparative Zoology, Cambridge, Massachusetts, U.S.A.) (Vice-President of the Commission). Dr. Oak) E. VoKEs (United States Geological Survey, Washington, D.C., Class 1955 Professor Dr. Hilbrand BoscHMA (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands). Dr. William Thomas CALMAN (Tayport, Fife, Scotland). Professor Teiso ESAKI (Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan). Professor Béla HANKO (University of Debrecen, Hungary). Dr. Tadeusz JACZEWSKI (Polish Zoological Museum, Warsaw, Poland). Dr. Norman R. STOLL (Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, Princeton, New Jersey, U.S.A.). C. Alternate Members of the Commission at the Session held in Paris in 1948 Professor Enrique BELTRAN (Instituto Mexicano de Recursos Naturales Renovables A.C., Mexico City, Mexico). Dr. Edward HINDLE (Zoological Society of London, London, England). Dr. Arturo Ricardo JORGE (Museu Bocage, Lisbon, Portugal). Professor Harold Kirby (University of California, Berkeley, California, U.S.A.). Dr. Henning LEMCHE (Kgl. Veteriner- og Landbohgjskole, Zoologisk Labora- torium, Copenhagen, Denmark). Professor Kamel MANSOUR (King Fouad University, Cairo, Egypt). Professor Z. P. METCALF (North Carolina State College of Agriculture and Engineering, University of North Carolina, Raleigh, North Carolina, U.S.A.). Mr. N. D. RILey (British Museum (Natural History), London, England). Professor Ragnar SpARcCK (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark). Professor Victor van STRAELEN (Institut Royal des Sciences Naturelles de Belgique, Bruxelles, Belgium). See L. Ustincer (University of California, Berkeley, California, OPINION 280 EMENDATION TO ‘* HYGROBIA ” OF THE GENERIC NAME ‘* HYGRIOBIA ” LATREILLE, 1804 (CLASS INSECTA, ORDER COLEOPTERA) RULING :—(!) The spelling of the generic name Hygriobia Latreille, 1804 (Class Insecta, Order Coleop- tera) is to be emended to “* Hygrobia’’. (2) The generic name Hygrobia (emend. of Hygriobia) Latreille, 1804 (gender of name : feminine) (type species, by monotypy: Dytiscus hermanni (emend. of herrmanni) Fabricius, 1775) is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology as Name No. 707. (3) The generic name Hygriobia Latreille, 1804 (an Invalid Original Spelling of Hygrobia Latreille, 1804) is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology as Name No. 87. (4) The specific name hermanni (emend. of herrmanni) Fabricius, 1775, as published in the combination Dytiscus herrmanni is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology as Name No. 109. (5) The specific name herrmanni Fabricius, 1775, as published in the combination Dytiscus herrmanni (an Invalid Original Spelling of hermanni Fabricius, 1775, as published in the foregoing combination) is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology as Name No. 43. I.—THE STATEMENT OF THE CASE On 15th February 1940 the Royal Entomological Society of London published Part 7 of the work entitled The Generic Names 192 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS of British Insects. This Part contained the Seventh Report of the Society's Committee on Generic Nomenclature! covering the Second Report of its Coleoptera Sub-Committee?. This Report was concerned only with the generic names of the British Hydradephaga. Attached to the Sub-Committee’s Report was a statement containing a recommendation in favour of the emendation to Hygrobia of the generic name Hygriobia Latreille, 1804 (Class Insecta, Order Coleoptera). The Sub-Committee submitted at the same time a further statement regarding the generic names of this group, which had been prepared for it by Professor W. A. F. Balfour-Browne, one of its members. At the time of the publication of the foregoing Part of the Generic Names of British Insects, the hour was not opportune for the submission to the International Commission by the Society of recommendations relating to problems of zoological nomen- clature, for at the outbreak of war in Europe in September 1939 the records of the International Commission had been evacuated from London to the country as a precaution against the risk of destruction through air raids and the London Secretariat of the Commission had been temporarily closed, while, for its part, the Society, like other learned institutions with headquarters in London, was pre-occupied with pressing administrative problems. Accordingly, at that time no steps were taken by the Society to submit to the International Commission the recommendation formulated by the Coleoptera Sub-Commission. In August 1943, however, Mr. Hemming notified Mr. N. D. Riley, who by this time had become Secretary to the Royal Entomological Society, that the Commission would be glad to receive that recommendation. Mr. Riley, on behalf of the Society, thereupon submitted it to the International Commission under cover of a letter dated 23rd August 1943. For the purposes of the Commis- sion, the passage relating to the name Aygriobia Latreille in the Report of the Coleoptera Sub-Committee was treated as 1 The composition of the Committee on Generic Nomenclature at the time of the completion of this Report was the same as when it submitted its Sixth Report. Its composition at the latter date has been given in footnote | to Opinion 243 (1954, Ops. Decls. int. Comm. zool. Nomencl. 5 : 48). * The composition of the Coleoptera Sub-Committee was the same at the .time of the completion of this Report as it had been when it completed its First Report—as to which see footnote 2 to Opinion 243 (1954, ibid. 5 : 48)—except that during the interval Mr. C. E. Tottenham had succeeded Sir Guy Marshall. OPINION 280 193 constituting the application submitted to the Commission. The application so constituted® was as follows :— Proposed emendation to ** Hygrobia ’’ of ** Hygriobia ’’ Latreille, 1804 (Class Insecta, Order Coleoptera) By H. E. ANDREWES (Leicester), . W. A. F. BALFOUR-BROWNE (formerly Professor of Entomology, Department of Entomology, Imperial College of Science and Technology, London), RaGreeh bATRAF ID Sc. (formerly Deputy Keeper of the Department of Entomology, British Museum (Natural History)), M. CAMERON (British Museum (Natural History), Zoological Museum, Tring), and C7 BE: TORTENHAM (University Museum of Zoology, Cambridge) In 1804 (Nouy. Dict. Hist. nat. 24 : 139) the name Hygriohbia Latreille was proposed to replace Hydrachna Fabricius, 180!, Syst. Eleuth. 1 : 255, a name already applied to a genus of water-mites, Hydrachna Miller, 1776, Zool. dan. Prodr.: xxvi, 188. Latreille repeated this spelling in 1806 (1806, Gen. Crust. Ins. 1 : 233) but in 1817 (Nouv. Dict. Hist. nat. (ed. 2) 15 : 500) he changed the spelling to Hygrobia without explanation. As this latter spelling has been universally adopted, we are of opinion 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 promulgation of an Opinion to the following effect :— Acting under their Plenary Powers, the International Commis- sion hereby emend to Hygrohbia the name Hygriobia Latreille, 1804 (type: Dytiscus hermanni (emendation of herrmanni) Fabricius, 1775). The name Hygrobia Latreille, 1804, with the above type, is hereby added to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. % As explained in paragraph 2 below small agreed drafting amendments in the wording actually submitted to the Commission were made before this application was sent to the printer for publication in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. These amendments have been included in the application as here reproduced. 194 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS In this case the strict application of the rules embodied in the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature would cause a serious, and quite unnecessary, disturbance in existing practice and would, in our view, cause greater confusion than uniformity. For this name we are, therefore, in favour of a suspension of the Rules. Il.—THE SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF THE CASE 2. Registration of the present application : On the receipt of the present application, the problem of the spelling to be adopted for the generic published as Hygriobia by Latreille in 1804 was allotted the Registered Number Z.N.(S.) 159. 3. Publication of the present application: As soon as possible after the receipt of the present application, steps were taken to prepare it for publication in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature which had recently been established as a means for bringing to the attention of zoologists applicaticns submitted to the International Commission for decision. An exchange of letters between the Secretary and Professor Balfour-Biowne led to a slight recasting of the form of the application submitted in this case. At the same time the incorrect citation Hydrachna hermanni Fabricius, 1781, was amended to Dytiscus hermanni Fabricius, 1775. The application, so amended, was sent to the printer in 1944, but, owing to difficulties arising from paper rationing, shortage of labour at the printing works and similar causes, publication did not actually take place until 31st March 1947 (Andrewes, Balfour- Browne, Blair, Cameron and Tottenham, 1947, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 1 : 270). 4. Issue of Public Notices : In the form in which this case was finally submitted to the International Commission the applicants asked that, if necessary, the Plenary Powers should be used to secure the desired emendation of the name Hygriobia Latreille. Accordingly on 29th September 1947 a notice of the possible use by the International Commission of its Plenary Powers in this case was issued to the serial publications prescribed by the Ninth International Congress of Zoology, Monaco, 1913. The OPINION 280 195 publication of this notice led to the receipt of no objection, so far as concerned the merits of the action proposed, but a letter dated 19th March 1948 was received from Dr. Richard E. Blackwelder (United States National Museum, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.), expressing the view that the material furnished by the applicants was insufficient. I1l.—THE DECISION OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 5. The present application was considered by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature at the Fourteenth Meeting of its Paris Session held at the Sorbonne in the Amphi- théatre Louis-Liard on Monday, 26th July 1948 at 2030 hours. The following is an extract from the Official Record of the Proceedings of the International Commission giving a summary of the remarks made by the Acting President (Mr. Francis Hemming) and of the subsequent discussion (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 460—461) :— THE ACTING PRESIDENT (MR. FRANCIS HEMMING) said that, although the applicants had asked the Commission to use their Plenary Powers to secure the end sought in their petition, the first matter which should be considered was whether the original spelling Hygriobia was correct or defective and, in the latter event, whether under Article 19, 1t should be emended. Not until an answer had been given to these questions could the possible use of the Plenary Powers be appropriately con- sidered. Only one comment had been received in regard to this case, namely a letter from Dr. Richard Blackwelder (United States National Museum, Washington, D.C.), who had expressed his strong personal objection to the use of the Plenary Powers in this case, but had offered no observations on the prior question of the applicability or otherwise of Article 19 to the name under consideration. 196 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS IN THE DISCUSSION on this case the view was expressed that, having regard to the fact that the genus under consideration was a genus of water beetles and to the common use of compound words consisting, in part of the Greek adjective typos, meaning “wet”, it was evident that the correct spelling of this generic name was “ Hygrobia”’ and that the barbarism “‘ Hygriobia ” was due either to a faute d’othographe or to a faute d’impression. Article 19, accordingly, applied to this case, and in consequence the spelling of this name should be emended from Hygriobia to Hygrobia. In these circumstances, no question arose of the use of the Plenary Powers in this case. 6. The decision taken by the Commission in this case is set out as follows in the Official Record of its Proceedings (Paris Session, 14th Meeting, Conclusion 17) (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 459— 461). THE COMMISSION agreed :— (1) that it was évident that the spelling as Hygriobia of the generic name Hygrobia Latreille, 1804 (Class Insecta, Order Coleoptera) was due to a faute d’orthographe or to a faute @ impression ; (2) that, in view of (1) above the foregoing generic name was, under Article 19, to be emended to Hygrobia ; (3) to place the generic name Hygrobia Latreille, 1804 (type species, by monotypy : Dystiscus hermanni Fabricius, 1775) on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ; (4) to place the trivial name tardus Herbst, 1779 (as published in the binominal combination Dvytiscus tardus) (the oldest available name for the type species of Hygrobia Latreille, 1804) on the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology ; (S) to render an Opinion recording the decisions specified in (1) to (4) above. OPINION 280 197 7. The gender of the generic name Hygrobia Latreille, 1804, is feminine. 8. The decision recorded in paragraph 6 above was reported to, and approved by, the Section on Nomenclature of the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948, at its Sixth Meeting held on Monday, 26th July 1948 (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 5 : 114). 9. The foregoing decision was concurred in by the sixteen (16) Commissioners and Alternate Commissioners present at the Paris Session of the International Commission, namely :— Beltran vice Cabrera ; Boschma ; Bradley ; di Caporiacco ; Hemming; Hindle vice Jordan; Jorge vice do Amaral ; Kirby vice Stoll; Lemche vice Dymond; Mansour vice Hanko ; Metcalf vice Peters; Riley vice Calman; Rode ; Sparck vice Mortensen ; van Straelen vice Richter ; Usinger vice Vokes. 10. The foregoing decision was dissented from by no Commis- sioner or Alternate Commissioner present at the Paris Session. 11. When in December 1953 Mr. Hemming, as Secretary to the Commission, was engaged in the preparation of Opinions recording the decisions on individual cases taken by the Commission in Paris in 1948, it became apparent that the Commission, when dealing with the name Dytiscus hermanni, had inadvertently adopted the date “1781” given for the name /ermanni at the time when the original application was published in the work The Generic Names of British Insects in place of the corrected date “ 1775” which had been inserted in this application when it was republished in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (see paragraph 2 above). Accordingly, the Commission had concluded that the oldest specific name subjectively available for the type species of Hygrobia Latreille, 1804, was the name tardus Herbst, 1779, as published in the combination Dytiscus tardus, that name having two years’ priority over the name hermanni Fabricius, as published in the combination Hydrachna herrmanni [sic], as attributed to the year 1781. The applicant had stated that 198 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS both names were commonly used by different specialists for the species in question, and the Commission had taken the view that the best means for stabilising the name for the species concerned would be to place the older of the two names upon the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. When it became clear that Fabricius’ usage of the name Hydrachna hermanni in 1781 did not constitute the first publication of a new name but was merely a usage of the name Dytiscus hermanni published by the same author in 1775, it became clear also that the Commission had been led into error in concluding that the name tardus Herbst, 1779, had priority over the name hermanni Fabricius, the latter name being, in fact, the older by four years. On discovering this error, Mr. Hemming judged that in the first instance the best course would be to consult Mr. J. Balfour-Browne (British Museum (Natural History), London) for the purpose of removing any doubt as to the factual position in this matter. 12. Advice received from Mr. J. Balfour-Browne (British Museum (Natural History), London): On 23rd December 1953 Mr. J. Balfour-Browne (British Museum (Natural History), London) replied as follows to the letter which Mr. Hemming had addressed to him in regard to the difficulty discussed in the immediately preceding paragraph :— ‘* Hygrobia ”’ Latreille, 1804 I have your letter of 14th December on the above case. A perusal of the two Fabrician descriptions of Dytiscus hermanni (1775, Syst. Ent. : 232 and 1781, Spec. Ins. 1 : 295) leaves very little doubt in my mind that the latter is merely a later version of the former, in spite of a radical contradiction in the description of the thorax. (This lapse would be due to a careless transcription by which words became transposed. Since the 1781 version gives the 1775 reference and transcribes the original diagnosis it would be safer to assume the differences are due to a /apsus calami). This being the case I think the Commission has clearly been led into error by the faulty original application and may safely be asked to correct this by supplementary note. OPINION 280 199 13. Supplementary Report submitted by the Secretary in January 1954. On receiving Mr. Balfour-Browne’s letter, Mr. Hemming took the view that the proper course would be for him to inform the Commission of the situation which had been disclosed and to seek a decision under the One-Month Rule for the purpose of remedying the defect in the action taken on this case in Paris in 1948. For this purpose Mr. Hemming prepared the following explanatory note which was submitted to the Commission—by air mail to Commissioners resident outside Europe—on 27th January 1954 :— Proposed correction of a minor error in the decision regarding the generic name ‘* Hygrobia ’’ Latreille, 1804 (Class Insecta, Order Coleoptera) In preparing the Opinion required to give effect to the decision in regard to the name HAygrobia Latreille, 1804 (Class Insecta, Order Coleoptera) taken by the International Commission at Paris in 1948 (see 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 459—461), I have encountered a small mistake which I feel that the Commission will wish to correct before an Opinion is rendered on this case. 2. The applicant in his original paper on this subject (1940, Gen. Names brit. Ins., Pt. 7 : 196, 203) treated the name of the type species (Dytiscus hermanni (emend. of herrmanni) Fabricius) as having been first published in the year 1781; no reference was given, but the Spec. Ins. (1 : 285) must certainly have been intended. It was stated also that the above name (which was referred to as ** Hydrachna hermanni Fab. 1781”) and the name Dytiscus tardus Herbst, 1779 (Beschdf. Ges. Natur-Freunde 4 : 318) were both in common use for the type species of the genus Hygrobia Latreille. 3. At the time of the submission of the present application, the question of the oldest name available for the type species of the fore- going genus was not one of immediate concern from the point of view of the decision to be given by the International Commission. The decision taken by the Paris Congress that the oldest specific name available either objectively or subjectively for the type species of a genus, the name of which was placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology should, in its turn, be placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology made the question of the oldest available name for the type species of the genus Hygrobia Latreille one of practical importance. On the basis of the information supplied by the applicant, the Commission in Paris concluded that the oldest name subjectively available for the species in question was Dyfiscus tardus Herbst, 1779, that name having two years’ priority over the name 200 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS Hydrachna hermanni Fabricius, as dated from 1781. Accordingly, the former of these names was then placed on the Official List. Unfor- tunately, in taking this decision, the Commission overlooked the fact that, in the process of preparing the present application for publication in the Bulletin (1947, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 1 : 270), it had been ascer- tained that the date “1781” given in the original application (as published in 1940 in the Gen. Names brit. Ins.) was incorrect. Fab- ricius did not on that occasion publish the name Hydrachna hermanni as a new name, but merely carried it over from the Systema Entomologiae (:232) in which he had first published it in 1775. As the result of this correction in the date to be assigned to the name hermanni Fabricius, that name is now seen to have four years’ priority over the name tardus Herbst, 1779, instead of being (as had previously appeared) two years junior to that name. In consequence, the Inter- national Commission was led into error when, believing the older name to be Dytiscus tardus Herbst, it placed the specific name tardus Herbst, 1779, as published in the combination Dytiscus tardus, on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology in preference to the name hermanni Fabricius, 1775, as published in the combination Dytiscus hermanni. 4. It is now proposed that the mistake described above should be rectified by the modification of the decision taken in Paris in this case by the deletion therefrom of the decision to place the name tardus Herbst, 1779, as published in the combination Dytiscus tardus, on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology, and the substitution therefor of a decision to place the specific name hermanni (emend. of herrmanni) Fabricius, 1775, as published in the combination Dytiscus herrmanni on the foregoing Official List. 5. The present Call for a Vote is issued under the ONE-MONTH RULE. Members of the Commission are accordingly asked to com- plete the annexed Voting Paper and to return it to this Office in time for it to be received within ONE CALENDAR MONTH from today’s date, i.e., by 27th FEBRUARY 1954 AT LATEST. (Signed) FRANCIS HEMMING Secretary to the International Commission 27th January 1954. 14. Issue of Voting Paper V.P.(54)1 : Simultaneously with the submission to the Commission of the memorandum reproduced in the immediately preceding paragraph, a Voting Paper (V.P.(54)1) was issued in which the Members of the Commission were invited OPINION 280 201 to vote either for, or against, “ the proposal set out in paragraph 4 of the accompanying paper submitted by the Secretary ”’.4 15. The Prescribed Voting Period: As the foregoing Voting Paper was issued under the One-Month Rule, the prescribed Voting Period closed on 27th February 1954. 16. Particulars of the Voting on Voting Paper V.P.(54)1 : The state of the voting on Voting Paper V.P.(54)1 at the close of the prescribed Voting Period was as follows :—® (a) Affirmative Votes had been given by the following seventeen (17) Commissioners (arranged in the order in which Votes were received) : Riley ; Holthuis ; Lemche ; Sylvester-Bradley ; Bonnet ; Vokes ; Hering ; Dymond ; Bradley (J.C.) ; Jaczewski ; Esaki; do Amaral; Cabrera; Hemming; Mertens ; Pearson ; Boschma. (b) Negative Votes : None The paper here referred to is that reproduced in paragraph 13 of the present Opinion. » The following zoologists who were Members of the International Commission at the time of the issue of Voting Paper V.P.(54)1 were neither Members nor Alternate Members of the Commission at the time when the case of the generic name Hygrobia Latreille, 1804, was dealt with by the International Commission at its Session held in Paris in 1948 :— Professor Pierre Bonnet (Université de Toulouse, France) Professor Robert Mertens (Natur-Museum u. Forschungs-Institut Senckenberg, Frankfurt a. Main) Professor Erich Martin Hering (Zoologisches Museum der Humboldt- Universitat zu Berlin) Mr. P. C. Sylvester-Bradley (Sheffield University, Sheffield, England) Dr. L. B. Holthuis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) 202 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS (c) Voting Paper V.P.(54)1 was not returned by two (2) Commissioners :® Hanko ; Stoll. 17. Declaration of Result of Vote: On 28th February 1954 Mr. Hemming, Secretary to the International Commission, acting as Returning Officer for the Vote taken on Voting Paper V.P.(54)1, signed a Certificate that the Votes cast were as set out in para- graph 16 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. 18. On Ist March 1954 Mr. Hemming prepared the Ruling given in the present Opinion and at the same time signed a Certificate that the terms of that Ruling were in complete accord with those of the proposal approved by the International Commission at its Session held in Paris in 1948, as modified by its Vote on Voting Paper V.P.(54)1. 19. The following are the original references for the names which appear in the Ruling given in the present Opinion :— hermanni (emend. of herrmanni), Dytiscus, Fabricius, 1775, Syst. be232 Hygrobia (emend. of Hygriobia) Latreille, 1804, Nouv. Dict. Hist. nat. 24 : 139 20. At the time of the adoption of that part of the Ruling given in the present Opinion which incorporates a decision taken by the International Commission at its Session held in Paris in 1948, the expression prescribed for the second portion of the binomen which constitutes the scientific name of a species was the | expression “trivial name” and the Official List reserved for 6 After the close of the prescribed Voting Period, affirmative Votes were received from the two Commissioners (Stoll ; Hank6) whose Voting Papers had not been returned prior to that date. Thus all the Members of the Commission voted in this case and all voted affirmatively. OPINION 280 203 recording such names was styled the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology, the word “trivial” appearing also in the title of the Official Index reserved for recording rejected and invalid names of this category. Under a decision taken by the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology, Copenhagen, 1953, the expression “‘ specific name’ was substituted for the expression “ trivial name ”’ and corresponding changes were made in the titles of the Official List and Official Index of such names (1953, Copenhagen Decisions zool. Nomencl. : 21). The changes in terminology so adopted have been incorporated in the Ruling given in the present Opinion. 21. The prescribed procedures were duly complied with by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature in dealing with the present case, and the present Opinion is accordingly hereby rendered in the name of the said International Commission by the under-signed Francis Hemming, Secretary to the Interna- tional Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, in virtue of all and every the powers conferred upon him in that behalf. 22. The present Opinion shall be known as Opinion Two Hundred and Eighty (280) of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Done in London, this first day of March, Nineteen Hundred and Fifty-four. Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature FRANCIS HEMMING a SA a a ee a I it ee Printed in England by Metcatre & Coorrer Limirep, 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 6. Part 13. Pp. 205—224 OPINION 281 Validation, under the Plenary Powers, of the generic name Corixa Geoffroy, 1762 (Class Insecta, Order Hemiptera) lies SON. OCT 21 1954 | 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 1954 Price Nine 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 OPINION 281 A. The Officers of the Commission President : Dr. Karl Jordan, Ph.D., F.R.S. (British Museum (Natural Hoy Zoological Museum, Tring, Herts, England). Vice-President: Dr. James L. Peters (Museum of Comparative Zoology, Cambridge, Massachusetts, U.S.A.). Secretary : Mr. Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. (London, England). BR. The Members of the Commission Class 1949 Senor Dr. Angel CABRERA (La Plata, Argentina). Mr. Francis HEMMING (London, England) (Secretary to the Commission). Dr. Karl JORDAN (British Museum (Natural History), Zoological Museum, Tring, Herts, England) (President of the Commission). Dr. Th. MORTENSEN (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark). Dr. Joseph PEARSON (Tasmanian Museum, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia). Class 1952 Senhor Dr. Afranio do AMARAL (S. Paulo, Brazil). Professor J. Chester BRADLEY (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.). Professor Lodovico di CAPORIACCO (University of Parma, Italy). Professor J. R. DyMOND (University of Toronto, Canada). Dr. James L. PreTERS (Museum of Comparative Zoology, Cambridge, Massachusetts, U.S.A.) (Vice-President of the Commission). Dr. Te E. VoxKes (United States Geological Survey, Washington, D.C., S.A.). . Glass 1955. . Professor Dr. Hilbrand BoscHMA (Rijksmuseum van _ Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands). Dr. William Thomas CALMAN (Tayport, Fife, Sei Professor Teiso Esaki (Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan). Professor Béla HANKO (University of Debrecen, Hungary). Dr. Tadeusz JACZEwSKI (Polish Zoological Museum, Warsaw, Poland). Dr. Norman R. STOLL (Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, Princeton, New Jersey, U.S.A.). C. Alternate Members of the Commission at the Session held in Paris in 1948 Professor Enrique BELTRAN (Instituto Mexicano de Recursos Naturales Renovables A.C., Mexico City, Mexico). Dr. Edward HINDLE (Zoological Society of London, London, England). Dr. Arturo Ricardo JoRGE (Museu Bocage, Lisbon, Portugal). Professor Harold Kirsy (University of California, Berkeley, California, U.S.A.). Dr. Henning LemMcuze (Kgl. Veteriner- og Landbohojskole, Zoologisk Labora- torium, Copenhagen, Denmark). Professor Kamel MANsourR (King Fouad University, Cairo, Egypt). Professor Z. P. MetTcaALF (North Carolina State College of Agriculture and Engineering, University of North Carolina, Raleigh, North Carolina, U.S.A.).. Mr. N. D. RiLey (British Museum (Natural History), London, England). Professor Ragnar SPARCK (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark). Professor Victor van STRAELEN (Institut Royal des Sciences Natureiles de Beigique, Bruxelles, Belgium). ic med L. UsINGER (University of California, Berkeley, California, VI ScA.): OPINION 281 VALIDATION, UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS, OF THE GENERIC NAME ‘* CORIXA ”? GEOFFROY, 1762 (CLASS INSECTA, ORDER HEMIPTERA) RULING :—(1) Under the Plenary Powers, (a) the generic name Corixa Geoffroy, 1762, is hereby validated, and (b) the nominal species Sigara punctata Illiger, 1807, is hereby designated to be the type species of the nominal genus so named. (2) The generic name Corixa Geoffroy, 1762 (gender : feminine), as validated under the Plenary Powers, in (1)(a) above and with the type species similarly designated in (1)(b) above, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology as Name No. 708. (3) The specific name punctata Illiger, 1807, as pub- lished in the combination Sigara punctata, is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology as Name No. 110. (4) The specific name geoffroyi Leach, 1817, as published in the combination Corixa geoffroyi (a junior objective synonym of the name punctata Illiger, 1807, as published in the combination Sigara punctata), 1s hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology as Name No. 44. 1—THE STATEMENT OF THE CASE On 13th February 1939 Professor H. B. Hungerford (University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas, U.S.A.) addressed the following a ee a ee ee eee e. 208 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS application to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, but owing to some mischance in transmission, this communication never reached the Secretariat of the Com- mission and it was not until Professor Hungerford transmitted a duplicate of his earlier letter on 3rd July 1939 that the sat application was duly received :— On the question whether the name ‘‘ Corixa’’ Geoffroy, 1762 (Class Insecta, Order Hemiptera) satisfies the requirements of Proviso (b) to Article 25 of the ‘* Régles Internationales ’’ and, if it is an available name, what is its type By H. B. HUNGERFORD (Department of Entomology, University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas) I desire an Opinion concerning the following nomenclatorial questions :— (1) Louis Geoffroy in, 1762, Histoire abrégée des Insectes qui se trouvent aux environs de Paris, 1 : 478, proposed the genus Corixa. Is this generic name to be accepted as of 1762 ? (2) If Geoffroy’s work is considered binary, what is to be considered the type of the genus Corixa Geoffroy ? According to Opinion 65,* the case of a genus based upon an erroneously determined species should be submitted. This is such a case. Geoffroy writes :—- 1. CortxAa Planch. 9, fig. 7. Linn. Syst. Nat. edit. 10, p. 439, n. 2, Notonecta striata. However, the drawing on plate 9 is natural size and his description ‘** Longueur 54 lignes,. Largeur 2 lignes’ represents a species far too large for Notonecta striata Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 439, and not congeneric with it. Until recently the species figured and described by Geoffroy has been known as Corixa geoffroyi Leach, 1817, Trans. linn. Soc. Lond. 12 (1).:17 * The question of genera based upon erroneously determined species was further considered by the International Commission at Lisbon in 1935. For the text of the decision then taken (Lisbon Session, 2nd Meeting, Conclusion 23), see 1943, Bull. zool. Nomencel. 1 + 23——25. That decision has since been embodied in Opinion 168 (1945, Opinions and Declarations rendered by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 2 : 441—430). [Subsequent to the preparation of the preceding footnote, the ruling given m Opinion 168 was amplified by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948, and, as to amplified, was incorporated into the Régles (see 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 158—159). F.H. 19th August 1954| OPINION 281 209 Reutter, 1888, considered Geoffroy’s work of 1762 invalid since, in his view, it did not as a whole follow the binary system of nomen- clature. Kirkaldy, 1900, believed that Geoffroy’s work should be accepted and claimed that Miller, 1764, in his Fauna Ins. Fridrichsdalina also validated Geoffroy’s generic names in a table comparing Geoffroyian and Linnean types. Mr. W. E. China (1938, Ent. mon. Mag. 74 : 34—39) questioned whether Miuller’s work validated the Geoffroyian generic names, because Miller did not mention species in his table of genera, although the remainder of the book is binominal. Perhaps we should have an Opinion on this point. Mr. China assumes that the type of Corixa Geoffroy, which he accepts as from 1785, is Corixa geoffroyi Leach, 1818 (=Sigara punctata Mlliger, 1807, in Rossi, Fauna etrusc. (ed. 2) : 354). That is to say, he accepts as the type of Corixa Geoffroy the species figured by Geoffroy and not Notonecta striata Linnaeus, 1758, the species cited by Geoffroy. The question should be settled officially. As far as I can see, Notonecta striata Linnaeus remains a contender for consideration as the type of the genus Corixa Geoffroy, until :— (1) the validity of the Geoffroyian generic names is settled ; and (2) the genotype of Corixa Geoffroy is fixed as provided in Opinion 65. For many years I have been aware of the nomenclatorial questions cited above, but have been content not to raise them. Naturally, | would prefer to see Corixa geoffroyi Leach declared the type of Corixa, but I want a ruling to set the matter at rest. Ii.—THE SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF THE CASE 2. Registration of the present application: On the receipt of the present application, it was arranged that, in accordance with a decision on procedure taken by the International Commission 210 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS at its Session held at Lisbon in 1935 (1943, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 1 : 40), the two portions of Professor Hungerford’s application, that is, (a) the portion relating to the general question of the status of names as published in Geoffroy’s Hist. abrég, and (b) the portion relating to the individual name Corixa Geoffroy, should be treated as constituting distinct, though connected, applications. For the moment, both applications were given the Registered Number Z.N.(S.) 137, but later the general problem of the status of the Hist. abrég. was re-registered under the Number Z.N.(S.) 168. Decisions on both these questions were taken by the International Commission during its Session held in Paris in 1948. The decision then taken on the status of names published in Geoffroy’s Hist. abrég. has since been embodied in Opinion 2281. The present Opinion is therefore concerned exclusively with the individual case of the name Corixa Geoffroy. 3. Publication of the present application: It had not been possible to make any progress with the present case by the time that a few weeks after its receipt the outbreak of war in September 1939 led to the evacuation of the records of the International Commission from London to the country as a precaution against the risk of destruction through air raids. The Secretariat of the Commission in London was re-opened in 1942 and steps were immediately taken to establish the Bulletin of Zoological Nomen- clature as a means for bringing to the attention of zoologists applications submitted to the Commission for decision. Work was at once started on outstanding applications with a view to arranging for their publication in the newly established Bulletin. The present application was sent to the printer in September 1944, but, owing to difficulties arising from paper rationing, shortage of labour at the printing works and similar causes publication did not actually take place until 31st March 1947 (Hungerford, 1947, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 1 : 258—259). 4. Submission by the Secretary of a note on the question of the procedure proposed to be adopted in dealing with the present application: At the same time that the present application was sent to the printer, Mr. Francis Hemming, as Secretary to the 1 See 1954, Ops. Decls. int. Comm. zool. Nomencl, 4 : 209—220. OPINION 281 211 Commission, wrote a short note explaining the procedure which it was proposed should be adopted in dealing with this case and also with the more general issue raised by Professor Hungerford (see paragraph 2 above). Mr. Hemming’s note was published at the same time as Professor Hungerford’s application (Hemming, 1947, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 1 : 259). It was as follows :— Procedure proposed to be adopted by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature in considering the questions submitted by Professor H. B. Hungerford in regard to the name ‘* Corixa ”’ Geoffroy, 1762 (Class Insecta, Order Hemiptera) By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E. (Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) The foregoing application by Professor Hungerford deals primarily with certain questions of special concern to hemipterists, namely : (1) the date as from which the name Corixa Geoffroy is to be accepted as available under Article 25 of the Code and (ii) the species which is to be accepted as the type of that genus. As Professor Hungerford points out, the first of these questions raises also a much broader question and one which is of concern to specialists in a large number of Orders in the Class Insecta, namely the question whether Geoffroy, 1762, Hist. abrég. Ins. is a work which satisfies the requirements of proviso (b) to Article 25 of the Code. Considerable inconvenience and, owing to the extra work involved: unnecessary expense has been incurred in the past when two distinct (though allied) problems have been considered by the Commission as a single case. In order to avoid these difficulties on the present occasion, specialists who desire to offer observations both on (i) the status of Geoffroy, 1762, Hist. abrég. Ins. Paris, and also (ii) on the special problems connected with the name Corixa are particularly requested to assist the work of the Commission by furnishing separate communications on these subjects. 5. Comment by Dr. W. E. China (British Museum (Natural History), London): After Professor Hungerford’s application had been sent to the printer, but before it was published, Dr. W. E. China (British Museum (Natural History), London), who had been D2 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS consulted by Mr. Hemming, submitted the following statement of his views in a letter dated 9th October 1944 :— : . If Geoffroy’s 1762 work ts regarded as invalid (not binominal), then Corixa may still be retained dated 1764 if O. F. Miiller (Faun. Ins. Fridrichsdalina p. xviii, 1764) is regarded as having validated Geoffroy’s names, as has been maintained by Kirkaldy (see China, E.M.M. Feb., 1938, p. 34). If not, then Corixa is not validated until 1785 by Geoffroy in Fourcroy, Jns. Paris 1 : 221 (striata Geoffroy the only species). This means that Sigara F. 1775 (Syst. Ent. : 691) would then have priority and Corixa as the type genus of the well known family CORIXIDAE and the stem of many generic names in the family would sink as a synonym. It is very desirable that the name Corixa should survive and I am entirely in agreement with Hungerford that the Commission should promulgate an Opinion to effect that :— The name Corixa Geoffroy 1762, Hist. abrég. Ins. Paris 1 : 477 (type Sigara punctata Iliger, 1807 (= Corixa striata Geoffroy 1762 nec Notonecta striata L. 1758=Corixa geoffroyi Leach 1818)) is hereby added to the Official List of Generic Names and its use made obligatory. It is not to be replaced by Sigara Fabricius 1775 (Syst. Ent. : 691). 6. Issue of Public Notices: On 29th September 1947 a notice of the possible use by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature of its Plenary Powers was issued to the serial publications prescribed by the Ninth International Congress of Zoology, Monaco, 1913. It was considered that this action was desirable, having regard to the fact that, if on the general issue raised by Professor Hungerford (Z.N.(S.) 168), the Commission were to rule against the availability of names published in Geoffroy’s Hist. abrégée of 1762, the use of the foregoing Powers would be needed if at the same time the Commission were to decide to validate the name Corixa as from the foregoing work. The publication of the foregoing notices elicited only one com- ment. This was from Mr. G. A. Walton (London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine), who, while disagreeing with Professor Hungerford’s analysis of this case, agreed with him that an authoritative ruling on the status of the name Corixa was desirable. Mr. Walton’s letter is given in the immediately following paragraph. 7. Comment by Mr. G. A. Walton (London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine): On 4th March 1948, Mr. G. A. Walton, M.B., Ch.B., Medical Entomologist, Colonial Medical Research OPINION 28] 213 (London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine) submitted the following statement of his views on the present case : Only now has the fact that Prof. Hungerford of Kansas University has raised the question of Corixa Geoffroy 1762 v. Sigara Fabricius 1775, come to my notice. I think I have laid bare all the relevant evidence in : Walton, G. A. (1943) *“ The Natural Classification of the British Corixidae (Hemipt.) ’’, Trans. Soc. Brit. Ent. 8 : 155. In that paper I showed that the identity of the type species of either generic name is really beyond ascertaining. The only real evidence is in the references to Rosel’s Ins. v. 3. supplem. tab. 29, but Linnaeus gives no length measurements, only stating that the insect has transverse undulating lines. Geoffroy however says the insect is about 12 mm. long (the length of what we now call Corixa punctata Mliger). The description by Fabricius refers back to Linnaeus. It is a matter of personal opinion. I have already stated my opinion firmly in favour of Corixa, Walton (1934) p. 160, line 22. But exactly as stated by Prof. H. B. Hungerford I would like to see a ruling on the matter. . 8. As a preliminary to the consideration of Professor Hungerford’s application relating to the name Corixa Geoffroy, the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature at its Session held in Paris in 1948 took into consideration the general problem of whether in the Histoire abrégée of 1762 Geoffroy consistently applied the principles of binominal nomen- clature as required by Proviso (b) to Article 25 of the Rég/es, as clarified by the Paris Congress. On this subject the Commission decided that Geoffroy could not be regarded as having complied with the requirements of Article 25 in his Histoire abrégée and therefore that new names in that work acquired no status of availability under the Law of Priority in virtue of having been so published. At the same time—as explained in Opinion 228 (the Opinion in which the decision taken in regard to the status of Geoffroy’s Histoire abrégée has since been embodied)—the Commission placed on record its view “that certain of the generic names published in the foregoing work, being in wide use, should certainly be validated in the interest of stability in nomen- clature ’ and laid down the procedure which it desired should be followed for giving effect to the decision so taken. 214 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS Iii—THE DECISION OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 9. The present case was considered by the International Com- mission on Zoological Nomenclature at the Thirteenth Meeting of its Paris Session held at the Sorbonne in the Amphithéatre Louis-Liard on Monday, 26th July 1948 at 1730 hours. The discussion of this case followed immediately upon that regarding the status of Geoffroy’s Histoire abrégée, and it was against the background of the decision taken on that question that the case of the individual name Corixa Geoffroy was considered. In the light of the evidence submitted, the Commission came to the conclusion that the name Corixa was one of the names first published in the Histoire abrégée which ought, in the interests of nomenclatorial stability, to be validated under the Plenary Powers with, as its type species, the species customarily accepted as such. The Commission did not feel, however, that it would be possible, without further discussions with specialists, to reach a final decision as to which of two competing names for that species was the oldest available. As will be seen, therefore, the Commission devised a procedure under which it was possible for it both to take an immediate decision on the Corixa problem and to leave over for further consideration the one question on which, in its opinion, the position was not quite clear. The following is an extract from the Official Record of the Proceedings of the International Commission, setting out the decision then reached by it on the present case. (Paris Session, 13th Meeting, Conclusion 15) (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 369—370) :— THE COMMISSION agreed :— (1) to use their Plenary Powers :— (a) to validate the generic name Corixa Geoffroy, 1762, Hist. Ins. Envy. Paris 12478 (Class Insecta, Order Hemiptera) ; (b) to designate, as the type of the foregoing genus, the species Corixa geoffroyi Leach, 1817, Trans. linn. Soc. Lond. I2(h)se1 7: OPINION 28] 215 (2) to place the generic name Corixa Geoffroy, 1762 (with the above species as its type species), on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology; (3) to defer taking a decision on the question whether the trivial name of the type species of the genus Corixa Geoffroy should be placed on the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology until after further considera- tion had been given to the question whether that name (geoffroyi Leach, 1817) was the oldest available trivial name for the species in question and to invite the Secretary to submit a Report on this subject as soon as possible after the close of the present Session ; (4) to render an Opinion recording the decisions specified in (1) to (3) above. 10. The gender of the generic name Corixa Geoffroy, 1762, is feminine. 11. The decision recorded in paragraph 9 above was reported to, and approved by, the Section on Nomenclature of the Thir- teenth International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948, at its Fifth Meeting held on Monday, 26th July 1948 (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 5 : 106). 12. The foregoing decision was concurred in by the sixteen (16) Commissioners and Alternate Commissioners present at the Paris Session of the International Commission, namely :— Beltran vice Cabrera ; Boschma ; Bradley ; di Caporiacco ; Hemming; Hindle vice Jordan; Jorge vice do Amaral ; Kirby vice Stoll; Lemche vice Dymond; Mansour vice Hanko ; Metcalf vice Peters; Riley vice Calman; Rode ; Sparck vice Mortensen ; van Straelen vice Richter ; Usinger vice Vokes. 216 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 13. The foregoing decision was dissented from by no Com- missioner or Alternate Commissioner present at the Paris Session. 14. Consultations initiated by the Secretary in accordance with the invitation addressed to him in Paris in 1948: In pursuance of the request addressed to him by the Commission at its Paris Session, Mr. Francis Hemming, as Secretary, prepared in the autumn of 1951 a short note drawing attention to the decision taken by the Commission at its Paris Session to seek further advice from specialists on the question of the name to be adopted for the species which it was then decided to designate as the type species of the genus Corixa Geoffroy, 1762, and appealing to specialists to furnish advice on this question. This note, which was published on 15th April 1952 (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 7 : 208—209), was as follows :— Case 16: Question whether ‘‘ Corixa geoffroyi’’ Leach, 1817, is the oldest name, available either subjectively or objectively, for the species so named By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E. (Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) SGon ee the International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature, when considering the problems raised by the conclusion that Geoftroy’s Histoire abrégée of 1762 was not a binominal work, decided forthwith to use its Plenary Powers to validate the generic name Corixa Geoffroy, 1762. In taking this action, it was necessary for the Commission to designate the species to be treated as the type species of this genus. In his application to the Commission on this subject, Professor H. B. Hungerford, after pointing out that some authors had accepted as the type species of this genus the nominal species Notonecta striata Linnaeus, 1758 (Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 439) which alone had been cited by Geoffroy under the generic name Corixa, while others had accepted as the type species the species which had been figured by Geoffroy under the name Corixa but to which Geoffroy had not applied a binominal name ; later that species had been given the name Corixa geoffroyi by Leach in 1817 (Trans. linn. Soc. Lond. 12 (1) : 17) (Hungerford, 1947, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 1 : 258—259). Later in the same application Professor Hungerford drew attention to the fact that Dr. W. E. China (British Museum (Natural History) ) OPINION 28] 217 had in 1938 (Ent. mon. Mag. 74 : 34—39) identified the taxonomic species represented by the nominal species Corixa geoffroyi Leach, 1817, with that represented by the earlier nominal species Sigara punctata Illiger, 1807 (in Faun. etrusc. (ed. 2) : 354). At the conclusion of his application, Professor Hungerford expressed the hope that the name Corixa Geoffroy, 1762, would be accepted as an available name with Corixa geoffroyi Leach, 1817, as type species. 37. When validating the name Corixa Geoffroy, 1762, the Inter- national Commission itself designated under the Plenary Powers the nominal species Corixa geoffroyi Leach, 1817, to be the type species of this genus. In view, however, of the claims which had been advanced by Dr. China that the name Corixa geoffroyi Leach, 1817, was a sub- jective synonym of Sigara punctata Illiger, 1807, the International Commission decided to defer taking a decision on the question whether the trivial name geoffroyi Leach, 1817, as published in the binominal combination Corixa geoffroyi, should be placed on the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology until after further consideration had been given to the question whether that name is the oldest trivial name, available either objectively or subjectively, for the species in question. At the same time the Commission charged me in my capacity as Secretary to the Commission with the duty of presenting a Report on this subject as soon as the general wishes of interested specialists had been ascertained. 38. In accordance with the instructions issued by the International Congress of Zoology, the International Commission is bound in a case of this kind to place on the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology either (1) the trivial name geoffroyi Leach, 1817, as published in the binominal combination Corixa_ geoffroyi, (as the trivial name of the type species of the genus Corixa Geoffroy) or (2) if, in the opinion of specialists, that trivial name is not the oldest trivial name available, either objectively or subjectively, for the species in question, whatever trivial name is so considered by specialists. If in any case it is a matter of disagreement among specialists as to whether the trivial name of the type species of a given nominal genus (in this case, the trivial name geoffroyi Leach) is the oldest available name for the species in question with a consequent prospect of continued instability and confusion, it would be possible for the Commission, if specialists so desired, to suppress the older and less well-known of the competing trivial names. It is on these questions that the views of hemipterists are now invited. 15. Response to the Secretary's appeal to specialists for advice: The publication of the foregoing request for assistance elicited advice from: (1) Dr. W. E. China (British Museum (Natural History), London); (2) Professor H. B. Hungerford (University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas, U.S.A.). The letters received from 218 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS these specialists are reproduced in the two immediately following paragraphs. 16. Advice received from Dr. W. E. China (British Museum (Natural History), London): The following is a statement regarding the present case which formed part of the enclosure to a letter dated 21st April 1952 addressed to the Commission by Dr. W. E. China (British Museum (Natural History), London) :— It would be quite unnecessary and unfair to suppress the older name Corixa punctata IMlliger, 1807, in favour of C. geoffroyi Leach, 1817. As pointed out by Schumacher (1924) and China (1938), Illiger was the first to clear up the confusion over Corixa striata Geoffroy (the type of Corixa) and to rename it C. punctata. Ten years later Leach came to the same conclusion and renamed C. striata Geoffroy (nec Linnaeus) C. geoffroyi. Although Professor Hungerford in _ his application to the Commission requested that the type of Corixa Geoffroy, 1762, should be fixed as C. geoffroyi Leach, he has since in his monumental “ Corixidae of the Western Hemisphere ’’, 1948, p. 44, accepted C. punctata Illiger as the type species of Corixa Geoffroy. In order to avoid further confusion and to preserve the status quo, Corixa punctata Mlliger, 1807, must be placed on the Official List of Specific Trivial Names as the type species of Corixa Geoffroy, 1762, already validated by the Commission and Corica geoffroyi Leach, 1817, should become a synonym of it. 17. Advice received from Professor H. B. Hungerford (University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas, U.S.A.): On 26th September 1952 Professor H. B. Hungerford (University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas, U.S.A.) addressed the following letter to the Commission, setting out his advice as to the action which should be taken on the question of the name to be accepted for the species which the Commission in Paris had decided to designate as the type species of the genus Corixa Geoffroy :— Re the question concerning the trivial name of the type species of Corixa Geoffroy. I believe it should be Corixa punctata (Illiger 1807), for undoubtedly Corixa geoffroyi Leach 1817 is a synonym and is so accepted by the students of CORIXIDAE. OPINION 280 219 18. Supplementary Report submitted by the Secretary in January 1954 : When at the beginning of 1954 Mr. Hemming, as Secretary to the Commission, was engaged in the preparation of Opinions recording the decisions on individual cases taken by the Com- mission in Paris in 1948, he took the view that it would be inconvenient to entomologists if an Opinion were to be rendered on the case of the generic name Corixa Geoffroy, 1762, before a decision had been taken on the one aspect of this case on which action had been deferred by the Commission in Paris. He accordingly decided at once to seek a decision on this question from the Commission under the One-Month Rule. For this purpose Mr. Hemming prepared the following explanatory note which was submitted to the Commission—by air mail to Com- missioners resident outside Europe—on 27th February 1954 :— Proposed completion of the decision to validate the name ‘‘ Corixa ”’ Geoffroy, 1762 (Class Insecta, Order Hemiptera) by determining the oldest available name for its type species At Paris in 1948 (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 369—370) the International Commission used its Plenary Powers (a) to validate the generic name Corixa Geoffroy, 1762 (Class Insecta, Order Hemi- ptera), and (b) to designate as its type species the species named Corixa geoffroyi by Leach in 1817. At the same time, the Commission deferred for later consideration the question of the oldest available name for the species represented by the foregoing nominal species. The reason for this postponement was that, although Professor H. B. Hungerford, the applicant in this case, had asked for the foregoing nominal species to be accepted by the Commission as the type species of the genus Corixa Geoffroy, it appeared that the earlier nominal species Sigara punctata Illiger, 1807 (in Faun. etrusc. (ed. 2) : 354) represented the same taxonomic species, and therefore that the name geoffroyi Leach, 1817, was a junior synonym of the name punctata Illiger, 1807. On this question, the International Commission invited me, as Secretary, to confer with specialists and to submit a Report with a view to the Commission taking a supplementary decision as soon as it was in a position to do so. 2. The required consultations were initiated in 1952 by the publica- tion of a special note m Double Part 7/8 (pp. 208—209) of volume 7 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. The paper so published elicited two very helpful and informative comments: the first, dated 21st April 1952, from Dr. W. E. China (British Museum (Natural 220 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS History), London); the second, dated 26th September 1952, from Professor H. B. Hungerford (The University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas, U.S.A.). Copies of these letters are annexed to the present note.” It will be seen that both these authorities agree that the oldest available name for the species accepted as the type species of the genus Corixa Geoffroy is Sigara punctata Uliger, 1807, and that it is desirable that this name should be accepted for that species. Further, Dr. China’s letter shows that the name Corixa geoffroyi Leach, 1817, is an objective, as well as a subjective, junior synonym of the name Sigara punctata Illiger, 1807, each being no more than a nom. nov. for the name Striata Linnaeus which, through misidentification, had previously been applied to this species. 3. Now that the question which was in doubt at the time of the Paris Session of the Commission has been cleared up, it is recommended that the decision then taken under the Plenary Powers to validate the generic name Corixa Geoffroy, 1762, should be completed (1) by the designation of Sigara punctata Mlliger, 1807, to be the type species of the foregoing genus in the place of Corixa geoffroyi Leach, 1817, then provisionally so designated, (2) by the addition of the specific name punctata Illiger, 1807, as published in the combination Sigara punctata, to the Official List of Species Names in Zoology and (3) by the addition to the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology of the specific name geoffroyi Leach, 1817, as published in the combination Corixa geoffroyi (junior objective synonym of punctata IUlliger, 1807, as published in the combination Sigara punctata). 4. The decision taken by the Commission to validate the name Corixa Geoffroy, 1762, is one of the few Paris decisions for which an Opinion has not yet been prepared, the reason for this being that the preparation of the required Opinion has been deliberately held back in order to make it possible to include in that Opinion the decision of the Commission on the question remitted at Paris for further study which forms the subject of the present submission. 5. The present Call for a Vote is issued under the ONE-MONTH RULE. Members of the Commission are accordingly asked to com- plete the annexed Voting Paper and to return it to this Office in time for it to be received within ONE CALENDAR MONTH from today’s date, i.e. by 27th February 1954 at latest. (signed) FRANCIS HEMMING, Secretary to the International Commission 27th January 1954. * The letters in question are those reproduced in paragraphs 16 and 17 of the present Opinion. OPINION 281 221 19. Issue of Voting Paper V.P.(54)2 : Simultaneously with the submission to the Commission of the memorandum reproduced in the immediately preceding paragraph, a Voting Paper (V.P.(54)2) was issued in which the Members of the Commission were invited to vote either for, or against, “‘ the supplementary proposal relating to the type species of the genus Corixa Geoffroy, 1762, set out in paragraph 3 of the paper submitted by the Secretary concurrently with the present Voting Paper ” ”. 20. The prescribed Voting Period: As the foregoing Voting Paper was issued under the One-Month Rule, the prescribed Voting Period closed on 27th February 1954. 21. Particulars of the Voting on Voting Paper V.P.(54)2: The state of the voting on Voting Paper V.P.(54)2 at the close of the prescribed Voting Period was as follows 4:— (a) Affirmative Votes had been given by the following seventeen (17) Commissioners (arranged in the order in which Votes were received): Riley ; Holthuis; Lemche; Sylvester-Bradley ; Bonnet; Vokes; Hering; Dymond; _ Bradley (J. C.) ; Jaczewski ; Esaki; do Amaral ; Cabrera ; Hemming; Mertens; Pearson; Boschma ; 8 The paper here referred to is that reproduced in paragraph 18 of the present Opinion. * The following zoologists who were Members of the International Commission at the time of the issue of Voting Paper V.P.(54)2 were neither Members nor Alternate Members of the Commission at the time when the case of the generic name Corixa Geoffrey, 1762, was dealt with by the International Commission at its Session held in Paris in 1948 :— Professor Pierre Bonnet (Université de Toulouse, France) Professor Robert Mertens (Natur-Museum u. Forschungs-Institut Senckenberg, Frankfurt a. Main) Professor Erich Martin Hering (Zoologisches Museum der Humboldt- Universitat zu Berlin) Mr. P. C. Sylvester-Bradley (Sheffield University, Sheffield, England) Dr. L. B. Holthuis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) 222 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS (b) Negative Votes: None ; (c) Voting Paper V.P.(54)2 was note returned by two (2) Commissioners:° Hank6o ; Stoll. 22. Declaration of Result of Vote: On 28th February 1954 Mr. Hemming, Secretary to the International Commission, acting as Returning Officer for the Vote taken on Voting Paper V.P.(54)2, signed a Certificate that the Votes cast were as set out in paragraph 21 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. 23. On Ist March 1954, Mr. Hemming prepared the Ruling given in the present Opinion and at the same time signed a Certi- ficate that the terms of that Ruling were in complete accord with those of the proposal approved by the International Commission at its Session held in Paris in 1948, as amplified by its Vote on Voting Paper V.P.(54)2. 24. The following are the original ‘references for the names which appear in the Ruling given in the present Opinion :— Corixa Geoftroy, 1762, Hist. abrég. Ins. Env. Paris 1 : 478 geoffroyi, Corixa, Leach, 1817, Trans. linn. Soc. Lond. 12(1) : 17 punctata, Sigara, Mlliger, 1807, in Faun. etrusc. (ed. 2) : 354 25. At the time of the adoption of that part of the Ruling given in the present Opinion which incorporates a decision taken by the International Commission at its Session held in Paris in 1948, the expression prescribed for the second portion of the > After the close of the prescribed Voting Period, affirmative Votes were received from the two Commissioners (Stoll ; Hanko) whose Voting Papers had not been returned prior to that date. Thus, all the Members of the Commission voted in this case and all voted affirmatively. OPINION 281] 223 binomen which constitutes the scientific name of a species was the expression “trivial name” and the Official List reserved for recording such names was styled the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology, the word “ trivial’ appearing also in the title of the Official Index reserved for recording rejected and invalid names of this category. Under a decision taken by the Four- teenth International Congress of Zoology, Copenhagen, 1953, the expression “ specific name ” was substituted for the expression ** trivial name ”’ and corresponding changes were made in the titles of the Official List and Official Index of such names (1953, Copenhagen Decisions zool. Nomencl. :21). The changes in terminology so adopted have been incorporated in the Ruling given in the present Opinion. 26. The prescribed procedures were duly complied with by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature in dealing with the present case, and the present Opinion is accordingly hereby rendered in the name of the said International Commission by the under-signed Francis Hemming, Secretary to the Inter- national Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, in virtue of all and every the powers conferred upon him in that behalf. 27. The present Opinion shall be known as Opinion Two Hundred and Eighty-One (281) of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Done in London, this first day of March, Nineteen Hundred and Fifty-Four. Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature FRANCIS HEMMING Printed in England by MetcaLtre & Cooper LimitTED, 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 6. Part 14. Pp. 225—268, 1 PI. OPINION 282 Determination of the species to which the specific name plexippus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Papilio plexippus (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera) shall be held to apply a —<$—<$—$$_rn a 7_w\\\ foe 1 1064 2° { LONDON : Printed by Order of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature and Sold on behalf of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature by the International Trust at its Publications Office 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7 1954 Price One Pound, Three Shillings (All rights reserved) Issued 1st October, 1954 OCT 21 | PETOLs HSONy ? ~~. 4 \ \ INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE COMPOSITION AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THE RULING GIVEN IN OPINION 282 A. The Officers of the Commission President : Dr. Karl Jordan, Ph.D., F.R.S. (British Museum (Natural History), Zoological Museum, Tring, Herts, England). Vice-President: Dr. James L. Peters (Museum of Comparative Zoology, Cambridge, Massachusetts, U.S.A.). Secretary : Mr. Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. (London, England). B. The Members of the Commission Class 1949 Senor Dr. Angel CaBRERA (La Plata, Argentina). Mr. Francis HEMMING (London, England) (Secretary to the Commission). Dr. Karl JORDAN (British Museum (Natural History), Zoological Museum, Tring, Herts, England) (President of the Commission). Dr. Th. MORTENSEN (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark). Dr. Joseph PEARSON (Tasmanian Museum, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia). Class 1952 Senhor Dr. Afranio do AMARAL (S. Paulo, Brazil). Professor J. Chester BRADLEY (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.). Professor Lodovico di CAPoRIACCO (University of Parma, Italy). Professor J. R. Dymonpb (University of Toronto, Canada). Dr. James L. PErETERS (Museum of Comparative Zoology, Cambridge, Massachusetts, U.S.A.) (Vice-President of the Commission). Dr. Harold E. VoxKes (United States Geological Survey, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.). Class 1955 Professor Dr. Hilbrand BoscHMA (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands). Dr. William Thomas CALMAN (Tayport, Fife, Scotland). Professor Teiso ESAkI (Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan). Professor Béla HANKO (University of Debrecen, Hungary). Dr. Tadeusz JACZEWSKI (Polish Zoological Museum, Warsaw, Poland). Dr. Norman R. STOLL (Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, Princeton, New Jersey, U.S.A.). C. Alternate Members of the Commission at the Session held in Paris in 1948 Professor Enrique BELTRAN (Instituto Mexicano de Recursos Naturales Renovables A.C., Mexico City, Mexico). Dr: Edward HINDLE (Zoological Society of London, London, England). Dr. Arturo Ricardo JoRGE (Museu Bocage, Lisbon, Portugal). Professor Harold Kirsy (University of California, Berkeley, California, U.S.A.). Dr. Henning Lemcne (Kgl. Veteriner- og Landbohgjskole, Zoologisk Labora- torium, Copenhagen, Denmark). Professor Kamel MANSouR (King Fouad University, Cairo, Egypt). Professor Z. P. METCALF (North Carolina State College of Agriculture and Engineering, University of North Carolina, Raleigh, North Carolina, U.S.A.). Mr. N. D. RILey (British Museum (Natural History), London, England). Professor Ragnar SpARcK (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark). Professor Victor van STRAELEN (Institut Royal des Sciences Naturelles de Belgique, Bruxelles, Belgium). ; Professor Robert L. Ustncrr (University of California, Berkeley, California, U.S.A.). OPINION 282 DETERMINATION OF THE SPECIES TO WHICH THE SPECIFIC NAME ‘* PLEXIPPUS ” LINNAEUS, 1758, AS PUBLISHED IN THE COMBINATION ‘* PAPILIO PLEXIPPUS ” (CLASS INSECTA, ORDER LEPIDOPTERA) SHALL BE HELD TO APPLY RULING :—(1) Under the Plenary Powers it is hereby directed (a) that the specific name plexippus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Papilio plexippus (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera), is to be interpreted by the male specimen of the North American “* Monarch ”’ Butterfly taken by H. S. Burnett at Kendall, New York State, (1) which was illustrated in 1941 in the paper by Clark (H.A.) entitled “*‘ Notes on some North and Middle American Danaid Butterflies”? (Proc. U.S. nat. Mus. 90 : 533—536, pl. 71, fig. 1), and (11) which is now preserved in the United States National Museum (the preparation of the male genitalia prepared from this specimen being labelled “‘ W.D.F.[ield]”’); (b) that the foregoing specimen shall be the neotype of the foregoing nominal species ; (c) that the locality in which this specimen was collected shall be the restricted locality of this nominal species. (2) The specific name plexippus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Papilio plexippus and as defined, under the Plenary Powers, in (1) above, is hereby, placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology as Name No. 111. I.—THE STATEMENT OF THE CASE On 5th November 1947 Dr. A. Steven Corbet (British Museum (Natural History), London) submitted the following application to the International Commission asking for the use of the Plenary Powers for the purpose of determining the identity of the species AAY « bh aie 228 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS to which the specific name plexippus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Papilio plexippus (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera) should be held to apply :— Proposed use of the Plenary Powers to determine the identity of the species ‘‘ Papilio plexippus ’’ Linnaeus, 1758 (Class Insecta, — Order Lepidoptera) By A. STEVEN CORBET (British Museum (Natural History), London) The original description of Papilio plexippus in Syst. Nat. Ed. 10: 471 is as follows : 80. P{apilio] D[anaus] alis integerrimis fulvis : venis nigris dilatatis, margine nigro punctis albis. Pets MUS S35) NSO) Wee I1Ss oO. leno: Sloan. jam. 2. p. 214 °¢. 239. 1.5, 6. Catesb. car. 2. t. 88. Habitat in America septentrionali. Alae primores fascia alba, ut in sequente {chrysippus], qui similis. It will be observed that there is no reference to ““ M.L.U.” in the description and so it is to be presumed that the specimen described is in the Linnean Collection, and, indeed, P. plexippus is marked in Linnaeus’ copy of Edition 10 as being in his own collection. The first part of the description has no mention of a white fascia on the forewing, and was, undoubtedly, written for the American ‘“ Monarch ”’ butterfly. All four references given by Linnaeus clearly refer to the ‘“‘ Monarch”? and not to the Oriental butterfly which, twenty-one years’ later, Cramer denominated Papilio genutia. This accords with the view, already expressed, that when Linnaeus first wrote the description of this and several other species of Oriental butterflies for the tenth edition, he had no specimens of his own but relied on descriptions and figures in previously published works. There is no evidence that Linnaeus had any North American butterflies in his own collection at the time he was writing the tenth edition,* but it is known that a consignment of Cantonese butterflies received from P. Osbeck in 1752 included specimens of Danaus plexippus (i.e., genutia), D. similis and Euploea midamus (Osbeck, 1765, Reise nach Ostindien und China ..., Rostock). It is highly probable that, after the receipt of the Cantonese butterflies, Linnaeus added the final line * T think it very doubtful if the specimen of Nymphalis antiopa (Linnaeus) in the Linnean Collection, and which Verity (1913, J. Linn. Soc. Lond., Zool., 32 : 181) regarded as the name-type, is of American origin, as this author supposed. OPINION 282 229 (“‘Alae primores fascia alba, ... . ) whereby the description of plexippus was restricted to the Oriental genutia and no longer accorded with the citations referring to the American species. The Linnean Collection in London has two undoubted Linnean specimens of the Oriental genutia. One of these is a male set on a short pin with rather large rounded head, exactly of the type used for many of the Lycaenid butterflies in the Linnean Collection which carry name labels in Linnaeus’ handwriting. This specimen has a label “‘ 80 Plexippus’’ written by Linnaeus, and a second label * Plexippus 767”? by Smith ; the Linnean label has two pin holes. A female specimen of genutia is without a label, but is low set on a long, black, headless pin, exactly of the type used for most of the Cantonese butterflies which were obtained by Osbeck in 1751. From a close study of the figure labelled *‘ plexippus ” in the /cones, suppl. plate 5, figure 1, [ concluded that Clerck had both these Linnean specimens of genutia before him when he painted his figure. Both agree with examples of genutia from south-eastern China and, almost certainly, both are Osbeck specimens. I[ have no hesitation in taking the male specimen bearing the Linnaeus name label as the name-type of P. plexippus Linnaeus, 1758. A few words are necessary to dispose of four other specimens in the Linnean Collection. There are two further females of genutia, both carrying labels ““E Ind. N.E.K.”’, and each with a single pin hole. The initials “‘ N.E.K.”’ refer to Nathaniel Edward Kinderley, a cousin of Sir James Edward Smith who held an appointment on the Madras Establishment of the Hon. East India Company. It is known that he wrote to Smith from Tinnevelley, in the Madras Presidency, about 1784, and it is certain that neither of his specimens of genutia were in the Linnean Collection before it left Sweden. The Linnean Collection also contains two specimens of the American “* Monarch ”’ butterfly, a male labelled ‘“‘ Archippus Fab. 4. 49. Marsham’”’, and a female with a label “‘ Archippus Abbot t.6. Georgia. W.J.H.”: both labels are in Smith’s handwriting. The initials “‘ W.J.H.” refer to W. J. Hooker, who sent two collectors to North America, and both he and Thomas Marsham were contemporaries of Smith. Again, it is certain that these specimens were added to the collection by Smith. The label on the male “‘ Monarch ”’ butterfly has three pin holes, while that on the female has a single pin hole. In an attempt to end the unsatisfactory position whereby the name plexippus was consistently applied to two quite different species of butterfly, Riley (in Poulton and Riley, 1928, Trans. ent. Soc. Lond., 1928 : 454) examined the specimens in the Linnean Collection in London and concluded that the only authentic Linnean specimens among the examples of the American and Oriental claimants for the name was a male of the American ‘““ Monarch’. I have shown above that both specimens of the ‘““ Monarch” in the collection were added by Smith, and that the collection contains authentic Linnean examples 230 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS only of the Oriental genutia, one of them bearing a label in Linnaeus’ handwriting. It is probable that Riley’s investigation accounts for the extra pin holes in the labels of some of the specimens. Sufficient has been said, I think, to demonstrate that, according to the usual procedure adopted by systematists working in accordance with such guidance as is given by the International Rules of Zoological Nomenclature, the name Papilio plexippus Linnaeus, 1758, must be applied to the form of the Oriental genutia from south-east China. Nevertheless, it is a matter of interest to consider any specimens of the ““ Monarch”? or genutia in the Collection of Queen Ludovica Ulrica, although their identity can have no bearing on the status of the name plexippus. P. plexippus was re-described by Linnaeus in 1764, Mus. Lud. Ulr, : 262 at much greater length than in the 1758 Edition of the Systema, and there is the same reference to the white fascia on the forewing which restricts the name to the Oriental genutia. It is stated “‘ Habitat in America septentrionali. P. Kalm. meus e China.”’’, which suggests that the Queen had one or more American specimens taken by Kalm, although, at the time Aurivillitus examined the collection, there were two examples of genutia and none of the ** Monarch ”’. On the other hand, in Linnaeus’ original manuscript descriptions apparently written for Museum Ludovicae Ulricae Reginae, there is no mention of a white fascia on the forewing, but there is a reference to a figure of the American butterfly in Catesby, 1731—1743, Natural History of Carolina Florida and the Bahama Islands (London). Aurivillius thought that Linnaeus must have written this description according to a specimen of the “‘ Monarch ’”’ in the Queen’s Collection, and a little evidence can be adduced in support of such a view. Apparently other specimens are missing from the Queen’s Collection. The North American butterflies Papilio troilus and P. glaucus were described from “ M.L.U.” specimens in the Tenth Edition ; in Mus. Lud. Ulr., they were described as “‘ Habitat in America septentrionali. P. Kalm.”, and examples of both butterflies still remain in the Queen’s Collection at Upsala. It may be argued that it is impossible that Linnaeus based the description of plexippus in his manuscript notes entirely on Catesby’s figures for he mentions the antennae, legs and underside of the body, all of which are not visible in this figure. At first sight, this seems convincing evidence that the Queen had one or more specimens of the ““ Monarch”’ butterfly. Nevertheless, a comparison of the description in Linnaeus’ notes and that in Mus. Lud. Ulr. : 262 suggests that the words in the description following the reference to Catesby’s figure and which refer to the antennae, legs, etc., were founded on genutia and not on an actual specimen of the “‘ Monarch ”’. It is a mistake to suppose that the name p/exippus has long been employed for the American butterfly, and that an attempt is being made to “change the name’’. Indeed, rather is the reverse the case. OPINION 282 231 After its first appearance in the Tenth Edition in 1758 and in Mus. Lud. Ulr. in 1764, the Linnean name was next employed by Osbeck (1765, op. cit. : 270) for the Oriental genutia, and from an examination of the books written by “ reputable authors in systematic and faunistic work” Talbot (1943, Joc. cit. : 116) concluded that a large majority of those who recorded the Oriental species used the name p/exippus, while most of those who dealt with the American butterfly did not use this name but archippus (Fabricius)+, although a few used the name menippe (Hiibner). In fact, according to the International Rules, this latter name is the correct one for the North American butterfly. Summary It is shown that, if the name Papilio plexippus Linnaeus, 1758, is determined according to the usual procedure adopted by systematic zoologists, and in accordance with the International Rules of Zoological Nomenclature, its use must be restricted to the Oriental Danaus species described as Papilio genutia Cramer, 1779. The oldest valid name available for the North American ‘“‘ Monarch”’ butterfly is Anosia menippe Hubner, 1816, so that this species should hereafter be known as Danaus menippe (Hiibner). Nevertheless, a strong case can be put forward in favour of restricting the use of the Linnean name plexippus to the American butterfly. During the past twenty years, this species has been known almost consistently by the Linnean name, both in Britain and America, and a considerable volume of literature has developed within this period on the subject of the migrations of this butterfly. Accordingly, an application is being made to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature in the terms stated below. Appendix The specific name Papilio plexippus Linnaeus, 1758 In the past this name has been applied by various authors to the Oriental Danaus species described as Papilio genutia Cramer, 1779, and to the American ‘“‘ Monarch”’ butterfly, for which the oldest valid name appears to be Anosia menippe Hiibner, 1816. in a recent paper (Corbet, 1948, Proc. R. ent. Soc. Lond. (B.) 17 : 184—190) it is shown that, if this Linnean name is determined according to the usual procedure adopted by systematic zoologists, and in accordance with the International Rules of Zoological Nomenclature, its use must be restricted to the Oriental species genutia Cramer. However, as the “Monarch” butterfly has been known almost consistently, +. Papilio archippus Fabricius, 1793, is preoccupied by Papilio archippus Cramer, 1775, a species of Limenitis. 232 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS although incorrectly, by the Linnean name for the past twenty years, both in Britain and America, and as a voluminous literature has developed within this period on the subject of the migration of this butterfly, it appears desirable to continue to use the name for this species rather than to restrict it to the rightful claimant for the name. It is hoped, therefore, that the international Commission on Zoological Nomenclature will exercise the Plenary Powers conferred upon them by the International Zoological Congress and promulgate an Opinion to the following effect :— The name Papilio plexippus Linnaeus, 1758, is not to be employed for the Oriental Danaus species described as Papilio genutia Cramer, 1779, although this appears to be the correct procedure, but is to be reserved for the North American ‘* Monarch ”’ butterfly for which the oldest valid name appears to be Anosia menippe Hubner, 1816. The specimen figured in Catesby, 1731—1743, Natural History of Carolina Florida and the Bahama Islands (London), plate 88, and referred to by Linnaeus in his original description may be taken as the name-type, and the type locality is thus the southern United States of America. Ii—THE SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF THE CASE 2. Registration of the present application: On the receipt of Dr. Corbet’s application, the question of the identity of the taxonomic species represented by the nominal species Papilio plexippus Linnaeus, 1758, was allotted the Registered Number Z.N.(S.) 323. 3. Statement submitted by Mr. Francis Hemming (London) : The question raised in the present application had in 1946 formed the subject of study by Mr. Francis Hemming (London) in his capacity not as Secretary but as a lepidopterist when he had been engaged, so far as his duties to the Commission permitted, in a detailed study of the writings of Linnaeus on the butterflies of the Palaearctic Region. The following is the paper which he . OPINION 282 pA %' had then written on the problem which forms the subject of the present Opinion :— On the identity of the species described by Linnaeus in 1758 under the name ‘‘ Papilio plexippus ”’ By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E. (London) Papilio plexippus Linnaeus, 1758 Papilio plexippus Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 471, no. 80 ** Habitat in America septentrionali ”’ Papilio plexippus Linnaeus, 1764, Mus. Lud. Ulr. : 262, no. 81 ‘‘ Habitat in America septentrionali. P. Kalm. meus e China ” Papilio plexippus Linnaeus, 1767, Syst. Nat. (ed. 12) 1 (2) : 767, no. 117 ‘** Habitat in America septentrionali ”’ The nominal species Papilio plexippus Linnaeus, 1758, is the type species, by selection by myself (Hemming, 1933, Entomologist 66 : 222) of the nominal genus Danaus Kluk, 1802 (Zwierz. Hist. nat. pocz. gospod. 4 : 84), the type genus of the family DANAIDAE. It is very important, therefore, that there should be no room for doubt as to the identity of the taxonomic species represented by the nominal species Papilio plexippus Linnaeus. Unfortunately, however, there has been considerable disagreement in the literature on this subject. The majority of workers—at least in recent times—has treated the name Papilio plexippus Linnaeus as applying to the migratory species which occurs in North America, where it is known by the vernacular name “The Monarch’’. Other workers have, however, identified the species so named by Linnaeus with the South China species to which in 1779 (Uitl. Kapellen 3 (18) : 23, pl. 206, figs. C, D) Cramer gave the name Papilio genutia, a name now universally applied to this species by all those who consider that the name Papilio plexippus Linnaeus is properly applicable to the North American “‘ Monarch ”’. In view of this difference in practice, it is necessary to examine the available facts with a view to determining to which of the foregoing species the name plexippus Linnaeus is properly applicable. 2. The first matter to be looked at is the description given by Linnaeus himself for his species Papilio plexippus. Here we find :— (1) that the initial diagnosis is applicable either to the North American *“ Monarch ”’ (which we may conveniently call Species “‘A’’) or to the South China species (= P. genutia Cramer) (which we may call Species “B’’); (2) that the locality ‘“‘ Habitat in America septen- trionali’*’ given by Linnaeus can apply only to Species “A”; (3) that the supplementary description given at the end of the entire entry (i.e. after both the bibliographical references and the type locality), which reads “ Alae primores fascia alba, ut in sequente |Papilio chrysippus|, cui similis’’, does not apply to Species ““A’”’ but does apply to Species “* B’’. Taking the descriptions as a whole, it is clear, therefore, that it is based, in part, upon two different species. 234 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 3. In order therefore to determine the identity of the species to which the name plexippus Linnaeus shall apply it is necessary to make resort to the mechanism provided by Article 31, which, though defectively drafted! by reason of containing the highly inappropriate expression “‘ subdivision d’une espéce”’, nevertheless does provide a means for determining to which of two or more taxonomic species included in the description of a given nominal species the name published for the latter shall apply. In its present form this Article does not prescribe that the selection of a lectotype shall be the only permissible method for use in a situation such as that which confronts us here—indeed, the expression “‘lectotype’’ does not as yet occur anywhere in the Régles at all?—and it must be concluded therefore that a valid determination can be made under this Article by a “ First Reviser”’. It is from this point of view that the present problem must therefore be examined. 4. The first author to deal critically with the nominal species Papilio plexippus after 1758 was Linnaeus himself when in 1764 he described the Collection of Queen Ludovica Ulrica of Sweden. On this occasion Linnaeus again added a supplementary note which applies to the Chinese Species ““ B”’ and not to the North American Species ““A’”’, but he added some very illuminating information regarding the “‘ Habitat’ of his species Papilio plexippus. First, we have to note that he retained ‘‘ America septentrionalis”’ as the locality for this species ; second, he added the name of P[eter] Kalm as the collector by whom this North American material had been obtained ; third, he added that in his own collection—as contrasted with the collection of the Queen of Sweden—there were specimens of this species from “‘ China’’. The importance of the first of these pieces of information rests in the fact that Peter Kalm is known to have collected butterflies for Linnaeus in Pennsylvania in 1747. The Chinese specimens which Linnaeus stated that he had in his own collection were no doubt obtained for him at Canton by Peter Osbeck in 1750. It may therefore certainly be concluded that long before the publication in 1758 of the Tenth Edition of the Syst. Nat. Linnaeus possessed North American specimens of Species “‘ A ’’ and Cantonese specimens of Species ““B’’. With this knowledge, we may now turn back to the description given by Linnaeus in 1758 for his Papilio plexippus. Here, as we have seen, he gave only one locality ““ America septentrionalis ’’ for this species, that being the region from which he had obtained specimens from Kalm; so far as it goes, the unqualified citation of this locality completely rules Species “ B”’ out of account. On the other hand, it is clear that at that time the Cantonese specimens of Species “‘B” received from Osbeck were 1 The defects here referred to were remedied by the revision of Article 31 carried out by the Paris (1948) and Copenhagen (1953) Congresses. * It was not until 1948 that the concept “‘ lectotype’’ was granted recognition in the Régles (see 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 186). OPINION 282 2359 associated by Linnaeus with the North American species to which he then gave the name Papilio plexippus, for it is only on this assumption that it is possible to account for his having added to the description of that species the one-line note which refers to the Cantonese, and not to the North American, species. In 1764, as we have seen, Linnaeus added the locality “‘ China’ for the first time, though on this occasion again he retained ‘* America septentrionalis”’ as the principal locality for this species. When, however, we turn to the treatment of this species by Linnaeus in 1767 in the Twelfth Edition of the Syst. Nat., we find that he then dropped the locality ‘‘ China ”’, giving only the locality ‘““ America septentrionalis ’’, though, whether by inadvertence or otherwise, he retained the supplementary note relating to the Cantonese species. If it had not been for this latter fact, it would certainly be legitimate to regard Linnaeus as having acted in 1767 as the First Reviser of the nominal species Papilio plexippus established by himself in 1758 and as having selected the North American species (Species “‘ A’’) to be the species to which the name plexippus Linnaeus, 1758, should apply, to the exclusion of the Cantonese species (Species “B’’). Even as it is, there seems to be no doubt that by constantly placing the references to the Cantonese species in a subsidiary position, Linnaeus showed that it was the North American specimens which provided the basis for his concept of his nominal species Papilio plexippus. 5. It is necessary, therefore, to examine the literature for the purpose of determining whether any author has formally interpreted Papilio plexippus Linnaeus by acting as a First Reviser under Article 31 by selecting either Species ““ A”’ or Species “*B”’ to be the sole species to which this name shall apply. In my view, Cramer so acted when in 1779 he (1) described and figured (Uit/l. Kapellen 3 (18) : 23, pl. 206, figs. C, D) the Cantonese species (Species “‘ B ’’) as Papilio genutia and at the same time redescribed and figured (ibid. 3 (18) : 24, pl. 206, figs. E, F) the North American species (Species “‘A’’) under the name Papilio plexippus Linnaeus. In view however, of the considerable discussion which has taken place regarding the proper application of this name, it will, I think, be well to secure a final settlement of this matter by asking the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to give a formal ruling that the name plexippus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Papilio plexippus, shall apply exclusively to the migratory species found in North America discussed above under the name Species ““A’’. It will be for the Commission to decide whether this can be done appropriately under the mechanism provided by Article 31 or whether it would be better for it to invoke its Plenary Powers. I feel strongly that, owing to the present and past usage of the name p/exippus Linnaeus and, in particular, to the extensive use of the name plexippus Linnaeus for the North American ** Monarch ”’ butterfly in the literature of insect migration, the loss of that name for that species and its employment for P. genutia Cramer would be open to great objection and ought certainly to be prevented. 236 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 6. I have discussed this problem upon a number of occasions with my friend Dr. Steven Corbet of the British Museum (Natural History), who possesses an unrivalled knowledge of the Linnean butterflies. Dr. Corbet agrees that some means should be found for ensuring that the name p/exippus Linnaeus shall apply unquestionably to the North American “‘ Monarch” butterfly, but he considers that under the Régles that name at present applies to the Cantonese species which Cramer named Papilio genutia and that in order to secure the desired end it will be necessary to obtain from the International Commission the use of its Plenary Powers. He reaches this conclusion almost entirely by an examination of the surviving specimens in the Linnean collection and, as it seems to me, by giving insufficient weight to the evidence afforded by the localities cited by Linnaeus for Papilio plexippus and by our knowledge of the collecting done for Linnaeus in North America by Peter Kalm and by not applying to this case the provisions of Article 31. 4. The present was one of a number of cases relating to individual names, summaries of which were given in a paper (Paper I.C.(48) 19), prepared by the Secretary for consideration by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature at its Paris Session in 1948. The following is.an extract from the above Paper of the portion relating to the present case (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 3 : 137) :— (6) Proposed use of the Plenary Powers to determine the identity of Papilio plexippus Linnaeus, 1758 (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera) : No final settlement will ever be reached on the question whether the above name was given to (1) the North American “ Monarch” Danaid or (2) to the Chinese species of Danaid name Papilio genutia by Cramer, unless the Commission use their Plenary Powers to put an end to this controversy, for there are good argumenis in support of either view (though personally I think those in favour of the ‘“‘ Monarch’ to be the stronger of the two). Great confusion has arisen in this case, a fact which is particularly unfortunate (a) because of the large non-systematic literature regarding the ““ Monarch”? (in relation to its migratory habits) and (b) because it is particularly objectionable to be in doubt regarding the identity of the type species of a genus (Danaus Kluk, 1802) which forms the basis of a family. I recommend that this problem which was submitted to the Com- mission by A. S. Corbet (British Museum (Natural History) ) should now be settled by the use of the Plenary Powers to determine the matter by declaring that the species to which the name Papilio plexippus Linn. applies is the North American ‘“* Monarch” and not the Chinese species. This would be done by reference to some figure of the first of these species. OPINION 282 237 5. At Paris in 1948 the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature suspended its By-Laws for the duration of that Session (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 7—8), and it was in virtue of that decision that the present case was brought before the Commission later during that Session. I—THE DECISION OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 6. The present case was considered by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature at the Thirteenth Session of its Paris Session held at the Sorbonne in the Amphi- theatre Louis-Liard on Monday, 26th July 1948 at 1730 hours. The following is an extract from the Official Record of the Proceedings of the International Commission setting out the decision reached by it in the present case at the foregoing meeting (Paris Session, 13th Meeting, Conclusion 7) (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 359—361) :— THE COMMISSION agreed :— (1) to use their Plenary Powers to direct that the trivial name plexippus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binominal combination Papilio plexippus, should be applied to the American species figured as Danais plexippus by Holland (W.J.), 1931, Butterfly Book as figure 1 on plate 7 ; (2) to place the trivial name plexippus Linnaeus, 1758, as originally published in the binominal combination Papilio plexippus, as determined in (1) above on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology ; (3) to render an Opinion setting out the decisions recorded In (1) and (2) above. 238 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 7. The decision recorded in the immediately preceding paragraph was reported to, and approved by, the Section on Nomenclature of the Thirteenth International Conrgess of Zoology, Paris, 1948, at its fifth Meeting held on Monday, 26th July 1948 (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 5 : 105). 8. The foregoing decision was concurred in by the sixteen (16) Commissioners and Alternate Commissioners present at the Paris Session of the International Commission, namely :— Beltran vice Cabrera ; Boschma ; Bradley ; di Caporiacco ; Hemming ; Hindle vice Jordan; Jorge vice do Amaral ; Kirby vice Stoll; Lemche vice Dymond; Mansour vice Hanko ; Metcalf vice Peters; Riley vice Calman; Rode ; Sparck vice Mortensen ; van Straelen vice Richter ; Usinger vice Vokes. 9. The foregoing decision was dissented from by no Com- missioner or Alternate Commissioner present at the Paris Session. 10. Discovery in 1950 of a defect in the decision taken in 1948 : In August 1950 the attention of the Commission was drawn by Dr. Austin H. Clark (United States National Museum, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.) to the fact that the selection in Paris of figure 1 on plate 7 of Holland’s Butterfly Book to be the standard of reference for the identification of the nominal species Papilio plexippus Linnaeus was inappropriate, for that figure, although appearing in a book on the butterflies of North America, did not represent the well-known migratory subspecies of the ‘ Monarch ”’ butterfly found in the United States but was referrable to the subspecies found in northern South America. The following is an extract from the relevant portion of Dr. Austin Clark’s letter of 31st August 1950 :— In the Bull. zool. Nomencl. vol. 4, Parts 13/15, p. 361, 1950, it says : Pec Wren the trivial name plexippus Linnaeus, (753 (as published in the binominal combination Papilio plexippus) should be applied to the American species figured as Danais plexippus by Holland (W. J.), 1931, Butterfly Book, as figure 1, on plate7..... This is a most unfortunate complication, for Holland’s~ figure represents not the North American plexippus but the subspecies megalippe Hiibner of northern South America. OPINION 282 239 I recognised this long ago and asked my friend Dr. Hugo Kahl at Pittsburg to look up the specimen. The specimen figured was purchased from Staudinger and bears the label ‘* Danais erippus, South America.” (See Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, vol. 51, p. 179, 1938.) I gave it as nigrippus, not being aware at the time of Hiibner’s megalippe, which is scarcely different. The same information is repeated in Proc. U.S. Nat. Mus., vol. 90, p. 537, 1941, under Danaus plexippus megalippe. If the name plexippus is reserved for the subspecies now called megalippe of northern South America, our migratory North American form becomes a subspecies of p/exippus, and its nomenclatural status is as much in doubt as ever. As these sedentary Middle American forms, in contrast to the northern and southern ones, are variable, it would be necessary to fix a type locality. Staudinger received many specimens from Surinam. As Holland’s figure agrees well with specimens from the Guianas, Paramaribo would be presumably the type locality for plexippus. 11. Consultations initiated by the Secretary in October 1950 : On receiving the foregoing information, Mr. Francis Hemming, as Secretary to the Commission, came to the conclusion that, while it was essential that the International Commission should be asked to amend in some appropriate manner the decision which it had taken in Paris, it would assist the Commission if, before submitting a proposal on this subject, he were to ascertain from a wide range of specialists the nature of the action best calculated to secure the desired end. Accordingly, in October 1950 Mr. Hemming prepared the draft of a paper on this subject, containing a suggested solution which he despatched for comment and/or amendment to the twenty-three specialists enumerated below :— (1). North America (thirteen specialists) : Bryan Beirne (Ottawa, Canada) J. Martin Brown (Colorado Springs, Colorado) J. F. Gates Clarke (Washington, D.C.) J. A. Comstock (Los Angeles, California) C. F. dos Passos (Mendham, N.J.) W. D. Field (Washington, D.C.) Wm. T. M. Forbes (Ithaca, N. Y.) J. G. Franclemont (Washington, D.C.) W. Hovanitz (Ann Arbour, Michigan) 240 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS A. B. Klots (New York City) J. McDunnough (Halifax, Nova Scotia) C. D. Remington (New Haven, Conn.) Austin H. Clark (Washington, D.C.) (2). South America (three specialists) : Ferreira d’Almeida (Rio de Janeiro) K. J. Hayward (Tucumdn) A. da Costa Lima (Rio de Janeiro) (3). Europe (five specialists) :— J. Bourgogne (Paris) G. D. Hale Carpenter (Oxford) W. J. Hall (London) B. C. S. Warren (Folkestone) C. B. Williams (Harpenden) (4). Africa (two specialists) : E. Pinhey (Nairobi) G. van Son (Pretoria). 12. Text of the draft solution submitted by the Secretary to specialists for comment: The solution of the difficulty disclosed by Dr. Austin Clark submitted for discussion by Mr. Hemming in the draft paper referred to above was that the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature should be recom- mended :— (1) to delete the words “ by Holland (W. J.), 1931, Butterfly Book as figure 1 on plate 7” in the last two lines of Section (1) of the Official Record of its decision in regard to the name Papilio plexippus Linnaeus, 1758 (1950, Bull. zool Nomencl. 4: 361) and to substitute therefore the words “ by Clark (A. H.) as figure 1 on plate 71 ” in his paper entitled “‘ Notes on Some North and Middle American Danaid Butterflies ”’ published in 1941 (Proc. U.S. nat. Mus. 90 : 533—536, pl. 71, fig. 1 (male) ) and that the type locality of the nominotypical subspecies of this species should be deemed to be ‘“ Penn- sylvania ”’ (as indicated by Linnaeus in 1758, as supplemented in 1764) ; (2) to insert the correction and addition specified in (1) above in the Opinion agreed to be rendered in regard to the name Papilio plexippus Linnaeus, 1758. OPINION 282 241 13. Summary of the advice received from specialists: Of the twenty-three (23) specialists so consulted, thirteen (13) fully supported the suggested selection of figure 1 on plate 71 in a paper by Austin H. Clark entitled “‘ Notes on some North and Middle American Danaid Butterflies’ published in 1941. Two (2) other specialists gave a qualified support for this proposal. Three (3) of the specialists who supported this proposal con- sidered, however, that, if the suggested selection of Clark’s figure was to be made, the locality to be fixed for the nominate subspecies of Papilio plexippus Linnaeus should be the locality in which the specimen illustrated by Clark had been obtained. Three (3) specialists were opposed to the action suggested, considering that this question should be settled on the basis of strict priority. Two (2) specialists suggested that, if possible, this case should be settled by the selection of a lectotype from among the specimens preserved in the Linnean collection ; of these one suggested that, if the foregoing course were to be found impracticable, a neotype should be selected and the other recommended a course substantially equivalent to the designation of a neotype. One (1) specialist favoured the complete reversal of the Paris decision and the use of the specific name plexippus Linnaeus for the Oriental Danaid named Papilio genutia by Cramer in 1779. Two (2) of the specialists consulted did not reply. More detailed particulars of the views expressed by specialists in the informal consultation initiated by Mr. Hemming are given in paragraphs 5—10 of a memorandum which he submitted to the Commission on 27th January 1954 which is reproduced in paragraph 27 of the present Opinion. 14. Report submitted to the Commission in regard to the consultations initiated in 1950: In April 1951 a brief report on the outcome of the foregoing informal consultation was sub- mitted to the International Commission ; but no further action in this matter was taken at that time, there being no immediate prospect of its being possible to render an Opinion on the Paris decision in this matter. It was considered, moreover, that the question at issue was not one of such immediate urgency as many other matters, notably the initial preparations for the discussions on nomenclature at the Copenhagen Congress in the following year, which then required attention. This decision was explained in a brief note by the Secretary published in July 1952 242 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS (Hemming, 1952, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 6 : 284—285) at the time of the publication of the application by Mr. C. F. dos Passos reproduced in the immediately following paragraph. On the need for an amendment of the decision taken in 1948 regarding the method to be followed in identifying the taxonomic species | represented by the nominal species ‘‘ Papilio plexippus ”’ Linnaeus, 1758 (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera) Report by FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E. (Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) In 1948 the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature decided to use its Plenary Powers for the purpose of securing that the trivial name plexippus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Papilio plexippus, should be applied to the ‘‘ American Monarch Butterfly’ and not to the Oriental species to which the name plexippus had also been applied but which was also widely known as Danaus genutia (Cramer, [1779]) (Papilio genutia Cramer, [1779]). For this purpose the Commission used its Plenary Powers to secure that the trivial name plexippus Linnaeus “‘ should be applied to the American species figured as Danaus plexippus by Holland (W. J.), 1931, Butterfly Book as figure 1 on plate 7” (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 361). 2. In September 1950, my attention was drawn to the fact that, although Holland’s Butterfly Book was concerned only with the butterflies of North America, the specimen which he had figured as fig. | on his plate 7, though a specimen of the species to which the Commission had intended to refer, was a specimen not of the North American subspecies but of the South American subspecies (menippe Hubner). 3. In the light of this discovery it became clear that the figure cited by the Commission in its 1948 decision as the figure by which the nominal species Papilio plexippus Linnaeus, 1758, should be identified was unsuitable, in that it did not represent—as the Commission had erroneously thought that it did—the North American subspecies of the “* Monarch Butterfly ”’. 4. I accordingly concluded that it was desirable that this matter should again be brought to the attention of the Commission before an Opinion was formally rendered giving effect to the Paris decision, so that the Commission might have an opportunity of considering the substitution in its decision of a reference to a more appropriate figure than that specified in the decision quoted in paragraph | above. OPINION 282 243 5. For the purpose of ascertaining the wishes of interested workers in this matter, I accordingly prepared the draft of a memorandum drawing attention to the foregoing problem and offering a tentative suggestion for overcoming the difficulty which had come to light. This draft memorandum was then (October 1950) sent for comment to twenty-three workers in the Order Lepidoptera (North America, 13 ; South America, 3 ; Europe, 5 ; Africa, 2), whose names were kindly suggested to me by Commissioner N. D. Riley (British Museum (Natural History) ) as being workers likely to be interested in this subject. The comments and suggestions received in reply to this consultation were extremely diverse, but it was quite clear that the particular suggestion which I had tentatively put forward did not meet with general approval. 6. I reported the result of this consultation to the International Commission, but at that time I did nothing more in the matter, for, as there was no immediate prospect of its being possible at an early date to issue an Opinion following on the Paris decision in this matter, the problem at issue was not one of such immediate urgency as many other matters which then required attention. 7. Within the last few days Mr. Cyril F. dos Passos has submitted to the International Commission a proposal, dated 29th April 1952, on this subject, which is being published in the present Part of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. Now that this question has been brought before the Commission in this way, the prescribed advertisement of this proposal will throw the whole subject open to general discussion. 15. Proposal submitted by Mr. Cyril F. dos Passos in 1952: On 29th April 1952 Mr. Cyril F. dos Passos (The American Museum of Natural History, New York) submitted the following definite proposal for overcoming the difficulty which had arisen in this case. Mr. dos Passos’ proposal was published on 23rd July 1952 (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 6 : 278—283). Application to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to reconsider and rephrase in part their decision suspending the ** Régles ’’ concerning ‘‘ Papilio plexippus ’’ Linnaeus, 1758, insofar as that decision refers to a figure in Holland’s ‘* Butterfly Book ”’ Pye vie Ee DOS -PASSOS,, LL.B: F-R-.E:S. (Research Associate, American Museum of Natural History, New York) Statement of the Case Linnaeus in 1758 (: 471, no. 80) proposed the name Plapilio] D{anaus| Plexippus, ** Habitat in America septentrionali”’. He cited 244 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS American references only. The first part of the description applies to the North American “ Monarch’’ butterfly, but the second part applies only to the Oriental species, later named Papilio genutia Cramer (“‘ 1782” [1779], Uitl. Kapellen 3 : 23, p. 206, figs. C-D). 2. Linnaeus in 1764 (: 262) redescribed Papilio D[anaus| Flestivus] Plexippus, “‘ Habitat in America septentrionali. P. Kalm. Meus e China”. This description applies only to the Oriental species. 3. Cramer in [1779] described the Oriental species referred to above as Papilio Genutia, and that name has been used quite generally for that species. 4. Papilio plexippus has been employed frequently for the Oriental species and often for the North American species, but in recent years that name has been used more and more for the North American species, especially in semi-popular works and those dealing with migrations. 5. No American specimen of the North American ** Monarch ”’ was in the collection of Queen Ludovica Ulrica at Upsala, Sweden, when examined by Aurivillius in 1882 (: 69—70), and none has been found in that collection since that time. 6. No American specimen of the North American “‘ Monarch ”’ appears to have been in the Linnean collection in 1758, and those in the collection at the present time in the Linnean Society, London, are believed to have been added after Linnaeus’ death, and do not bear name labels in his handwirting. 7. In the Linnean collection referred to in paragraph 6 there are two Oriental Danaid butterflies, one bearing a lable in Linnaeus’ handwriting reading “ 80 Plexippus’’, and these two specimens are most probably the types of Papilio plexippus. 8. If Papilio plexippus had to be used for the Oriental species, it would result in sinking P. genutia and cause considerable confusion. 9. If Papilio plexippus were not available for the North American ** Monarch ’’, the oldest valid name would be Anosia menippe Hiibner (1816 : 16, no. 86). 10. Riley in 1928 (: 453—455) claimed that the name Papilio plexippus should be used for the North American ‘‘ Monarch ’”’, but Corbet in 1949a (: 184—190) argued that P. plexippus must be used for the Oriental species. 11. Up to this point the problem presented by this name had been one of taxonomy—the identification and classification of Papilio OPINION 282 245 plexippus—a problem upon which able taxonomists (Riley, 1928 : 453— 455 ; Talbot, 1943a : 84, 1943b : 115—116, 126; Corbet, 1941 : 18, 27, 1949a : 188—190, to mention only a few), had been unable to agree, so that there was danger that the name would be applied from time to time to different insects. 12. Thus a problem of nomenclature was created—what to do with the name Papilio plexippus—concerning which stability is most desirable. This question fell, naturally, under the jurisdiction of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, where Corbet prior to the 1948 Congress had placed it by an application to the Commission for a suspension of the Rég/es so as to validate the name P. plexippus for the North American species, in which he suggested “‘ taking as the name-type the figure referred to by Linnaeus in Catesby, 1731— 1743, Natural History of Carolina, Florida and the Bahama Islands (London) ’’, (1949b : 199). 13. Corbet’s application was brought to the attention of the Commission at Paris in 1948 in a memorandum (I.C. (48) 19) by the Secretary (later published in 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 3 : 137) relating to certain individual cases which had been pending before the Commission for some time, and concerning which he desired to have their opinion. This portion of the memorandum reads as follows :— [Here followed the text of the note on this case submitted by the Secretary to the Commission at its Paris Session in Com- mission Paper J.C. (48) 19. The passage in question has been quoted in paragraph 4 of the present “* Opinion”’, and in conse- quence is not reprinted here.| The Decision of the Commission 14. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature had four possible solutions of the problem presented to it by Corbet— (a) to deny the application and let the name- Papilio plexippus be shuffled about from pillar to post as it had been in the past, (5) to apply the name P. p/exippus to the Oriental insect, thus causing the trivial name genutia to fall as a synonym of plexippus, (c) to suppress the name P. plexippus entirely under Suspension of the Rules, in which event Danaus menippe would be available for the North American ** Monarch ’’, or (d) to preserve the name P. plexippus for the North American “‘ Monarch” under a suspension of the Régles. 15. There is little use in discussing the merits and demerits of these four possible solutions, because the Commission chose the last (d), and the matter is now academic. It remains to be seen how the Commission carried out its decision at Paris, because that action has led to some misunderstanding, confusion and controversy. 246 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 16. At the International Congress of Zoology held at Paris in 1948 the application referred to in paragraph 12 above was granted in part, i.e., insofar as to suspend the Régles and place the name plexippus Linnaeus, as published in the combination Papilio plexippus, upon the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology to be used for the North American ‘* Monarch ”’ butterfly. 17. At the meeting referred to in paragraph 16 the application referred to in paragraph 12 was denied in part, 7.e., insofar as it suggested taking for the name-type of Papilio plexippus “ the figure referred to by Linnaeus in Catesby, 1731—-1743, Natural History of Carolina, Florida and the Bahama Islands (London) ”’. 18. At the meeting referred to in paragraph 16 the Commission’s— minutes (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 359—361) read as follows :— [The long extract which followed at this point is not reproduced here, for the first portion was no more than a summary of the applica- tions received in this case from Dr. A. Steven Corbet and from Mr. Francis Hemming which have been reproduced in full in paragraphs \ and 2 of the present ** Opinion ’’, while the second portion (which contained the Official Record of the decision taken by the International Commission in Paris in 1948) has already been quoted in paragraph 5 of the present *‘ Opinion’’.| 19. The phraseology of the first (1) paragraph of the Commission’s agreement is rather unfortunate and the reference to the figure in Holland’s Butterfly Book (1931 : pl. 7, fig. 1) has given rise to some misunderstanding, confusion and controversy (Field, Clarke and Franclemont, 1951 : 68—70; d’Almeida, Oiticica, F., et al., 1951: 728—729 ; Riley, 1951 : 75—76) because, while the Commission intended to cite a figure of Danaus plexippus plexippus (Linnaeus), the North American ‘* Monarch,”’, it was subsequently discovered that Holland’s figure is in fact Danaus plexippus menippe (Hiibner), the South American subspecies which had been misdetermined by Holland. 20. The Commission did not designate any type specimen or type figure of Papilio plexippus, nor did they fix any type locality for that insect, nor has any lectotype designation of P. plexippus ever been made, because lectotypes were not officially recognised until the amendment to the Rég/es in 1948. Recommendation _ 21. Since no Opinion has been rendered as yet by the Commission in this matter, it is respectfully submitted that the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature should now reconsider OPINION 282 247 and rephrase paragraph (1) of its decision referred to in paragraph 18 so that the same will read as follows :— **(1) to use their Plenary Powers to direct that the trivial name plexippus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binominal combination Papilio plexippus, should be applied to the North American *“* Monarch ”’ butterfly ‘ to be followed, if deemed advisable, by a reference to the figure of Danaus plexippus plexippus (Linnaeus) appearing in one of the following publications, which contain good figures of that insect :— Catesby, Mark [1730—1748]. The natural history of Carolina, Florida and the Bahama Islands : containing the figures of birds, beasts, fishes, serpents, insects and plants . . . with their descriptions in English and French, &c.—Histoire naturelle de la Caroline, &c. (Appendix). London. Vol. 2, p. 88, pl. 88. Clark, Austin Hobart, 1941. Notes on some North American Danaid Buttenmies: “Proc. U.S. nat. Mus. 90 (No. 3118) : pl. 71, fig. 1. Comstock, John Henry, and Anna Botsford Comstock, 1929. How to know the butterflies. A manual of the butterflies of the eastern United States. Ithaca, The Comstock Publishing Company. PI. 1, fig. 4, pl. 28, fig. 19, pl. 32, fig. 33. Klots, Alexander Barrett, 1951. A field guide to the butterflies of North America, east of the Great Plains. Boston, Houghton Mifflin Company ; Cambridge, The Riverside Press. Pl. 10, fig. 1. Lutz, Frank Eugene, 1935. Field book of insects of the United States and Canada, aiming to answer common questions. New Math G_ bP: Putnam’s Sons. P. 117, pl. 82. Macy, Ralph William, and Harold Henry Shepard [1941]. Butterflies. A handbook of the butterflies of the United States, complete for the region north of the Potomac and Ohio Rivers and east of the Dakotas. Minneapolis, The University of Minnesota Press. PI. 4. Because of the rarity of the Catesby work and its consequent unavailability to most students, perhaps such a reference would not be very useful, but it is included here because such a reference was recommended by Corbet. Bibliography d’Almeida, Romualdo Ferreira, José Ojiticica, Filho, et a/, 1951. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature and the name of the Monarch butterfly. Science 113 : 728—729. Aurivillius, Per Olof Christopher, 1882. Recensio critica Lepidopterorum Musei Ludovicae Ulricae quae descripsit Carolus aLinné. Kongl. Sv. Vetensk Akademiens Handlingar 19 (no. 5) : 1— 188, figs. 1—4, 1 pl. (colored). DA Oe OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS Corbet, Alexander Steven, 1941. The Linnaean names of Indo- Australian Rhopalocera. Part 2. Proc. R. ent. Soc. Lond. (B) 10 : pp. 17—27. | ———, 1949a. The Linnaean names of Indo-Australian Rhopalocera. Part 6. The case of Papilio plexippus Linnaeus, 1758. Ibid. (B) 18 : 184—190. , 1949b. The Linnaean names of Indo-Australian Rhopalocera. Part 7. Summary of determinations. J/bid. (B) 18 : 191—199. Cramer, Pieter, and [in part] Caspar Stoll [1779—1791], °* 1782” [1779—1780]. De uitlandsche kapellen voorkomende in de drie waereld-deelen Asia, Africa en America. [The title and the text in Dutch and French.] Amsterdam, S. J. Baalde, and Utrecht, Barthelemy Wild, vol. 3, pp. : [8] -- 1—36, 73 [sic], 33—176 + [2], frontispiece and pls. 193—288 (colored). Field, William Dewitt, John Frederick Gates Clarke, and John George Franclemont, 1951. On a recent proposal to correct an error committed by the International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature at the Paris 1948 meeting. Science 113 ; 68—70. Holland, William Jacob, 1931. The Butterfly Book. New and thoroughly revised edition. Garden City, New York, Doubleday, Doran and Co., Inc. [2] + xi + 424 pp., 77 pls. (73 colored). Hubner, Jacob, 1816—[1826]. Verzeichniss bekannter Schmettlinge [sic]. Augsburg, 432 + 72 pp. Linnaeus, Carolus [Carl von Linné], 1758. Systema Naturae per Regna tria Naturae, secundum classes, ordines, genera, species, cum characteribus, differentiis, synonymis, locis. Editio decima, reformata. Stockholm, Laurentii Salvi, vol. 1, [4] + 824 pp. ———, 1764. Museum S. R. M. Ludovicae Ulricae Reginae .. . in quo animalia rariora, exotica, imprimis insecta et conchilia describuntur et determinantur ... Stockholm, Salvius, [vi] + 720 + [2] pp. | Riley, Norman, Denbigh, 1928, in Poulton, Edward Bagnall, and Norman Denbigh Riley, The Rhopalocera of the “‘ St. George ”’ expedition, from French Oceania. Trans. ent. Soc. Lond. 76 : 453— 468. , 1951. The ‘“‘ Monarch” butterfiy. Science 114 : 75—76. Talbot, George, 1943a. The specific name of the “‘ Monarch ”’ butter- fly. Entomologist 76 : 84. , 1943b. Revisional notes on the genus Danaus Kluk (Lep. Rhop. Danaidae). Trans. R. ent. Soc. Lond. 93 : 115—148. 16. Comments received on the proposal submitted by Mr. Cyril F. dos Passos: The publication of Mr. dos Passos’ proposal elicited comments from the following nine (9) specialists :— (1) F. Martin Brown (Fountain Valley School, Colorado Springs, Colorado, U.S.A.) ; (2) Bryant Mather (Jackson, Mississippi, OPINION 282 249 U.S.A.); (3) Eugene Munroe (Department of Agriculture, Division of Entomology, Ottawa, Canada); (4) T. N. Freeman (Department of Agriculture, Division of Entomology, Canada) ; (5) L. P. Grey (Lincoln, Maine, U.S.A.) ; (6) Karl P. Schmidt (Chicago Natural History Museum, Chicago, Illinois, U.S.A.) : (7) Ralph L. Chermock (University of Alabama, Alabama, U.S.A.); (8) Richard M. Fox (Colorado College, Colorado Springs, Colorado, U.S.A.); (9) N. D. Riley (British Museum (Natural History), London). The foregoing comments are reproduced in the immediately following paragraphs. As will be seen, all the specialists concerned, with the exception of Dr. Richard M. Fox (paragraph 24), supported Mr. dos Passos’ proposal. It must be noted also that, with the exception of the comment written by Mr. Riley, all the comments in question were written before the meeting of the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology at Copenhagen in 1953 and therefore, before official recognition for the concept of neotypes had been given in the Régles. While re-affirming his support for the solution advocated by Mr. dos Passos, Mr. Riley reviewed that proposal in the light of the decision taken by the Copenhagen Congress and to suggest that, instead of Dr. Austin H. Clark’s figure being designated as the standard of reference for the determination of the nominal species Papilio plexippus Linnaeus, the specimen so figured should be designated to be the neotype of that nominal species (paragraph 26 below). 17. Comment by Mr. F. Martin Brown (Fountain Valley School, Colorado Springs, Colorado, U.S.A.): In a letter dated Ii1th October 1952, Mr. F. Martin Brown (Fountain Valley School, Colorado Springs, Colorado, U.S.A.) submitted the following comment on Mr. dos Passos’ proposal (Brown, 1953, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 9 : 139) :— In connection with a brief study of the “‘ Monarch”’ butterfly as it appears in Australia I am still in a quandary as to its trivial name. The Commission’s agreement at Paris allows two interpretations : (a) The trivial name plexippus Linnaeus is to be applied to the species represented by Holland on plate 7, figure 1 of the Butterfly Book, 1931 edition. (b) The trivial name plexippus Linnaeus is to be applied to the subspecies represented by the above quoted figure. 250 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS My personal reaction to the agreement was the broad interpretation suggested in (a) above. Since then numbers of taxonomists have shown that they choose to apply the restricted interpretation in (b) above. I believe that the intention of the Commission was to consider plexippus Linnaeus reserved for the northern migratory race of the species, not the non-migratory tropic race called menippe Huebner. If my interpretation of the Commission’s actions is correct I wish to add my plea to that of Mr. Cyril F. dos Passos (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 6 : 278—283, 1952) (Commission’s reference Z.N.(S.) 323). Mr. dos Passos’ recommendation will make the situation clear that plexippus Linnaeus is to be used for the migratory Monarch butterfly of North America. I have always read Linnaeus, 1758, with this in mind: that the material printed in italics is supplementary and often added notes ; that the true description is that printed in Roman type. The original description (p. 471, No. 80) then applies to the American species. The problem of whether or not Linnaeus had seen the American species before writing his 1758 description might be solved if it can be determined when he received Peter Kalm’s collection. This was made in 1747 in ample time to have been seen by Linnaeus before writing description No. 80. I am inclined to believe that he had seen Kalm’s material before he saw Osbeck’s collected in 1750 in China. The 1758 description is likely made from Kalm’s specimen later added to (in italics) from Osbeck’s. 18. Comment by Mr. Bryant Mather (Jackson, Mississippi, U.S.A.) : Ina letter dated 13th October 1952 Mr. Bryant Mather (Jackson, Mississippi, U.S.A.) submitted the following comment on Mr. dos Passos’ proposal (Mather, 1953, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 9 ; 138) :— Through the kindness of Mr. Cyril F. dos Passos I have received copies of reprints of three papers from vol. 6 of the Bull. zool. Nomencl. relating to the niobe/cydippe/adippe problem (pp. 323—356) and to Papilio plexippus (pp. 278—283). It is my view that the recommendations contained in these papers are reasonable and, in the absence of compelling arguments to the contrary of which I have no knowledge, merit acceptance. I have no | personal prior information on the niobe/cydippe/adippe problem, hence my opinion is based entirely on the statements contained in the two papers dealing with it. In the case of the use of the name plexippus for the North American “‘ Monarch’ my views are based on my personal familiarity with the insect itself, my desire to see the nomenclature stabilised, study of the papers that appeared in Science OPINION 282 py | in 1951, and the statements in the reprint of the paper by Mr. dos Passos. I have before me three of the six figures offered for the Commission’s choice by Mr. dos Passos. Those included in the works by Klots and Clark have the advantage of giving the locality from which the figured specimen came (Scranton, Pa., and Kendall, N.Y., respectively) while that in the work by Lutz has the advantage of being in colour. It is therefore my feeling, as it apparently is that of Mr. dos Passos, that, if it is deemed advisable to refer to a figure, it is relatively immaterial which one of those suggested is cited—with the possible exception of that in the work by Catesby— for the reason stated by Mr. dos Passos. 19. Comment by Dr. Eugene Munro (Department of Agriculture, Division of Entomology, Ottawa, Canada): On 15th October 1952 Dr. Eugene Munroe (Department of Agriculture, Division of Entomology, Ottawa, Canada) submitted the following comment on Mr. dos Passos’ proposal (Munroe, 1953, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 9 : 139—140) :— I have recently received from Mr. C. F. dos Passos of Mendham, N.J., a reprint of pp. 278—283 of Bull. zool, Nomencl. vol. 6, in which he proposes that the Commission modify its 1948 decision as to the application of the name Papilio plexippus Linnaeus so as to delete reference to “the American species figured as Danais plexippus by Holland (W. J.), 1931, Butterfly Book as figure 1 on plate 7”, substituting the words *‘ the North American ‘ Monarch’ butterfly ”’. Although I am in agreement with the proposed action as a palliative measure, I do not think it strikes at the root of the problem. Since I believe that the practice of designating the application of scientific names by reference either to vernacular names or to figures of specimens that have no status or ambiguous status as types is fundamentally wrong and is at variance with the whole type concept, I can give only qualified approval of Mr. dos Passos’ proposal, which I could support only as a temporary measure to remove an existing positive evil. I wish further to draw attention to the extremely sweeping nature of the principle expressed in paragraph 20 of Mr. dos Passos’s sub- mission. In that paragraph Mr. dos Passos appears to claim that, because the decision to approve lectotypes was not taken until 1948, lectotype designations made prior to that time have no standing. I do not believe that this principle is implicit in the decision of the Commission recognising lectotypes. Indeed, two considerations argue the reverse : 252 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS (a) The fact that parallel provisions for the selection of types of genera (Article 30) in the absence of an original designation have always been taken to be retroactive. | (b) The wording of the definition of lectotype (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 186) is such as to include any published selection of a single type specimen from a series of syntypes subsequent to the original validation of the respective name. If, however, I am wrong and Mr. dos Passos’ contention is correct, it will automatically mean that almost all of the large number of *‘ lectotypes ’’ at present designated in literature and collections are from the standpoint of the rules spurious, and that a very large source of taxonomic confusion would be created. It is with regret that I find myself unable to stand fully behind Mr. dos Passos’ proposed solution to the Papilio plexippus problem, as there are already more than enough disagreements in the field of nomenclature. 20. Comment by Dr. T. N. Freeman (Department of Agriculture, Division of Entomology, Ottawa, Canada) : On 16th October 1952 Dr. T. N. Freeman (Department of Agriculture, Division of Entomology, Ottawa, Canada) submitted the following comment on Mr. dos Passos’ proposal (Freeman, 1953, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 9 : 138) :— I am in receipt of two letters from Mr. Cyril F. dos Passos of Mendham, N.J., who asked me if I would comment on his article in the Bull. zool. Nomencl. which deals with the reconsideration of the case of Papilio plexippus Linn. and also one which deals with two papers, one by Grey, Klots and dos Passos on the niobe-cydippe- adippe problem. With regard to the adippe problem, I must say that I am in complete accord with the views and facts as outlined by Grey, Klots and dos Passos. I am also in accord with his views as outlined in his article on the plexippus problem with the exception that the suggestions would only solve the problem temporarily as outlined by Dr. Munroe of this Unit in his recent letter dated 15th October, 1952. 21. Comment by Mr. L. P. Grey (Lincoln, Maine, U.S.A.) : On 31st October 1952 Mr. L. P. Grey (Lincoln, Maine, U.S.A.) submitted the following comment on Mr. dos Passos’ proposal (Grey, 1953, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 9 : 140) :— I have read the application which Mr. dos Passos has filed with the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (1952, Bull. OPINION 282 253 zool. Nomencl. 6 : 278—283) to correct an error made at the Congress in Paris, 1948, in its decision regarding Papilio plexippus Linn., the object of Mr. dos Passos’ application being for the Commission to use their Plenary Powers to fix the name p/exippus as applying to the North American Monarch butterfly. Inasmuch as the 1948 decision seems to apply inadvertently to a South American butterfly, contrary to most popular usage, and since if left unmodified, it threatens to perpetuate a nomenclatorial situation which is opposed by many workers, I am pleased to learn that the petition mentioned has been filed and wish to state that it has my full support. I hope that the Commission will designate a reference figure from some book readily available to students ; this figure, I should think, ought also to be of a specimen now preserved in some well-known museum. 22. Comment by Dr. Karl P. Schmidt (Chicago Natural History Museum, Chicago, Illinois, U.S.A.): On Sth November 1952 Dr. Karl P. Schmidt (Chicago Natural History Museum, Chicago, Illinois, U.S.A.) submitted the following comment on Mr. dos Passos’ proposal (Schmidt, 1953, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 9 : 140) :— In the matter of the name of our common “ Monarch ’’ butterfly, I heartily approve the decision of the International Commission to suspend the rules, apply the trivial name plexippus to the American species, and place it on the Official List of Specific Trivial Names. I wish to support the further suggestion of Mr. Cyril dos Passos as to amending the Commission’s decision with reference to figures to be cited to identify the species properly as the typical Danaus plexippus plexippus. 23. Comment by Professor Ralph L. Chermock (University of Alabama, Alabama, U.S.A.) : On 9th November 1952 Professor Ralph L. Chermock (University of Alabama, Alabama, U.S.A.) submitted the following comment on Mr. dos Passos’ proposal :— The problem involved is one of great interest to students of Lepidoptera in the United States. Many have written to me asking my opinion on the matter, and practically all of them feel that the trivial name plexippus should be restricted to the North American subspecies with which it has been associated in the majority of the scientific, popular and economic literature. 254 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS I have read the paper by Mr. Cyril dos Passos which was published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, vol. 6, pp. 278—283, 1952, and have carefully perused the pertinent literature available for study. I personally feel that the original decision of the Commission, as quoted on page 281 of the above paper, applying the trivial name plexippus to the specimen figured by Holland (1931) in his Butterfly Book, figure 1, plate 7, was most unfortunate. If qualified Lepidop- terists in the United States (where this butterfly is found) had been consulted, the present difficulty could have been prevented. It is my sincere hope that similar errors will not be repeated, because they defeat the purpose of Nomenclature, creating additional confusion, instead of eliminating them ; and weaken the confidence of scientists in the Commission, which is so necessary in modern taxonomy. The recommendation, as proposed by Mr. dos Passos, is a sound one and represents considerable thought. I am in complete agreement with the proposal in principle. However, I believe it is far wiser to designate a specimen (or potential specimen) as type, rather than an illustration, since the opinion essentially represents a type designation. This permits morphological studies of types which would not be possible otherwise. I therefore recommend that the name be restricted to the specimens as figured in either of the following two works : Clark, Austin H. (1941) Notes on some North American Danaid Butterflies, Proc. U.S. nat. Mus., 90 (No. 3118) : PL. 71, fig. 1. (This specimen figured is in natural size, is accompanied by a related sub- species with which it might be confused, and is housed in the United States National Museum). Klots, Alexander B. (1951) A Field Guide to the Butterflies of North America, east of the Great Plains., Pl. 10, fig. 1. (This specimen has the advantage of being in colour, although it is not in natural size, and is not accompanied by an illustration of its nearest relative. I presume, however, that the specimen is in existence in the American Museum of Natural History in New York). 24. Comment by Dr. Richard M. Fox (Colorado College, Department of Zoology, Colorado Springs, Colorado, U.S.A.) : On 18th November 1952 Dr. Richard M. Fox (Colorado College, Department of Zoology, Colorado Springs, Colorado, U.S.A.) submitted the following comment on Mr. dos Passos’ proposal :— Our valued colleague, Mr. Cyril F. dos Passos, recently sent me his application anent Papilio plexippus Linné from Bull. zool. Nomencl., 6 : 278—283 and suggested I send comments on to you. This I do herewith with a copy to Mr. dos Passos. OPINION 282 255 As Mr. dos Passos points out in paragraph 15 of the above reference, the question of applying P. plexippus Linné, 1758, either to the North American or to the Oriental Danaid now is academic. In passing, however, I desire to record my disapproval of the Commission’s decision. To my way of thinking, all the evidence suggested that the name should be applied to the Oriental species. The fact that Linné, 1758, cited North America as the type locality is entirely beside the point in view of the fact that he actually had the Oriental species, not the American. One must conclude that Linné made a geographic blunder. Nor am I impressed by the fact that the name has so frequently been used for the North American species in publications of various sorts. A wrong cannot be metamorphosed into a right just because ever sO many people have been wrong. In general I am opposed to conserving names for any reason whatsoever: to do so adds in the long run to the confusion (P. plexippus is a case in point—nobody’s satisfied) ; to do so negates the basis for the Rules ; to do so removes nomenclature from its status as a science and places it in the status of a hobby. A sharp knife is needed to cut a Gordian knot ; do we lack Alexander’s courage ? But that is academic now. The Commission has decided to apply the name to the American species, so be it. I do not see the need for redesignating the type figure of P. plexippus, as Mr. dos Passos is suggesting. First, the designation of a lecto- typic specimen is a far better mechanics than designating a picture to a specimen ; should it appear that any alteration of the Commission’s decisicn in this matter is required, I should greatly prefer to have a lectotype designated—preferably a specimen from a homogenous series so that some “ paralectotypes ’’ would then exist, and could be distributed to various collections. Second, were the Commission’s present ruling allowed to stand, no great inconvenience or difficulty appears to me. As the situation now stands, the Holland figure is the type. I suppose that the original specimen of the figure thereby becomes the lectotype. I imagine that this particular insect still exists in the collection at the Carnegie Museum. That means that the South American subspecies 1s Danaus plexippus plexippus (=P. menippe Hiibner) and that the North American subspecies must take the next available name. A cursory check suggests that this next available name probably is P. genutia Cramer, 1779. That’s a nice name. In any event, there surely is a next available name ! And D. plexippus now includes all the sub- species of the polytypic American species—and that was what was wanted to begin with. I would be perfectly satisfied to make the best of the situation as it now stands. A name is only a convenience. I have no emotional 256 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS attachment to the taxonomic designation of any animal. But if there appears to you and to the Commission any compelling reason for altering your designation of the Holland figure, I most strongly recommend that you do NOT substitute the designation of some other figure, but that you designate a lectotypic specimen. I greatly dislike standing in disagreement with my colleague and valued friend Mr. dos Passos. But you will note that there are two principles here about which I have definite opinions : first, I do not like pictures designated as types, but prefer the use of the lectotype mechanics ; second, I do not like conserving names out of sentiment. 25. Comment by Mr. N. D. Riley (British Museum (Natural History), London): On 18th December 1953 Mr. N. D. Riley (British Museum (Natural History), London) submitted the following comment on Mr. dos Passos’ proposal :— I have been much interested to read the article by Mr. dos Passos (Bull. Zool. Nomen. 6 : 278) on the question of selecting a suitable figure of Papilio plexippus Linnaeus to illustrate the Commission’s decision on the application of this name, taken in Paris in 1948. Whilst I am stili of the opinion that the action the Commission then took was perfectly adequate for the purpose and leaves no doubt as to the species to which the name should be applied, it is clear that others think differently, and therefore they wish the Commission to be even more precise and to indicate by means of a figure the sub- Species, not merely the species, to which this name is properly applied. This certainly gives the name greater precision, but I think it goes beyond the real need of the case. Mr. dos Passos, on page 282 of the article referred to above, lists six works in which Papilio plexippus is illustrated. Three of these works, namely those by Macy and Shepperd, Lutz and Comstock illus- trate the species in colour, and all those figures are very good, though to my mind there may be some slight doubt in respect of Comstock’s figure as to which subspecies is illustrated. In none of these works, however, is there any indication of the locality from which the specimen figured derives, or any hint that the specimen figured may be preserved anywhere and available for study. Catesby’s work was published so long ago that the likelihood of the specimen illustrated being anywhere preserved is exceedingly remote. Of the remaining figures, namely those by Klots and Clark, both are reproductions of black and white photographs, and in each case details are given of the locality of the specimen figured. Klots illustrates only the left wings and the body of the insect, whereas Clark gives an admirable full picture, of which the only criticism I have to make is that the photographic screen used has failed to differentiate between the white and the brown spots, a OPINION 282 257 feature of importance, in the apical region of the forewing. Neverthe- less there is absolutely no doubt that the specimen illustrated is a typical plexippus, and I would suggest, that, if the Commission still wishes to select another figure to give further point to their 1948 decision, then this would be a suitable one. I am writing to Clark to ask whether this actual specimen is safely preserved anywhere, as I feel confident it will be. 26. Proposal by Mr. N. D. Riley (British Museum (Natural History), London) that the case dealt with in the present “‘ Opinion” should be settled by the designation of a neotype: On 29th December 1953 Mr. N. D. Riley reported the result of his consultation with Dr. Austin H. Clark (United States National Museum, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.)—first referred to in Mr. Riley’s letter of 18th December 1953, reproduced in paragraph 25 above—and proposed that, now that the present location of the specimen figured under the specific name plexippus by Clark in 1941 had been established, Mr. dos Passos’ proposal, with which, as he had already stated he was in agreement, should be modified by the substitution of a recommendation that the specimen figured should be designated as the neotype of Papilio plexippus Linnaeus in place of the recommendation that the Commission should direct that the figure of that specimen should be the standard of reference to be used in the identification of the fore- going nominal species. Mr. Riley’s letter was as follows :— The following is quoted from a letter received yesterday from Austin Clark :— The specimen of Danaus plexippus plexippus figured on plate 71, fig. 1, Proc. U.S. Nat. Mus., vol. $0, 1941, is in the U.S. National Museum collection. Since the photograph was taken the genitalia have been mounted on a slide (W.D. Ffield], 3317). I do not have a private collection, but turn over all my specimens to the Museum. Now that we know the location of the specimen figured in Clark’s paper and the labels on it, it would, I think, be much better if the Commission were to designate that specimen to be the neotype of Papilio plexippus Linnaeus, instead of fixing the published figure of that specimen as the standard of reference for the identification of this nominal species. 258 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 27. Supplementary Report submitted by the Secretary in January 1954: When at the beginning of 1954 the bulk of the Opinions required for the purpose of giving effect to the decisions taken by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature at its Session held in Paris in 1948 had been duly prepared, Mr. Hemming, as Secretary to the Commission, judged that the time had come to seek a decision on the outstanding question relating to the specific name plexippus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Papilio plexippus. He accordingly decided to seek a decision on this question under the One-Month Rule. For this purpose Mr. Hemming prepared the following explanatory note which was submitted to the Commission—by air mail to Commissioners resident outside Europe—on 27th January 1954 :— The specific name ‘* plexippus ’’ Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination °° Papilio plexippus ”” (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera) The purpose of the present submission is to seek a decision from the International Commission on an outstanding question which must be settled before an Opinion can be rendered setting out the decision taken in this matter by the Commission at its Session held in Paris in 1948 (see 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 359—361). 2. The Commission will recall that the question on which in 1948 it was asked by Dr. A. Steven Corbet to give a decision was whether the specific name plexippus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Papilio plexippus (Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1: 471) should apply (1) to the American Danaid species known in that country as the “* Monarch ”’ for which it was widely used in North America and Europe, or (2) to the Oriental Danaid species to which the name genutia was given by Cramer (Papilio genutia Cramer, 1779), which it had been widely used for it by workers on the Indo-Oriental Fauna. This diversity of practice arose from the impossibility, without the intervention of the Commission, of securing an interpretation of the confused description given by Linnaeus for the foregoing nominal species which would be binding upon all workers. The answer given by the Commission, under its Plenary Powers, to the question so submitted was that the name plexippus Linnaeus shall apply to the American species and not to the Oriental species. 3. With the intention of making this decision perfectly clear, the Commission stated in the Ruling adopted that this specific name was to “be applied to the American species figured as Danais plexippus by Holland (W. J.), 1931, Butterfly Book as figure 1 on plate 7”. Itis at this point that the problem on which the Commission OPINION 282 259 is now asked to vote subsequently arose, for it was found that Holland’s figure, though purporting to represent the migratory subspecies well known in the United States represented not that subspecies but the South American subspecies of the same species. The question was then raised as to whether the effect of the Commission’s decision was to make the South American subspecies, instead of the North American subspecies, the nominate subspecies of the nominal species Danaus plexippus (Linnaeus), a result which would be entirely contrary to the intention of the proposal (Bu//. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 360) submitted to the Commission. For one of the chief points in that proposal was that this species was described from specimens taken in North America (actually in the neighbourhood of Philadelphia) by Linnaeus’s Swedish disciple Peter Kalm, and therefore that it was desirable that the name plexippus Linnaeus should apply to the North American and not to the Oriental species described by Cramer. 4. After considering the situation created by this difficulty, which was first brought to the attention of the Commission in 1950, and after consulting Mr. N. D. Riley, | came to the conclusion that the best course would be to prepare a statement setting out the problem and to seek the views of lepidopterists as to the best solution to be reached. The document so prepared was in the form of a draft note, which was intended to serve as a basis of discussion. Two suggestions were submitted in this draft : (1) that the Commission’s Paris decision should be modified by the substitution for the reference to Holland’s figure of a reference to a figure (in black and white) in a paper by Austin H. Clark published in 1941 under the title “‘ Notes on some North and Middle American Danaid Butterflies’? (Proc. U.S. nat. Mus. 90 : 533—536, pl. 71, fig. 1 (male) ), and (2) that there should be added to the decision a ruling that the type locality of the nominate subspecies should be deemed to be “‘ Pennsylvania ”’. 5. The draft document so prepared was submitted on 28th October 1950 to the following twenty-three specialists, whose names had been suggested by Mr. Riley: (1) North America (thirteen specialists) : Bryan Beirne (Oftawa) ; J. Martin Brown (Colorado Springs) ; Austin H. Clark (Washington, D.C.) ; J. F. Gates Clarke (Washington, D.C.) ; J. A. Comstock (Los Angeles) ; C. F. dos Passos (Mendham, N.J.) ; W. D. Field (Washington, D.C.) ; Wm. T. M. Forbes (Ithaca, N.Y.) ; J. G. Franclemont (Washington, D.C.) ; W. Hovanitz (Ann Arbor) ; A. B. Klots (New York City) ; J. McDunnough (Halifax, Nova Scotia) : C. D. Remington (New Haven, Conn.) ; (2) South America (three specialists) ; Ferreira d’Almeida (Rio de Janeiro); K. J. Hayward (Tucuman) ; A. da Costa Lima (Rio de Janeiro) ; (3) Europe (five specialists) : J. Bourgogne (Paris) ; G. D. Hale Carpenter (Oxford) ; W. J. Hall (London) ; B. C. S. Warren (Folkestone) ; C. B. Williams (Harpenden) ; (4) Africa (2 specialists) ; E. Pinhey (Nairobi) ; G. van Son (Pretoria). All the specialists so consulted replied, with the exception of Senhor Ferreira d’Almeida and Dr. J. A. Comstock. 260 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 6. Of the twenty-one specialists who replied, thirteen (Bourgogne ; Carpenter; Clark (A. H.); dos Passos; Hall; Hovanitz ; Klotz; Costa Lima ; McDunnough ; Pinhey ; Remington ; Warren ; Williams) fully supported the selection of Clark’s fig. 1 on pl. 71 to be the standard for the identification of this species. In addition, two other specialists gave a qualified support for the designation of Clark’s figure. Martin Brown would have preferred the selection, as a lectotype, of a specimen of the North American “‘ Monarch’ from the Linnean collection ; his concurrence in the designation of Clark’s figure was subject to the understanding that this did not make the specimen so figured the type. Forbes supported the designation of the Clark figure as the second-best procedure, his first preference being to abandon the use of the name plexippus altogether. Three (Klots ; Remington ; Williams), considered that if the proposed selection were made, the locality to be fixed for the nominate subspecies should be the locality of the specimen figured by Clark (a specimen taken at Kendall, in New York State) and not “*‘ Pennsylvania ”’, the State from which Linnaeus received his specimens from Kalm. In addition, two specialists (Field ; Munroe) who were opposed to the designation of a figure expressed the view that, if such a course were to be adopted, the locality to be cited for the species should agree with the locality of the specimen figured. With this criticism of my proposal of October 1950, I am in full agreement, for I agree that, unless the restricted locality cited is that in which the figured specimen was obtained, there is a risk that later taxonomic work may show either that two species are involved or that the subspecies from the restricted locality does not agree with the cited figure. 7. Three specialists (Gates Clarke ; Franclemont ; Hayward) con- sidered that the problem should be settled on the basis of strict priority by the selection of a lectotype from the Linnean collection, the specimen so to be selected to belong to whichever of the two species concerned (the North American “‘ Monarch ”’ or the Oriental species) appeared correct in the historical background. Clarke & Hayward suggested the appointment of an ad hoc Committee to examine the Linnean material from this point of view. 8. Munroe (replying to the letter addressed to Beirne) believed that it should be possible to secure, by the selection of a lectotype, that the name plexippus should apply to the North American ‘* Monarch ”’, a course to which he had no objection and which from the standpoint of the North American literature he considered somewhat to be preferred. He considered that in cases of this kind settlements should be reached not by the designation of figures to represent species but by the selection of lectotypes or, if that was not possible, by the designation of neotypes ; he added that he very much hoped that it would prove practicable to devise an acceptable scheme for the designation of the latter class of type specimen. OPINION 282 261 9. Field had no objection to action by the Commission to secure that the name p/exippus Linnaeus should apply to the North American ** Monarch ”’, but objected to the method proposed, for he considered that a specimen and not a figure should be designated for this purpose. He suggested that a specimen of the North American ** Monarch” in the Linnean collection should be selected as the lectotype or, if this was not approved, that the Commission should select—and figure— as the standard of reference for this species, a specimen from ** Pennsylvania’? or from any other North American locality from which Linnaeus could have obtained material, or from which specimens figured by the authors cited by Linnaeus were obtained. Field added that the selection by the Commission of a previously published figure would also, in his opinion, be a permissible procedure, though one inferior to those suggested above. 10. Finally, van Son favoured a reversal of the Paris decision and the use of the name p/exippus for the Oriental Danaid. 11. In April 1952 Mr. dos Passos submitted the formal proposal published in volume 6 (: 278—283) of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. Mr. dos Passos’ proposal is that the wording of the Paris decision should be amended (a) by the substitution of the words ** North American ‘ Monarch’ butterfly’ for the words “‘ American species ’’, (b) by the deletion of the reference to Holland’s figure, and (c) by the addition, if desired, of a reference to one or cther of six figures, specified by Mr. dos Passos, each of which unquestionably represents the North American subspecies of the ‘“* Monarch ”’ butter- fly. The authors of the works containing the figures included in Mr. dos Passos’ list are :—(1) Catesby, M. (1730—1748) ; (2) Clark, A. H. (1941) ; (3) Comstock, J. H. & Comstock, A. B. (1929) ; (4) Klots, A. B. (1935) ; (5) Lutz, F. E. (1935) ; (6) Macy, R. W. & Shepard, H. H. (1941). The figure serving as the unique reference figure for this species, if taken from Clark (1941) would be the same figure (pl. 71, fig. 1) as that suggested in 1950, for which it will be recalled from the particulars given in paragraph 6 above, a large amount of support has been received. 12. In all, nine comments have been elicited by the publication and advertisement of Mr. dos Passos’ proposal. Of these the first six have been published in the Bulletin: Mather, B. (9 : 138); Freeman, T. N. (9 : 138) ; Munroe, E. (9 : 139) ; Brown, J. Martin (9 : 139); Grey, L. P. (9 : 140) ; Schmidt, Karl P. (9 : 140). The three comments last received are from Ralph L. Chermock ; Richard F. Fox ; N. D. Riley. Of the nine specialists cited above all except Fox (who does not consider any action necessary) support Mr. dos Passos’ proposal. Among the zoologists included in the foregoing list, two in 1950 were opposed to a solution on the lines suggested. These are (1) Munroe (with whose view Freeman associates himself now) who supports the proposal as a palliative without prejudice to his preference for the 262 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS selection of a lectotype, if that were possible, or, failing that, of a neotype, and (ii) Martin Brown who gives the dos Passos proposal unqualified support. 13. Riley, whose comments are set out in letters dated 18th and 29th December 1953 [reproduced in paragraphs 25 and 26 above], alone comments in detail on the various alternative figures suggested by dos Passos as candidates for selection as the unique standard of reference for the identification of Papilio plexippus Linnaeus. For the reasons which he explains, Riley comes down strongly in favour of the selection of the illustration given by Clark as figure | on plate 71 in his 1941 paper. This selection as Riley points out, would leave no possible doubt as to the identity of the nominate subspecies of Papilio plexippus and further would have the advantage that the specimen figured by Clark is a reproduction of a known specimen and one which is preserved in a great National Collection (the U.S. National Museum, Washington) and which has been examined in detail, a preparation of the male genitalia of this specimen having been made by Field. Incidentally, the selection of this specimen would have the advantage that it would provide for the nominal species under con- sideration a definite restricted locality, namely ‘“‘ Kendall, New York ”’, the locality on the label of the specimen figured by Clark. At the conclusion of the second of his letters, Riley makes the important suggestion that in existing circumstances it would be more appropriate for the Commission to designate Clark’s figured specimen to be the neotype of Papilio plexippus Linnaeus, than (as hitherto contemplated) to direct that the foregoing nominal species is to be identified by reference to the published photograph of that specimen. This suggestion is further discussed in paragraph 15 below. 14. The particulars given above show (1) that there is a large majority of specialists in favour of the use of the specific name plexippus Linnaeus, 1758, for the North American subspecies of the ‘** Monarch ”’, and (2) that, within this field, the proposal that this should be secured by reference to figure 1 on plate 71 in Clark’s paper has the support of all the workers concerned. At this point it must be noted that the situation has changed in one respect since Mr. dos Passos put forward his proposal through the action of the Copenhagen Congress in 1953 in granting official recognition to the concept of neotypes. 15. In these circumstances it is for consideration whether, as suggested by Mr. Riley (paragraph 13 above), it would not be more appropriate for the proposed decision to take the form of a direction that the specimen illustrated as figure | on plate 71 of A. H. Clark’s paper of 1941 is to be the neotype of the nominal species Papilio plexippus Linnaeus, 1758, rather than (as hitherto contemplated) the form of a direction that the foregoing nominal species is to be inter- preted by reference to the figure cited above. There are two con- siderations which support the adoption of the neotype procedure : OPINION 282 263 (1) A decision to link the name p/exippus Linnaeus to Clark’s figure is itself tantamount to the designation of that specimen as the neotype, for it would make it impossible for any worker at a later date to select any other specimen as the neotype of this species. (2) Procedure by this method would be more in harmony with current taxonomic practice, in that it would link the name plexippus Linnaeus to a definite specimen which could at any time be subjected to further study, if this were to be considered necessary on taxonomic grounds. 16. It is considered that the Commission may find it convenient to vote separately (1) on the proposal that the name p/exippus Linnaeus is to be applied to the migratory North American ** Monarch” butterfly ; (2) on the question whether the foregoing determination of the nominal species shall be (a) by reference to the figure in Clark’s paper of 1941 or (b) by reference to the specimen so illustrated, that specimen therefore to become the neotype of this species. Accordingly, in the Voting Paper now submitted two separate votes are invited, the first on the general issue propounded in Mr. dos Passos’ proposal, the second (which becomes relevant only if the vote on the first issue is in the affirmative), on the method to be adopted for giving effect to that proposal. 28. Issue of Voting Paper V.P.(54)4 : Simultaneously with the submission to the Commission of the memorandum reproduced in the immediately preceding paragraph, a Voting Paper (V.P.(54)4) was issued to the Members of the Commission for the purpose of obtaining a decision in the present case. For the reasons explained in paragraph 16 of the Secretary’s covering memorandum, the Members of the Commission were invited in this Voting Paper to vote, first on the general question whether the name plexippus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combina- tion Papilio plexippus, was to be applied to the migratory North American “* Monarch” butterfly, and second, if the vote given on the first vote was in the affirmative, on the question whether the foregoing end should be secured by the designation of a neotype for the nominal species Papilio plexippus Linnaeus, 1758 (Mr. Riley’s proposal) or by a direction that the foregoing nominal species was to be identified by reference to a specified published figure (Mr. dos Passos’ original proposal). 29. The prescribed Voting Period: As the foregoing Voting Paper was issued under the One-Month Rule, the prescribed Voting Period closed on 27th February 1954. 264 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS 30. Text of Vote No. 1: Under the procedure indicated above, Members of the International Commission were invited to vote either for, or against, the proposal submitted by Mr. dos Passos * that the decision taken in Paris in regard to the interpretation of the nominal species Papilio plexippus Linnaeus, 1758, be amended (i) by the substitution of the words ‘ North American ‘“Monarch’’ butterfly’ for the words ‘ American species’, (11) by the deletion of the reference to the figure given in Holland (W.J.), 1931, Butterfly Book, and (iii) by the insertion of appro- priate particulars for the identification of the species popularly so known ”’. 31. Particulars of the Voting on Vote No. 1: The state of the voting on Vote No. | (in Voting Paper (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) :— Riley; Holthuis; Lemche; Sylvester-Bradley ; Bonnet ; Vokes ; Hering; Dymond ; Bradley (J.C.) ; Esaki; do Amaral; Cabrera ; Hemming; Mertens ; Pearson ; Jaczewski ; Boschma ; (a) Negative Votes : None ; + The following zoologists who were Members of the International Commission at the time of the issue of Voting Paper V.P.(54)4 were neither Members nor Alternate Members of the Commission at the time when the case of the nominal species Papilio plexippus Linnaeus, 1758, was dealt with by the International Commission at its Session held in Paris in 1948 :-— Professor Pierre Bonnet (Université de Toulouse, France) Professor Robert Mertens (Natur-Museum u. Forschungs-Institut Senckenberg, Frankfurt a. Main) Professor Erich Martin Hering (Zoologisches Museum der Humboldt- Universitat zu Berlin) Mr. P. C. Sylvester-Bradley (Sheffield University, Sheffield, England) Dr. L. B. Holthuis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) OPINION 282 265 (c) Voting Papers were not returned by the following two (2) Commissioners :—* Hanko ; Stoll. 32. Text of Vote No.2; In Vote No. 2 (on Voting Paper V.P.(54)4) Commissioners who voted affirmatively on Vote No. | (for the text of which see paragraph 30 above) were invited to vote affirmatively either for Alternative “‘ A ” or for Alternative *B” submitted therewith. The following are the texts of the Alternatives so submitted :— Alternative ‘‘ A ”’ (definition by reference to a neotype) (1) Under the Plenary Powers it is hereby directed that the specific name plexippus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Papilio plexippus, is to be interpreted by the male specimen of the North American ‘“‘ Monarch”’ butterfly taken by H. S. Burnett at Kendall, New York (i) which was illustrated in 1941 in the paper by Clark (A.H.) entitled ‘““ Notes on some North and Middle American Danaid Butterflies ’’ (Proc. U.S. nat. Mus. 90 : 533—536, pl. 71, fig. 1), and (ii) which is now preserved in the United States National Museum (the preparation of the male genitalia prepared from which being labelled ‘‘ W. D. Fifield], 3317’) ; that the foregoing specimen shall be the neotype of the above species, and that the locality in which this specimen was collected shall be the restricted locality of this nominal species. (2) The specific name p/exippus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the foregoing combination and as determined in (1) above, is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. Alternative ‘‘ B ”’ (definition by reference to a figure) (1) Under the Plenary Powers, it is hereby directed that the specific name plexippus Linnaeus, as published in the combination Papilio plexippus, is to be applied to the North American ‘‘ Monarch ”’ butterfly illustrated as figure 1 on plate 71 of the paper by Clark (A.H.) published in 1941 under the title ‘“ Notes on Some North and Middle American Danaid Butterflies ’’ (Proc. U.S. nat. Mus. 90 : 533—536, pl. 71, fig. 1) and that the restricted locality of this nominal species shall 4 After the close of the prescribed Voting Period, affirmative Votes were received from the two Commissioners (Stoll ; Hanké) whose Voting Papers had not been returned prior to that date. Thus, all the Members of the Commission voted in this case and all voted affirmatively. 266 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS be “ Kendall, New York ”’, the locality in which the specimen so figured was collected. (2) The specific name plexippus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the foregoing combination, and as determined in (1) above, is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. 33. Particulars of the Voting on Vote No.2: At the close of the prescribed Voting Period on 27th February 1954 the state of the voting was as follows :—® (a) Votes in favour of Alternative “A” (definition by neotype) had been given by the following sixteen (16) Commissioners (arranged in the order in which votes were received) :— 66 Riley; Holthuis; Lemche; Sylvester-Bradley ; Bonnet ; Vokes ; Hering ; Dymond ; Bradley (J.C.) ; Esaki ; do Amaral ; Cabrera ; Hemming; Mertens ; Pearson® ; Jaczewski ; (b) A vote in favour of Alternative “ B”’ (definition by reference to a figure) had been given by the following one (1) Commissioner : Boschma ; (c) Voting Papers were not returned by the following two (2) Commissioners :—‘ Hanko ; Stoll. 34. Declaration of Result of Vote on Voting Paper V.P.(54)4 : On 28th February 1954 Mr. Hemming, Secretary to the Inter- national Commission, acting as Returning Officer for the vote taken on Voting Paper V.P.(54)4, signed a Certificate that the votes cast were as set out in paragraphs 31 and 33 above and declaring that the proposal submitted as Alternative “A” in 5 See footnote 3. 6 Commissioner Pearson exercised in this case the right conferred by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology in Paris, 1948, under which a Commissioner may, if he so desires, signify his willingness to support the view, or the majority view, of other members of the Commission (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 50—S1). ? See footnote 4. In the Voting Papers received after the close of the Pre- scribed Voting Period, each of these Commissioners voted in favour of Alternative ‘“‘A’’. The total vote for that Alternative amounted therefore to eighteen out of a possible nineteen votes. i) Opinions and Declarations, Vol. 6. Plate ‘* Papilio plexippus ’’ Linnaeus, 1758. 5 Neotype designated under the Plenary Powers in Opinion 282. The above Neotype is preserved in the United States National Museum, Washington, D.C., U.S.A. The photograph of this Neotype is a reproduction of a photograph published in 1941 (Clark (H.A.), 1941, Proc. U.S. Nat. Mus. SOF id pass o t &. 7 fil attic ~~ wal = ne -- Edited by _ FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E. Secretary to the Commission a "—,< - S17 ian a alts * es. wie ~ VOLUME 6. Part 17. (Concluding Part) ee ee pas oT >. ea eh mr i A ete ae 4 Dee pa . ‘ . Neale | 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 1954-1955 ee ee 2. SPS Fe dh eels. : Price Sixteen Shillings and Sixpence (All rights reserved) ; Issued 23rd February, 1955 — COMPOSITION AT THE ME OF THE OPINIONS PUBLISHED IN THE PRI aA. The. Officers « President : Dr. Karl Jordan, Ph.D., ib R. Se . (British Muse Zoological Museum, Tring, Herts, England). Vice-President : Dr. James yee Peters (Museum of ~ Compai Cambridge, Massachusetts, U.S.A.). pee Mr. Francis Hemming, C. M. Go c B. E. or 1949 Senor Dr. Angel Cantees (La Plata, grit cae Mr. Francis HEMMING (London, England) ae to the Cae Dr. Karl JorDAN (British Museum (Natural History), eee Tring, Herts, England) (President of the Commission). . Dr. Joseph PEARSON (Tasmanian Museum, Hobart, Tasmania, ; Class 1952 -Senhor Dr. Afranio do AMARAL (S. Paulo, Brazil). — oss Professor J. Chester BRADLEY (Cornell University, Ithaca, N. Y., UW: Professor Lodovico di CAPORIACCO (University of Parma, Ttaly). : Professor J. R. DyMOND (University of Toronto, Canada). hits | James... _PETERS eee a [Comparative Zosloes, USA). Chas 1955 ee Ce a Professor Dr. Hilbrand BOSCHMA aT sams van ‘Natur ke Historie, jm Leiden, The Netherlands). Fer nee Dr. William Thomas CALMAN (Tayport, Fife, Serene ee ' Professor Teiso Esaki (Kyushu University, Fukuoka, if ae ‘iy Professor Béla HANKO (University of Debrecen, Hungary). eg ccumata Dr. Tadeusz JacZEwsKI (Polish Zoological Museum, Warsaw, Polant Dr. Norman R. STOLL (Rockefeller Institute for Medical eae New Jersey, U.S.A.). . in 1948 Professor Enrique BELTRAN (Instituto Mexicano de Recursos Renovables A.C., Mexico City, Mexico). © Dr. Edward HINDLE (Zoological Society of London, London, England). Dr. Arturo Ricardo JorGr (Museu Bocage, Lisbon, Portugal). ol Professor Harold Kirsy (University of California, Berkeley, California, ae s. - ). a Dr. Henning Lemcue (Kgl. Veteriner- og Landbohojskole, Zee abora- ; torium, Copenhagen, Denmark). _ eps oF 8 Professor Kamel MANSOUR (King Fouad University, Gate. Egypt. aon Professor Z. P. METCALF (North Carolina State ‘College of eee Iture_ a Engineering, University of North Carolina, Raleigh, North Carolina, c S. A.). Mr. N. D. Rivey (British Museum (Natural History), London, England). : Professor Ragnar SpARcK (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark). Professor Victor van STRAELEN (Institut Royal des Sciences Naturelles. de> Belgique, Bruxelles, Belgium). : ee Ae 1b “USINGER (University of California, Berkeley, California, A OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTER- NATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Edited by FRANCIS HEMMING, c.M.c., C.B.E. Secretary to the Commission VOLUME 6. Part 17. Pp. 269—288 (also published with this Part : T.P.—XITI) CONTENTS Corrigenda ; Index to Authors of Applications dealt with in the present volume and of comments on those Applications ; Subject Index ; Particulars of the dates of publication of the several Parts in which the present volume was published ; Instructions to Binders Also published with this Part: Title Page, Foreword ; Table of Contents. LONDON : Printed by Order of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature and Sold on behalf of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature by the International Trust at its Publications Office 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7 1955 Price Sixteen Shillings and Sixpence (All rights reserved) Issued 23rd February, 1955 INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE COMPOSITION AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THE RULINGS GIVEN IN THE PRESENT VOLUME A. The Officers of the Commission President : Dr. Karl Jordan, Ph.D., F.R.S. (British Museum (Natural History), Zoological Museum, Tring, Herts, England). Vice-President: Dr. James L. Peters (Museum of Comparative Zoology, Cambridge, Massachusetts, U.S.A.). Secretary : Mr. Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. (London, England). B. The Members of the Commission Class 1949 Senor Dr. Angel CABRERA (La Plata, Argentina). Mr. Francis HEMMING (London, England) (Secretary to the Commission). Dr. Karl JORDAN (British Museum (Natural History), Zoological Museum, Tring, Herts, England) (President of the Commission). Dr. Th. MORTENSEN (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark). Dr. Joseph PEARSON (Tasmanian Museum, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia). Class 1952 Senhor Dr. Afranio do AMARAL (S. Paulo, Brazil). Professor J. Chester BRADLEY (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.). Professor Lodovico di CAPORIACCO (University of Parma, Italy). Professor J. R. DyMonpD (University of Toronto, Canada). Dr. James L. PETERS (Museum of Comparative Zoology, Cambridge, Massachusetts, U.S.A.) (Vice-President of the Commission). Dr. teas E. VoKeEs (United States Geological Survey, Washington, D.C., .S.A.). Class 1955 Professor Dr. Hilbrand BoscHMA (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands). Dr. William Thomas CALMAN (Tayport, Fife, Scotland). Professor Teiso ESAKI (Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan). Professor Béla HANKO (University of Debrecen, Hungary). Dr. Tadeusz JACZEWSKI (Polish Zoological Museum, Warsaw, Poland). Dr. Norman R. STOLL (Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, Princeton, New Jersey, U.S.A.). C. Alternate Members of the Commission at the Session held in Paris in 1948 Professor Enrique BELTRAN (Instituto Mexicano de Recursos Naturales Renovables A.C., Mexico City, Mexico). Dr. Edward HINDLE (Zoological Society of London, London, England). Dr. Arturo Ricardo JORGE (Museu Bocage, Lisbon, Portugal). Professor Harold Kirsy (University of California, Berkeley, California, U.S.A.). Dr. Henning LEMcHE (Kgl. Veterinzer- og Landbohgjskole, Zoologisk Labora- torium, Copenhagen, Denmark). Professor Kamel MANsouR (King Fouad University, Cairo, Egypt). Professor Z. P. METCALF (North Carolina State College of Agriculture and Engineering, University of North Carolina, Raleigh, North Carolina, U.S.A.). Mr. N. D. RiLey (British Museum (Natural History), London, England). Professor Ragnar SpARCK (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark). Professor Victor van STRAELEN (Institut Royal des Sciences Naturelles de Belgique, Bruxelles, Belgium). Professor Robert L. Ustncer (University of California, Berkeley, California. U.S.A.). Corrigenda page 22. Paragraph 9, line 6: substitute ‘*‘ Grafschaft Hanau-Minzenberg ”’ for “* Graf- schaft-Miunzenberg ”’. pages 95 and 97: substitute “ [1823]”’ for ‘‘ 1823’ wherever this date occurs. page 251. page 259. page 261. page 261. Eme 12; Line 34: Eme:38.: Line 40: substitute “‘ Munroe ”’ for Munro ”’. substitute ‘“‘ F. Martin Brown ”’ for ‘“‘ J. Martin Brown ”’. substitute ‘‘ Brown, F. Martin ’’ for ‘“‘ Brown, J. Martin ”’. substitute ‘‘ Richard M. Fox ”’ for ‘‘ Richard F. Fox ”’. ~ ee - ioe van e j : / > 1 ’ , v9 1 wy . ‘ i 1, =n al t ; = oa Volume 6 Pg is’ INDEX TO AUTHORS OF APPLICATIONS DEALT WITH IN THE PRESENT VOLUME AND OF COMMENTS ON THOSE APPLICATIONS Page Page Almeida, R. F.d’ 99—107, 259 Clarke J: Ee G: 259, 260 Andrewes, H. E. 193—194 Comstock, J. A. - 3 259 Corbet, A. S. 15, 16, 18, 228—232, Balfour-Browne, W. A. F. 235—230, 245 ee {Costa Lima, Ac day. 2590260 BE U ee i: See Cox edkeors. a .. Vill Beuret, H. 4—19 Blackwelder, R.E. .. 195 Engel, H. 66—69 Blair Kk. G. -.. 193—194 Boschma, H... ..77—T79, 183 FieldiaW. Di. 259, 261 Bourgogne, J. 259, 260 Forbes, W. T. M... 165,259,260 Brown, F. M. 249—250, 259, Fox, R..M. 254—256, 261 260, 261 Franclemont, J. G. 160, 259, 260 Cieroa. M. 193194 Freeman, T. N. 252-204 Guarpenter,G. D, H. 259, 260 Grey, J.P: 252—253, 261 Chermock, R. L. 253—254, 261 | 7 Gurney, A. B. a aie Se Ghina, W.E. vii, 211—212, 218 Clark, A. H. 238—239, 257, 259, 260, 262, 263 Hall, W. J. 259,.260 274 Opinions and Declarations Page Hayward, K. J. 259, 260 Hemming, F. Vi—xV, XVI, XXViI—XXXili, XXXVill, 4—19, 28—30, 44—45, 54—58, 104, 109—113, 125—127, 131— 132, 141—159, 163—166, 181—184, 199—200, 211, 216—217, . 219—220, -233— 236, 242—243, 258, 263 Hovanitz, W. 259, 260 Hungerford, H. B. 207—209, 218 Kimmins, D. E. ie il Klots, A. B. .. 259, 260 Lempke, B. J. 16, 18 Mather, B. 250—251, 261 Mayr, E. arn ee pe ov McDunnough, J. 259, 260 Meinertzhagen, R. .. See aay Michener, C. D. 107—109 Mortensen, Th. 123—125 Munroe, E. ..251—252, 260, 261 Nabakov, V. 16, 18 Page Oiticica, J. Filho 86—90, 98—107 Passos, C. F.dos .. 243—248, 250, 251, 252, 25352540 >>, 256, 257, 259, 260, 261 Pinhey, E. 259, 260 Remington, C. D. 259, 260 Riley, N. D. vii, 18, 31, 256-257, 259, 261, 262 Royal Entomological Society of London 191—192 Schmidt, K. P. 253, 261 Son, G. van .. 259, 261 Stoll, N. R. XXXVI—XXXVIl Tottenham, C. E. 193—194 Verity, R. 15, 18 Vokes, H. E. We xvi Walton, G. A. 212—213 Warren, B.C. S. 183: 259, 260 Williams, C. B. 259, 260 Volume 6 SUBJECT INDEX Agriades Hiibner, [1819], (Class Insecta), placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology as Name No. 685, with Papilio glandon Prunner, 1798, as type species. . gender of name albogularis [anon.], [1840], as published in the combination Alcedo albogularis, (Class Aves), placed on the Official Index of lai and Invalid aeeee Names in Zoology as Name No. 26 _.. : : Alca Linnaeus, 1758 (Class Aves), placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology as Name No. 691, with Alca torda Linnaeus, 1758, as type species gender of name alceae Esper, [1780], as published in the combination Papilio alceae (Class Insecta) placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology as Name No. 88.. amboinensis [anon.], [1840], as published in the combination Columba amboinensis (Class Aves), placed on the Official Index of, iad and Invalid Specie Names in Zoology as Name No. 27 oe amoenus [anon.], [1840], as published in the combination Psittacus amoenus (Class Aves), placed on the Official Index 2 sa and Invalid AuEGIE Names in Zoology as Name No. 28 : Amplypterus Hubner, [1819], (Class Baa oe determination of gees panopus Cramer, [1779], as type species of gender of name placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology as Name No. 693 Arachnoides Klein, 1778 (Class Echinoidea), placed on the Cree Index 2 Reiecce and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology as Name No. 70 Arachnoides Leske, 1778 (Class Echinoidea), validation of, under the ee Powers, with Echinus placenta Linnaeus, 1758, as type species ; gender of name placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology as Name No. 694 argus Linnaeus, 1758, Papilio (Class ee determination of the ees represented by the nominal species ie ‘ iA oe if exe placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology as Name No. 87. 275 Page 65 276 Opinions and Declarations argyrognomon Bergstrasser; [1779], Papilio (Class Insecta), determination of the. species represented by the nominal species placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology as Name No. 86 atra [anon.], [1840], as published in the combination Tanagra atra (Class Aves) placed on the Official Index oF ested and Invalid aaSbeOne Names in ey as Name No. 29 .. Aulocera Butler, 1867 (Class Insecta), placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology as Name No. 697, with Sabi brahminus Blanchard, 1844 as the NRE species gender of name bisperforatus Leske, 1778, as published in the combination Echinodiscus bisperforatus (Class Echinoidea), placed on the gee List of Secu: Names in eee as Name No. 98 ; bisulcatus [anon.], [1840], as published in the combination Buceros bisulcatus (Class Aves), placed on the ee Index a ees and Invalid es Names in Zogt ee), as Name No. 30 brahminus Blanchard, 1844, as published in the combination Satyrus brahminus (Class tata placed on the uae List a a daa Names in mh as Name No. 102... brassicae Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Papilio brassicae (Class Insecta), placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology as Name No. 108 caballus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Equus caballus (Class Mammalia), placed on the ae List Boe ie Names in ee ect as Name No. 93 Sh Calliphora Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830 (Class Insecta), placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology as Name No. 692, with Musca vomitoria Linnaeus, 1758, as type species an ce Abe me : gender of name Carcharodus Hubner, [1819] (Class Insecta), placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology as Name No. 686, with Papilio alceae Esper, 1798, as type species gender of name Consul Hiibner, [1806] (Class Insecta), placed on the OTe Index wW Rees and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology as Name No. 77.. Consul Hubner, [1807] (Class Insecta), placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology as Name No. 698, with Papilio fabius Cramer, [1776], as type species gender of name Page 65 138 138 122 65 139 139 43 Tl 77 27 Dil 133 138 138 Volume 6 Corixa Geoffroy, 1762 (Class Insecta), validation of, under the Plenary Powers, and Sigara punctata llliger, 1807, designated as type species gender of name placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology as Name No. 708 creusa Doubleday, [1847], as published in the combination Anthocharis creusa (Class Insecta), placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology as Name No. 89 Danaus Kluk, 1802 (Class Insecta), placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology as Name No. 699, with Papilio plexippus Linnaeus, 1758, as type species gender of name Dryas Hubner, [1806], (Class Insecta), placed on the Cia Index us BOE and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology as Name No. 75. Echinarachnius, all uses of, subsequent to Leske, 1778, and prior to Gray, 1825, suppression of, under the Plenary Powers, for ‘the pups: both of the Law of Priority and the Law of Homonymy.. te : se a2 x placed on the Official Index a clea and Invalid Generic Names in pape as Name No. 72 Echinarachnius Gray (J. E.), 1825 (Class Echinoidea), validation of, under the Plenary Powers, with Scutella parma Lamarck, 1816, as type species gender of name placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology as Name No. 695 Echinarachnius Leske, 1778 (Class Echinoidea), suppression of, under the Plenary Powers for the purposes both of the Law of Priority and the Law of Homonymy placed on the Official Index of Helered and Invalid Generic Names in Zoey: as Name No. 71 .. Echinodiscus Leske, 1778 (Class Echinoidea), placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology as Name No. 696 with Echinodiscus Benen Clark oe ae as type species gender of name Equus Linnaeus, 1758 (Class Mammalia), placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology : as Name No. 690, with ie caballus Linnaeus, 1758, as type species gender of name esperi Kirby, 1871, as published in the combination Euchloe [sic] ausonia var. esperi (Class pace): placed on the Omicials List ot enecie Names in Peeeye as Name No. 90 277 Page 207 207 207 vM | 138 138 139 121 122 122 122 122 121 122 122 122 43 43 wit 278 Opinions and Declarations Euchloé Hiibner, [1819] (Class Insecta), placed on the Official List of Generic Names - in Zoology as Name No. 687, with Euchloe Ei ausonia Hibner var. esperi cue 1871, as type species Ap = : ES Se Rie ee gender of name Euphydryas Scudder, 1872 (Class Insecta), placed on the Official List of Generic Names in TEAS as Name No. 700 with fap niger pee ae as tyDe species : gender of name fabius Cramer, [1776], as published in the combination Papilio fabius (Class ee placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology as Name No. 103 Fabricius (J. C.) (all works) rejection, as of the status of a generic name, of any term placed between the ao name and the epee name of a species in these works ; direction that entries recording this deciaen ie ace on the ‘Official List of Works Approved as Available in Zoological Nomenclature as Entry No. 10 and on the Official Index of oer and Invalid Works in canis Nomenclature as Entry No. 16 .. fasciatus [anon.], [1840], as published in the combination Centropus fasciatus (Class Aves), placed on the Oiicras Index Gs RO ee and Invalid Spee Names in Zoology as Name No. 31 flavirostris [anon.], [1840], as published in the combination Garrulus flavirostris (Class Aves), placed on the Official Index a Roe and Invalid Snes Names in Zoology as Name No. 32... formosus [anon.], [1840], as published in the combination Bucco formosus (Class Aves), placed on the Teal Index ee pce and Invalid SPEC Names in Zoology as Name No. 33 geoffroyi Leach, 1817, as published in the combination Corixa geoffroyi (Class Insecta), placed on the oss Index ay race and Invalid APEC Names in Zoology as Name No. 44 : : ee glandon Prunner, 1798, as published in the combination Papilio glandon (Class Insecta), placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology as Name No. 91 Hamadryas Hubner, [1806] (Class Insecta), placed on the Official Index ge Rees and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology as Name No. 82... hermanni Fabricius, 1775 (emendation of herrmanni), as published in the combination Dytiscus herrmanni (Class Masui Les on the Oia List oe Specie Names in Zoology as Name No. 109 : 4 om ; ae herrmanni Fabricius, 1775, as published in the combination Dytiscus herrmanni (Class Insecta), placed on the ges Index UE Roce and Invalid eeGhe Names in Zoology as Name No. 43 he Page Poy Dil, 138 138 139 181 181 65 65 65 207 28 139 19] 191 Volume 6 ** Hildesheim List’’, anonymous pamphlet known as, published at Hildesheim in about 1840, suppression of, under the Plenary Powers - =e ing placed on the Official Index of SeeGied and Invalid Works in ise aval Nomen- clature as Work No. 13 Hiibner (J.), 1806—[1823] Sammlung exotischer Schmetterlinge vols. I—IUII, rejection, as not being of subgeneric status, of the intermediate terms used by Hubner between the generic and specific names of species in vol. I of this work .. placed on the Official List te Works aaa as Available in A cueical Nomen- clature as Work No. 7 Hiibner (J.), 1822, Systematisch-alphabetisches Verzeichniss aller bisher bei den Fiirbildungen zur Sammlung europdischer Schmetterlinge angegebenen Gattungs- bennungen, rejection, as not being of subgeneric status, of the intermediate terms used by Hubner between the generic and specific names of species in this work. . placed on the Official List of Works aD Dna ed as Available in Cet ake Nomen- clature as Work No. 8 Hubner (J.), undated leaflet commonly known as the Tentamen, believed to have been distributed to correspondents in 1806, and rejected for nomenclatorial purposes under Opinion 97, placed on the Official Index of seers and Invalid Works in Zoological Nomenclature as Work No. 14. Aygriobia Latreille, 1804 (Class Insecta), placed on the aid Index oy peeeee and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology as Name No. 87.. Hygrobia (emendation of Hygriobia), Latreille, 1804 (Class Insecta) placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology as Name No. 707, with pe hermanni (emendation of herrmanni) Fabricius, 1775, as type species gender of name idas Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Papilio idas (Class Insecta), suppression of, under the Plenary Powers, for the purposes both of the Law of Priority and the Law of Homonymy.. : Ss es i = placed on the Official Index of Si and Invalid peccie Names in ZO UoEy as Name No. 23 .. idas Linnaeus, 1761, as published in the combination Papilio idas (Class pce determination of the species represented by the nominal species of ; placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology as Name No. 85.. javanicus {anon.], [1840], as published in the combination Sciurus javanicus (Class Mammalia), placed on the Official Index of pigs and Invalid SBE Names in Zoology as Name No. 25... Latiorina Tott, 1909 (Class Insecta), placed on the ages Index be cei and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology as Name No. 67. 279 Page 65 66 97 aT 97 oT 139 191 191 65 27 280 Opinions and Declarations Lemonias Hubner, [1806] (Class Insecta), placed on the lace Index ay peek and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology as Name No. 79 leucopygus [anon.], [1840], as published in the combination Turdus leucopygus (Class Aves), placed on the Official Index of Rane and Invalid Sr Names in Zoology as Name No. 34 : ae Limenitis Fabricius, 1807 (Class Insecta), placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoolog By as Name No. 701, with eae POH Linnaeus, 1758, as type species gender of name Limnas Hubner, [1806] (Class Insecta), placed on the Official Index of Rac and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology as Name No. 78 .. Linnaeus (all works) rejection, as of the status of a generic name, of any term placed between the generic name and the specific name of a species in these works direction that entries recording the foregoing decision be made in Official List of Works Approved as Available in Zoological Nomenclature as Entry No. 9 and on the Official Index ch folecied and Invalid Works in So eeeicn Nomenclature as Entry No. 15 : Lobophora Agassiz (L.), 1841 (Class Echinoidea), placed on the Cia Index ay Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology as Name No. 73. : loricatus [anon.], [1840], as published in the combination Picus loricatus (Class Aves), placed on the eae Index af lee 7 and Invalid Specie Names in Zoology as Name No. 35. Lycaeides Hubner, [1819] (Class Insecta), placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology as Name No. 688, with Seed argyrognomon ie ee as type species : gender of name machaon Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Papilio machaon (Class Insecta), placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology as Name No. 107 macularius [anon.], [1840], as published in the combination Bucco macularius (Class Aves), placed on the ee Index op Fees and Invalid avers Names in Zoology as Name No. 36. malvae Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Papilio malvae (Class Insecta), placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology as Name No. 101 Mancipium Hubner, [1806] (Class Insecta), placed on the Official Index on seebee: and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology as Name No. 84 __.. nagelii [anon.],[1840],as published in the combination Gulo nagelii (Class Mammalia), placed on the Official Index of leas and Invalid aSpeetlie Names in Goole eoge as Name No. 24 oe Page 139 65 138 138 139 181 181 122 65 27 Pail 139 65 139 139 65 Volume 6 Najas Hubner, [1806] (Class Insecta), placed on the poe Index es HeIsehee and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology as Name No. 80. Neréis Hubner, [1806] (Class Insecta), placed on the Cieiaes Index ef REIERIER and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology as Name No. 81.. Nymphalis Kluk, 1802 (Class Insecta), placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology as Name No. 702, with “Sis Bangla Linnaeus, ae as type species Ae AP s Ae : ie a gender of name Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in EEN: mar et of Rules relating to the making of entries on Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology, names placed on :— Arachnoides Klein, 1778. . Consul Hiibner, | 1806] Dryas Hubner, [1806] Echinarachnius, all uses of, subsequent to Leske, 1778, and prior to Gray, 1825. Echinarachnius Leske, 1778 i a an : f : Hamadryas Hiibner, [1806] Hygriobia Latreille, 1804 Lemonias Hiibner, [1806] Limnas Hubner, [1806] .. Lobophora Agassiz (L.), 1841 Mancipium Hubner, [1806] Najas Hubner, [1806] Neréis Hubner, [1806] Oreas Hubner, [1806] .. Orpheides Hiibner, [1819] Potamis Hibner, [1806] .. Princeps Hiibner, [1806]. . Rusticus Hubner, [1806]. . Spilothyrus Duponchel, 1835 Urbanus Hubner, [1806] Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Weoley, aceB oem of Rules relating to the making of entries on names placed on :— albogularis {anon.], [1840], Alcedo amboinensis {anon.], [1840], Columba .. amoenus (anon.]|, [1840], Psittacus atra {anon.], [1840], Tanagra bisulcatus [anon.], [1840], Buceros fasciatus [anon.], [1840], Centropus flavirostris [anon.], [1840], Garrulus formosus [anon.], [1840], Bucco geoffroyi Leach, 1817, Corixa herrmanni Fabricius, 1775, Dytiscus idas Linnaeus, 1758, Papilio jJavanicus ({anon.}, [1840], Sciurus 281 Page 139 139 138 138 ill XXIil 282 Opinions and Declarations leucopygus [anon.], [1840], Turdus loricatus [anon.], [1840], Picus .. macularius [anon.], [1840], Bucco nagelii [anon.], [1840], Gulo .. pectoralis [anon.], [1840], Turdus pusillus [anon.], [1840], Carbo . rufirostris [anon.], [1840], Trogon rufiventris [anon.], [1840], Turdus strigilatus [anon.], [1840], Lanius viridis [anon.], [1840], Certhia .. Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Works in Zoological Nomenclature, Works placed on :— [anon.], [1840], pamphlet known as the “‘Hildesheim List”’.. Fabricius (J. C.) (all works) terms contained in, when placed between the generic name and the specific name (these terms rejected as not pane of subgeneric status under Opinion 279) Ae es es se ; eh ae Hubner (J.), undated leaflet commonly known as the Tentamen Linnaeus (all works) terms contained in, when placed between the generic name and the specific name (these terms rejected as not poms of subgeneric status under Opinion 279) : = : 4 f ae Af ae Official List of pore Oaue Names in ARG eoeuOn of Rules vice to the making of entries on. ‘ Official List of Generic Names in Zoology, names placed upon :— Agriades Hiibner, [1819]. . Alca Linnaeus, 1758 ; Amplypterus Hiibner, [1819] Arachnoides Leske, 1778. Aulocera Butler, 1867 bf b0 Calliphora Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830 eh Carcharodus Hiibner, [1819] .. a Consul Hubner, [1807] Corixa Geoffroy, 1762 Danaus Kluk, 1802 : Echinarachnius Gray (J. E. ), 1825 Echinodiscus Leske, 1778 Equus Linnaeus, 1758 ned Euchloé Hiibner, [1819]. Euphydryas Scudder, 1872 Hygrobia (emend. of Hygriobia) Latreille, 1804 Limenitis Fabricius, 1807 Lycaeides Hiibner, 11819] Nymphalis Kluk, 1802 Papilio Linnaeus, 1758 Pieris Schrank, 1801 Plebejus Kluk, 1802 a Polyommatus Latreille, 1804 Pyrgus Hiibner, [1819] 66 181 139 181 iil Volume 6 283 Page Official List of Specific Names in Ganlgey. edepson of Rules aelanne to the uname: ofentrieson .. +a 4 OI names placed on :— alceae Esper, [1780], Papilio .. os an ie A 7 ‘ re 27 argus Linnaeus, 1758, Papilio : 2 2 ae a me 4 argyrognomon Bergstrasser, [1779], Papilio’ ai -. af ag a 4 bisperforatus Leske, 1778, Echinodiscus y ‘a N rn by: ae 122 brahminus Blanchard, 1844, Satyrus Be os ie a 139 brassicae Linnaeus, 1758, Papilio .. 2 he ne oi se ‘i 139 caballus Linnaeus, 1758, Equus Pe ar a wr r a a 43 creusa Doubleday, [1847], Anthocharis bs ee ne na me ve 27 esperi Kirby, 1871, Euchloe [sic] ausonia var. a we oe i - pH | fabius Cramer, [1776], Papilio KS * ry: A we ne io 139 glandon Prunner, 1798, Papilio i ms ¥6 re 2 = is 28 hermanni Fabricius, 1775, Dytiscus .. ¥: se i x ve tr 191 idas Linnaeus, 1761, Papilio a ae fe a oO ce a 4 machaon Linnaeus, 1758, Papilio... _ = x oe ne om 139 malvae Linnaeus, 1758, Papilio a . oe os as 139 orientalis Bremer, 1864, Anthocharis belemida vat. sh 7 oy Me 28 panopus Cramer, T1779], Sphinx mie 25 7 ae rs ee ie 85 parma Lamarck, 1816, Scutella - a as oe a a ae 122 Phaeton Drury, (17731, Papilio t, ty = A: es fs = 139 placenta Linnaeus, 1758, Echinus.. me ss ny ae 3 Ae 122 plexippus Linnaeus, 1758, Papilio .. - oe a AY x . AS2Zh polychloros Linnaeus, 1758, Papilio .. ie a 43 a ae i 139 populi Linnaeus, 1758, Papilio ee x xe ae se a a 139 punctata Illiger, 1807, Sigara.. ve ors af ee ie r el SZ0F solium Linnaeus, 1758, Taenia a if: a i m oy bf 53 torda Linnaeus, 1758, Alca .. he af - ¥. A e an 43 vomitoria Linnaeus, 1758, Musca .. By re bes ne - x Td Official List of Works Approved as Available for Zoological Nomenclature, works placed on :— Fabricius (J. C.), Ruling that in all works containing terms placed between the generic and specific names these terms be rejected as not being of subgeneric status (Opinion 276) ; this pegs to be ree Se a in the entry to be made in the above List Be ar ; be es . 181 Hubner (J.), 1806—[{1823] Sammlung exotischer Sie. vols. I—III .. 98 Hiitner (J.), 1822, Systematisch-alphabetisches Verzeichniss aller bisher bei den Fiirbildungen zur Sammlung europdischer saeieiepaeh aks Se ids CEES bennungen ss =; “ee ae . a 97 Linnaeus, Ruling that in all works containing terms placed between the generic and subgeneric name, these terms be rejected as not being of subgeneric status (Opinion 276) ; this Ruling t to be peed in the eee to be made in the above List a 181 Oreas Hiibner, [1806] (Class Insecta), placed on the aslacaet Index ve Bd se and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology as Name No. 76.. 139 orientalis Bremer, 1864, as published in the combination Anthocharis belemida var. orientalis (Class Insecta), hgcicns on the eo List of SPeCuiC Names in ihe as Name No. 92 . : %: 28 284 Opinions and Declarations Orpheides Hiibner, [1819], (Class Insecta), placed on the ae Index a PO ee and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology as Name No. 68 : panopus Cramer, [1779], as published in the combination Sphinx panopus (Class Insecta), placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology as Name No. 97 Papilio Linnaeus, 1758 (Class Insecta), placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology as Name No. 703, with Papilio machaon Linnaeus, 1758, as type species gender of name parma Lamarck, 1816, as published in the combination Scutella parma (Class Echinoidea), placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology as Name No. pectoralis [anon.], [1840], as published in the combination Turdus pectoralis (Class Aves), placed on the ee Index ay ee and Invalid Specie Names in Zoology as Name No. 37. : phaeton Drury, [1773], as published in the combination Papilio phaeton (Class Insecta), placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology as Name No. 104 Pieris Schrank, 1801 (Class Insecta), placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology as Name No. 704, with Papilio brassicae Linnaeus, as type species gender of name placenta Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Echinus placenta (Class Echinoidea), placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology as Name No. Plebejus Kluk, 1802 (Class Insecta), placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology as Name No. 705, with Papilio argus Linnaeus, 1758, as type species gender of name plexippus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Papilio plexippus (Class Insecta), determination under the Plenary Powers, of the species to which this specific name shall be held to apply.. a placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology as Name No. 111.. polychloros Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Papilio polychloros eee nsec): placed on the Chae List 2 Dae ts Names in ides as Name o. 106 ; Polyommatus Latreille, 1804 (Class Insecta), placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology as Name No. 689, with ee icarus Decent 1775, as type species : gender of name Page 27 85 138 138 122 65 139 138 138 122 138 138 227 227, 139 27 27 Volume 6 populi Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Papilio populi (Class aia placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology as Name No. 105. Potamis Hubner, [1806] (Class Insecta), placed on the Official Index of Ree and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology as Name No. 74 .. Princeps Hubner, [1806] (Class Insecta), placed on the Official Index of Relecien and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology as Name No. 83 .. punctata Illiger, 1807, Sigara (Class Insecta), eosteuaied under the reouely Powers, to be type species of Corixa Geoffroy, 1762 . placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology as Name No. 110 Pyrgus Hiibner, [1819] (Class Insecta), placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology as Name No. 706, with Papilio alveolus Hubner, I ere as bine species : gender of name pusillus [anon.], [1840], as published in the combination Carbo pusillus (Class Aves), placed on the Official Index of pos and Invalid pes Names in teas as Name No. 38 = rufirostris [anon.], [1840], as published in the combination Trogon rufirostris (Class Aves), placed on the Official Index a pecced and Invalid Specie Names in Zoology as Name No. 39 ; rufiventris [anon.], [1840], as published in the combination Turdus rufiventris (Class Aves), placed on the Official Index os Reece and Invalid Specs Names in Zoology as Name No. 40 ee Rusticus Hubner, [1806] (Class Insecta), placed on the Official Index on Heleties and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology as Name No. 85... solium Linnaeus, 1758, Taenia (Class Cestoidea) designated, under the pcan Powers, to be the type species of Taenia Linnaeus, 1758 . placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology as Name No. 95.. Spilothyrus Duponchel, 1835 (Class Insecta), placed on the pct Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology as Name No. 69. strigilatus [anon.], [1840], as published in the combination Lanius strigilatus (Class Aves), placed on the ‘Official Index of eciaee and Invalid SPECIE Names in Zoology as Name No. 41 ¥ Taenia Linnaeus, 1758 (Class Cestoidea), all type selections for, set aside under the Plenary Powers, and Taenia solium Linnaeus, 1758, designated a as ope species (validation of an error in Opinion 84).. oy . 285 Page 139 139 139 207 207 138 138 65 65 65 139 =p) 33 27 65 53 286 Opinions and Declarations Page torda Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Alca torda (Class ek placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology as Name No. 94 _ .. 43 Urbanus Hubner, [1806] (Class Insecta), placed on the Chica Index we Reece and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology as Name No. 86.. 139 viridis [anon.] [1840], as published in the combination Certhia viridis, (Class Aves), placed on the Official rae of Reels and Invalid SPECIE. Names in Aoploeys as Name No. 42 ae 65 vomitoria Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Musca vomitoria, (Class Insecta), placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology as Name No. 96 ed. Volume 6 287 PARTICULARS OF DATES OF PUBLICATION OF THE SEVERAL PARTS IN WHICH THE PRESENT VOLUME WAS PUBLISHED Part Page Contents of Part No. Nos. ] 1—24 Opinion 269 Zz 25—40 Opinion 270 3 41—50 Opinion 27] 4 51—62 Opinion 272 5 63—74 Opinion 273 6 75—82 Opinion 274 7 §3—94 Opinion 275 8 95—118 Opinion 276 9 119—1]34 Opinion 277 10 135—178 Opinion 278 1] 179—188 Opinion 279 12 189—204 Opinion 280 (ss. 205—224 Opinion 281 14 225—268 Opinion 282 r I—xXx Declaration 18 16 Xxi—xl Declaration 19 17 269—288 | Corrigenda and =! L Indexes ee Xfi | Foreword, Table of Contents Date of Publication 10th September 1954 10th September 1954 10th September 1954 10th September 1954 10th September 1954 10th September 1954 10th September 1954 Ist October 1954 Ist October 1954 Ist October 1954 Ist October 1954 Ist October 1954 Ist October 1954 Ist October 1954 6th December 1954 6th December 1954 23rd February 1955 288 Opinions and Declarations INSTRUCTIONS TO BINDERS The present volume should be bound up as follows :—T.P.— XIli, i—xl, 1—288, coloured wrapper (cover) to Part 17. Note : The wrappers (covers) to the Parts of which this volume is com- posed form, with the exception of the coloured wrapper (cover) issued with Part 17, 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 17 should be bound in at the end of the volume. Printed in England by MetcaLtrr & Cooper LimitepD, 10-24 Scrutton St., London EC 2 Poor. =~ a, , 5 : Fi | i F a i j : 1 ( ~ 4 ¥ 5 “ 7 - i 1 7 9 4 i = ' ve ' ay v ' , i ‘ t ' a. } L i is i f , r i ‘ hte y ' ; oy r POA URL El Tes * We PHL GPa an be : USamn epi RHA ah a) METH Ls Oy oars “ur Wiel i) ates tha Br epee rhe ope Havele ep Oh” Ci OEP Deu ese Se mM PPT en hope W's iat peepee SVEN ROEM ED poy Dre vad ry tae L uP heures A ye byt oer wee iu ue, uw t wrhey we we , We boep iyebeds ieee t Oras aonb ‘ ’ ‘ Buss inf ‘ ‘ NEW aE Spee vey Dd \yhey & ecer ier Le PTL LAN Oh acy t ehat é ’ yruepr Tah 4 ‘ eps t ay ? tee 4 i ve Pisbeyay Hey EVD Sra poy yr pene pets 4 Psd EDs OT Pate t th H : ert ore PUA atta hd} To bel We aa yen ay wi ay weil parka es om a! 4 v0 ' i i } i t f t ; ' fi f ‘ Qeie y het | U Y we , r f t ‘ { ds Det hes Aveo gel yyy SMITHSONIAN INSTITUT MALL 971 0346 Abatitee j ' ly tera { i Ay ; ‘ t f i { ' F i ‘ ey rd t ' ; { ‘ ‘ { Hof ‘ Y ( ; § ‘ { Ve 7 owe ‘ ! A i \ ore davre ‘ ‘ Chepepin \ ee ty Vy Sune vA. ° ; yMreary , punt: : ‘ t yy, ’ y . uot Lh H garry’ ' i) \, , {rt ' vn ou VAN \ ; P : yr } [ aa | 1 \ : h ‘ i vein eb We it fa Sao wall i) eA j yet i \ 1 i (ay [Ouro : ‘ ‘ ' . Ka bandit i i pre i\ ‘ \ WH Pea { ' ' { Peed yp ey iis i prvri iBteg \ i CATH { ‘ wee VIE Vn cen t } ity emg boas ' , } ibe | tite i , i i aL i i ’ 0 it 4 i f j ‘ ) qT (Pp iahat iit nt ) i eet ( My { ; bya! bel a Mie ~ ice ' ' par Le j Math) i i i i } Ve tiet ' bry oae Vert a ny ebrtbet poy veh f at ek ison’ ¥ ae Te \ heh tn Lampe Betiep ieee With ‘ ‘1 ' ; seh ply i i bel shu webs ef . bt ‘ fees boned ite hl Lat ; ' |